They're stating that they're representing the owners of the copyrights in the works they think you're infringing upon. This is ENTIRELY different.
They're not saying that they "own" the file in question, but that they represent the copyright holder of the work known as.... whatever.
They also state that they believe your file infringes upon that interest. But they're not stating that they know this to be true, under perjury. Nor do they say they represent the holder of the copyright in the actual file on your computer. That is part of the complaint, and to be determined by the process of law.
Honestly, if you're going to shout, at least try to be right.
This only works if you really do hold a copyright in something that the site might be infringing.
Of course, this could be as simple as the "index" page of your website. In a particularly facile response, you could send a take-down letter to people based on your suspicions that their "index.html" page might be infringing on your own.
The statement they're holding themselves to is that they represent the copyright holders in a certain product. That's it.
They're alleging that the file in question is an infringement, but make no warrant that such is actually the case. It's not perjury if they're mistaken.
The problem is that the DMCA has no requirements that the infringement be real, only be suspected. There doesn't appear to be any remedy for false accusations.
A First Class ticket to Australia is in the vicinity of $4K already. That's a 14 hour trip without stops. Anyone willing to spend four thousand dollars to get there in style in 14 hours may spend twice that to get there in a quarter of the time.
Yes humans are adaptable. But we're adaptable within our environment, within certain tolerances. Sure we can squeeze through tight spaces. But not while we're wearing space-suits, and no more easily than a much smaller robot could. We can look at a damaged tube and fix it with duct tape, provided of course, that the tape will work in that temperature range, and the tube isn't carrying anything that would disintegrate the tape. We keep pens from floating away because we need pens. The robot doesn't need the pens in the first place. It records things directly from its sensors without needing to note stuff down.
Certainly we are good at adapting to situations outside our experience - something no robot can do. But the fact is, most Spaceborne robots aren't working on mere programming. There's a human at the other end of that many-light-minutes distance who can guide the robot, albeit slowly, to do things it isn't programmed for. Yes it's frustrating, but it's safe. Now safety isn't the be all and end all, but I'm all for calculated risks vs rewards, and the ability "do some stuff we didn't plan on doing before we left" isn't enough of a reward for the risk at this time.
Finally, if you assume that the robot will be unable to perform certain tasks because it's not designed for them, there's no reason to believe a human would be able to perform it any better. Martian Rovers are designed to perform a bunch of tasks, and be guided for others. A human would need all the same tools the robot needs, and if the rover designers didn't think of it, or couldn't afford to pack it, then the human's probably no better off, and probably a lot more frustrated.
As I said : I don't think we should avoid manned missions, but I don't think the return is what the other poster claimed it would be. It might have ancillary benefits, but in the pure terms of the science and study of Mars itself, the manned mission is unlikely to outperform an unmanned mission two times over.
We could learn just as much about survival in hostile places by missions to the ocean floor or to the Moon as we could by a mission to mars - so any such benefit would have to be compared to that.
A hundred times as much done? Where do you get that from ?
People spend a lot of their time in a hostile environment just surviving, rather than working. Getting someone to Mars isn't just about the travel, it's about living at the destination for the duration of the mission, and then you have to bring them home again. All of that takes time and effort as well as money.
To say that humans would be able to accomplish 100 times as much as the rovers doesn't account for that.
And when we lose a rover, it's the butt of jokes.
No one's going to be laughing when we lose a Manned Mission to Mars.
The costs of Manned Mars missions are much larger, and the benefits are less, than you're giving them credit for.
That's not to say that we should avoid them, but that you've just not accounted for everything in your "calculations".
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
It seems to me that religion should be a natural topic for games. Religions tell you that if you're in situation x, you should do y. Or that if you do y then the world will do z.
Actually, that's morality and ethics.
Religions attempt to explain the origins of the world and often, what happens to you after you die, (or after the world ends).
Any moral or ethical suggestions Religions tend to make are intended to help you in the afterlife, not aid your integration into society in this life (except insofar the society you belong to espouses a dominant relgion -- whereupon claiming to follow said religion can help your integration into said society).
As a former smoker, I too only smoked a pack a day, or less. But I felt that I was on the under-side of average, rather than dead on. I would occaisionally binge, such as at parties or at stressful events, when I would smoke a lot more than my average.
I don't think I've got an unrealistic view of smoking, but it's several years out of date, since I have fewer smoker friends now. Perhaps the average number of smokes/day has decreased in the last four years ?
And perhaps Australian smokers do smoke more than elsewhere. I know Californian smokers have been marginalized by the non-smoking laws here. (I'm an ex-pat Aussie living in CA). This probably decreases their opportunities to go through many packs per day.
I know when I visited Paris once, many more people smoked and it seemed, more constantly, since you could light up in a bar without fear. It wouldn't surprise me if they had a higher average intake there.
I think you've underestimated the addictive capacities of most smokers. A pack a day ? I knew one woman who would buy two packs of 50 (yes, in Australia, you can get 50 cigarettes in one pack) at one time. That was at seven in the morning. By late afternoon some days, she'd be back there buying more.
Admittedly that was extreme, but to say "a serious smoker rarely smokes more than a pack a day" isn't exactly representative.
But a) Not everyone has children in their house. b) Not every media PC is going to cost $1000 c) Not every child will damage a media PC beyond salvation. You can ruin a $40 DVD ROM drive without destroying the PC that it is in, you know.
Well, that's a relief. In any case, a woman prime minister isn't as ground breaking in India as a woman President of the USA seems, since they've had a female head of government before. Something the USA cannot claim.
It just sounded to most of us that you were being condescending. Many were quick to correct, I see.
Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, 1966-77 and 1980-84
That's hardly "just elected".
The current prime minister of India is a man, Atal Behari VAJPAYEE.
Prime Minister is the head of government in those states which are closely descended from British Commonwealth systems (which are democracies, actually). Constitutional Monarchies (such as Britain) reserve the head of state for the Queen, but the actual government is done by the people. The Monarch has very limited powers in the Westminster system. In India, the head of state is their President, since they no longer have even nominal ties back to the commonwealth. In Australia, by contrast, the head of state is the Governor-General (the Queens representative), but his powers are very limited and rarely exercised. The Prime Minister is the head of the government and is considered the elected leader of the nation.
Oh ferchrissakes! It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.
There's a specific legal definition of what is stealing and what is copyright infringement and one != the other.
When will you fucktards get it through your heads?
Oh, and before you start your pansy-ass response that goes something like "oh but it's stealing because it's wrong...", read this post again and ask yourself if I expressed b>any opinion about right or wrong.
You *might* be able to make a fair use case at a very long stretch if you didn't keep the music. Essentially what you are doing is emulating a radio broadcast. You are listening to music being "broadcast" to you, which your computer made an automatic buffering copy of to your harddrive so you could listen to it without significant degradation of quality. Of course, if the software didn't delete the buffered copy, you're not really responsible:)
Whether that would stand at all is yet to be tested. It would certainly have some weight if it really was a function of the sofware to do so from a legal internet radio stream, but P2P doesn't really work that way. Most people know they're keeping the music, and deleting it in under 24 hours isn't going to be a magic escape clause.
In some peoples eyes this is equivalent to "I stole the money, officer, but I threw it away a day later"
I can only hope its a matter of time before the electric lightbulb of electronic distribution puts the Gaslamps of the RIAA out of business.
Instead of legislating protections for gaslamps, they should be buying up electric lightbulb factories.
Actually, I think he's talking about Social Security and the unemployed.
If they're unemployed, then they're obviously not the ones who are growing the food, driving the trucks, and removing the garbage.
Those people are all working hard, and are usually paid (but not necessarily paid well).
So where is your problem ? There are those who are lazy and those who are uneducated and those who are both. It's not an equivalency, but a concatenation.
Exactly. 400 years is nothing in the history of kings. Not everyone in ancient Greece could trace their lineage back four centuries. Some of them might not even know their fathers name. But when you claim descendance from Ancient Kings (or Gods!), you sure better know who fathered whom.
(On a side note, on my mothers side, I'm a distant bastard of Henry VIII - which really kind of annoys her, since she's a member of the Richard III Society.)
Exactly my point. The Recorded music industry makes a lot more money overall than live performance does. But the majority of this money goes into the hands of the RIAAs members, not the artists themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
NO THEY'RE NOT
.... whatever.
They're stating that they're representing the owners of the copyrights in the works they think you're infringing upon. This is ENTIRELY different.
They're not saying that they "own" the file in question, but that they represent the copyright holder of the work known as
They also state that they believe your file infringes upon that interest. But they're not stating that they know this to be true, under perjury. Nor do they say they represent the holder of the copyright in the actual file on your computer. That is part of the complaint, and to be determined by the process of law.
Honestly, if you're going to shout, at least try to be right.
This only works if you really do hold a copyright in something that the site might be infringing.
Of course, this could be as simple as the "index" page of your website. In a particularly facile response, you could send a take-down letter to people based on your suspicions that their "index.html" page might be infringing on your own.
Firstly it's perjury.
Secondly, it's not.
The statement they're holding themselves to is that they represent the copyright holders in a certain product.
That's it.
They're alleging that the file in question is an infringement, but make no warrant that such is actually the case. It's not perjury if they're mistaken.
The problem is that the DMCA has no requirements that the infringement be real, only be suspected. There doesn't appear to be any remedy for false accusations.
The job we're talking about is working out how planets may have evolved.
And you think the right tool is soul-searching introspection?
That's the kind of attitude that put man firmly on the couch, not the Moon.
A First Class ticket to Australia is in the vicinity of $4K already. That's a 14 hour trip without stops. Anyone willing to spend four thousand dollars to get there in style in 14 hours may spend twice that to get there in a quarter of the time.
Yes humans are adaptable. But we're adaptable within our environment, within certain tolerances.
Sure we can squeeze through tight spaces. But not while we're wearing space-suits, and no more easily than a much smaller robot could.
We can look at a damaged tube and fix it with duct tape, provided of course, that the tape will work in that temperature range, and the tube isn't carrying anything that would disintegrate the tape. We keep pens from floating away because we need pens. The robot doesn't need the pens in the first place. It records things directly from its sensors without needing to note stuff down.
Certainly we are good at adapting to situations outside our experience - something no robot can do. But the fact is, most Spaceborne robots aren't working on mere programming. There's a human at the other end of that many-light-minutes distance who can guide the robot, albeit slowly, to do things it isn't programmed for. Yes it's frustrating, but it's safe. Now safety isn't the be all and end all, but I'm all for calculated risks vs rewards, and the ability "do some stuff we didn't plan on doing before we left" isn't enough of a reward for the risk at this time.
Finally, if you assume that the robot will be unable to perform certain tasks because it's not designed for them, there's no reason to believe a human would be able to perform it any better. Martian Rovers are designed to perform a bunch of tasks, and be guided for others. A human would need all the same tools the robot needs, and if the rover designers didn't think of it, or couldn't afford to pack it, then the human's probably no better off, and probably a lot more frustrated.
As I said : I don't think we should avoid manned missions, but I don't think the return is what the other poster claimed it would be. It might have ancillary benefits, but in the pure terms of the science and study of Mars itself, the manned mission is unlikely to outperform an unmanned mission two times over.
We could learn just as much about survival in hostile places by missions to the ocean floor or to the Moon as we could by a mission to mars - so any such benefit would have to be compared to that.
Which really just illustrates the point even further.
It's a scale.
Guns can kill people, Nukes kill more people.. Guns are controlled, Nukes are outlawed...
Modchips ? Software piracy is the same as setting of a nuke now ?
A hundred times as much done? Where do you get that from ?
People spend a lot of their time in a hostile environment just surviving, rather than working. Getting someone to Mars isn't just about the travel, it's about living at the destination for the duration of the mission, and then you have to bring them home again. All of that takes time and effort as well as money.
To say that humans would be able to accomplish 100 times as much as the rovers doesn't account for that.
And when we lose a rover, it's the butt of jokes.
No one's going to be laughing when we lose a Manned Mission to Mars.
The costs of Manned Mars missions are much larger, and the benefits are less, than you're giving them credit for.
That's not to say that we should avoid them, but that you've just not accounted for everything in your "calculations".
It seems to me that religion should be a natural topic for games. Religions tell you that if you're in situation x, you should do y. Or that if you do y then the world will do z.
Actually, that's morality and ethics.
Religions attempt to explain the origins of the world and often, what happens to you after you die, (or after the world ends).
Any moral or ethical suggestions Religions tend to make are intended to help you in the afterlife, not aid your integration into society in this life (except insofar the society you belong to espouses a dominant relgion -- whereupon claiming to follow said religion can help your integration into said society).
As a former smoker, I too only smoked a pack a day, or less. But I felt that I was on the under-side of average, rather than dead on.
I would occaisionally binge, such as at parties or at stressful events, when I would smoke a lot more than my average.
I don't think I've got an unrealistic view of smoking, but it's several years out of date, since I have fewer smoker friends now. Perhaps the average number of smokes/day has decreased in the last four years ?
And perhaps Australian smokers do smoke more than elsewhere. I know Californian smokers have been marginalized by the non-smoking laws here. (I'm an ex-pat Aussie living in CA). This probably decreases their opportunities to go through many packs per day.
I know when I visited Paris once, many more people smoked and it seemed, more constantly, since you could light up in a bar without fear. It wouldn't surprise me if they had a higher average intake there.
I think you've underestimated the addictive capacities of most smokers. A pack a day ?
I knew one woman who would buy two packs of 50 (yes, in Australia, you can get 50 cigarettes in one pack) at one time. That was at seven in the morning. By late afternoon some days, she'd be back there buying more.
Admittedly that was extreme, but to say "a serious smoker rarely smokes more than a pack a day" isn't exactly representative.
So for you, TiVo makes sense. Great.
But
a) Not everyone has children in their house.
b) Not every media PC is going to cost $1000
c) Not every child will damage a media PC beyond salvation. You can ruin a $40 DVD ROM drive without destroying the PC that it is in, you know.
Well, that's a relief. In any case, a woman prime minister isn't as ground breaking in India as a woman President of the USA seems, since they've had a female head of government before. Something the USA cannot claim.
It just sounded to most of us that you were being condescending. Many were quick to correct, I see.
Whoops.
Well, at least I'm only mistaken by a month or so, rather than 20 years !
Oh, who am I kidding, this is what I get for copying information out of google searches without checking dates !
Oh, the shame
Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, 1966-77 and 1980-84
That's hardly "just elected".
The current prime minister of India is a man, Atal Behari VAJPAYEE.
Prime Minister is the head of government in those states which are closely descended from British Commonwealth systems (which are democracies, actually). Constitutional Monarchies (such as Britain) reserve the head of state for the Queen, but the actual government is done by the people. The Monarch has very limited powers in the Westminster system.
In India, the head of state is their President, since they no longer have even nominal ties back to the commonwealth.
In Australia, by contrast, the head of state is the Governor-General (the Queens representative), but his powers are very limited and rarely exercised. The Prime Minister is the head of the government and is considered the elected leader of the nation.
Oh ferchrissakes!
It's not stealing.
It's copyright infringement.
There's a specific legal definition of what is stealing and what is copyright infringement and one != the other.
When will you fucktards get it through your heads?
Oh, and before you start your pansy-ass response that goes something like "oh but it's stealing because it's wrong...", read this post again and ask yourself if I expressed b>any opinion about right or wrong.
You are incorrect.
Learn from this.
Quite correct. There is no such thing.
:)
You *might* be able to make a fair use case at a very long stretch if you didn't keep the music. Essentially what you are doing is emulating a radio broadcast. You are listening to music being "broadcast" to you, which your computer made an automatic buffering copy of to your harddrive so you could listen to it without significant degradation of quality. Of course, if the software didn't delete the buffered copy, you're not really responsible
Whether that would stand at all is yet to be tested. It would certainly have some weight if it really was a function of the sofware to do so from a legal internet radio stream, but P2P doesn't really work that way. Most people know they're keeping the music, and deleting it in under 24 hours isn't going to be a magic escape clause.
In some peoples eyes this is equivalent to "I stole the money, officer, but I threw it away a day later"
I can only hope its a matter of time before the electric lightbulb of electronic distribution puts the Gaslamps of the RIAA out of business.
Instead of legislating protections for gaslamps, they should be buying up electric lightbulb factories.
Shirely, he can't be serious !
As long as its Canadian Beer.
US beer is like water.
What about parfait?
I thought Linux Docs were like parfait.
Everyone likes parfait.
Actually, I think he's talking about Social Security and the unemployed.
If they're unemployed, then they're obviously not the ones who are growing the food, driving the trucks, and removing the garbage.
Those people are all working hard, and are usually paid (but not necessarily paid well).
So where is your problem ? There are those who are lazy and those who are uneducated and those who are both. It's not an equivalency, but a concatenation.
Exactly.
400 years is nothing in the history of kings. Not everyone in ancient Greece could trace their lineage back four centuries. Some of them might not even know their fathers name.
But when you claim descendance from Ancient Kings (or Gods!), you sure better know who fathered whom.
(On a side note, on my mothers side, I'm a distant bastard of Henry VIII - which really kind of annoys her, since she's a member of the Richard III Society.)
Exactly .. "vastly less money in it for them" because it makes them obsolete.
Was there a point in there that disagreed with me, or were you just restating my case in plainer terms ?
Exactly my point.
The Recorded music industry makes a lot more money overall than live performance does. But the majority of this money goes into the hands of the RIAAs members, not the artists themselves.