If an article's been paid for, it should have in nice bold letters at the top "ADVERTISMENT FEATURE", and have the usual indicators, e.g. the font which is disturbingly not quite the one for regular articles. I don't really see how the distinction between directly paying the publication and paying a PR firm for the "article" makes any difference to the reader.
The fact that some magazines don't do advertisment features hasn't stopped such ads being run. One trick is to "forget" to send the ad in, then get permission to send the ad directly to the printers for inclusion.
In any case, when reproducing somebody's press release as an article, the correct procedure is to liberally drop in phrases like "...according to CONGLOMO" or "CONGLOMO representatives claim"*
* Where CONGLOMO is whichever company just released some worthless piece of kit or another.
Sentencing isn't just about deterrence, it's about protecting the public, and about reform... ideally, you let them out when they won't re-offend.
The public would gain protection from a burglar when they are in jail. They wouldn't gain protection from a copyright infringer being in jail. And would jail be the most effective way of stopping copyright infringers re-offending? I don't think so.
Well, the original post, and my reply, was talking about the intentions behind copyright law, not what it has become today.
I will agree that these intentions don't make much sense with companies as creators, and bear little relavance to current copyright terms. You mention welfare - this of course didn't exist when copyright laws were introduced.
So, then, yes, of course copyright laws need prodding with a large stick.
Copyright was designed originally so that creators could live off their earnings, and therefore create more than if they had to work as well.
It's fairly obvious that if the creator had a family, their earnings should be supporting this family. Otherwise, they'd be forced back into non-creative work, and this would have defeated the purpose of the copyright in encouraging their creativity.
It follows that since a copyright holder is supporting a family, this family needs supporting in the event of the creator's death. Hence, the death-plus-N measurement of copyright.
So, to say the family was not intended to be supported is plain wrong, and the adding on of "the neighbours" is simply ridiculous.
But Hanke prefers to focus on the excitement users are getting looking for the unexpected.
"It's kind of like playing one of those adventure games," he said, "where you have to click on every part of the screen to find that box that will open."
Those are supposed to be exciting? I'd like to give whoever came up with abstract puzzles a great big thump in the face. If you can only solve something by acting randomly, it wasn't a puzzle, it isn't rewarding, and it shows the game authors either were too lazy to come up with decent puzzles, or they'd already spent all their money on washed-up actors for the cutscenes.
So maybe the guy could have picked a better example.
Actually, he used to have two forums on his website. One for regular questions, and one to house all the people coming up with the latest 42 coincidence.
I think that maybe he got slightly fed up with the obsession of what was originally a joke with no deeper meaning... originally, the revelation of the Answer was a cliffhanger, so of course everyone expected something deep and meaningful, only to tune in next week and get screwed.
So, if a pebble-nuclear rocket crashed, there would be no kaboom, just a nice scattering of radioactive waste accross the countryside?
On a side note, I think that the nuclear industry may well find it's too late to get trusted by the public. Since every nuclear reactor ever built has been "safe" (unless it had an accident, of course, in which case it's "nothing like a modern reactor"), when a supposed new reactor comes out, and we're told it's absolutely, positively safe this time, honest, then a good chunk of people aren't going to believe it.
How safe, exactly, would a nuclear rocket be? Safe, as in, "oops, we calculated the trajectory wrong and sent it flying into something solid" would mean no foom and no leak?
I recall this article in (I think Frontiers magazine) about the Nuclear Age, which featured a number of nuclear vehicles, including a nuclear aeroplane. It had one little flaw, though - all the shielding to prevent the passengers from glowing in the dark was so heavy, the plane couldn't take off. Oops.
1) Geeks buy hi-tech TV gear that skips ads 2) TV shows popular with geeks loose money 3) Shows get cancelled
The alternative, of course is in-show advertising:
ALIEN AMBASSADOR: We demand tribute from your puny species! EARTH AMBASSADOR: Our delegation comes bearing Crucial Ballistix RAM. Truly, the latency is low, and the tracer LEDs magestic.
-- later --
COMMANDER: Fire at will! * FIGHTER 1: Fires missile * HUGE MISSILE: Hits FIGHTER 2 and explodes COMMANDER: You fool! You hit the window! PILOT 1: Damn that 3M Security Glass!
Uhm... the elected official in question was a local councillor, i.e. pretty much the bottom rung of the political ladder. They aren't going to change copyright law. Their main function is retiring, and deciding that since they used to work for the Council, the pavement is their personal property, and shouting at children playing outdoors to go play somewhere else.
But digital TV is great! Where else can I get my choice of shopping channels, identikit music channels, and MHEG graphics informing me the channel is not currently broadcasting, please try some other time?
The site says if you write an essay on laser safety, they'll sell you one. So write down the first 100 things you were going to try, with an introductory paragraph saying "The following actions are just the sort of irresponsible use of lasers that cause accidents. They should not be attempted".
Slashdot Mirror
This beta is running at about 100MB usage of RAM.
Why do I get the feeling the ICQ developers had a hand in this?
He'd just upgraded the RAM on his laptop?
You've found bias on Wikipedia? That's what the "edit" button is for!
The resulting flamewars are no worse than, say, telling a vi user his mother uses emacs.
If an article's been paid for, it should have in nice bold letters at the top "ADVERTISMENT FEATURE", and have the usual indicators, e.g. the font which is disturbingly not quite the one for regular articles. I don't really see how the distinction between directly paying the publication and paying a PR firm for the "article" makes any difference to the reader.
The fact that some magazines don't do advertisment features hasn't stopped such ads being run. One trick is to "forget" to send the ad in, then get permission to send the ad directly to the printers for inclusion.
In any case, when reproducing somebody's press release as an article, the correct procedure is to liberally drop in phrases like "...according to CONGLOMO" or "CONGLOMO representatives claim"*
* Where CONGLOMO is whichever company just released some worthless piece of kit or another.
Sentencing isn't just about deterrence, it's about protecting the public, and about reform... ideally, you let them out when they won't re-offend.
The public would gain protection from a burglar when they are in jail. They wouldn't gain protection from a copyright infringer being in jail. And would jail be the most effective way of stopping copyright infringers re-offending? I don't think so.
Well, the original post, and my reply, was talking about the intentions behind copyright law, not what it has become today.
I will agree that these intentions don't make much sense with companies as creators, and bear little relavance to current copyright terms. You mention welfare - this of course didn't exist when copyright laws were introduced.
So, then, yes, of course copyright laws need prodding with a large stick.
Copyright was designed originally so that creators could live off their earnings, and therefore create more than if they had to work as well.
It's fairly obvious that if the creator had a family, their earnings should be supporting this family. Otherwise, they'd be forced back into non-creative work, and this would have defeated the purpose of the copyright in encouraging their creativity.
It follows that since a copyright holder is supporting a family, this family needs supporting in the event of the creator's death. Hence, the death-plus-N measurement of copyright.
So, to say the family was not intended to be supported is plain wrong, and the adding on of "the neighbours" is simply ridiculous.
Yes, but you have to compare three years to the seriousness of the offence, and sentences for other offences.
Do people who steal actual property which causes a real, measurable loss, and real upset to the victims get significantly higher sentences?
I keep hearing that. I wish I'd see an example...
Homestar Runner?
But Hanke prefers to focus on the excitement users are getting looking for the unexpected.
"It's kind of like playing one of those adventure games," he said, "where you have to click on every part of the screen to find that box that will open."
Those are supposed to be exciting? I'd like to give whoever came up with abstract puzzles a great big thump in the face. If you can only solve something by acting randomly, it wasn't a puzzle, it isn't rewarding, and it shows the game authors either were too lazy to come up with decent puzzles, or they'd already spent all their money on washed-up actors for the cutscenes.
So maybe the guy could have picked a better example.
Actually, he used to have two forums on his website. One for regular questions, and one to house all the people coming up with the latest 42 coincidence.
I think that maybe he got slightly fed up with the obsession of what was originally a joke with no deeper meaning... originally, the revelation of the Answer was a cliffhanger, so of course everyone expected something deep and meaningful, only to tune in next week and get screwed.
...that can morph into strange things...
This is how Transformers work, right?
Oh, I can't be bothered. Somebody else do it.
So, if a pebble-nuclear rocket crashed, there would be no kaboom, just a nice scattering of radioactive waste accross the countryside?
On a side note, I think that the nuclear industry may well find it's too late to get trusted by the public. Since every nuclear reactor ever built has been "safe" (unless it had an accident, of course, in which case it's "nothing like a modern reactor"), when a supposed new reactor comes out, and we're told it's absolutely, positively safe this time, honest, then a good chunk of people aren't going to believe it.
How safe, exactly, would a nuclear rocket be? Safe, as in, "oops, we calculated the trajectory wrong and sent it flying into something solid" would mean no foom and no leak?
I recall this article in (I think Frontiers magazine) about the Nuclear Age, which featured a number of nuclear vehicles, including a nuclear aeroplane. It had one little flaw, though - all the shielding to prevent the passengers from glowing in the dark was so heavy, the plane couldn't take off. Oops.
EDS is the company responsible for making huge profits out of screwing up major government IT projects.
Let's see... in the UK, they managed to muck up the Inland Revenue, the Department for Work And Pensions, and the Child Support Agency.
How about commercial clients? Seems BSkyB didn't get a working system, and Abbey weren't happy with their system either.
Not exactly a company whose opinion on what's reliable is worth anything.
Uhm, you seem to have the wrong topic. This is not "Ask Weebl".
1) Geeks buy hi-tech TV gear that skips ads
2) TV shows popular with geeks loose money
3) Shows get cancelled
The alternative, of course is in-show advertising:
ALIEN AMBASSADOR: We demand tribute from your puny species!
EARTH AMBASSADOR: Our delegation comes bearing Crucial Ballistix RAM. Truly, the latency is low, and the tracer LEDs magestic.
-- later --
COMMANDER: Fire at will!
* FIGHTER 1: Fires missile
* HUGE MISSILE: Hits FIGHTER 2 and explodes
COMMANDER: You fool! You hit the window!
PILOT 1: Damn that 3M Security Glass!
The £50,000 was a total.
The average compensation payment was £2,200 each, with one person paying £4,500.
Uhm... the elected official in question was a local councillor, i.e. pretty much the bottom rung of the political ladder. They aren't going to change copyright law. Their main function is retiring, and deciding that since they used to work for the Council, the pavement is their personal property, and shouting at children playing outdoors to go play somewhere else.
But digital TV is great! Where else can I get my choice of shopping channels, identikit music channels, and MHEG graphics informing me the channel is not currently broadcasting, please try some other time?
...and made EDS nearly the sole vendor for all IT for the Navy...
This is the same EDS that keeps screwing up all those important govenment systems? The EDS that managed to take down 60,000 PCs? They let that EDS run military systems?
...has made their annual 2004 Timeline
I wonder what next year's 2004 timeline will look like?
Cars that breakdown if they go over 65 and require expensive repairwork to fix
You mean that ISN'T a safety feature? That used car salesman will wish he never met me!
The site says if you write an essay on laser safety, they'll sell you one. So write down the first 100 things you were going to try, with an introductory paragraph saying "The following actions are just the sort of irresponsible use of lasers that cause accidents. They should not be attempted".