And how many installs are on new machines, where the buyer had no choice? How many of those forced installs have been wiped out by now and replaced by XP, 2K or Linux?
We've been to Luna, there is not much more for us to learn from landing on her.
Which is why some of us are talking about a base there instead of yet another touch-and-go mission. If we can build a moon base and make it self-supporting, doing it on Mars where there's an atmosphere of sorts should be easier.
The story links to an article that was posted on November 19, 2007! From what it says, the bill's already been debated. Isn't this just a tad out of date?
To prove it can be done? Well, we proved that in 1969, and that didn't get us anywhere.
All we proved back in '69 is that we could mount a "touch-and-go" mission to the Moon. We never tried to put a colony, or even a long-term base there. Personally, I'd like to see us go back. I saw us put the first men on the moon, and I'd rather not die knowing that I saw it for the last time, ever.
Oh good. There's so many people out there now who can't admit that the current president can do anything right simply because he's a Republican or that his predecessor could do anything wrong simply because he's a Democrat. Nice to see a bit of objectivity for a change.
Like discovering that your McDonald's french fries are cooked with lard and thus not vegetarian, it's a big deal. (They called it "beef tallow..."
Considering it's McBarfles we're talking about here, I'm not surprised. The important point, however, is that it's even more deceptive than you think. If they were, in fact, using lard, calling it "beef tallow" would be false advertising because lard comes from pigs, not cattle.
Oh bullshit, socialized medicine is the solution and we've seen it work pretty well in western europe.
We already have a form of socialized medicine here in the US. I've been unemployed for several years, I'm a Type II diabetic with other, unrelated health issues, and I get all my medical care from the US government, free of charge. If I were working, I'd have to pay a co-pay, but not much. How? Oh, it was easy! All I had to do was spend three years in the US Navy, including 7 months in Tonkin Gulf back in '72.
That I'll agree with. However, as there's a perfectly good, well-understood meaning for the term Fair Use, there's no need to twist it into something it isn't and was never meant to be. What he's trying to do is narrow the definition of a Derivative Work, and trying to make it a form of Fair Use just dilutes the term and makes it less useful.
They're not arguing what the law is, the arguement is more about how to clarify the law.
The law is quite clear, and there's little if any ambiguity in it. What Mr. Wu is describing is not Fair Use, it's a form of Derivative Work, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. He may have some good points about when a work stops being derivative and when you're allowed to use clips, but it's not Fair Use and calling it that won't change the facts.
From the summary: ' Wu's position is that 'it is time to recognize a simpler principle for fair use: work that adds to the value of the original, as opposed to substituting for the original, is fair use.'
>
No, that is not what fair use is. Fair Use is that exception written into copyright law since 1976 that allows people to quote and/or copy small parts of a copyrighted work without permission or payment for certain specific reasons. If he doesn't even know what the term means, why should we care what he says about it? There's no plausible reason to think he's right.
There's another reason: it's a well-known phenomenon in America that many voters will tell pollsters they're going to vote for a minority candidate even if they're not just to avoid being called racist. The funny thing is that none of the pundits have mentioned it. Either they're not as well educated on the subject as they make out to be or they're ignoring it because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. Either way, it doesn't exactly add to their credibility in my eyes.
Their competition basically did the same, at the time.
No they didn't. The WordStar format was always well documented and understood by third-party programmers, which is why so many other programs of the time used it. Back when WordPerfect 5.1 was the latest and greatest, any developer could buy a copy of the specs and write their own programs to read, edit and save WP 5.1 files. As far as I know, only Microsoft (or MicroSoft as it was known back then) kept their formats Top Secret.
If the format followed some logical specification, then the OO.o team would have already figured out how to interpret MS Word files.
You mean they haven't? That's news to me! My copy of OO.o can open, edit and save in MSWord 97/2000/XP, MSWord 2003 XML, MSWord 95 and MSWord 6 formats, among many others.
Does OO use that zip-up-the-entire-mess approach to document storage that StarOffice did? Hated that, what a PITA if you want to do anything else with the document.
Well Wikipedia says it's an XML document and can consist of a.zip archive containing a number of files and directories, and that said archive can contain binary data. My guess would be that it usually does contain a.zip to decrease file size.
Slashdot Mirror
And how many installs are on new machines, where the buyer had no choice? How many of those forced installs have been wiped out by now and replaced by XP, 2K or Linux?
Which is why some of us are talking about a base there instead of yet another touch-and-go mission. If we can build a moon base and make it self-supporting, doing it on Mars where there's an atmosphere of sorts should be easier.
Wrong meme. Here in America, rats eat plants, but in Soviet Australia, plants eat rats!
All hail the new Slashdot, just the same as the old Slashdot!
The story links to an article that was posted on November 19, 2007! From what it says, the bill's already been debated. Isn't this just a tad out of date?
Even so, you have to be careful because you just might find out the hard way that This place has no atmosphere!
All we proved back in '69 is that we could mount a "touch-and-go" mission to the Moon. We never tried to put a colony, or even a long-term base there. Personally, I'd like to see us go back. I saw us put the first men on the moon, and I'd rather not die knowing that I saw it for the last time, ever.
You don't remember Jimmy Carter, do you?
And yet, they're all running Microsoft Windows, in direct violation of that policy.
Oh good. There's so many people out there now who can't admit that the current president can do anything right simply because he's a Republican or that his predecessor could do anything wrong simply because he's a Democrat. Nice to see a bit of objectivity for a change.
Do you mean just the current president, or all presidents including his predecessor?
If so, it was about the only thing they were ever able to sink.
In America, we read the president's lips. In Soviet Russia, the government reads our lips.
Considering it's McBarfles we're talking about here, I'm not surprised. The important point, however, is that it's even more deceptive than you think. If they were, in fact, using lard, calling it "beef tallow" would be false advertising because lard comes from pigs, not cattle.
af
"Resistance is futile!"
"No! Resistance is USELESS!"
Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.
We already have a form of socialized medicine here in the US. I've been unemployed for several years, I'm a Type II diabetic with other, unrelated health issues, and I get all my medical care from the US government, free of charge. If I were working, I'd have to pay a co-pay, but not much. How? Oh, it was easy! All I had to do was spend three years in the US Navy, including 7 months in Tonkin Gulf back in '72.
All your downtime are belong to us!
That I'll agree with. However, as there's a perfectly good, well-understood meaning for the term Fair Use, there's no need to twist it into something it isn't and was never meant to be. What he's trying to do is narrow the definition of a Derivative Work, and trying to make it a form of Fair Use just dilutes the term and makes it less useful.
The law is quite clear, and there's little if any ambiguity in it. What Mr. Wu is describing is not Fair Use, it's a form of Derivative Work, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. He may have some good points about when a work stops being derivative and when you're allowed to use clips, but it's not Fair Use and calling it that won't change the facts.
> No, that is not what fair use is. Fair Use is that exception written into copyright law since 1976 that allows people to quote and/or copy small parts of a copyrighted work without permission or payment for certain specific reasons. If he doesn't even know what the term means, why should we care what he says about it? There's no plausible reason to think he's right.
There's another reason: it's a well-known phenomenon in America that many voters will tell pollsters they're going to vote for a minority candidate even if they're not just to avoid being called racist. The funny thing is that none of the pundits have mentioned it. Either they're not as well educated on the subject as they make out to be or they're ignoring it because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. Either way, it doesn't exactly add to their credibility in my eyes.
No they didn't. The WordStar format was always well documented and understood by third-party programmers, which is why so many other programs of the time used it. Back when WordPerfect 5.1 was the latest and greatest, any developer could buy a copy of the specs and write their own programs to read, edit and save WP 5.1 files. As far as I know, only Microsoft (or MicroSoft as it was known back then) kept their formats Top Secret.
You mean they haven't? That's news to me! My copy of OO.o can open, edit and save in MSWord 97/2000/XP, MSWord 2003 XML, MSWord 95 and MSWord 6 formats, among many others.
Well Wikipedia says it's an XML document and can consist of a
Well, of course it is; that account was canceled several months ago.