Oh. I just took it as self-evident that, if you had a stereo signal, you could get a mono signal out of it by combining the signals onto the same channel.
Of course I posted my initial reply at an hour BC (before caffeine).
"Melancholy Elephants." Ah, so it is, so it is. It even won a Hugo way back when I still though going to SF conventions was the thing to do, now that I look it up instead of trying to rely on my own all too human memory.
OK, now that I've read that, you're right, and we are on the same wavelength.
The main issue with copyright and culture (in my opinion) is who benefits, and for how long. In the US it used to be that works entered the public domain a maximum of 56 years after they were published. Now if you want to make a derivative work based on Mickey Mouse, as I read the law, you have to wait for something like 60 years after the copyright holder (in this case the Walt Disney Corporation) dies. That inhibits culture rather than promotes it.
Spider Robinson wrote an excellent story on the subject called "Elephant's Memory." His premise was that if copyrights last long enough, eventually enough stuff will be under copyright that it will be difficult if not impossible to create anything new without infringing on someone else's copyright. That's where I'm worried all this is heading.
Do we study ancient Greece because of their inventions (precious few of them) or their art, architecture and philosophy? Do tourists worldwide flock to Rome to marvel at the way that the Sistine Chapel was constructed, or what's painted on the ceiling? Art is damned important. The damage that can occur to our culture is far more signifcant than you understand.
Actually we do all of the above. And while inventions dating from before, say, AD 1200 might be few in number, they are by their nature fundamental. Or would you disagree that we have built today's technology on concepts like the measurement of time (Babylon), basic engineering (Egypt), systematic mathematics and medicine (Greece), and even something so basic and obvious to us but revolutionary at the time as the number zero (Arabs)?
Copyright is culture.
You are taking a pretty limited view of culture. Or are you forgetting Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, Goethe, Lao Tze, Dickens, the Bible, the Talmud, Aristophanes and countless others, none of which is copyrighted today if it ever was and, again, all of which is a foundation for Bugs Bunny and Luke Skywalker and the rest of today's culture?
Sure, to most people (in the United States at least) culture is stuff like Star Wars and What's Opera Doc?, but when Lucas and Warner Brothers (and Tom Clancy and romance novelists and anyone else who creates today's equivalents of the stories by the campfire) create their works, they are standing on the shoulders of giants.
Well, testing your blood is not a walk in the park but as far as I'm concerned it hurts less than the electrostatic shocks I get on a regular basis at the local grocery store. In fact you can generally set the lance so that it doesn't cause pain at all (at least I was able to).
That's why I thought this etched needle sounded like such a great idea. If you can get into the skin with one of those, say, hooked to a watch/computer you could be monitoring your blood on a constant basis, delivering insulin as your body needs it, and probably do all kinds of groovy things. And all without the needle phobia that haunts a lot of us. (I'm type II diabetic on oral medication but it's only a matter of time. I'm hoping I can keep it under control until research gets to the point where I don't need to worry about having to go to injections.)
I remember reading a while back about a "needle" that was created using a process similar to etching computer chips. Basically, it consisted of numerous tiny needles in a grid (10,000 to a square inch or something), which reach deep enough into the skin to enter the capillary system, but not deep enough to trigger the nerves and register pain.
I thought this device would have great application in both glucose testing and medication delivery, but haven't heard anything abou it lately. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Kim Kuo, a spokeswoman for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, said the industry preferred educating people on cell-phone etiquette than slapping them with fines.
I don't konw, $50 sounds like a pretty cheap education for those clueless enough to carry a live cell phone into a theater.
Yeah, well imagine the agony if you showed up at the motel after some sleazeball forged the mail from your wife and were met by some sweaty guy in a polyester suit and a bad toupee trying to sell you a CD-ROM full of addresses.
Don't be so quick. You might not be interested in what Arnold's up to off screen . . . unless you're into Republican politics. You might not be interested in what Charlton Heston does in his spare time . . . unless you're a party to the NRA/anti-NRA debate. Many celebrities have causes that they champion that make them legitimate targets for interest outside their role as entertainer. I guarantee you that if Cameron Diaz suddenly came out saying she was a Linux user, people here would sit up and take notice. (That would double if it was Natalie Portman doing the talking, but I digress.)
You might argue that this is an extension of their celebrity persona, and I would agree. However, I see nothing wrong with a celebrity trading on their fame to accomplish something they consider worthwhile. I think we can agree, however, that the gossip about money troubles, drug use and who's boinking who is a monumental waste of time.
If you do it today, tomorrow nobody will believe you. If your idea really is that earth-shaking, three years from now you'll be labeled a rabble-rouser, ten years from now you'll be labeled a revolutionary, and a hundred years from now you'll be labeled a genius or a prophet. Maybe both.
Um, I'm afraid it's probably you who is mistaken. I think you're confusing the Salt Lake Tribune, which is often critical of the Mormon Church, with the other Salt Lake newspaper, the Deseret News, owned by the Church. The Trib is owned by Medianews. The two have a joint operating agreement (not uncommon in this day and age) but, as much as they try to meddle in the Trib's affairs, the Church and the Deseret News have no control over the Trib's editorial content.
In fact when I saw the headline for this article it brought up memories of the Sunset Video flap mentioned in the article. By the way this is nothing new; when I lived in Utah many years ago there was a great deal of controversy over a particular radio station that would censor lyrics. In particular I remember they substituted a repeat of the line "Now the thing that I call livin' is just being satisfied" for "Her name was Anne and I'll be damned if I recall her face" in Gordon Lightfoot's Carefree Highway, which of course made the song make a whole lot less sense.
as I see it, is that it would be pretty labor intensive. I doubt for instance that Columbia still has masters for most of the stuff they released in the 1960s, much of which was deservedly forgotten by 1975 and wouldn't be able to draw flies nowadays. For the stuff they still have, they'd have to pay a tech to convert the master to digital format, so maybe two people besides me would be able to see what might have been on Chad & Jeremy's album The Ark.
I like it, but somehow I doubt we'll ever see it.
On the other hand there might be a business model here for someone. License the Bluebird jazz catalog from CBS, for instance, clean up the recording and put them up on the web and see if anyone is interested. In fact I could see a charity -- say a retirement home for musicians -- using this as a funding mechanism. Whether CBS would go for it is another story, but since it's a way for them to make money with little to no effort on their part, it might be worth a go.
Oh, just here and there. I'm thinking of things like their news items being weeks out of date, their reviews being duplicated in a number of places and their ads being supplanted by the manufacturers' and sellers' web sites.
Slashdot Mirror
it was "one channel, and nothing good on."
Things haven't really changed since then.
Oh. I just took it as self-evident that, if you had a stereo signal, you could get a mono signal out of it by combining the signals onto the same channel.
Of course I posted my initial reply at an hour BC (before caffeine).
"Melancholy Elephants." Ah, so it is, so it is. It even won a Hugo way back when I still though going to SF conventions was the thing to do, now that I look it up instead of trying to rely on my own all too human memory.
OK, now that I've read that, you're right, and we are on the same wavelength.
The main issue with copyright and culture (in my opinion) is who benefits, and for how long. In the US it used to be that works entered the public domain a maximum of 56 years after they were published. Now if you want to make a derivative work based on Mickey Mouse, as I read the law, you have to wait for something like 60 years after the copyright holder (in this case the Walt Disney Corporation) dies. That inhibits culture rather than promotes it.
Spider Robinson wrote an excellent story on the subject called "Elephant's Memory." His premise was that if copyrights last long enough, eventually enough stuff will be under copyright that it will be difficult if not impossible to create anything new without infringing on someone else's copyright. That's where I'm worried all this is heading.
Theoretically you could get a mono signal out of even a stereo recording.
Don't you mean that the other way 'round?
Do we study ancient Greece because of their inventions (precious few of them) or their art, architecture and philosophy? Do tourists worldwide flock to Rome to marvel at the way that the Sistine Chapel was constructed, or what's painted on the ceiling? Art is damned important. The damage that can occur to our culture is far more signifcant than you understand.
Actually we do all of the above. And while inventions dating from before, say, AD 1200 might be few in number, they are by their nature fundamental. Or would you disagree that we have built today's technology on concepts like the measurement of time (Babylon), basic engineering (Egypt), systematic mathematics and medicine (Greece), and even something so basic and obvious to us but revolutionary at the time as the number zero (Arabs)?
Copyright is culture.
You are taking a pretty limited view of culture. Or are you forgetting Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, Goethe, Lao Tze, Dickens, the Bible, the Talmud, Aristophanes and countless others, none of which is copyrighted today if it ever was and, again, all of which is a foundation for Bugs Bunny and Luke Skywalker and the rest of today's culture?
Sure, to most people (in the United States at least) culture is stuff like Star Wars and What's Opera Doc?, but when Lucas and Warner Brothers (and Tom Clancy and romance novelists and anyone else who creates today's equivalents of the stories by the campfire) create their works, they are standing on the shoulders of giants.
Well, testing your blood is not a walk in the park but as far as I'm concerned it hurts less than the electrostatic shocks I get on a regular basis at the local grocery store. In fact you can generally set the lance so that it doesn't cause pain at all (at least I was able to).
That's why I thought this etched needle sounded like such a great idea. If you can get into the skin with one of those, say, hooked to a watch/computer you could be monitoring your blood on a constant basis, delivering insulin as your body needs it, and probably do all kinds of groovy things. And all without the needle phobia that haunts a lot of us. (I'm type II diabetic on oral medication but it's only a matter of time. I'm hoping I can keep it under control until research gets to the point where I don't need to worry about having to go to injections.)
I remember reading a while back about a "needle" that was created using a process similar to etching computer chips. Basically, it consisted of numerous tiny needles in a grid (10,000 to a square inch or something), which reach deep enough into the skin to enter the capillary system, but not deep enough to trigger the nerves and register pain.
I thought this device would have great application in both glucose testing and medication delivery, but haven't heard anything abou it lately. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Kim Kuo, a spokeswoman for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, said the industry preferred educating people on cell-phone etiquette than slapping them with fines.
I don't konw, $50 sounds like a pretty cheap education for those clueless enough to carry a live cell phone into a theater.
/usr/games/fortune<enter>
<laughs>
/usr/games/fortune<enter>
<laughs>
/usr/games/fortune<enter>
"I don't get it"
Meet the new boss . . . same as the old boss . . .
(there, now this should get modded up "+1 Who Reference")
before the big backbone providers start blocking 208.225.90.120.
Yeah, well imagine the agony if you showed up at the motel after some sleazeball forged the mail from your wife and were met by some sweaty guy in a polyester suit and a bad toupee trying to sell you a CD-ROM full of addresses.
Don't be so quick. You might not be interested in what Arnold's up to off screen . . . unless you're into Republican politics. You might not be interested in what Charlton Heston does in his spare time . . . unless you're a party to the NRA/anti-NRA debate. Many celebrities have causes that they champion that make them legitimate targets for interest outside their role as entertainer. I guarantee you that if Cameron Diaz suddenly came out saying she was a Linux user, people here would sit up and take notice. (That would double if it was Natalie Portman doing the talking, but I digress.)
You might argue that this is an extension of their celebrity persona, and I would agree. However, I see nothing wrong with a celebrity trading on their fame to accomplish something they consider worthwhile. I think we can agree, however, that the gossip about money troubles, drug use and who's boinking who is a monumental waste of time.
I don't see a number anywhere in the article, so I'm just assuming that it's a few dozen marching megageeks.
Like the article says, legislation is a compromise.
You read the ARTICLE????????
OK, that's it, you're off the island.
Yeah, it'd be a better idea to just give it to me for safekeeping. You can trust me. Really.
If you do it today, tomorrow nobody will believe you. If your idea really is that earth-shaking, three years from now you'll be labeled a rabble-rouser, ten years from now you'll be labeled a revolutionary, and a hundred years from now you'll be labeled a genius or a prophet. Maybe both.
Um, I'm afraid it's probably you who is mistaken. I think you're confusing the Salt Lake Tribune, which is often critical of the Mormon Church, with the other Salt Lake newspaper, the Deseret News, owned by the Church. The Trib is owned by Medianews. The two have a joint operating agreement (not uncommon in this day and age) but, as much as they try to meddle in the Trib's affairs, the Church and the Deseret News have no control over the Trib's editorial content.
In fact when I saw the headline for this article it brought up memories of the Sunset Video flap mentioned in the article. By the way this is nothing new; when I lived in Utah many years ago there was a great deal of controversy over a particular radio station that would censor lyrics. In particular I remember they substituted a repeat of the line "Now the thing that I call livin' is just being satisfied" for "Her name was Anne and I'll be damned if I recall her face" in Gordon Lightfoot's Carefree Highway, which of course made the song make a whole lot less sense.
as I see it, is that it would be pretty labor intensive. I doubt for instance that Columbia still has masters for most of the stuff they released in the 1960s, much of which was deservedly forgotten by 1975 and wouldn't be able to draw flies nowadays. For the stuff they still have, they'd have to pay a tech to convert the master to digital format, so maybe two people besides me would be able to see what might have been on Chad & Jeremy's album The Ark.
I like it, but somehow I doubt we'll ever see it.
On the other hand there might be a business model here for someone. License the Bluebird jazz catalog from CBS, for instance, clean up the recording and put them up on the web and see if anyone is interested. In fact I could see a charity -- say a retirement home for musicians -- using this as a funding mechanism. Whether CBS would go for it is another story, but since it's a way for them to make money with little to no effort on their part, it might be worth a go.
Don't you just love democracy.
Yes, yes, I do. I often wish we'd give it a try. *sigh*
Remember OMIR's First Law: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."
This gem is probably from sometime in the century before last:
Surveyor: Do you own this farm?
Farmer: Ayuh.
Surveyor: Well, we have some news for you. We took a survey of your property and it turns out your farm isn't in New Hampshire after all.
Farmer: 'Taint?
Surveyor: No, we resurveyed the border and found out that your property is actually on the Vermont side.
Farmer: So you're sayin' mah fahm is in Vermahnt?
Surveyor: Yes, that's what we're saying.
Farmer: Good. Nevah could stand them New Hampshah wintahs.
Oh, just here and there. I'm thinking of things like their news items being weeks out of date, their reviews being duplicated in a number of places and their ads being supplanted by the manufacturers' and sellers' web sites.
"Our Man In Redmond, you are under arrest for the future piracy of a copy of 'Dude, Where's My Car.'"