What a novel idea! Maybe every car should have a wifi link streaming video to surrounding cars. A hud display can put the pictures of the immediately surrounding cars in a line on the windshield, like avatars or little IM pictures. It would be wonderful, and everyone would rejoice!
since you seem to know something about this, where are "digitally remastered CD's" in the copyright spectrum? I mean, if a song goes into public domain and a producer decides to "digitally remaster" the work, would s/he be able to copywrite that reproduction or not? That's really what I'm asking when it comes to quality of media... etc.
Maybe I should clarify:
Once a book becomes public domain, it is okay to translate that work and claim copyright to that translation. Multiple translations can exist for the same book, and each translation can be under different copyrights, even though the source is and remains public domain.
So: is this public domain recording similar to this concept in any way? Can a low quality recording stay in public domain, while, one company takes that source then digitally remasters it. Can they copywrite the remastered work?
1. A translation will not change the copyright of the original work. The publisher of a new translation has no rights to the original, or any other translations, only the new work.
In written works, translations are often a way for companies to maintain copywrites. For instance: Kafka's works can be held by a publishing company based on one persons translation, while another person's rendition can be public domain. Often times, the version with copywrite will be touted as the definitive, most accurate version. To avoid argument, I'll assume this claim is true.
With record companies, I wonder if they can release low quality versions into public domain, while maintaining rights to higher quality versions. So they can release 96kbit mp3 into public domain, but a CD quality version maintains or recieves copywrite.
But I think this scenario will definately have interesting results. If the track does become a hit and is public domain, how will companies distinguish their final products from one another? Will it come down to the case, additional tracks, a DVD movie?... Other ways of looping copywrite into the equation? I will be waiting for the outcome.
I think you just broke secret law #5601... oh wait, haha, it's a secret law. You are under arrest! You have the unclassified right to be confused. You have the right to an attor... oh wait, hahaha, that's classified too.
I'm new at this
I did not see the c-span coverage. However, I can see why the agency would be excited about servicing the telescope with robots. Mainly, because such an attempt would serve two purposes: it could fix hubble AND test out new technology. I can see both a cost benefit and scientific benefit to this solution. Whereas simply sending humans into spacewalk would be a waste.
While the story is very intersting. The Tuskeegee exeriments had to do with studying Syphilis by simply monitoring a population of infected men and letting the disease run its course, even though the men could be easily cured before anyone died.
I think you can go farther and say open source shifts the high paying jobs overseas. I mean, if a commercial for profit company is competing with people who are giving their talents and products away for free, the commercial company needs to find cheaper labor to lower overall costs and still be competitive. This means moving the formerly high paying american jobs to cheaper markets, like india. Right? I'm not trying to troll, I would just like to know if this is reasoning is accurate or not.
and a word of advice, for someone who sounds like every other unrealistic/idiotic college grad I've met: get out of the trendy lifestyle if you can't afford it. Obviously you don't have enough money to live in silicon valley, so set yourself a goal you can attain, like living in a cheaper state/city. Get over yourself and your own delusion of inflated self worth.
I lived in seattle, working in a research center, 25k a year, paying $800 mo rent. I've met and worked with some of the most influential researchers in the world. I didn't have a car, I used mass transit. I didn't have an internet connection. Yeah, you have to give up some of the perks of life, but it sounds like you will live and die searching for the silver spoon you thought your parents didn't work for to put in your hand. You are rediculous.
This smells like someone is making an appeal to instant gratification and an entitlement right.
Science can be profitable but it takes time, foresight (luck), and perservereance. Just like a career in publishing or starting your own buisness. Just because you have a PhD and a good idea, doesn't mean you'll be making bank; or you may not be making bank immediately, but everything you do adds up.
A post-doc doing research as a 9-5 job can make 40 grand a year. But in time, with more effort, and a little luck: articles, lectures, appointments in academia, grant funding, patents, consultancy, and faculty posistions can make a sizable income. I should also add that there is some social respect for having a PhD that can often get you breaks in terms of loans and housing.
That said, lets contrast this with a public k-12 teacher with a masters degree in the state of Washington. You walk out of college. As a student teacher, credit is earned, but it is unpaid and you can't hold down a paying job while doing it. At the end of the tenure you are welcomed to a job with okay benefits but a salary of 23-26k a year. At the end of 10 years, you are getting close to the 40k a post-doc makes. By the end of tenure, assuming you are able to make it, it'll be 55-60k a year, with a decent retirement check.
Why the slow pay gradient? Because ther is almost no risk involved.
The post-doc is a closer parallel to writing, though, a little less dramatic. You get a masters in fine arts: writing. You graduate. Nothing is handed to you until you have a finished product. Then, after an unspecified amount of time and a lot of criticism, someone might offer to publish your work. You take the offer, but most of the money you expect to recieve is royalties, and as a first-time writer, the buzz may but most likely won't be there. The object of the game is to write, promote, write, promote, and then, hopefully, a breakthrough occurs which will get your catalog reprinted. This can take decades, if it happens at all. You are probably all familiar with Philip K Dick. Well, during his life, he made very little money, but NOW the copywrites are paying off to his estate.
Maybe I'm just extremely well adjusted and willing to work for what I want because I believe in it, not just because of the economic gain to be had. Or maybe I'm a fool. Either way, if you love what you are doing, there are ways to make anything pay (except k-12 teaching) but there are always risks. I've met rich tatoo artists and guys who are well off selling custom hubcaps. They didn't start out with a huge income or respect. They took an idea and did everything they could to promote themselves and promote their interests. A lot of scientists don't have this kind of chutzpah or initiative. Carl Sagan did, and he got funding for SETI, of all things. I don't think he ever complained about money.
Well, the billions "burned" by NASA provided the groundwork for these commercial ventures. The reason a company can put together a space program for 40 million is because of the work done by public instiutions that use "Other People's Money" for the last 30+ years.
It is dissapointing that most people don't understand public research (paid for with other people's money) is basically exploited by the private sector to lower their cost of investment. When a product emerges, the people who funded the initial research (the public) are charged again.
I trivialize viagra because it is absurd. It makes me think of a society that only rewards pursuits into plastic surgery. And, what annoys me, is that it's advertising budget (in excess of 200million), is not a grant to sneeze at.
I would think that the crowd of slashdot would be more interested in research for the sake of knowledge rather than something like colonization. Why are pictures from the latest deep-fields posted on here?
Well, the fundamentals for your space elevator, orbital hotels, solar power plants... etc will be the product of research. I just see that X-prize as a way of testing the maturity of public research, to see if it's exploitable already.
Viagra is of almost no social benefit. Treatments for cancer save millions of lives around the world each year. Yes they are hard to make (at the moment) and are not always effective and have side effects, but this is exactly why money and effort should be put in this direction. While it may not reap huge economic benefit in the short term, saving lives will help the economies in the long term.
I don't see how pure research is related to "weird artwork". Pure research underlies most facets of modern society. If the unique properties of semi-conductors weren't researched and catalogued computers wouldn't exist.
NASA, like Scaled Composites, has to present it's projects/budgets/plans to boards of directors (congress), investors (governments, other space agencies). The money isn't just handed over... there was time when it was, and that was the time of its highest inefficiency; but this wasn't just because it was government owned and operated, it was because private contractors knew a fat wallet when they saw one and tried to get as much money as they could.
Paul Allen is worth more than a small country and he is funding Scaled Composites. If SC actually wins the X-Prize, will it really be a spectacular gain for space flight?
NASA, on some level, is really an organization for several major and minor companies, why would it be ruled out of the prize?
Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research? Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc. Public grants and public institutions (Nations and Universities) are still the bedrock for pure scientifc research. I only see economic and superficial consumerism inspired by the x-prize.
I can sit in a college library and browse people's laptops as if they are on a trusted network. People don't realize how public WiFi is in these environments. I think the main cause for this is the connection wizard (microsoft specifically). When you first connect the computer for wireless access it automagically, without a lot of warning, shares folders, printers... etc, because it is assuming you are at your house with your linksys router; not at the library, coffee shop, or hijacking i-net from an apartment complex across the street.
I think it falls in the category: outside of the ordinary geek adventure. On a more subversive level, this geek and his free wireless ways are being linked to greenpeace - an organized group militantly fighting for mindshare in the world (maybe the editors are suggesting these tactics would be useful for the wireless/free software groups/geekyness in general)
Slashdot Mirror
What a novel idea! Maybe every car should have a wifi link streaming video to surrounding cars. A hud display can put the pictures of the immediately surrounding cars in a line on the windshield, like avatars or little IM pictures. It would be wonderful, and everyone would rejoice!
They are deemed nerds, then, left to themselves. Until the internet. And Slashdot.
Maybe I should clarify:
Once a book becomes public domain, it is okay to translate that work and claim copyright to that translation.
Multiple translations can exist for the same book, and each translation can be under different copyrights, even though the source is and remains public domain.
So: is this public domain recording similar to this concept in any way? Can a low quality recording stay in public domain, while, one company takes that source then digitally remasters it. Can they copywrite the remastered work?
good catch. That's what i meant.
With record companies, I wonder if they can release low quality versions into public domain, while maintaining rights to higher quality versions. So they can release 96kbit mp3 into public domain, but a CD quality version maintains or recieves copywrite.
But I think this scenario will definately have interesting results. If the track does become a hit and is public domain, how will companies distinguish their final products from one another? Will it come down to the case, additional tracks, a DVD movie?... Other ways of looping copywrite into the equation? I will be waiting for the outcome.
I think you just broke secret law #5601... oh wait, haha, it's a secret law. You are under arrest!
You have the unclassified right to be confused. You have the right to an attor... oh wait, hahaha, that's classified too.
I'm new at this
Desktop: Seti
Laptop: PrimeNet
it does not give you access to gmail.
I did not see the c-span coverage. However, I can see why the agency would be excited about servicing the telescope with robots. Mainly, because such an attempt would serve two purposes: it could fix hubble AND test out new technology. I can see both a cost benefit and scientific benefit to this solution. Whereas simply sending humans into spacewalk would be a waste.
A little technique with a lot of size is better than great technique.
While the story is very intersting. The Tuskeegee exeriments had to do with studying Syphilis by simply monitoring a population of infected men and letting the disease run its course, even though the men could be easily cured before anyone died.
I think you can go farther and say open source shifts the high paying jobs overseas. I mean, if a commercial for profit company is competing with people who are giving their talents and products away for free, the commercial company needs to find cheaper labor to lower overall costs and still be competitive. This means moving the formerly high paying american jobs to cheaper markets, like india. Right? I'm not trying to troll, I would just like to know if this is reasoning is accurate or not.
and a word of advice, for someone who sounds like every other unrealistic/idiotic college grad I've met: get out of the trendy lifestyle if you can't afford it. Obviously you don't have enough money to live in silicon valley, so set yourself a goal you can attain, like living in a cheaper state/city. Get over yourself and your own delusion of inflated self worth.
I lived in seattle, working in a research center, 25k a year, paying $800 mo rent. I've met and worked with some of the most influential researchers in the world. I didn't have a car, I used mass transit. I didn't have an internet connection. Yeah, you have to give up some of the perks of life, but it sounds like you will live and die searching for the silver spoon you thought your parents didn't work for to put in your hand. You are rediculous.
Science can be profitable but it takes time, foresight (luck), and perservereance. Just like a career in publishing or starting your own buisness. Just because you have a PhD and a good idea, doesn't mean you'll be making bank; or you may not be making bank immediately, but everything you do adds up.
A post-doc doing research as a 9-5 job can make 40 grand a year. But in time, with more effort, and a little luck: articles, lectures, appointments in academia, grant funding, patents, consultancy, and faculty posistions can make a sizable income. I should also add that there is some social respect for having a PhD that can often get you breaks in terms of loans and housing.
That said, lets contrast this with a public k-12 teacher with a masters degree in the state of Washington. You walk out of college. As a student teacher, credit is earned, but it is unpaid and you can't hold down a paying job while doing it. At the end of the tenure you are welcomed to a job with okay benefits but a salary of 23-26k a year. At the end of 10 years, you are getting close to the 40k a post-doc makes. By the end of tenure, assuming you are able to make it, it'll be 55-60k a year, with a decent retirement check.
Why the slow pay gradient? Because ther is almost no risk involved.
The post-doc is a closer parallel to writing, though, a little less dramatic. You get a masters in fine arts: writing. You graduate. Nothing is handed to you until you have a finished product. Then, after an unspecified amount of time and a lot of criticism, someone might offer to publish your work. You take the offer, but most of the money you expect to recieve is royalties, and as a first-time writer, the buzz may but most likely won't be there. The object of the game is to write, promote, write, promote, and then, hopefully, a breakthrough occurs which will get your catalog reprinted. This can take decades, if it happens at all. You are probably all familiar with Philip K Dick. Well, during his life, he made very little money, but NOW the copywrites are paying off to his estate.
Maybe I'm just extremely well adjusted and willing to work for what I want because I believe in it, not just because of the economic gain to be had. Or maybe I'm a fool. Either way, if you love what you are doing, there are ways to make anything pay (except k-12 teaching) but there are always risks. I've met rich tatoo artists and guys who are well off selling custom hubcaps. They didn't start out with a huge income or respect. They took an idea and did everything they could to promote themselves and promote their interests. A lot of scientists don't have this kind of chutzpah or initiative. Carl Sagan did, and he got funding for SETI, of all things. I don't think he ever complained about money.
It is dissapointing that most people don't understand public research (paid for with other people's money) is basically exploited by the private sector to lower their cost of investment. When a product emerges, the people who funded the initial research (the public) are charged again.
I trivialize viagra because it is absurd. It makes me think of a society that only rewards pursuits into plastic surgery. And, what annoys me, is that it's advertising budget (in excess of 200million), is not a grant to sneeze at.
I would think that the crowd of slashdot would be more interested in research for the sake of knowledge rather than something like colonization. Why are pictures from the latest deep-fields posted on here?
Well, the fundamentals for your space elevator, orbital hotels, solar power plants
has some great books that approach this topic. Check out the Bohr Maker, Limit of Vision... etc Well written and interesting.
Viagra is of almost no social benefit. Treatments for cancer save millions of lives around the world each year. Yes they are hard to make (at the moment) and are not always effective and have side effects, but this is exactly why money and effort should be put in this direction. While it may not reap huge economic benefit in the short term, saving lives will help the economies in the long term.
I don't see how pure research is related to "weird artwork". Pure research underlies most facets of modern society. If the unique properties of semi-conductors weren't researched and catalogued computers wouldn't exist.
NASA, like Scaled Composites, has to present it's projects/budgets/plans to boards of directors (congress), investors (governments, other space agencies). The money isn't just handed over... there was time when it was, and that was the time of its highest inefficiency; but this wasn't just because it was government owned and operated, it was because private contractors knew a fat wallet when they saw one and tried to get as much money as they could.
NASA, on some level, is really an organization for several major and minor companies, why would it be ruled out of the prize?
Will commercializing spaceflight be a step forward for space research? Why is it that when companies step into public domain scientific fields the results are inevitably viagra when there is still no cure for cancer, aids... etc. Public grants and public institutions (Nations and Universities) are still the bedrock for pure scientifc research. I only see economic and superficial consumerism inspired by the x-prize.
What do you think?
like linux? ;)
Software doesn't steal music; I steal music.
ahem: I hope they are sterile, and I mean more than just the lysine contingency... if you know what I mean...
Peter Parkers physiology is more man than spider. Therefore, he should be called: Man-Spider.
I can sit in a college library and browse people's laptops as if they are on a trusted network. People don't realize how public WiFi is in these environments. I think the main cause for this is the connection wizard (microsoft specifically). When you first connect the computer for wireless access it automagically, without a lot of warning, shares folders, printers ... etc, because it is assuming you are at your house with your linksys router; not at the library, coffee shop, or hijacking i-net from an apartment complex across the street.
I think it falls in the category: outside of the ordinary geek adventure. On a more subversive level, this geek and his free wireless ways are being linked to greenpeace - an organized group militantly fighting for mindshare in the world (maybe the editors are suggesting these tactics would be useful for the wireless/free software groups/geekyness in general)