Did you get it from a book? I didn't say you couldn't get it from a book, but I don't know anyone who learns from a book without testing. projects, and peer review like they can from a class.
All of that stuff could be done on your own, though. You just have to be motivated enough.
What I can't stand is the feeling that my brain is leaving me for someone more interesting, which happens when I see Friends.
Amen.
To me, that is evidence which supports the efficacy of the BBC model, and the dysfunction of the TNT model.
But I think you are wrong here. I think it's the audience that makes the difference rather than the funding model. Most American viewers like trash, so they *get* trash.
Most people in Europe's experience of American TV programmes is comedies, some of which are good, some of which are utterly dreadful ("Married with Children", anyone?)
Sadly, a *lot* of Americans *like* this program. Why? Because a lot of Americans are mindless dorks. And that's the *real* reason why the quality of American TV is generally lower. It has little to do with the private vs. public funding, as can be seen with the massive amounts of money that networks pour into their programs.
Free BEER is what software is to the average Joe. And, BEER-wise, Mp3 IS free. They get free players and compressors. That's all they care about. We're talking about patent-free--not beer-free.
Good point you raise about the cutoff age. Many people are not even *close* to being mature enough to drive a car at 16 (or 30, in some cases). Other kids are perfectly responsible at 16 and should be allowed to drive.
On the RIAA website it states that they dont mind of if people make a copy of a CD for their car. And in fact they state it is fair use to do this. Ahh, but there is a problem now, with copy protected CD's, i cannot legally make a copy now, because i cannot break the copy protection.
Heh. This is actually not quite correct. The DMCA originally proposed that breaking of *any* kind of encryption would be illegal. Defenders of fair use complained that outlawing the defeat of copy protection would violate the fair use doctrine (which it would). The pro-DMCA parties gave in to this demand and dropped the copy protection stuff. Instead, so we don't violate fair use, it's only illegal to defeat *access* protection! Our legislators bought this hook, line, and sinker. Too bad it's not illegal to write legislation while under the influence....
Absolutely. I, for one, think that cameras should definitely remain legal. But if enough people get scared of this, and some enterprising politician gets wind of it, you can bet that all cameras will be outlawed so that we can "protect the children."
It seems to me, with my really dorky sense of humor, that Rockford-in-the-sky-with-diamonds is funnier. But hey, I'm a loser who comments on the taglines so what do I know?:-)
Ever had to write a paper the night before something is due? Need a bibliography? Bingo.
Plus, it would make it all that much easier to maintain bibliographies. It would be nice if it would format your bibliography and print it for you, too.
And I don't give a _damn_ about your fucking opinion. I did not ask for your opinion, you can keep your propaganda to _yourself_. For all intents and purposes copyright is the same as ownership. Such arrogance. To think that your opinion is the only valid one and you need to shove it down everyone's throat. Fuck you asshole.
I really don't care about one idea that came out of Thomas Jefferson's head.
Nor do I, as far as abosolutes are concerned. Jefferson is not God and his ideas are not laws. However, you seemed to be questioning what the founders had in mind when authoring the Constitution and what the Article I, Section 8 clause was supposed to mean. It's clear that they didn't have a property right in mind when they conceived of Copyright. There can be no question about that. Now, whether you think they were correct or not is another matter. But the Constitution is clear.
Are his ideas about ideas, the end of discussion? If he wants information freedom, why does he want you to believe his idea of information?
It really has nothing to do with information freedom. That phrase would have been meaningless to Jefferson. All he is saying is that there is a fundamental difference between the scarcity of physical goods vs. the non-scarcity of ideas. Only one person can use a physical item at a time. More than one person can use the Pythagorean theorem at a time, however. In fact, an unlimited number of people could use the Pythagorean theorem at the same time, if they wanted to. This CANNOT be said of physical things. That's as simple as it can be put, I'm afraid.
Sounds like freedom to me. There is no freedom to think that information should be anything but their definition.
Sure there is. But: 1) other definitions don't make sense; and 2) the Constitution is the law of the land. Until there is an amendment to alter Article I, Section 8, legislation that keeps extending Copyright is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is a significant fact.
Ideas are owned. You just don't see it. Every idea in your head right now, that no one but you can examine, are owned by you.
It has NOTHING to do with who can examine it. It has to do with who can use it. See my earlier comment about the Pythagorean theorem.
What difference does it make if you take those ideas, in your head, and place them in your computer? Your brain, your computer.
I'm not sure what you're driving at here. We're not talking about how the idea is expressed (on a page, on a computer, on a recording, in your brain, etc.) because that has nothing to do with the idea as such. We're discussing the idea in the abstract.
I'm really sorry you brought Thomas Jefferson in. I mean, the man didn't even know what he wanted. He tore apart the bible in the White House and removed Jesus as lord. He then claimed he was still a Christian, even though he believed Jesus was only a good _man_ with good beliefs or morals. And it shows how much he really believed in those morals, since it is likely he had an affair w/ his _slave_. While others, perhaps Washington, had already freed their slaves.
I never attempted to defend Jefferson. As stated earlier, I only attempted to demonstrate that the founders had a particular understanding of Copyright.
Despite popular Slashdot belief, ideas can be a scarcity.
You just don't understand the term 'scarcity.' It has nothing to do with whether or not someone can make money off of something or whether someone expended money or effort ON something. It has to do with the ability to be used in more than one location by more than one person at a single time. Refer back to my example of the Pythagorean theorem. Again. (*sigh*)
If someone uses my idea that was going to help me make money, get a job, get laid, whatever, then I have to find a new one.
BINGO! And that is why Copyright was created: you will be granted a short monopoly on the *expression* of your idea (publishing a book, publishing music, distributing copies of a computer program, etc.) You still don't own the idea, you just have an artificial monopoly over the production of the *expression* of your idea. And this monopoly MUST be time-limited. (Hint: a permanently increasing time-limitation ISN'T really a time-limitation.) And for the record, I support Copyright--*as it was originally intended*.
How do you create a new idea? You must _spend_ time creating one. You aren't paying money (unless you purchase books), but you are spending something, such as time (which _is_ a scarcity).
Again, you don't understand the term 'scarcity.' It refers to whether more than one person can use the same thing at the same time.
Ownership is an imaginary concept placed over physical goods, whereas copyright is an imaginary concept placed over non-physical goods.
Only one person can use a physical item at a time. I don't know why you can't understand that.
To the point: Copyright = Ownership for every intent and purpose. One simply has an expiration (that keeps growing), the other doesn't. It's pedant to point out a difference so small when I gave no hint that I didn't know the difference. Which is why I called it "propaganda." You are using simple terms, such as "ownership" and "copyright" to pursuade an audience to believe in your concept of information. Then you whip out good old Thomas Jefferson to point out that copyright is a monopoly. And we all know monopolies are bad, mmkay?
Except that my goal is not to convince people that Copyright is wrong. I NEVER said that I thought Copyright (a monopoly) was wrong--so long as the period of monopoly-enforcement was short. I think it makes a lot of sense and is very much RIGHT. It should just be limited to a short period of time, that's all. And something that you can't pass on to your kids does NOT fit under our concept of ownership.
Slashdot Mirror
But I thought that was what college was all about in the first place...
And it's Just Plain Wrong (tm). Remember Tesla's response to Edison: If Mr. Edison thought more, he wouldn't sweat as much.
The last console I had was an Atari 2600. Now, I have a 1.4 GHz Athlon, a cable modem, and a copy of RTCW. XBox? Nope.
Bah! Java when you could use Objective C? It is an abomination!
Of course, you still get in trouble with the law whether the law is correct or not. Thus the phrase, "Tell it to the judge, buddy."
All of that stuff could be done on your own, though. You just have to be motivated enough.
That third link was to the Jack Project. And it was supposed to end that sentence and not go on and on and on.
There is currently the ALSA Project, the MusicKit (a MIDI and realtime DSP framework from the NeXT world), and . This trio, together, would be great for writing full-featured music applications. Now we just need to do it.
I'm considering tackling this problem soon if I have time.
Amen.
To me, that is evidence which supports the efficacy of the BBC model, and the dysfunction of the TNT model.
But I think you are wrong here. I think it's the audience that makes the difference rather than the funding model. Most American viewers like trash, so they *get* trash.
Sadly, a *lot* of Americans *like* this program. Why? Because a lot of Americans are mindless dorks. And that's the *real* reason why the quality of American TV is generally lower. It has little to do with the private vs. public funding, as can be seen with the massive amounts of money that networks pour into their programs.
I suppose that's a matter of taste. Personally, I think HBO is a cesspool.
Hmmm, interesting viewpoint.
Free BEER is what software is to the average Joe. And, BEER-wise, Mp3 IS free. They get free players and compressors. That's all they care about. We're talking about patent-free--not beer-free.
Y'know, I think this displays just how right they (the blackout participants) may be. The posts *are* important, which was their original point.
Good point you raise about the cutoff age. Many people are not even *close* to being mature enough to drive a car at 16 (or 30, in some cases). Other kids are perfectly responsible at 16 and should be allowed to drive.
It's not remotely amusing. It's just boring.
Heh. This is actually not quite correct. The DMCA originally proposed that breaking of *any* kind of encryption would be illegal. Defenders of fair use complained that outlawing the defeat of copy protection would violate the fair use doctrine (which it would). The pro-DMCA parties gave in to this demand and dropped the copy protection stuff. Instead, so we don't violate fair use, it's only illegal to defeat *access* protection! Our legislators bought this hook, line, and sinker. Too bad it's not illegal to write legislation while under the influence....
Yep. And I'll bet that all those Palestinians are just itching to hire some Israeli soldiers right now. Same thing here.
Absolutely. I, for one, think that cameras should definitely remain legal. But if enough people get scared of this, and some enterprising politician gets wind of it, you can bet that all cameras will be outlawed so that we can "protect the children."
It seems to me, with my really dorky sense of humor, that Rockford-in-the-sky-with-diamonds is funnier. But hey, I'm a loser who comments on the taglines so what do I know? :-)
Plus, it would make it all that much easier to maintain bibliographies. It would be nice if it would format your bibliography and print it for you, too.
Only if you're intending to play the game. If you just want to see how a *really* good coder works, then it's great!
The fact that NeXT lives! And that there's finally a chance of a more thriving Objective C and OpenStep (err, Cocoa) community again!
Hmmm, someone had too much coffee, it would seem.
Nor do I, as far as abosolutes are concerned. Jefferson is not God and his ideas are not laws. However, you seemed to be questioning what the founders had in mind when authoring the Constitution and what the Article I, Section 8 clause was supposed to mean. It's clear that they didn't have a property right in mind when they conceived of Copyright. There can be no question about that. Now, whether you think they were correct or not is another matter. But the Constitution is clear.
Are his ideas about ideas, the end of discussion? If he wants information freedom, why does he want you to believe his idea of information?
It really has nothing to do with information freedom. That phrase would have been meaningless to Jefferson. All he is saying is that there is a fundamental difference between the scarcity of physical goods vs. the non-scarcity of ideas. Only one person can use a physical item at a time. More than one person can use the Pythagorean theorem at a time, however. In fact, an unlimited number of people could use the Pythagorean theorem at the same time, if they wanted to. This CANNOT be said of physical things. That's as simple as it can be put, I'm afraid.
Sounds like freedom to me. There is no freedom to think that information should be anything but their definition.
Sure there is. But: 1) other definitions don't make sense; and 2) the Constitution is the law of the land. Until there is an amendment to alter Article I, Section 8, legislation that keeps extending Copyright is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is a significant fact.
Ideas are owned. You just don't see it. Every idea in your head right now, that no one but you can examine, are owned by you.
It has NOTHING to do with who can examine it. It has to do with who can use it. See my earlier comment about the Pythagorean theorem.
What difference does it make if you take those ideas, in your head, and place them in your computer? Your brain, your computer.
I'm not sure what you're driving at here. We're not talking about how the idea is expressed (on a page, on a computer, on a recording, in your brain, etc.) because that has nothing to do with the idea as such. We're discussing the idea in the abstract.
I'm really sorry you brought Thomas Jefferson in. I mean, the man didn't even know what he wanted. He tore apart the bible in the White House and removed Jesus as lord. He then claimed he was still a Christian, even though he believed Jesus was only a good _man_ with good beliefs or morals. And it shows how much he really believed in those morals, since it is likely he had an affair w/ his _slave_. While others, perhaps Washington, had already freed their slaves.
I never attempted to defend Jefferson. As stated earlier, I only attempted to demonstrate that the founders had a particular understanding of Copyright.
Despite popular Slashdot belief, ideas can be a scarcity.
You just don't understand the term 'scarcity.' It has nothing to do with whether or not someone can make money off of something or whether someone expended money or effort ON something. It has to do with the ability to be used in more than one location by more than one person at a single time. Refer back to my example of the Pythagorean theorem. Again. (*sigh*)
If someone uses my idea that was going to help me make money, get a job, get laid, whatever, then I have to find a new one.
BINGO! And that is why Copyright was created: you will be granted a short monopoly on the *expression* of your idea (publishing a book, publishing music, distributing copies of a computer program, etc.) You still don't own the idea, you just have an artificial monopoly over the production of the *expression* of your idea. And this monopoly MUST be time-limited. (Hint: a permanently increasing time-limitation ISN'T really a time-limitation.) And for the record, I support Copyright--*as it was originally intended*.
How do you create a new idea? You must _spend_ time creating one. You aren't paying money (unless you purchase books), but you are spending something, such as time (which _is_ a scarcity).
Again, you don't understand the term 'scarcity.' It refers to whether more than one person can use the same thing at the same time.
Ownership is an imaginary concept placed over physical goods, whereas copyright is an imaginary concept placed over non-physical goods.
Only one person can use a physical item at a time. I don't know why you can't understand that.
To the point: Copyright = Ownership for every intent and purpose. One simply has an expiration (that keeps growing), the other doesn't. It's pedant to point out a difference so small when I gave no hint that I didn't know the difference. Which is why I called it "propaganda." You are using simple terms, such as "ownership" and "copyright" to pursuade an audience to believe in your concept of information. Then you whip out good old Thomas Jefferson to point out that copyright is a monopoly. And we all know monopolies are bad, mmkay?
Except that my goal is not to convince people that Copyright is wrong. I NEVER said that I thought Copyright (a monopoly) was wrong--so long as the period of monopoly-enforcement was short. I think it makes a lot of sense and is very much RIGHT. It should just be limited to a short period of time, that's all. And something that you can't pass on to your kids does NOT fit under our concept of ownership.