Why bother with naughty websites when, if you're implanting stuff anyway, you could just put in an artificial gland that would release endorphins (or whatever) on command?
Well, out of the Bill of Rights, Amendments 1, 7, and 8 make absolute statements prohibiting certain acts of Congress (e.g. "Congress shall make no law..."); Amendments 2, 4, 9, and 10 refer to "the people" which could mean all people or 'the people of the United States' (i.e., citizens); and Amendments 5 and 6 use language referring to "no person" or "the accused," which can only mean that they apply to all people, not just citizens. (And for completeness, Amendment 3 would only be relevant for people who owned property in the US.)
The relevant Amendment in this situation, the 4th, is one of those that refer to "the people:"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In my opinion, that ought to cover non-citizens too, but I'm not a Supreme Court Justice. Take from that what you will.
...causing good ol' Doug to say he's entitled to a chunk of iPod sales as well. This begs the question: what was the point of the payoff? What did it get them?
You answered your own question! Precedent for forcing the same kind of "deal" on Apple is the payoff. Microsoft doesn't give a shit about the Zune; that's why it isn't a "PlaysForSure" device (and probably why it looks like a piece of shit too). It's greatest value to Microsoft is as a sabot -- a shoe to throw into Apple's works.
From what I've heard, [Direct3D 10] really does require Vista - fundamental differences in the way the OS is built - but then I'm not an expert on that kind of thing, so I could be wrong.
The newest DirectX SDK supports Direct3D 10 and runs on Windows XP; therefore, it must be possible for Direct3D 10 games to run in XP also (otherwise, there'd be no way to test the games during development!).
Apparently they quit because it wasn't moving quickly enough for them and they wanted to concentrate on DX (according to ZDNet)
While that seems reasonable, the pessimist in me suspects that MS quit OpenGL because it wasn't moving quickly enough in the direction MS wanted it to go.
I'm guessing you don't completely understand the "fucking point of copyright."
On the contrary, I do completely understand. The point of copyright is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." No more; no less. The bit about monopolies is just a means to that end, and IMHO it was a mistake to codify that part in the Constitution. Instead, they should have left the issue of how best to accomplish that goal open to debate.
In other words, the point I'm trying to make is that copyright law is screwed up, because it's prohibiting actions that are consistent with the Constitutional goal of copyright.
Sure "making" mix tapes is protected under copyright law (I always assume US law when I'm talking). The problem is that distribution and public performance are not protected. You do realize that technically, based on prior copyright rulings since fair use is so vague, that a DJ mixing live music is required to pay royalties for to the publishers for any music they use in their mix, unless the music is otherwise licensed.
First of all, I think we're operating on two different definitions of "mix tape." A "DJ mixing live music" is just arranging the songs in a particular order without really modifying them. I was under the impression that in this context, "mix tape" meant a remix of the song(s), where the result is significantly different in character than the original (e.g. the Crystal Method remixing "Magic Carpet Ride" by Steppenwolf).
I think you need to look up what does and does no qualify as a derivative work. For example taking a Picture that you did not create, and then adding a circle around it, or even a line through it, does not qualify as a significant enough change to be considered a new work.
By my interpretation, the change in question is "significant enough."
...then why does the language of the statute say essentially, "you can't make derivative works"? In fact, the point of copyright is to encourage creation of works by granting a temporary (ha ha) monopoly in things like derivative works...
The key words there are "encourage creation" and "temporary." First of all, that monopoly is supposed to last no more than what, 14 years? And that was back in the 18th century, when information traveled slowly. Nowadays a reasonable duration is much shorter, like maybe 5 years. Therefore, making a mix tape ought to at least be legal with music produced before 2003 (although making it legal in general would be ideal).
...and specifically not to encourage unlicensed derivative works until the end of that monopoly.
Remember, that monopoly only exists in the first place because Thomas Jefferson (et. al.) couldn't think of a better way to encourage creativity (in fact, it's pretty clear from his letters that he despised monopolies, and considered them to be a necessary evil). If those "unlicensed derivative works" provide more of a benefit than the monopoly would, it makes sense to allow them. Since, based on other people's posts, it seems that they are indeed of more benefit (e.g. one person mentioned buying the original "Magic Carpet Ride" by Steppenwolf because he heard a mix that included it), they should be legal.
The intent is pretty clearly that it not be legal.
I think I've just "clearly" explained why you're mistaken.
We won't, of course, go into the "limited times" copyright issue -- that's another (huge) problem.
Sorry -- I composed the beginning of my reply before getting to this part.
There is nothing either ethical or legal about mixtapes, so it seems pretty reasonable to me.
Bullshit! Mixtapes are derivative works, but they're also new creative expressions in their own right. Not only is it ethical to make mixtapes, being able to do so (i.e, being able to build on previous works) is the entire fucking point of copyright!
But the proof that communism works with computers is in the multi-tasking code in the operating system of your choice (Unix, Linux, MacOS, even Windows in a poorly designed way, all show that without corruption and with enough data input, communism works).
No, modern operating systems use preemptive multitasking, which is more like a dictatorship. The scheduling analogue to communism would be cooperative multitasking, of the sort implemented in "classic" Mac OS -- and it turns out it doesn't actually work so well.
Of course, I'm not convinced that the analogy makes sense anyway...
Do ClarisWorks files store text as text (i.e., without mangling it)? If so, just use strings to convert the files to plaintext, delete all the garbage (which used to be formatting) and be done with it.
No, because bits of it are patented (especially the "legacy compatibility" parts that basically just say "emulate old versions of Office").
Can MS get fined for saying they support the standard when in fact their software actually does not (ala, Java, CSS, HTML, Kerberos, and others).
In this case it won't matter, because the OOXML "standard" is effectively defined as "whatever MS Office does." In other words, MS basically documented Office's behavior down to the smallest detail, and submitted it to ECMA and now ISO.
I'm 26, but I am saving like hell because I know that age discrimination is rife in this industry, and the more I save for retirement right now, the less I have to worry about such things.
You should be doing that regardless of industry, because the earlier you put money away the more the interest will compound.
I think you need to be in the office every day to be an effective manager (management by walking around and all that).
Isn't the logical corollary that you need to be in the office to be effectively managed, too? After all, what good is it for that manager to be walking around an empty office?
I know that in theory contributions to FSF projects are required to have a Copyright assignement[sic] to the FSF...
I was just about to remind you of that, but I see I don't have to. Unless I'm mistaken, it's actually "in fact," not just "in theory."
the FSF leadership cannot just decide to switch all their project to GPLv3 if this is going to piss off active mainteners[sic].
It seems to me that the kind of person who would maintain packages for the FSF would also be the kind of person who would like GPLv3.
Re:Only reason this is personally a bummer...
on
IsoHunt Shut Down?
·
· Score: 1
Nope, it's exactly one. Why? Imagine the case with two people, one of which is the initial seeder. That person, of course, has a 1:0 ratio, but what about the other? Well, he only downloaded because he had no one to seed back to, so he has a 0:1 ratio. The file was uploaded once and downloaded once, so the total ratio is exactly one.
If you have a big swarm and subtracted the influence of the initial seeder, the average ratio of the rest would be just under one.
Right now GPLv3 is in limbo, with some projects moving to it and some not.
I think you're underestimating just how much software the Free Software Foundation has copyright on: bash and the rest of the userland, GCC, etc. Considering that all GNU code will be moving to GPLv3, I think it's got quite a lot of traction whether Solaris uses it or not.
Of course, having Solaris too would be even better...
ISOs of an hour-long show would do it. For example, one season of Enterprise in DVD9 would be 9GB * 7 discs = 63GB.
Re:Only reason this is personally a bummer...
on
IsoHunt Shut Down?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Don't you realize that BitTorrent is designed as a zero-sum game? If some people have ratios over 1:1, other people must have ratios under it because the average of the whole community has to be exactly 1:1.
Slashdot Mirror
Why bother with naughty websites when, if you're implanting stuff anyway, you could just put in an artificial gland that would release endorphins (or whatever) on command?
Well, out of the Bill of Rights, Amendments 1, 7, and 8 make absolute statements prohibiting certain acts of Congress (e.g. "Congress shall make no law..."); Amendments 2, 4, 9, and 10 refer to "the people" which could mean all people or 'the people of the United States' (i.e., citizens); and Amendments 5 and 6 use language referring to "no person" or "the accused," which can only mean that they apply to all people, not just citizens. (And for completeness, Amendment 3 would only be relevant for people who owned property in the US.)
The relevant Amendment in this situation, the 4th, is one of those that refer to "the people:"
In my opinion, that ought to cover non-citizens too, but I'm not a Supreme Court Justice. Take from that what you will.
You answered your own question! Precedent for forcing the same kind of "deal" on Apple is the payoff. Microsoft doesn't give a shit about the Zune; that's why it isn't a "PlaysForSure" device (and probably why it looks like a piece of shit too). It's greatest value to Microsoft is as a sabot -- a shoe to throw into Apple's works.
Of course MS doesn't need DX10 to drive Vista adoption -- its OS monopoly and new computer purchases will handle that!
The difference between D3D9 and D3D10 is much greater than the difference between D3D8 and D3D9.
The newest DirectX SDK supports Direct3D 10 and runs on Windows XP; therefore, it must be possible for Direct3D 10 games to run in XP also (otherwise, there'd be no way to test the games during development!).
While that seems reasonable, the pessimist in me suspects that MS quit OpenGL because it wasn't moving quickly enough in the direction MS wanted it to go.
Don't you mean "Gamecube#"?
On the contrary, I do completely understand. The point of copyright is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." No more; no less. The bit about monopolies is just a means to that end, and IMHO it was a mistake to codify that part in the Constitution. Instead, they should have left the issue of how best to accomplish that goal open to debate.
In other words, the point I'm trying to make is that copyright law is screwed up, because it's prohibiting actions that are consistent with the Constitutional goal of copyright.
First of all, I think we're operating on two different definitions of "mix tape." A "DJ mixing live music" is just arranging the songs in a particular order without really modifying them. I was under the impression that in this context, "mix tape" meant a remix of the song(s), where the result is significantly different in character than the original (e.g. the Crystal Method remixing "Magic Carpet Ride" by Steppenwolf).
By my interpretation, the change in question is "significant enough."
The key words there are "encourage creation" and "temporary." First of all, that monopoly is supposed to last no more than what, 14 years? And that was back in the 18th century, when information traveled slowly. Nowadays a reasonable duration is much shorter, like maybe 5 years. Therefore, making a mix tape ought to at least be legal with music produced before 2003 (although making it legal in general would be ideal).
Remember, that monopoly only exists in the first place because Thomas Jefferson (et. al.) couldn't think of a better way to encourage creativity (in fact, it's pretty clear from his letters that he despised monopolies, and considered them to be a necessary evil). If those "unlicensed derivative works" provide more of a benefit than the monopoly would, it makes sense to allow them. Since, based on other people's posts, it seems that they are indeed of more benefit (e.g. one person mentioned buying the original "Magic Carpet Ride" by Steppenwolf because he heard a mix that included it), they should be legal.
I think I've just "clearly" explained why you're mistaken.
Sorry -- I composed the beginning of my reply before getting to this part.
Bullshit! Mixtapes are derivative works, but they're also new creative expressions in their own right. Not only is it ethical to make mixtapes, being able to do so (i.e, being able to build on previous works) is the entire fucking point of copyright!
I think you misspelled "fuck." If you're going to curse, do it properly!
You must be mistaken. The correct answer is "Hell, no! " or "Fuck, no!" or "No, and you should be executed for having suggested it!"
Hope that clears things up. : )
No, modern operating systems use preemptive multitasking, which is more like a dictatorship. The scheduling analogue to communism would be cooperative multitasking, of the sort implemented in "classic" Mac OS -- and it turns out it doesn't actually work so well.
Of course, I'm not convinced that the analogy makes sense anyway...
Do ClarisWorks files store text as text (i.e., without mangling it)? If so, just use strings to convert the files to plaintext, delete all the garbage (which used to be formatting) and be done with it.
No, because bits of it are patented (especially the "legacy compatibility" parts that basically just say "emulate old versions of Office").
In this case it won't matter, because the OOXML "standard" is effectively defined as "whatever MS Office does." In other words, MS basically documented Office's behavior down to the smallest detail, and submitted it to ECMA and now ISO.
You should be doing that regardless of industry, because the earlier you put money away the more the interest will compound.
Isn't the logical corollary that you need to be in the office to be effectively managed, too? After all, what good is it for that manager to be walking around an empty office?
In a post-bnetd* world, is that even legal?
(*incidentally, this is why Blizzard, in addition to Valve, is on my shit list)
I was just about to remind you of that, but I see I don't have to. Unless I'm mistaken, it's actually "in fact," not just "in theory."
It seems to me that the kind of person who would maintain packages for the FSF would also be the kind of person who would like GPLv3.
Nope, it's exactly one. Why? Imagine the case with two people, one of which is the initial seeder. That person, of course, has a 1:0 ratio, but what about the other? Well, he only downloaded because he had no one to seed back to, so he has a 0:1 ratio. The file was uploaded once and downloaded once, so the total ratio is exactly one.
If you have a big swarm and subtracted the influence of the initial seeder, the average ratio of the rest would be just under one.
I think you're underestimating just how much software the Free Software Foundation has copyright on: bash and the rest of the userland, GCC, etc. Considering that all GNU code will be moving to GPLv3, I think it's got quite a lot of traction whether Solaris uses it or not.
Of course, having Solaris too would be even better...
ISOs of an hour-long show would do it. For example, one season of Enterprise in DVD9 would be 9GB * 7 discs = 63GB.
Don't you realize that BitTorrent is designed as a zero-sum game? If some people have ratios over 1:1, other people must have ratios under it because the average of the whole community has to be exactly 1:1.
Nope, Dilbert is funny because it's true!