Your arguments don't justify a point by point rebuttal -- they all fail because copyright exists in a work (even an anonymous work) at the point that it is created. You don't have to file for copyright in order to own the copyright. That's not circular logic, it's the law since the USA adopted the Berne convention.
No, but by posting stuff to Facebook's servers you give the rights to Facebook, Inc. to make copies, reproduce, and use the content as they wish.
Yes, because you agreed to their TOS before you posted the material.
Just like if you were to record something to my voicemail server.
You have a TOS that people agree to before leaving a voicemail? Obviously, it would be up to a court to decide if there is an implied license when leaving a message on your voicemail, but I highly doubt that there is.
That said, this must surely be analogous to having someone send you random shit in the mail that you never ordered. Now you own it--throw the bill in the trash.
Her rant is copyrightable only if she files for one. Unfortunately for her, copyright is conditional upon ownership of rant. Publication of the rant by recording undermines her ability to seek copyright as there is a reasonable debate of whether she transferred ownership. Many companies have warnings that anything you record on their voice mail systems like Alamo becomes their property, etc.
If there is such a message, then perhaps they can use that as a license to use her rant. Just about everything else you stated is completely wrong. Copyright exists without registration (you just can't sue until you register it and, unless you register it within some limited time, you can only sue for actual damages, not statutory damages.) You also seem to be saying that, since Alamo published it, they may own it and should benefit from infringing on her copyright. Yeah, why don't you suggest that one of the RIAA defendants try that argument -- "the publisher doesn't own the copyright any more because they sold me a CD and I published it"
Is posting a voicemail from a telemarketer on YouTube copyright infringement?
Quite possibly, but it depends on the circumstances.
Is playing a voicemail from a bad business on some news program's help-the-consumer-with-their-problems segment copyright infringement? No. It's not an artistic work,
No, but not because it isn't artistic, rather that probably falls under a fair use exception.
and when you record something directly to my machine you essentially hand over whatever rights may exist to me.
Ha, ha! Good luck with that argument if you ever have to use it. I expect you think that posting stuff on the Internet also means that you give the rights to everyone who downloads it to make copies, reproduce and use as they wish?
Perhaps I should change the outgoing message on my answering machine to "by leaving a message for me, you grant me unlimited rights to use your message and any intellectual property rights contained within."
You're kidding, right? What expectation of privacy do you think is in force in the transaction of her leaving the message on the company's answering machine? What about her openly recorded rant is copyrighted?
You're kidding, right? Do you really not understand the difference between privacy and copyright? As to what is copyrighted -- every part of the rant is copyrighted. That's the default today, unless you can show that it wasn't creative (and the standard for creative is very low).
the Verizon rep's job is to get a subscription, matching the customer with a device that most closely meets their needs and makes them want to buy.
No. The rep's job is to maximize revenue and, more importantly, profits, for the organization. That may frequently involve pushing a product that is not the best match to the customer's needs. This may involve "upselling", or it may involve pushing the old stock that the supplier wants to unload. Some times it may even involve pushing the product that does best match the customer's needs.
That doesn't make any sense. All this agreement will do is turn it into a bidding war instead of a silent and secret deal behind doors.
Actually, no. It will have the reverse effect -- no bids. There is no incentive to bid because MS only has to match your bid and then MS wins. The deck is stacked heavily in MS's favor, so why bid at all?
This deal reduces the acquisition value of nVidia because it will put off many companies from bidding.
My wife has a Cliq 2. It has a very solid feel to it -- the way the keyboard slides out, the weight of the device. It doesn't feel like other phones that seem to be flimsy lumps of plastic.
That's the good, now the bad. What benefit is there to the user from Motoblur? The marketing prominently states that the Moto phones have Motoblur, but why the heck should I care? I suspect that it is actually a disaster from a privacy point of view (are my logins being stored on Motorola's servers)? Contacts are stored where? I think on Motorola's servers. I suspect that the purpose of Motoblur is lockin -- you can't transfer contacts via the sim card any more, but you can via the Motoblur login. I think that Motoblur is a classic MBA wet dream -- lockin plus it makes the phones distinct from other Android phones. The problem is that the "distinction" is that it is worse -- not better.
After Motoblur, there are bugs: the bluetooth will stop working, requiring a reboot. A key will stop working and behave as enter instead (not accessible via the keyboard, or touchscreen keyboard), requiring a reboot.
We needed a phone in a hurry: the G2 was much more expensive and the keyboard hinge looked as though it would fail in about 3 months. I won't be buying Motorola again -- I'll be looking for a phone that can be rooted and alternative firmware loaded, or comes with a basic Android setup.
Whatever is or isn't contested by scientists and researchers, I can confidently say that farmers don't understand the issue: I heard a representative farmers being interviewed on NPR or PBS discussing the routine use of antibiotics for "growth promotin" (the farmer's words) -- he stated that the use of antibiotics in animal feed wasn't a problem because they only used low doses of antibiotics. He seemed to think that the issue was that the antibiotics might get into the food chain, rather than the problem of bugs developing resistance.
And Google became popular, not because their PageRank was/is better. Their interface was much cleaner and usable.
Were you actually using the Internet when Altavista was relevant? The reason that I stopped using Altavista and started using Google was simple: Altavista used to give search results that were mostly broken links. Altavista's spidering of the web fell way behind what Google was doing and so it had lots of junk in its database.
I manage a WSUS environment and push out Adobe Flash and Reader updates every month via WSUS and System Center. You can yell "bullshit"
I'll continue to yell "bullshit" while you fail to provide a link and because your use of WSUS to push out 3rd party updates doesn't answer my point of MS providing an API for 3rd party tools to hook into the Windows/Microsoft update tools.
Stop being an apologist for MS and realize that not everyone runs a WSUS server or has the time to download and push out updates like this. People want to have a single method to automatically download updates without having to set up their own server just to get the updates.
Microsoft does offer these vendors Windows Update.
Link or you are spewing BS. Meanwhile here's my counter link.
What MS does do is to include some 3rd party drivers in its own catalog, which is entirely different to my suggestion. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that MS host the 3rd-part updates, instead, it should provide an API and processes to search for updates from 3rd-party sites then download and install those updates.
Plugin security is a nightmare right now. Blame Sun and Adobe for not having autoupdaters like Chrome does for Flash
I do blame MS. Not for vulnerabilities in Flash, Java and other plugins, but for not providing an API that would allow third party programs to plug into Windows update to automatically download (which could be from the vendor's site) and install the update.
How many different updaters does a system need? Then, there are updaters that simply don't work unless you are logged in with admin privileges (I'm looking at you, Apple -- sure it downloads the new release, but then it fails to update -- what's the use of that?).
Bigger sensor means more light per element for a given resolution
Not if all the light that passes through the lens is focussed onto the sensor (excluding light lost due to the circular image vs. rectangular sensor and assuming that the sensor is the maximum size to fit into the circle of the projected image).
If the same amount of light is focussed onto a smaller area then the intensity of light is greater, which counterbalances the reduces area of each pixel in the sensor.
OK, so in the case of DSLRs, bigger may be better. However, if you are buying an integrated camera, where the sensor size and focal length of the lenses will be matched, why would bigger be better?
Given the same lens projecting the same image circle, a larger sensor that is still within the image circle will have more light hitting it than a smaller sensor.
It is your belief that camera makers build lenses that waste light by projecting it onto the space around the sensor more than necessary?
Don't be stupid! With a smaller sensor, the lens will be designed to focus the image onto that smaller sensor.
This is entirely false. The lens size controls how much light enters the sensor and therefore how much light is "soaked up" by the sensor. So, the advice should be: "PAY FOR THE LENS".
All other things being equal, there may be advantages to having a larger sensor, but getting more photons into the sensor is not one of them.
. Every year or so I wipe the drive with a fresh XP-CD install, and need to reinstall my favorite programs, but that would be true of any OS, whether it's Mac, Lubuntu, or Chrome. Otherwise WinXP just works
You have the strangest idea of "just works". Needs a re-install every year is part of "just works"?
And, unless you are moving to a newer distro, Linux distributions don't need a re-install every year.
Slashdot Mirror
Your arguments don't justify a point by point rebuttal -- they all fail because copyright exists in a work (even an anonymous work) at the point that it is created. You don't have to file for copyright in order to own the copyright. That's not circular logic, it's the law since the USA adopted the Berne convention.
Yes, because you agreed to their TOS before you posted the material.
You have a TOS that people agree to before leaving a voicemail? Obviously, it would be up to a court to decide if there is an implied license when leaving a message on your voicemail, but I highly doubt that there is.
Throw it in the trash -- fine. Make copies: bad.
If there is such a message, then perhaps they can use that as a license to use her rant. Just about everything else you stated is completely wrong. Copyright exists without registration (you just can't sue until you register it and, unless you register it within some limited time, you can only sue for actual damages, not statutory damages.) You also seem to be saying that, since Alamo published it, they may own it and should benefit from infringing on her copyright. Yeah, why don't you suggest that one of the RIAA defendants try that argument -- "the publisher doesn't own the copyright any more because they sold me a CD and I published it"
Quite possibly, but it depends on the circumstances.
No, but not because it isn't artistic, rather that probably falls under a fair use exception.
Ha, ha! Good luck with that argument if you ever have to use it. I expect you think that posting stuff on the Internet also means that you give the rights to everyone who downloads it to make copies, reproduce and use as they wish?
Perhaps I should change the outgoing message on my answering machine to "by leaving a message for me, you grant me unlimited rights to use your message and any intellectual property rights contained within."
You're kidding, right? Do you really not understand the difference between privacy and copyright? As to what is copyrighted -- every part of the rant is copyrighted. That's the default today, unless you can show that it wasn't creative (and the standard for creative is very low).
What good guys? Isn't posting her rant on Youtube a copyright infringement?
No. The rep's job is to maximize revenue and, more importantly, profits, for the organization. That may frequently involve pushing a product that is not the best match to the customer's needs. This may involve "upselling", or it may involve pushing the old stock that the supplier wants to unload. Some times it may even involve pushing the product that does best match the customer's needs.
Actually, no. It will have the reverse effect -- no bids. There is no incentive to bid because MS only has to match your bid and then MS wins. The deck is stacked heavily in MS's favor, so why bid at all?
This deal reduces the acquisition value of nVidia because it will put off many companies from bidding.
Not when you have a contract to sell them through an intermediary.
My wife has a Cliq 2. It has a very solid feel to it -- the way the keyboard slides out, the weight of the device. It doesn't feel like other phones that seem to be flimsy lumps of plastic.
That's the good, now the bad. What benefit is there to the user from Motoblur? The marketing prominently states that the Moto phones have Motoblur, but why the heck should I care? I suspect that it is actually a disaster from a privacy point of view (are my logins being stored on Motorola's servers)? Contacts are stored where? I think on Motorola's servers. I suspect that the purpose of Motoblur is lockin -- you can't transfer contacts via the sim card any more, but you can via the Motoblur login. I think that Motoblur is a classic MBA wet dream -- lockin plus it makes the phones distinct from other Android phones. The problem is that the "distinction" is that it is worse -- not better.
After Motoblur, there are bugs: the bluetooth will stop working, requiring a reboot. A key will stop working and behave as enter instead (not accessible via the keyboard, or touchscreen keyboard), requiring a reboot.
We needed a phone in a hurry: the G2 was much more expensive and the keyboard hinge looked as though it would fail in about 3 months. I won't be buying Motorola again -- I'll be looking for a phone that can be rooted and alternative firmware loaded, or comes with a basic Android setup.
Whatever is or isn't contested by scientists and researchers, I can confidently say that farmers don't understand the issue: I heard a representative farmers being interviewed on NPR or PBS discussing the routine use of antibiotics for "growth promotin" (the farmer's words) -- he stated that the use of antibiotics in animal feed wasn't a problem because they only used low doses of antibiotics. He seemed to think that the issue was that the antibiotics might get into the food chain, rather than the problem of bugs developing resistance.
Were you actually using the Internet when Altavista was relevant? The reason that I stopped using Altavista and started using Google was simple: Altavista used to give search results that were mostly broken links. Altavista's spidering of the web fell way behind what Google was doing and so it had lots of junk in its database.
I'll continue to yell "bullshit" while you fail to provide a link and because your use of WSUS to push out 3rd party updates doesn't answer my point of MS providing an API for 3rd party tools to hook into the Windows/Microsoft update tools.
Stop being an apologist for MS and realize that not everyone runs a WSUS server or has the time to download and push out updates like this. People want to have a single method to automatically download updates without having to set up their own server just to get the updates.
And you know for a fact that killing this integration isn't part of the requirements from Microsoft for the deal to close?
I have seen scripts that look for "2.6" in the result of "uname -r". Those scripts are going to be broken.
Link or you are spewing BS. Meanwhile here's my counter link.
What MS does do is to include some 3rd party drivers in its own catalog, which is entirely different to my suggestion. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that MS host the 3rd-part updates, instead, it should provide an API and processes to search for updates from 3rd-party sites then download and install those updates.
I do blame MS. Not for vulnerabilities in Flash, Java and other plugins, but for not providing an API that would allow third party programs to plug into Windows update to automatically download (which could be from the vendor's site) and install the update.
How many different updaters does a system need? Then, there are updaters that simply don't work unless you are logged in with admin privileges (I'm looking at you, Apple -- sure it downloads the new release, but then it fails to update -- what's the use of that?).
Not if all the light that passes through the lens is focussed onto the sensor (excluding light lost due to the circular image vs. rectangular sensor and assuming that the sensor is the maximum size to fit into the circle of the projected image).
If the same amount of light is focussed onto a smaller area then the intensity of light is greater, which counterbalances the reduces area of each pixel in the sensor.
OK, so in the case of DSLRs, bigger may be better. However, if you are buying an integrated camera, where the sensor size and focal length of the lenses will be matched, why would bigger be better?
It is your belief that camera makers build lenses that waste light by projecting it onto the space around the sensor more than necessary?
Don't be stupid! With a smaller sensor, the lens will be designed to focus the image onto that smaller sensor.
which refers to a blog that contains this claim:
This is entirely false. The lens size controls how much light enters the sensor and therefore how much light is "soaked up" by the sensor. So, the advice should be: "PAY FOR THE LENS".
All other things being equal, there may be advantages to having a larger sensor, but getting more photons into the sensor is not one of them.
It's a pity that gold doesn't have a similar effect on our politicians.
You have the strangest idea of "just works". Needs a re-install every year is part of "just works"? And, unless you are moving to a newer distro, Linux distributions don't need a re-install every year.
Probably just a junior flunky demanding the takedown without any backing from his superiors.