I would call the Mac GUI lots of things, but "slick" is not one of them. BTW, you forgot those of us who think OS X is better because it's NeXTSTEP underneath and worse because it's Mac OS on top.
Now, IANAL, but unless the people who submit scores to the site created them by looking at the composer's original scores, I assume that sooner or later some lawyer will go after them for copyright infringement.
IANAL either, but I believe that an Urtext edition will suffice. But you can't reproduce the preface or footnotes.
Uhhh, I don't think paper companies will mind. I mean, what are you going to do when you download your music? Print it out, of course! In fact, they'll probably make more money. Plus, there will always be demand for professionally edited editions. Likely as not, this won't ever be done by volunteers.
This just proves to me that the only point of these copyright "laws" is to return our society to some sort of medieval caste system in which everything a person may hold as their own is determined by something as vaporous as "birthright".
You're full of bullshit. The purpose of copyright law is to encourage creators to publish their work, knowing that they can expect to make a living from it. Granted, the seventy year thing is a little out of line but come on, that's not the purpose of copyright.
We are supposed to have moved beyond this sort of situation in which the undeserving yet well-born are given a leg up on everyone else. This is not fair and it is not equality.
Life isn't fair and it isn't equal either. Besides, who are you to stop someone from passing on their wealth and possessions to their children? It's a basic right.
If government refuses to pass laws to promote equality amongst all peoples, then it becomes the duty of the right-thinking to violate government whim in direct opposition to their bourgeois policies.
Oh, brother...
I will continue my long crusade against all forms of copyright by utilizing Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, and any other source of revenue-harming protest I can.
Fine. But you're not doing this because of the seventy year stipulation of copyright law. You're doing it because you don't believe in intellectual property. And that is entirely different.
Well, I think we should definitely work on cleaning things up. But why do all the plans considered involve giving up property rights and national sovereignty to the UN or other international body? Additionally, it seems to me that the improvements that we have already made won't begin to have an impact for quite some time; this makes it difficult to know what's really needed.
And how do we know that this warming trend we're seeing isn't some natural process? in which case, we would probably be doing more damage by trying to counteract it.
You're talking about Interface Builder. We (the GNUstep project) are writing a clone of this called "GORM". I'm currently working on finishing the basic palettes and adding in a batch editing feature. It's cool. Check it out sometime.
Admit that linux does have its faults, its not the most user-friendly operating system....
No OS is user friendly. A *shell* can be user friendly (and there a couple for Linux that are) but a shell isn't the OS. Other than this, your post is good.
Personally, I can't wait until man makes his first interplanar voyage. Just think of the important discoveries to be made on other surfaces!
Re:Will GTK become Yet Another X?
on
GTK+ without X!
·
· Score: 1
Well, you're right. It isn't an architectural disaster--*if* you use it for what it was designed for: using a (very simple, by today's standards) graphical workstation remotely.
Of course, the kind of things that workstations get used for these days are nothing like what they got used for in 1985. It's a screwdriver in a world full of nails.
Re:the problem with UNIX is the languages
on
GTK+ without X!
·
· Score: 1
Maybe we can make it a millenial resolution to use other languages and runtimes more:
I'm aware of the initial insufficiencies and the cause of it. However, the issues of balance of power and federalism were right from the start (and have been screwed up since then, I might add).
An alternative interpretation would say that respect means that Congress cannot pass a law that favors one religion over another.
This is a silly interpretation.
should religious protections be extended so far that religions should do whatever they wish, and be immune from prosecution?
Of course not. In the case you state, for example, they aren't making a law concerning religion--they're enforcing a general purpose law concerning murder.
If the servers are based in France, then you're right. If the servers are here, then you're wrong. China, for example, has every right to block US-based sites that discuss political attitudes that make them uncomfortable. However, they can't tell us to shut them down if they're actually located in the US. OTOH, Chinese servers can be shut down and their owners tortured and executed because they're located in China. And I agree on the issue of diplomatic immunity.
The work done at the Continental Congress was spectacular. When you consider the beauty of the Constitution and the government it outlines, it really is awe-inspiring. It's a great piece of political design. This is what the patriotism is about. Unfortunately, it wasn't long before the system fell apart.
I mean, corporations are pretty bad and all. What I *would* worry about, however, is the absolute ignorance of the populace. How many people are aware of the travesty that has been made of separation of powers? 10th amendment, anyone? How about the separation clause of the 1st amendment? It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Seems kind of clear to me: Congress can't make laws about religion or prohibit religious practice. And yet, they constantly impair religious practice and make numerous laws concerning religion! Our tax system is out of whack, our legal system is out of control, and I just keep going on and on but I don't have time. We're in bad shape, folks.
Slashdot Mirror
I would call the Mac GUI lots of things, but "slick" is not one of them. BTW, you forgot those of us who think OS X is better because it's NeXTSTEP underneath and worse because it's Mac OS on top.
Man, this makes me sick. You guys out on the west coast get to have all the fun!
IANAL either, but I believe that an Urtext edition will suffice. But you can't reproduce the preface or footnotes.
Uhhh, I don't think paper companies will mind. I mean, what are you going to do when you download your music? Print it out, of course! In fact, they'll probably make more money. Plus, there will always be demand for professionally edited editions. Likely as not, this won't ever be done by volunteers.
You're full of bullshit. The purpose of copyright law is to encourage creators to publish their work, knowing that they can expect to make a living from it. Granted, the seventy year thing is a little out of line but come on, that's not the purpose of copyright.
We are supposed to have moved beyond this sort of situation in which the undeserving yet well-born are given a leg up on everyone else. This is not fair and it is not equality.
Life isn't fair and it isn't equal either. Besides, who are you to stop someone from passing on their wealth and possessions to their children? It's a basic right.
If government refuses to pass laws to promote equality amongst all peoples, then it becomes the duty of the right-thinking to violate government whim in direct opposition to their bourgeois policies.
Oh, brother...
I will continue my long crusade against all forms of copyright by utilizing Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, and any other source of revenue-harming protest I can.
Fine. But you're not doing this because of the seventy year stipulation of copyright law. You're doing it because you don't believe in intellectual property. And that is entirely different.
Well, I think we should definitely work on cleaning things up. But why do all the plans considered involve giving up property rights and national sovereignty to the UN or other international body? Additionally, it seems to me that the improvements that we have already made won't begin to have an impact for quite some time; this makes it difficult to know what's really needed.
And how do we know that this warming trend we're seeing isn't some natural process? in which case, we would probably be doing more damage by trying to counteract it.
I thought most of the CO2 was absorbed by the oceans. In which case, protecting our oceans would seem to be of greater consequence.
What about China, India, and the former Eastern Bloc?
Regulations on pollution are way behind on those in Europe as the article mentions shortly.
What about China, India, and the former Eastern Bloc?
Prove that there we are in a warming trend: easy.
Prove the cause of this warming trend: don't make me laugh.
If there were some slashdot award for most humorous post of all time, this would win.
It wasn't always this way. Take our pitiful remains of a nation as an example and be careful--your country could be next!
What ISP do *you* work for? I've never seen this happen.
You're talking about Interface Builder. We (the GNUstep project) are writing a clone of this called "GORM". I'm currently working on finishing the basic palettes and adding in a batch editing feature. It's cool. Check it out sometime.
You've forgotten the built in Motorola 56000. That and the MusicKit made NeXT boxes really sweet for synthesis.
Dude, that would be awesome! Remember: blowing shit up is fun!
No OS is user friendly. A *shell* can be user friendly (and there a couple for Linux that are) but a shell isn't the OS. Other than this, your post is good.
Personally, I can't wait until man makes his first interplanar voyage. Just think of the important discoveries to be made on other surfaces!
Of course, the kind of things that workstations get used for these days are nothing like what they got used for in 1985. It's a screwdriver in a world full of nails.
Objective C...Objective C...Objective C....
I'm aware of the initial insufficiencies and the cause of it. However, the issues of balance of power and federalism were right from the start (and have been screwed up since then, I might add).
This is a silly interpretation.
should religious protections be extended so far that religions should do whatever they wish, and be immune from prosecution?
Of course not. In the case you state, for example, they aren't making a law concerning religion--they're enforcing a general purpose law concerning murder.
If the servers are based in France, then you're right. If the servers are here, then you're wrong. China, for example, has every right to block US-based sites that discuss political attitudes that make them uncomfortable. However, they can't tell us to shut them down if they're actually located in the US. OTOH, Chinese servers can be shut down and their owners tortured and executed because they're located in China. And I agree on the issue of diplomatic immunity.
The work done at the Continental Congress was spectacular. When you consider the beauty of the Constitution and the government it outlines, it really is awe-inspiring. It's a great piece of political design. This is what the patriotism is about. Unfortunately, it wasn't long before the system fell apart.
I mean, corporations are pretty bad and all. What I *would* worry about, however, is the absolute ignorance of the populace. How many people are aware of the travesty that has been made of separation of powers? 10th amendment, anyone? How about the separation clause of the 1st amendment? It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Seems kind of clear to me: Congress can't make laws about religion or prohibit religious practice. And yet, they constantly impair religious practice and make numerous laws concerning religion! Our tax system is out of whack, our legal system is out of control, and I just keep going on and on but I don't have time. We're in bad shape, folks.