Having data collected from willing participants rather than believing it was surreptitiously gathered could be a benefit to an advertiser, who might believe they are getting better data.
Since the data is collected by the browser, rather than from a website, it enables more and better data to be collected. In principle, it seems to be like a browser version of a Nielsen meter.
Advertisers and marketers would also be drawn to this model because they are getting information about consumers that is more likely to be useful to them. It's like a direct-mail advertiser getting a list of people who have already bought something by mail.
And the advertisers and marketers would probably prefer to know about that kind of person more than they would about consumers who are more cautious and privacy-minded about their personal data, anyhow.
It was interesting to hear all the spin being applied to the term "Black Friday" that was being tossed around this year. It's supposedly "the day that retailers start to turn a profit (or have their books in the black)" according to several reports I heard over the past couple of days. (Of course, many businesses, especially in retail, have their financial year start in the fall rather than following the calendar year. I very much doubt they have already met all their expenses for the coming fiscal year after only a couple months of retail operation during the slow autumn season.
Curiously, before this year, I had never heard that definition applied. I think what's more likely is that some marketing organization was afraid that "Buy Nothing Day" was gaining some traction and wanted to try to counter the frightful connotations of "Black Friday," so they coined a nice fable for the origin of the term.
There is also a Founders' Copyright through Creative Commons that gives a term of 14 or 28 years.
Rather than adopting a standard U.S. copyright that will last in excess of 70 years after the author's lifetime, the Creative Commons and a contributor will enter into a contract to guarantee that the relevant creative work will enter the public domain after 14 years, unless the author chooses to extend for another 14. To re-create the functionality of a 14- or 28-year copyright, the contributor will sell the copyright to Creative Commons for $1.00, at which point Creative Commons will give the contributor an exclusive license to the work for 14 (or 28) years. During this period, Creative Commons will list all works under the Founders' Copyright, along with each projected public domain liberation date, in an online registry.
This basically deeds the rights to the Creative Commons, who then license it back to you for a period of time, after which they will deed it to the public domain.
So, through the Creative Commons, a fully exploitable, but more reasonably termed option also exists.
As a number of other people have pointed out already, cargo doesn't have the same needs as a human crew, and there are already boosters that can serve the "space truck" role and do so effectively.
This vehicle is meant for moving crew (i.e. humans) to LEO. It's not trying to be a space SUV that tries to be all things for all purposes.
Schoolbus sized satellites can be lifted directly by existing boosters, and don't need a shuttle to carry them.
It's not a waste of money; and it is back to basics.
Do they wnat to use, modify, develop, etc., BADLY ENOUGH to pay the price?
That seems to be the way the playing field is being set, but that is not the way it should be. Development, invention, and creativity are all socially beneficial.
If our system of laws is for the social good, then, as someone else pointed out, abandoned intellectual property should be treated the same as abandoned physical property, and brought back into usefulness (i.e. public domain). If you die without heirs, your house will be sold and the proceeds go to the community, and someone else can enjoy the use of the property, rather than allowing it to remain abandoned and decaying.
Once an idea exists, it should not be quashed and suppressed just because someone can't make a buck off of it (or enough bucks to be willing to bother).
It is simply absurd to require everything to meet some standard of monetization in order to be deemed worthy.
I thought abandonware was defined as software that was no longer commercially available or supported. What's that got to do with copyright?
Software is subject to copyright law.
The law states that copying, distributing, etc. that material, even if it is abandoned and unsupported, is illegal. But there are many individuals who want to use, modify, develop, etc. those materials who are presently prevented from doing so by the law.
If abandoned material was no longer encumbered by copyright, people with an interest could do new and creative things with those materials. Instead, though, the law acts to stifle and constrain new advances and developments, rather than to encourage them.
It preserves the rights of ignorance and suppression, rather than allowing and encouraging creativity, invention, and development.
For the same reason as with many other things in this country: States Rights.
This topic was widely discussed during the 2000 election, with lots of questioning about why there wasn't a standard mandated by the Federal govenment. But the elections are run by the municipalities, and not by the national government.
When jury duty called, I was lucky enough to have a copy of Larry Lessig's new book...
Hey, how about actually doing your civic duty? I wouldn't want to be the defendant in this case.
I suspect the original poster was referring to the hours that one must wait before one participates in any actual jury work, not reading the book while court was in session.
Slashdot Mirror
Having data collected from willing participants rather than believing it was surreptitiously gathered could be a benefit to an advertiser, who might believe they are getting better data.
Since the data is collected by the browser, rather than from a website, it enables more and better data to be collected. In principle, it seems to be like a browser version of a Nielsen meter.
Advertisers and marketers would also be drawn to this model because they are getting information about consumers that is more likely to be useful to them. It's like a direct-mail advertiser getting a list of people who have already bought something by mail.
And the advertisers and marketers would probably prefer to know about that kind of person more than they would about consumers who are more cautious and privacy-minded about their personal data, anyhow.
Curiously, before this year, I had never heard that definition applied. I think what's more likely is that some marketing organization was afraid that "Buy Nothing Day" was gaining some traction and wanted to try to counter the frightful connotations of "Black Friday," so they coined a nice fable for the origin of the term.
Tax law has nothing to do with smarts. It's gnosticism. Years of exposure and careful study of minutia.
Lots of very smart people realize that they are not experts about tax law, and they hire tax law experts.
This basically deeds the rights to the Creative Commons, who then license it back to you for a period of time, after which they will deed it to the public domain.
So, through the Creative Commons, a fully exploitable, but more reasonably termed option also exists.
This vehicle is meant for moving crew (i.e. humans) to LEO. It's not trying to be a space SUV that tries to be all things for all purposes.
Schoolbus sized satellites can be lifted directly by existing boosters, and don't need a shuttle to carry them.
It's not a waste of money; and it is back to basics.
'Surpass' surpasses 'usurp' in appropriateness for the headline, but 'usurp' usurped its place.
That seems to be the way the playing field is being set, but that is not the way it should be. Development, invention, and creativity are all socially beneficial.
If our system of laws is for the social good, then, as someone else pointed out, abandoned intellectual property should be treated the same as abandoned physical property, and brought back into usefulness (i.e. public domain). If you die without heirs, your house will be sold and the proceeds go to the community, and someone else can enjoy the use of the property, rather than allowing it to remain abandoned and decaying.
Once an idea exists, it should not be quashed and suppressed just because someone can't make a buck off of it (or enough bucks to be willing to bother).
It is simply absurd to require everything to meet some standard of monetization in order to be deemed worthy.
Radio didn't replace newspaper journalism, nor did television replace radio journalism. Each developed to the strengths of its medium.
Blogs are merely a form of journalism that best exploit the features of their medium.
That's why some refer to copyright extension legislation as the Mickey Mouse Preservation Act.
Software is subject to copyright law.
The law states that copying, distributing, etc. that material, even if it is abandoned and unsupported, is illegal. But there are many individuals who want to use, modify, develop, etc. those materials who are presently prevented from doing so by the law.
If abandoned material was no longer encumbered by copyright, people with an interest could do new and creative things with those materials. Instead, though, the law acts to stifle and constrain new advances and developments, rather than to encourage them.
It preserves the rights of ignorance and suppression, rather than allowing and encouraging creativity, invention, and development.
For the same reason as with many other things in this country: States Rights.
This topic was widely discussed during the 2000 election, with lots of questioning about why there wasn't a standard mandated by the Federal govenment. But the elections are run by the municipalities, and not by the national government.
"We're sorry for the inconvenience of the voters," Urosevich said.
Nothing about apologizing for the problems with the product, or the fact that they didn't work. He appologizes for getting caught.
Hey, how about actually doing your civic duty? I wouldn't want to be the defendant in this case.
I suspect the original poster was referring to the hours that one must wait before one participates in any actual jury work, not reading the book while court was in session.