No you don't have control over your documents at all if it is saved on Google's servers. Google has total access and control of your documents. They let you access your document from different computers but if they don't want to give you back your document they are under no obligation to. From their terms and conditions (bold is mine):
Google reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to pre-screen, flag, filter, refuse, modify or move any Content available via Google services.
Your Rights
Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Google services and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, modify, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. Google reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service offered by Google. Google furthermore reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion.
Basically any document you save in Google Docs Google has full rights to (rights which include destroying the document).
It seems on my computer that it's a DRMed WMV file which doesn't work on Linux at all. Is it the case that you've tested this file and it worked on 32 bit linux rather than just assuming that it's an unprotected wmv? If that's true then could you please reply (with your distro and plugin please) so I can investigate and try and get the comedy central files working - I've tried before with mplayerplugin with no success.
Remember that people don't like risks that they don't control? I hereby predict that as soon as someone in a company like Google abuses the power of having and controlling documents then there will be an enormous backlash against it.
Currently that's why I don't use Google's doc and spreadsheet programs. I can't stand not having control of my own documents.
According to Wikipedia the original word "truthiness" was "rare and dialectal". Since I'm pretty sure no one except for linguists knew of the word, and it obviously wasn't in widespread use, it doesn't count.
Of course it burns up, not down. That's why you see so many houses getting only their top floor burnt to a crisp with the lower floor totally untouched!
Being against annoying and imposing DRM and copy protection doesn't mean you support piracy. Two people do not equate to the whole of Slashdot, the free software community, or, in fact, all of the world.
I think that it was simply talking about how it's busting a myth rather than giving a deep, detailed comparison on how similar the methodologies are. For some reason I think you're reading slightly too much into those six words.
I think a better way would be to have the length of copyright be shorter than personal copyrights. Currently they are quite possibly longer. In my opinion it should be ten years for corporations and twenty for personal copyright.
The current copyright system is stupid and in no way encourages anything but corporate exploitation. All copyright is supposed to do is encourage the distribution of works as opposed to covering it up and never releasing it, or not working on it in the first place. Can people really say that this is now happening? I'd not be surprised if more work was distributed without worrying about copyright than was distributed with copyright enforced.
In late 2006, Piyare Jain and Gurmukh Singh claimed the discovery of an unexpectedly high mass (6-20 MeV), very short lived (10-13 s) particle that may be the sought after axion (Jain and Singh, 2007).
Wow this discovery is so amazing that they have published the paper a year in the future!!!
Again, that's what not why. It's a patent deal, in fact as far as I can tell there's nothing in that part of the deal about Linux. It seems that all it is is a promise not to sue eachother which is quite common. It doesn't seem to say anything about Linux in the deal.
So if there's no IP issues in Linux, what's the problem? Other companies offer indemnification against patent issues so there's no chance of 1 and 2 happening. If Microsoft does start threatening companies (we'll sue you if you don't buy our products) then do you really think that will help them? People definitely don't react well to threats, especially when they can be found to be baseless. I'd not be surprised that if Microsoft does actually start threatening customers this way then they'll lose much much more than they gain.
So tell me, why would companies care about this deal? Is Red Hat going to stop supporting Linux because Novell and Microsoft promised not to sue eachother? I frankly don't see much FUD from Novell, only the critics of this deal. I usually hold PJ up to a relatively high regard, but this article is mostly FUD not antiFUD as it seems to want to be. I don't know where those quotes come from? What does the proceeding article have to do with Novell?
Noone has given me a single reason why this deal is bad for Linux. They say that it pretends that there is patent troubles with Linux, something with Novell denies. The article claims it made Suse Linux more expensive, which seems hard to believe seeing how Novell made several million dollars out of this deal.
So put away the "this is what will happen" argument and try going for "this is what will happen, and this is why" because I just don't see any why.
That's a very good point. The reality is when you go 110kmph then letting someone in won't change how fast you get to your destination very significantly. Letting twenty people in won't change it significantly.
As an aside, I hope people know that the amount of gap you're supposed to leave should be proportional to the speed you're going, I hope people aren't *that* bad at maths here like a lot of people on the road are...
They're covering their arses, as they should. If there *are* patent problems with Linux then Novell could be sued by their customers if they have made public proclamations that there are no patent problems in Linux. As it is they just offer indemnification which implies that they don't think there are patent problems but doesn't come right out and say it.
I fear that you're wrong, and the guy is just a conservative technophobe. Internet access in schools can be amazingly useful for helping the students teach themselves. No matter how many books the school has, it can't come even close to the amount of knowledge contained in the internet.
Aside from all the "copyright infringement is not theft" arguments that will get thrown at you and you seem to be looking for, you obviously missed the whole point of his argument.
I have a feeling that the ink wouldn't totally go away (otherwise why is there a 10 print limit?) I think using this for fishing would be a quick way of going to gaol for fraud.
How was it off topic? It looked very on-topic to me.
Either way, Mark Shuttleworth wasn't being malicious. He wasn't trying to offend anyone. Moral rights are subjective things, and clearly this didn't offend his own morals, so he wasn't abusing anyone's trust.
The main problem is people are seeing this as an "in" for people who just want to block anything they disagree with. First you block illegal material, then since people are totally fine with blocking illegal material why wouldn't they also want to block "hateful" material? Finally, all you then need to do is expand the definition of the word "hateful" ever so slightly.
One of the most insightful slashdot comments I've ever seen, though I've lost the source, said something along the lines of "if a legislator says 'but it will never be used this way' they are lying. It is meant to be used that way and as often as possible."
Slashdot Mirror
It seems on my computer that it's a DRMed WMV file which doesn't work on Linux at all. Is it the case that you've tested this file and it worked on 32 bit linux rather than just assuming that it's an unprotected wmv? If that's true then could you please reply (with your distro and plugin please) so I can investigate and try and get the comedy central files working - I've tried before with mplayerplugin with no success.
Remember that people don't like risks that they don't control? I hereby predict that as soon as someone in a company like Google abuses the power of having and controlling documents then there will be an enormous backlash against it.
Currently that's why I don't use Google's doc and spreadsheet programs. I can't stand not having control of my own documents.
According to Wikipedia the original word "truthiness" was "rare and dialectal". Since I'm pretty sure no one except for linguists knew of the word, and it obviously wasn't in widespread use, it doesn't count.
The Windows Media file doesn't work at all in 32 bit Linux even with the compatibility layer files.
Of course it burns up, not down. That's why you see so many houses getting only their top floor burnt to a crisp with the lower floor totally untouched!
Being against annoying and imposing DRM and copy protection doesn't mean you support piracy. Two people do not equate to the whole of Slashdot, the free software community, or, in fact, all of the world.
... idiot.
I think that it was simply talking about how it's busting a myth rather than giving a deep, detailed comparison on how similar the methodologies are. For some reason I think you're reading slightly too much into those six words.
I think a better way would be to have the length of copyright be shorter than personal copyrights. Currently they are quite possibly longer. In my opinion it should be ten years for corporations and twenty for personal copyright.
The current copyright system is stupid and in no way encourages anything but corporate exploitation. All copyright is supposed to do is encourage the distribution of works as opposed to covering it up and never releasing it, or not working on it in the first place. Can people really say that this is now happening? I'd not be surprised if more work was distributed without worrying about copyright than was distributed with copyright enforced.
In late 2006, Piyare Jain and Gurmukh Singh claimed the discovery of an unexpectedly high mass (6-20 MeV), very short lived (10-13 s) particle that may be the sought after axion (Jain and Singh, 2007).
Wow this discovery is so amazing that they have published the paper a year in the future!!!
Again, that's what not why. It's a patent deal, in fact as far as I can tell there's nothing in that part of the deal about Linux. It seems that all it is is a promise not to sue eachother which is quite common. It doesn't seem to say anything about Linux in the deal.
So if there's no IP issues in Linux, what's the problem? Other companies offer indemnification against patent issues so there's no chance of 1 and 2 happening. If Microsoft does start threatening companies (we'll sue you if you don't buy our products) then do you really think that will help them? People definitely don't react well to threats, especially when they can be found to be baseless. I'd not be surprised that if Microsoft does actually start threatening customers this way then they'll lose much much more than they gain.
So tell me, why would companies care about this deal? Is Red Hat going to stop supporting Linux because Novell and Microsoft promised not to sue eachother? I frankly don't see much FUD from Novell, only the critics of this deal. I usually hold PJ up to a relatively high regard, but this article is mostly FUD not antiFUD as it seems to want to be. I don't know where those quotes come from? What does the proceeding article have to do with Novell?
Noone has given me a single reason why this deal is bad for Linux. They say that it pretends that there is patent troubles with Linux, something with Novell denies. The article claims it made Suse Linux more expensive, which seems hard to believe seeing how Novell made several million dollars out of this deal.
So put away the "this is what will happen" argument and try going for "this is what will happen, and this is why" because I just don't see any why.
And, as it says in the article, the videos start a few seconds after it starts streaming.
That's a very good point. The reality is when you go 110kmph then letting someone in won't change how fast you get to your destination very significantly. Letting twenty people in won't change it significantly.
As an aside, I hope people know that the amount of gap you're supposed to leave should be proportional to the speed you're going, I hope people aren't *that* bad at maths here like a lot of people on the road are...
I remember the first time I built a circuit. (Yes it was in university...)
It seemed like magic that it worked and did what I wanted, even though I was the one who designed and built it.
They're covering their arses, as they should. If there *are* patent problems with Linux then Novell could be sued by their customers if they have made public proclamations that there are no patent problems in Linux. As it is they just offer indemnification which implies that they don't think there are patent problems but doesn't come right out and say it.
What an appropriate place for the grandparent's signature: "The best comments ever seen on slashdot".
Wow. So glad that you've told us and the editors that - I'm sure they feel really silly. Some people just won't get those jokes.
I fear that you're wrong, and the guy is just a conservative technophobe. Internet access in schools can be amazingly useful for helping the students teach themselves. No matter how many books the school has, it can't come even close to the amount of knowledge contained in the internet.
Aside from all the "copyright infringement is not theft" arguments that will get thrown at you and you seem to be looking for, you obviously missed the whole point of his argument.
I have a feeling that the ink wouldn't totally go away (otherwise why is there a 10 print limit?) I think using this for fishing would be a quick way of going to gaol for fraud.
and having pictures of houses that have survived a cyclone or earthquake in your office isn't a bad advertisement...
I wonder... Windows' compatibility to OS/2 = Wine compatibility to Windows...
How was it off topic? It looked very on-topic to me.
Either way, Mark Shuttleworth wasn't being malicious. He wasn't trying to offend anyone. Moral rights are subjective things, and clearly this didn't offend his own morals, so he wasn't abusing anyone's trust.
The main problem is people are seeing this as an "in" for people who just want to block anything they disagree with. First you block illegal material, then since people are totally fine with blocking illegal material why wouldn't they also want to block "hateful" material? Finally, all you then need to do is expand the definition of the word "hateful" ever so slightly.
One of the most insightful slashdot comments I've ever seen, though I've lost the source, said something along the lines of "if a legislator says 'but it will never be used this way' they are lying. It is meant to be used that way and as often as possible."