Congress and the Courts have abandoned that concept, instead choosing to focus on "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." "Limited" of course meaning whatever Congress says it to mean, so long as it's less than "forever." It's kinda like all the gun nuts who like to cite the last half of the Second Amendment but not the first (because their argument for absolute freedom to lock and load is stronger that way).
It should be rather obvious: a "potential market" would include a "potential re-issue" in the future. Masses of freely distributed copies during the period when the work was OOP could potentially depress the value of the re-issue.
Re:Thats what abandonware is!
on
Abandoned Games
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
My rule is: If the software is EOL then you may copy.
While that is an interesting rule, it still is not the law.
I've never seen $$$ for wind power that included cost of construction and maintenance and tax credits when calculating the cost of power.
Most of the figures thrown around for wind power include the cost of construction spread out over the expected life of the windmills, and production estimates are generally based on an estimated 30% efficiency. Not including tax credits, the latest estimates I've seen are around 10-15 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to 7.3 cents on average for coal (but that includes subsidies and tax breaks coal receives).
As you probably know, Nat Gas is the most expensive fuel on earth for making electricity. In most places it is used for "peaking" plants because of the cost. And, of course, it is still a global warming contributor (if you believe in global warming), comes from the Middle East where they are trying to kill us for taking it.
The U.S. only imports about 15% of it's natural gas, and 95% of that is from Canada. We get very very little of it from the Middle East (table) Also, NG is used for waaaaay more than just peaking power. It's a very popular fuel for new plants in urban areas with significant air quality problems because of its relatively favorable emissions. Unfortunately, it's price is a lot more volatile than other fuels.
if you believe in global warming
Most people who pay attention do, especially those who know what they're talking about. The only real debate left is whether it's human caused (although there's not much debate left there), how fast it will occur, and what the exact impact will be.
I remember reading a report on wind a few years back saying that if the entire land surface of the earth was evenly coated with windmills (0.5 Km separation) we would meet approximately 20% of of our total power needs.
I'm sorry, but you're talking out of your ass. I can counter your report with several more credible reports that say covering the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas completely with windmills would meet 100% of the United States energy needs, and that total wind potential globally exceeds global energy demand (cites here and here).
Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly way to go.
No, it's not. I'll concede that the designs of modern nuclear reactors and advances in fuel recycling have significantly decreased the negative environmental effects of nuclear energy, but not enough to declare it "the most environmentally friendly" energy source.
Energy efficiency and conservation should be the top priority of any sane energy policy, beginning with improvements in generation efficiency and transmission. 67% of the energy output of power plants is lost in conversion to electricity, and another 9% is lost in transmission and distribution (graph). Eliminating even a fraction of that loss could eliminate the need for new power plants for decades.
Really, there is a small but significant subset of environmentalists that literally wouldn't be happy until humans are extinct.
Way to troll, man.
I hear this argument all the time from anti-environmental zealots, and the fact of the matter is it's simply not true. There probably is a small, insignificant subset of the environmental community that feels that way, but even the most "nutty" back-to-the-earth anti-development tree-hugging raw food vegan luddite environmentalists wouldn't wish for humanity to be extinct. "Put in its proper place" certainly, but not extinct.
More likely is that Windows apps will continue to suck relative to Cocoa-native applications, lacking integration with OS X-specific features like the Keychain and Services, and generally designed with a Windows-centric philosophy and aesthetic.
So they'll all look like the Mac version of Firefox?
This is so far off topic, but I can't help but respond (I hate HOAs more than I hate SUVs, or nuclear power for that matter)
As posted here, it's essentially a contract attached to the property, and they're generally enforceable to the same extent that contracts are enforceable, with the added caveat that states can regulate what can and cannot be enforced. Most of the discriminatory restrictions like barring blacks and such have been struck down by courts, and thought they can still be found in CCRs, they're unenforceable. I remember something with somebody wanting to put up a flag pole post Sept. 11th in AZ, and the HOA raising a fuss, and so the state legislature passed a law specifically stating that they couldn't ban flying U.S. flags, as well as forbidding HOAs from banning campaign signs:
In Arizona, lawmakers responded to the practice of boards meeting outside the state -- an attempt to keep members from voting -- by passing a bill requiring those gatherings to be held in Arizona. Update: In 2004, the Arizona State Legislature amended existing legislation to protect homeowners' and condominium residents' right to fly flags. The revised statues (33-1261 and 33-1808) allow for residents to fly flags that are consistent in size with dimensions noted in the federal flag code (P.L. 94-344; 90 Stat. 810; 4 U.S. Code sections 4-10). Arizona homeowners' associations may not prohibit the installation of a flagpole, but may dictate its height and placement.
The revised statute 33-1808, which concerns homeowners in planned communities, also secured the right to post political signs. Signs may be displayed unless regulated by the association. All sign prohibitions must be consistent with and not exceed restrictions in local sign ordinances. Political signs may never be prohibited 45 days before or 7 days after an election.
Incidentally, AZ law also forbids HOAs from banning solar panels on homes (more info here and here)
The problem with HOAs is that they are private little governments that are unencumbered by many of the constitutional restrictions that the federal and state governments have to follow. In response to the person who said "well, don't move into a neighborhood with a HOA," I'd like to point out that it's getting increasingly difficult to do that. Almost every new house built in the last 10-20 years is covered by a HOA because people are silly enough to believe their hype that they'll keep neighborhoods clean and safe and protect property values (property values that would be better protected if they actually built quality homes and better neighborhoods). In fast-growing cities like Phoenix, that's a huge percentage of the housing stock (I've read as high as 50% of all houses in metro Phoenix).
Homeowners' Association. Created by CCR's (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), these delightful little private fiefdoms were originally used to keep blacks and Jews from moving into neighborhoods. Now they're used to keep out anybody who might want a basketball hoop in their front yard or paint their house any color besides the four approved colors.
It wouldn't be such a hard choice if we would end the insane policies that favor automobile-centric travel and invested in real mass transit. Unfortunately, we're stuck now with a half century plus legacy of neglecting our cities and transit infrastructure and favoring insanely low-density development patterns that favor automobiles over people. It's not commuting that bothers me, it's commuting by cars, which incidentally are one of the major contributors to global warming.
Does he also lay out how multi-national corporations and their government cronies are poisoning the environment in third world countries, exploiting their labor and natural resources, and keeping their living standards low with their misguided policies? Oh wait, he probably wouldn't mention that, seeing as how he's a tool for people like this. I'm sorry your mind was so malleable that it could be changed by the rantings of this Randian nut job.
A lot hinges on the question of whether the changes are our doing. If they're not, we should adapt ourselves, not the planet. If they are, we need to start controlling ourselves.
So I'd say that there's an overwhelming majority of people using it and not caring, because I can virtually guarantee you that almost none of those references are actually meant in a derogatory-to-homosexuals connotation.
And I can absolutely guarantee you that you're wrong; to begin with, usage of the term "gay" to say that something is not cool absolutely depends upon a "derogatory-to-homosexuals connotation." Calling somebody a "fag" because they're corpse-camping you or doing some other thing to piss you off is entirely dependent upon a "derogatory-to-homosexuals connotation." If the terms didn't have that meaning based upon a negative attitude towards homosexuals, people would not use them in those situations.
But what do I know, apparently you're "insightful." At least according to your fellow passive-aggressive gay bashers.
Can some lawyer-type please explain to me why/how this is not prima facie evidence of a massive violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (other than that the victims are not in the US)?
Because U.S. law doesn't govern China is the most fundamental reason why this is not a violation.
Slashdot Mirror
Congress and the Courts have abandoned that concept, instead choosing to focus on "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." "Limited" of course meaning whatever Congress says it to mean, so long as it's less than "forever." It's kinda like all the gun nuts who like to cite the last half of the Second Amendment but not the first (because their argument for absolute freedom to lock and load is stronger that way).
It should be rather obvious: a "potential market" would include a "potential re-issue" in the future. Masses of freely distributed copies during the period when the work was OOP could potentially depress the value of the re-issue.
My rule is: If the software is EOL then you may copy.
While that is an interesting rule, it still is not the law.
I've never seen $$$ for wind power that included cost of construction and maintenance and tax credits when calculating the cost of power.
Most of the figures thrown around for wind power include the cost of construction spread out over the expected life of the windmills, and production estimates are generally based on an estimated 30% efficiency. Not including tax credits, the latest estimates I've seen are around 10-15 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to 7.3 cents on average for coal (but that includes subsidies and tax breaks coal receives).
As you probably know, Nat Gas is the most expensive fuel on earth for making electricity. In most places it is used for "peaking" plants because of the cost. And, of course, it is still a global warming contributor (if you believe in global warming), comes from the Middle East where they are trying to kill us for taking it.
The U.S. only imports about 15% of it's natural gas, and 95% of that is from Canada. We get very very little of it from the Middle East (table) Also, NG is used for waaaaay more than just peaking power. It's a very popular fuel for new plants in urban areas with significant air quality problems because of its relatively favorable emissions. Unfortunately, it's price is a lot more volatile than other fuels.
if you believe in global warming
Most people who pay attention do, especially those who know what they're talking about. The only real debate left is whether it's human caused (although there's not much debate left there), how fast it will occur, and what the exact impact will be.
I remember reading a report on wind a few years back saying that if the entire land surface of the earth was evenly coated with windmills (0.5 Km separation) we would meet approximately 20% of of our total power needs.
I'm sorry, but you're talking out of your ass. I can counter your report with several more credible reports that say covering the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas completely with windmills would meet 100% of the United States energy needs, and that total wind potential globally exceeds global energy demand (cites here and here).
Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly way to go.
No, it's not. I'll concede that the designs of modern nuclear reactors and advances in fuel recycling have significantly decreased the negative environmental effects of nuclear energy, but not enough to declare it "the most environmentally friendly" energy source.
Energy efficiency and conservation should be the top priority of any sane energy policy, beginning with improvements in generation efficiency and transmission. 67% of the energy output of power plants is lost in conversion to electricity, and another 9% is lost in transmission and distribution (graph). Eliminating even a fraction of that loss could eliminate the need for new power plants for decades.
Really, there is a small but significant subset of environmentalists that literally wouldn't be happy until humans are extinct.
Way to troll, man.
I hear this argument all the time from anti-environmental zealots, and the fact of the matter is it's simply not true. There probably is a small, insignificant subset of the environmental community that feels that way, but even the most "nutty" back-to-the-earth anti-development tree-hugging raw food vegan luddite environmentalists wouldn't wish for humanity to be extinct. "Put in its proper place" certainly, but not extinct.
More likely is that Windows apps will continue to suck relative to Cocoa-native applications, lacking integration with OS X-specific features like the Keychain and Services, and generally designed with a Windows-centric philosophy and aesthetic.
So they'll all look like the Mac version of Firefox?
At the time that I posted my comment, he was modded "flamebait." Obviously my commen doesn't make sense anymore because he has been modded up.
Nonetheless, there is no way in hell the above post is flamebait.
/.
Maybe it's not, but it appears that your post is. Good to see that moderating while high is still the order of the day on
That might have been clever if you hadn't included the name of the character.
A couple of more insane examples of HOAs Gone Wild:
New Fla. town could be governed by Catholic principles
Celebration, FL, the only HOA in the country with Mickey Mouse and Goofy on the Board of Directors.
This is so far off topic, but I can't help but respond (I hate HOAs more than I hate SUVs, or nuclear power for that matter)
As posted here, it's essentially a contract attached to the property, and they're generally enforceable to the same extent that contracts are enforceable, with the added caveat that states can regulate what can and cannot be enforced. Most of the discriminatory restrictions like barring blacks and such have been struck down by courts, and thought they can still be found in CCRs, they're unenforceable. I remember something with somebody wanting to put up a flag pole post Sept. 11th in AZ, and the HOA raising a fuss, and so the state legislature passed a law specifically stating that they couldn't ban flying U.S. flags, as well as forbidding HOAs from banning campaign signs:
In Arizona, lawmakers responded to the practice of boards meeting outside the state -- an attempt to keep members from voting -- by passing a bill requiring those gatherings to be held in Arizona.
Update: In 2004, the Arizona State Legislature amended existing legislation to protect homeowners' and condominium residents' right to fly flags. The revised statues (33-1261 and 33-1808) allow for residents to fly flags that are consistent in size with dimensions noted in the federal flag code (P.L. 94-344; 90 Stat. 810; 4 U.S. Code sections 4-10). Arizona homeowners' associations may not prohibit the installation of a flagpole, but may dictate its height and placement.
The revised statute 33-1808, which concerns homeowners in planned communities, also secured the right to post political signs. Signs may be displayed unless regulated by the association. All sign prohibitions must be consistent with and not exceed restrictions in local sign ordinances. Political signs may never be prohibited 45 days before or 7 days after an election.
Full article here
Incidentally, AZ law also forbids HOAs from banning solar panels on homes (more info here and here)
The problem with HOAs is that they are private little governments that are unencumbered by many of the constitutional restrictions that the federal and state governments have to follow. In response to the person who said "well, don't move into a neighborhood with a HOA," I'd like to point out that it's getting increasingly difficult to do that. Almost every new house built in the last 10-20 years is covered by a HOA because people are silly enough to believe their hype that they'll keep neighborhoods clean and safe and protect property values (property values that would be better protected if they actually built quality homes and better neighborhoods). In fast-growing cities like Phoenix, that's a huge percentage of the housing stock (I've read as high as 50% of all houses in metro Phoenix).
I'm angry at people because they are (in one way or another) responsible for the government policies.
Homeowners' Association. Created by CCR's (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), these delightful little private fiefdoms were originally used to keep blacks and Jews from moving into neighborhoods. Now they're used to keep out anybody who might want a basketball hoop in their front yard or paint their house any color besides the four approved colors.
It wouldn't be such a hard choice if we would end the insane policies that favor automobile-centric travel and invested in real mass transit. Unfortunately, we're stuck now with a half century plus legacy of neglecting our cities and transit infrastructure and favoring insanely low-density development patterns that favor automobiles over people. It's not commuting that bothers me, it's commuting by cars, which incidentally are one of the major contributors to global warming.
I wouldn't say I contribute nothing, but I do live in the city, I use public transit or bike, and I do not own a car.
I have no problems with homeless people, it's HOA whoring suburbanites I despise. They're the ones ruining the world.
Does he also lay out how multi-national corporations and their government cronies are poisoning the environment in third world countries, exploiting their labor and natural resources, and keeping their living standards low with their misguided policies? Oh wait, he probably wouldn't mention that, seeing as how he's a tool for people like this. I'm sorry your mind was so malleable that it could be changed by the rantings of this Randian nut job.
A lot hinges on the question of whether the changes are our doing. If they're not, we should adapt ourselves, not the planet. If they are, we need to start controlling ourselves.
That would certainly be a first.
And I drive 55 miles to work each direction.
And I hate you for this.
I vote for the new hotness.
And yet you still took the time to write a response?
Dammit I should have refreshed the page before I decided to reply. I just repeated everything you said, but not nearly so eloquently. :(
So I'd say that there's an overwhelming majority of people using it and not caring, because I can virtually guarantee you that almost none of those references are actually meant in a derogatory-to-homosexuals connotation.
And I can absolutely guarantee you that you're wrong; to begin with, usage of the term "gay" to say that something is not cool absolutely depends upon a "derogatory-to-homosexuals connotation." Calling somebody a "fag" because they're corpse-camping you or doing some other thing to piss you off is entirely dependent upon a "derogatory-to-homosexuals connotation." If the terms didn't have that meaning based upon a negative attitude towards homosexuals, people would not use them in those situations.
But what do I know, apparently you're "insightful." At least according to your fellow passive-aggressive gay bashers.
Can some lawyer-type please explain to me why/how this is not prima facie evidence of a massive violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (other than that the victims are not in the US)?
Because U.S. law doesn't govern China is the most fundamental reason why this is not a violation.