I'm sure this won't make me a lot of new friends on/. but there is some serious bunk here and the creative commons complaints is the least of it. Mr. Stallman seems to be metaphor-challenged. While he minces words about the difference between intellectual property and copyright in one sentence, in another he says:
RMS: People have a right to share copies of published works; P2P programs
are simply a means to do it more usefully, and that is a good thing.
If we are going to mince words maybe we should start with an honest appraisal of the difference between sharing (as in borrowing a book) and copying. All of us who make a living being creative understand the shortcomings of current copyright legislation and know that we need people to think about creative work in new ways if we are going to take IP law into the 21st century; we know tilting in favor of multi-national corporations at the expense of individuals is a mistake, but we are not going to get anywhere with the type of lazy thinking which asserts things like, "If copyright law forbids people from sharing, copyright law is wrong." I'll take Lawrence Lessig's ideas over Mr. Stallman's any day.
If you read the article you may have notice the passing reference to the giant cassowary. It's basically a four foot chicken with a bad temper and a crazy look in its eye who can use its razor-sharp talons to disembowel a man where he stands. That's right, this is one of the last remaining birds that can easily kill a person and while it's not a man-eater, I'm sure there are plenty of other animals in the jungle that would be happy to let the cassowary play the butcher and carve you up like a holiday ham for their culinary delight. So before you start wondering about what kind of wine to server with tree kangaroo, you might first stop to ask yourself, how do you taste.
Whatever the virtues may or may not be in micromanaging an incompletely understood global chaotic system by adding further human input, you all might be interested in hearing it from the horse's mouth. In this radio interview. (scroll down for links) the good doctor makes the point that he is not advocating doing this now, but rather studying the possibility in the case that we find ourselves in an emergency situation where the currents get out of whack and crazy things, like the freezing of the Thames, start happening.
6. Phone A will now be talking to Phone B whilst Phone B will be talking to Phone A.
I love urban legend as much as the next guy, but this isn't exactly true. These are cell phones not two-way radios. Phone A will be talking to a cell phone tower, whilst phone B is talking to a cell phone tower, whilst each cell phone tower is talking to the two phones respectively. There is no reason to think that you are forming some sort of ultra powerful death beam between the two phones by placing them in close proximity to one another. Having said that, if I was being attacked by a giant stay puff marshmallow man, I might give this a shot as a last resort.
Your suggestion assumes that everyone has a choice about their ISP. There are still many places in this country where broadband access is only available through one or two local monopolies.
I am one of those photographers. I make large prints often 30x40 and shoot largeand medium format film. I am pretty nervous about the day I can no longer get a box of 4x5 film and hope technology makes it possible to still get great prints at these sizes. 8 megapixels doesn't cut it. Of course, a large format camera can take a digital back if you have the money for such a beast, but it isn't so practical if you do photography that is off the grid like I do.
I was looking at an ad in the New York Times just last week. It was a full-page photo for a major telecom and all I saw was pixels. It was something and art director would never have stood for even a couple of years ago but will accept today in exchange for the digital workflow and instant gratification. I'm not sure a lot of people who state how much resolution is enough have ever seen a good print made from a piece of large format film. But then again this isn't so different from what large format photographers were saying when 35mm came on the scene and it turns out the world was big enough for both.
This is a only political rhetoric by politicians who see a chance to look like a defender of freedom. The government understands that we too see some value in asking individuals and corporations to censor information for the public good. The difference is what information and how much. We ask ISPs to prevent speech that infringes on trademark and copyright, national security, hate crimes, ect...
I can see very few instances in our history where we put the rights of foreign citizens above the desire for trade with the countries in which they live--why would we start now.
This is a classic example of backward thinking. If you watch tv and see that people are portrayed a certain way and then look at reality and see that people do, at least on occasion, act the way they were represented on tv, you might draw the conclusion that people are acting this way because they saw it on tv. But this would probably be wrong. TV, more likely, is imitating life.
Although people like to blame all manner of social ills on TV and entertainment, TV's worst crime is that it wastes your precious time, not that it coerces you into behaving like the fictional characters on the show. This is good because I watch a lot of The Simpsons and I don't think I could get my hair to style like Marge. If you think more women should be scientist maybe you should start by looking at the earliest values we instill in girls while at home and school.
Also:
5. Things you think you know but are mistaken.
Consider what Tiananmen Square stands for. Now look at the images google returns for the normal search vs the Chinese search and ask yourself what you think you would know from looking at these results:
I think the Universities understand that employers don't generally have the cognitive skills to understand whether an applicants is qualified for a particular job and must really on earned degrees from institutions to tell them if they should or in some cases even can hire somebody. With this idea so entrenched in our corporate culture the University need not fear giving away their content because that isn't what is actually valuable in the market--the degree is. A person who gets a degree from Stanford but retains no learning will have a much easier time getting a well-paid job than a person without the degree who nevertheless memorized and internalized every bit of information Stanford gives away.
I doubt it will be as simple as tossing their 'do no evil' mandate, but rather the law of unintended consequences will take hold as they grow. Things they think are harmless or even good can and probably will have effects they cannot control. This is especially difficult as one tries to balance the ethical dilemma of doing 'no evil' to shareholders as well as users simultaneously.
TG Daily: It has been a few months since AMD has filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. Given the media exposure of this move, do you already see an impact on your sales? Allen: Absolutely
Don't you just love it when a corporation thinks our legal system is just another subsidiary of their marketing department.
This controversy gets a little old as people argue the various ethical merits of government wiretaps. The issue is not whether eavesdropping on communications is necessary, right, or wrong, but whether we want to live in a country where the executive charged with running it is not bound by the law. I'm sure the lawyers in the DOJ will put forth some very creative arguments, but I think it is clear to most people that this breaks both the letter and the spirit of the law. As this plays out, we will be well served to remember that congress writes the laws and the executive branch enforces them. When the president and his staff decide they need not adhere to the laws congress has authored, it is time to consider the meaning of 'high Crimes or Misdemeanors."
Scientific Amercian ran a story several years ago about this. One of the pet theories at the time was that periodic extinctions (which haven't been proven periodic) were caused by objects like comets getting kicked out of the Oort every now and then which could in turn be explained by just such a neighbor star. Nasa has a (very short) page here: Imagine the Universe
If by 'should' you mean to imply an ethical decision, I think the answer is that you should not support the platforms but should try to support the standard, and the browsers 'should' try to do the same. It's only too bad we don't all live in my fantasy world.
If by 'should' you mean to imply a business decision, you simply need to crunch the numbers and decide how many of you potential customers you will alienate by not supporting their platform. Compare this to how expensive it is and you have your answer to what you 'should' do. This of course will depend on the nature of your customer base.
Well that will teach me to RTFA. One of things that got me interested in programming, and perl specifically, was the magnificent writing in the Camel and Llama books. It made it seem fun, relaxed and reduced the shock of the sometimes difficult syntax of the language. Hopefully this deadly boring article is not a sign of what Perl 6 documentation will be like.
since the SE and I didn't know windows media player was available--and I didn't care. The void they are talking about must be very small? It's a little like reading an announcement that MS Access is no longer available for the mac. Have I been missing out? Is that where all the good free porn is?
You might be a redneck when...
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
you listen to a lot Anton Webern. Seriously, it turns out that people who bought Anton Webern's Variations for Piano, Op. 27 (all three of us) also bought Jeff Foxworthy--at least according to the ministore. That little gem of demographic goodness has brightened up my day so much I don't care how what info Apple gets from my listening habits.
When I see people everywhere shooting digital point and shoot cameras I really wonder what they are doing with all the files. Are they burning them to CD? buying hard drives? I know this has been said a million times before, but what will be the equivalent of an old shoebox filled with family snapshots look like 50 years from now? I have a feeling when a lot of people want to take a look back at that trip to disneyland when they were a kid the images will either be gone or stored on a medium which is obsolete. I doubt most people shooting with digital cameras realize how fragile their images are without care over the long term. With today's emulsions you can put your slides in a sleeve, throw them in a dark drawer, and they will still look pretty good in a couple decades. Can you say the same for a memory stick or even a cd? Is their a business opportunity for digital banks which will provide longevity of digital information so people don't need to worry about it?
Being a classical music geek, I am always skeptical, and i suppose somewhat jaded, in this world that worships the latest pop idol, so I said to myself, "yeah, we'll see about this" and popped into the search field the text from Walt Whitman, "Behold the sea" used by Ralph Vaughan Williams" in his first symphony. What do you know. It even even had a link to the apple i-tunes store which open itunes to the track. Next I tried "Ich habe genug" and not only did I get a handful of recordings of Bach's cantata BWV 82, it also found the recitative from the Magnificat. Thinking maybe it only indexed the titles, I tried some interior text from the cantata like "Mein Trost ist nur allein" and it still found it.
This works much better than I expected. Cool.
Well sure it can be free. Sex can be free too, but as those here on Slashdot certainly understand, it is sometimes just easier to pay for somebody to supply it rather than go through all the trouble of figuring out how to do it the free way. I mean if you can get it for free more power to you, but don't hold it against those who need a little help and support.
He says he doesn't get it--and he's right he doesn't.
From TFA:
In other words, a noncommercial site could distribute a million copies of something and that's okay, but a small commercial site cannot deliver two copies if it's for commercial purposes. What is this telling me?
This is telling you that if you want to make money by selling my creative work, then I need a peice of that pie as the creaotr. I don't understand what is so difficult abou this concept
This is nonsense. Before Creative Commons I could always ask to reuse or mirror something.
If my policy is that anyone can reuse, alter and build upon my work for non-commercial purposes isn't easier just so say so--to encourage people--rather than replying to emails? I say everyone here on slashdot should send Dvorak an email asking if they can resuse his work and see how long it takes for him to see the point.
"Creative Commons License: Public domain." This means that the item is not covered by copyright but is in the public domain. So what's Creative Commons got to do with it? Public domain is public domain. It's not something granted by Creative Commons. Yet you see this over and over as if it were!
It is not something granted by creative commons, but it can be something granted by the holder of the copyright and an easy way to communicate this is via public domain statement--kind of like--you guessed is--the one creative commons standardizes.
Almost nobody who profits from the sale an licensing of copyrighted work is losing money due to competition from search engines. Just the opposite in fact. Most people who create work whether art, photography, music, or writing also would like to be ranked highly in search engines--in fact many people actually pay google for advertisements. I don't really understand who is gaining anything from this. Seems like a law that hurts everybody involved.
What is going on in Russia IS a little scary, but is it really any different that buying the same information from one the businesses operating in the US like choicepoint? The government and industry buys information from HUGE databases legally here in the united states, but for some reason people make it seem scarier when it is a Russian kiosk instead of an american corporation even though both exercise about the same amount of restraint and ethics concerning to whom they will sell information.
Slashdot Mirror
RMS: People have a right to share copies of published works; P2P programs are simply a means to do it more usefully, and that is a good thing.
If we are going to mince words maybe we should start with an honest appraisal of the difference between sharing (as in borrowing a book) and copying. All of us who make a living being creative understand the shortcomings of current copyright legislation and know that we need people to think about creative work in new ways if we are going to take IP law into the 21st century; we know tilting in favor of multi-national corporations at the expense of individuals is a mistake, but we are not going to get anywhere with the type of lazy thinking which asserts things like, "If copyright law forbids people from sharing, copyright law is wrong." I'll take Lawrence Lessig's ideas over Mr. Stallman's any day.
If you read the article you may have notice the passing reference to the giant cassowary. It's basically a four foot chicken with a bad temper and a crazy look in its eye who can use its razor-sharp talons to disembowel a man where he stands. That's right, this is one of the last remaining birds that can easily kill a person and while it's not a man-eater, I'm sure there are plenty of other animals in the jungle that would be happy to let the cassowary play the butcher and carve you up like a holiday ham for their culinary delight. So before you start wondering about what kind of wine to server with tree kangaroo, you might first stop to ask yourself, how do you taste.
Whatever the virtues may or may not be in micromanaging an incompletely understood global chaotic system by adding further human input, you all might be interested in hearing it from the horse's mouth. In this radio interview. (scroll down for links) the good doctor makes the point that he is not advocating doing this now, but rather studying the possibility in the case that we find ourselves in an emergency situation where the currents get out of whack and crazy things, like the freezing of the Thames, start happening.
6. Phone A will now be talking to Phone B whilst Phone B will be talking to Phone A.
I love urban legend as much as the next guy, but this isn't exactly true. These are cell phones not two-way radios. Phone A will be talking to a cell phone tower, whilst phone B is talking to a cell phone tower, whilst each cell phone tower is talking to the two phones respectively. There is no reason to think that you are forming some sort of ultra powerful death beam between the two phones by placing them in close proximity to one another. Having said that, if I was being attacked by a giant stay puff marshmallow man, I might give this a shot as a last resort.
Your suggestion assumes that everyone has a choice about their ISP. There are still many places in this country where broadband access is only available through one or two local monopolies.
I was looking at an ad in the New York Times just last week. It was a full-page photo for a major telecom and all I saw was pixels. It was something and art director would never have stood for even a couple of years ago but will accept today in exchange for the digital workflow and instant gratification. I'm not sure a lot of people who state how much resolution is enough have ever seen a good print made from a piece of large format film. But then again this isn't so different from what large format photographers were saying when 35mm came on the scene and it turns out the world was big enough for both.
This is a only political rhetoric by politicians who see a chance to look like a defender of freedom. The government understands that we too see some value in asking individuals and corporations to censor information for the public good. The difference is what information and how much. We ask ISPs to prevent speech that infringes on trademark and copyright, national security, hate crimes, ect... I can see very few instances in our history where we put the rights of foreign citizens above the desire for trade with the countries in which they live--why would we start now.
This is a classic example of backward thinking. If you watch tv and see that people are portrayed a certain way and then look at reality and see that people do, at least on occasion, act the way they were represented on tv, you might draw the conclusion that people are acting this way because they saw it on tv. But this would probably be wrong. TV, more likely, is imitating life. Although people like to blame all manner of social ills on TV and entertainment, TV's worst crime is that it wastes your precious time, not that it coerces you into behaving like the fictional characters on the show. This is good because I watch a lot of The Simpsons and I don't think I could get my hair to style like Marge. If you think more women should be scientist maybe you should start by looking at the earliest values we instill in girls while at home and school.
5. Things you think you know but are mistaken.
Consider what Tiananmen Square stands for. Now look at the images google returns for the normal search vs the Chinese search and ask yourself what you think you would know from looking at these results:
http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen+square
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen+square
I think the Universities understand that employers don't generally have the cognitive skills to understand whether an applicants is qualified for a particular job and must really on earned degrees from institutions to tell them if they should or in some cases even can hire somebody. With this idea so entrenched in our corporate culture the University need not fear giving away their content because that isn't what is actually valuable in the market--the degree is. A person who gets a degree from Stanford but retains no learning will have a much easier time getting a well-paid job than a person without the degree who nevertheless memorized and internalized every bit of information Stanford gives away.
I doubt it will be as simple as tossing their 'do no evil' mandate, but rather the law of unintended consequences will take hold as they grow. Things they think are harmless or even good can and probably will have effects they cannot control. This is especially difficult as one tries to balance the ethical dilemma of doing 'no evil' to shareholders as well as users simultaneously.
Allen: Absolutely
Don't you just love it when a corporation thinks our legal system is just another subsidiary of their marketing department.
This controversy gets a little old as people argue the various ethical merits of government wiretaps. The issue is not whether eavesdropping on communications is necessary, right, or wrong, but whether we want to live in a country where the executive charged with running it is not bound by the law. I'm sure the lawyers in the DOJ will put forth some very creative arguments, but I think it is clear to most people that this breaks both the letter and the spirit of the law. As this plays out, we will be well served to remember that congress writes the laws and the executive branch enforces them. When the president and his staff decide they need not adhere to the laws congress has authored, it is time to consider the meaning of 'high Crimes or Misdemeanors."
Scientific Amercian ran a story several years ago about this. One of the pet theories at the time was that periodic extinctions (which haven't been proven periodic) were caused by objects like comets getting kicked out of the Oort every now and then which could in turn be explained by just such a neighbor star. Nasa has a (very short) page here: Imagine the Universe
If by 'should' you mean to imply an ethical decision, I think the answer is that you should not support the platforms but should try to support the standard, and the browsers 'should' try to do the same. It's only too bad we don't all live in my fantasy world. If by 'should' you mean to imply a business decision, you simply need to crunch the numbers and decide how many of you potential customers you will alienate by not supporting their platform. Compare this to how expensive it is and you have your answer to what you 'should' do. This of course will depend on the nature of your customer base.
Well that will teach me to RTFA. One of things that got me interested in programming, and perl specifically, was the magnificent writing in the Camel and Llama books. It made it seem fun, relaxed and reduced the shock of the sometimes difficult syntax of the language. Hopefully this deadly boring article is not a sign of what Perl 6 documentation will be like.
since the SE and I didn't know windows media player was available--and I didn't care. The void they are talking about must be very small? It's a little like reading an announcement that MS Access is no longer available for the mac. Have I been missing out? Is that where all the good free porn is?
you listen to a lot Anton Webern. Seriously, it turns out that people who bought Anton Webern's Variations for Piano, Op. 27 (all three of us) also bought Jeff Foxworthy--at least according to the ministore. That little gem of demographic goodness has brightened up my day so much I don't care how what info Apple gets from my listening habits.
When I see people everywhere shooting digital point and shoot cameras I really wonder what they are doing with all the files. Are they burning them to CD? buying hard drives? I know this has been said a million times before, but what will be the equivalent of an old shoebox filled with family snapshots look like 50 years from now? I have a feeling when a lot of people want to take a look back at that trip to disneyland when they were a kid the images will either be gone or stored on a medium which is obsolete. I doubt most people shooting with digital cameras realize how fragile their images are without care over the long term. With today's emulsions you can put your slides in a sleeve, throw them in a dark drawer, and they will still look pretty good in a couple decades. Can you say the same for a memory stick or even a cd? Is their a business opportunity for digital banks which will provide longevity of digital information so people don't need to worry about it?
Being a classical music geek, I am always skeptical, and i suppose somewhat jaded, in this world that worships the latest pop idol, so I said to myself, "yeah, we'll see about this" and popped into the search field the text from Walt Whitman, "Behold the sea" used by Ralph Vaughan Williams" in his first symphony. What do you know. It even even had a link to the apple i-tunes store which open itunes to the track. Next I tried "Ich habe genug" and not only did I get a handful of recordings of Bach's cantata BWV 82, it also found the recitative from the Magnificat. Thinking maybe it only indexed the titles, I tried some interior text from the cantata like "Mein Trost ist nur allein" and it still found it. This works much better than I expected. Cool.
Well sure it can be free. Sex can be free too, but as those here on Slashdot certainly understand, it is sometimes just easier to pay for somebody to supply it rather than go through all the trouble of figuring out how to do it the free way. I mean if you can get it for free more power to you, but don't hold it against those who need a little help and support.
Maybe as google is looking around for its next acquisition it should consider Canada. I'm sure the accountants could find synergy of some kind there.
Almost nobody who profits from the sale an licensing of copyrighted work is losing money due to competition from search engines. Just the opposite in fact. Most people who create work whether art, photography, music, or writing also would like to be ranked highly in search engines--in fact many people actually pay google for advertisements. I don't really understand who is gaining anything from this. Seems like a law that hurts everybody involved.
What is going on in Russia IS a little scary, but is it really any different that buying the same information from one the businesses operating in the US like choicepoint? The government and industry buys information from HUGE databases legally here in the united states, but for some reason people make it seem scarier when it is a Russian kiosk instead of an american corporation even though both exercise about the same amount of restraint and ethics concerning to whom they will sell information.