So far as I can see, the guy could take the money and still
be using vista. At least, I don't see anywhere any verification
of the non-use was requested.
so how does this work? what's to stop someone lying to Dell
and getting 77 bucks
The interior of the crater on the Opportunity flyby
(which is Endurance crater iirc) is obviously suffering
from rather server height exag... er, enhancement. Looks
the same of the columbia hills in the spirit flyby.
Sad really (and no mention of it on the website that
I can see).
Orientate \O"ri*en*tate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Orientated; p.
pr. & vb. n. Orientating.] [From Orient.]
[1913 Webster]
1. To place or turn toward the east; to cause to assume an
easterly direction, or to veer eastward.
[1913 Webster]
The point remains that you are making an agreement when you buy a cd, saying that you won't violate the copyright binding on the works contained therein Where did I say we *should* violate copyright? It's
the law - we should obey it. But I thought we were discussing
the legal basis of copyright. I say it is a temporarily granted
monopoly - otherwise objectionable - instituted solely to encourage
artists to produce new work. What say you?
An artist could get people to sign agreements that they would
not copy the work they were receiving on a recording. That would
replace copyright. I don't recall ever buying a cd wherein I
signed any agreement with anybody. The CDs do point out that
"unauthorized copying is forbidden" as is their right under
copyright. Funny thing is, the CD will still say that in 100 years,
but it won't be true (unless copyright gets further extended, which
would truly be a disaster for culture).
But say we go with your "agreement" model. Suppose I break the
agreement and release a copy of some work. Then I can be
prosecuted, but downstream copiers seem to be out of harm's way.
Copyright prevents this abuse without invoking some bizarre
legal theory of "viral licenses" propagating through downstream
copying.
When I drive I don't "agree" to obey the law. When I buy a cd
I don't "agree" to obey copyright. I am bound by law to obey.
That's ok with me. We should be clear about the nature and
purpose of copyright law however.
After all, if a woodworker wanted to sell you the chair he made, you wouldn't complain about the monopolization of that chair, would you? You make my point for me:) Once he sells me the chair I can make
a copy of it. I can take it down into the basement and study
it and build another one. I can then even sell the new chair.
Same with a cd, except for the temporary violation of my rights
called copyright. Of course, I can't sell the chair as one made
by the original builder (counterfeit). Nor can I sell my cd copy
as one authorized by the artist.
If the chair builder wanted to keep his chairs private, he did
not have to sell it to me. I have no right to break into his house
and steal his chairs. Similarly for the musician, who can keep his
music private by declining to release recordings. Once the recordings
are released and sold they become the property of their buyers. The
buyers can do whatever they want with them -- except for the limitation
on their property rights called copyright.
Of course, copyright is a monopoly. It provides for a single
organization or person to have sole ability to sell a certain
product. This drives the price up (you may have noticed) like in
any monopoly situation. This is bad. It is the judgment of the
government that this bad situation is worth preserving for the
benefit of encouraging artists.
I like what Lord MacCauley said to the British Parliament back
in 1841 (about books at that time):
It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good.
The consumer does not have a right to listen to someone else's private creation. If the creator chooses to sell the opportunity to listen to their work, that is their prerogative and they should continue to receive payment for as long as people continue to receive that service.
That's true - as long as the someone keeps it private. Once a
recording is sold to me then I have right to do whatever I want
with my newly purchased object. The law of copyright is an addon
that restricts my right for the sole purpose of encouraging
artists (and others) to create. This violation of my property
rights is supposed to be acceptable for this reason, but it is
of course only temporarily granted. The idea that someone should
have indefinite control over my stuff is odious. Furthermore,
copyright is a legally imposed monopoly with all the bad effects
of any monopoly - another reason that copryright is supposed to
be temporary.
I myself favour music copyrights that last 2 years with the right
to renew copyright for a fee (which increases - say doubles - every
two year period). But we could argue about the details of this
temporary monopoly and temporary overturning of the property rights
of citizens.
but you forget you only need a very small number of
curious species. If even one such arose a billion or
more years ago they should have populated the galaxy.
(pulling out evelope: if they send 50 mark 1 colonizer
robot systems then they get 10 lyr in 250 years (roughly
the distance between "good stellar systems" say I
and assuming they can travel at 1/25 c).
Then 500 years to prepare the mark II colonizers.
So every 1000 years explored space is growing by 10 lyr
in an expanding sphere of mark n+1 colonizers.
In 1,000,000 years of work they could cover some
1000 lyr. In 30 million years, they've pretty much covered
the galaxy. Now, 30 million years is a tiny fraction of
the age of the galaxy (less than 1%).
It's a levy not a tax. You don't see it at the cash register. According
to the Canadian Private Copying Collective they collected $35M in 2005
(http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm). Up to 2005 they have distributed
almost $93M. Why the OP's brother hasn't seen any of it, I can't say.
Any of these putative companies purchasing a patent license
cannot distribute any of the relevant code under the gpl.
So maybe that's why they are keeping quiet, or maybe they
are not re-distributing any software. If the former, then
Jeremy Allison has a moral and legal duty to "out" those
companies.
It's pretty simple: nowadays no members from any Christian group are sent to kill criticizers. So... the terrorists *have* defeated America, GWB notwithstanding.
A lot of people here have noted that free speech does not
extend to corporate America. Quite true - no one has a right
to speak on youtube. But the interesting question is why
does google choose to exercise their corporate prerogative
so as to permit anti-Christian argumentation but not anti-
Islam argumentation. This does intrigue me. I haven't seen
either the anti-Christian or the (now banned) anti-Islam
videos. Is there a real difference that would explain why
the former is welcome on youtube but the latter is forbidden?
There are a great many arguments revealing the fundamental
irrationality of both religions. I don't see why google would
not welcome both.
if I had a cold store, I would already be freezing it more during the night and letting it warm during the day. You're brilliant, man - but why didn't you tell anyone ???
I think what is really scary is the lifetime chance of
incarceration for black men which this place:
http://www.urban.org/publications/410405.html puts at
28% (versus 7% for white males).
The national average for imprisonment is something close to 10% in the states
Say what? From wiki: As of June 30, 2005, about 1 out of every 136 U.S. residents was incarcerated either in prison or jail.
Well, you were only out by one order of magnitude.
I think I'll take a "wait and see" approach as well....anybody else smell bullshit?
or as someone once (almost) wrote: their claim is rank, it smells
to heaven. On the other hand, what do they have to gain by
making such fools of themselves?
And even if you did, utilities will only pay you for their wholesale avoided cost, about 30-35% percent of what they sell it for.
Not true for genuine net metering (as mentioned in the post). In fact,
up here in Ontario (Canada) the government will now subsidize solar
panel produced electricity - they pay 42 cents / kwh (I know you won't
believe me, but use google)!
However, solar power is still just barely economical.
Slashdot Mirror
should have a mod-down "missed sarcasm" option
So far as I can see, the guy could take the money and still be using vista. At least, I don't see anywhere any verification of the non-use was requested. so how does this work? what's to stop someone lying to Dell and getting 77 bucks
... plus you might just get a free vacation in a small beach resort in Cuba for trying something like that
The interior of the crater on the Opportunity flyby (which is Endurance crater iirc) is obviously suffering from rather server height exag... er, enhancement. Looks the same of the columbia hills in the spirit flyby. Sad really (and no mention of it on the website that I can see).
*once* is a typo; twice something else
too bad you can't tell the difference between "knit" and "nit". Sort of hurts your credibility right off the bat.
Orientate \O"ri*en*tate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Orientated; p. pr. & vb. n. Orientating.] [From Orient.] [1913 Webster] 1. To place or turn toward the east; to cause to assume an easterly direction, or to veer eastward. [1913 Webster]
for sure that will fool the OP, but I'm not so sure about the riaa
An artist could get people to sign agreements that they would not copy the work they were receiving on a recording. That would replace copyright. I don't recall ever buying a cd wherein I signed any agreement with anybody. The CDs do point out that "unauthorized copying is forbidden" as is their right under copyright. Funny thing is, the CD will still say that in 100 years, but it won't be true (unless copyright gets further extended, which would truly be a disaster for culture).
But say we go with your "agreement" model. Suppose I break the agreement and release a copy of some work. Then I can be prosecuted, but downstream copiers seem to be out of harm's way. Copyright prevents this abuse without invoking some bizarre legal theory of "viral licenses" propagating through downstream copying.
When I drive I don't "agree" to obey the law. When I buy a cd I don't "agree" to obey copyright. I am bound by law to obey. That's ok with me. We should be clear about the nature and purpose of copyright law however.
That's true - as long as the someone keeps it private. Once a recording is sold to me then I have right to do whatever I want with my newly purchased object. The law of copyright is an addon that restricts my right for the sole purpose of encouraging artists (and others) to create. This violation of my property rights is supposed to be acceptable for this reason, but it is of course only temporarily granted. The idea that someone should have indefinite control over my stuff is odious. Furthermore, copyright is a legally imposed monopoly with all the bad effects of any monopoly - another reason that copryright is supposed to be temporary.
I myself favour music copyrights that last 2 years with the right to renew copyright for a fee (which increases - say doubles - every two year period). But we could argue about the details of this temporary monopoly and temporary overturning of the property rights of citizens.
but you forget you only need a very small number of curious species. If even one such arose a billion or more years ago they should have populated the galaxy. (pulling out evelope: if they send 50 mark 1 colonizer robot systems then they get 10 lyr in 250 years (roughly the distance between "good stellar systems" say I and assuming they can travel at 1/25 c). Then 500 years to prepare the mark II colonizers. So every 1000 years explored space is growing by 10 lyr in an expanding sphere of mark n+1 colonizers. In 1,000,000 years of work they could cover some 1000 lyr. In 30 million years, they've pretty much covered the galaxy. Now, 30 million years is a tiny fraction of the age of the galaxy (less than 1%).
:)
I expect we're just a nature preserve
Good idea ... see http://www.climate-energy.com/products.asp
It's a levy not a tax. You don't see it at the cash register. According to the Canadian Private Copying Collective they collected $35M in 2005 (http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm). Up to 2005 they have distributed almost $93M. Why the OP's brother hasn't seen any of it, I can't say.
Any of these putative companies purchasing a patent license cannot distribute any of the relevant code under the gpl. So maybe that's why they are keeping quiet, or maybe they are not re-distributing any software. If the former, then Jeremy Allison has a moral and legal duty to "out" those companies.
A lot of people here have noted that free speech does not extend to corporate America. Quite true - no one has a right to speak on youtube. But the interesting question is why does google choose to exercise their corporate prerogative so as to permit anti-Christian argumentation but not anti- Islam argumentation. This does intrigue me. I haven't seen either the anti-Christian or the (now banned) anti-Islam videos. Is there a real difference that would explain why the former is welcome on youtube but the latter is forbidden? There are a great many arguments revealing the fundamental irrationality of both religions. I don't see why google would not welcome both.
I think what is really scary is the lifetime chance of incarceration for black men which this place: http://www.urban.org/publications/410405.html puts at 28% (versus 7% for white males).
BTW, thanks for bringing this up.
From: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1998/981 0.califano.prescripton.html:
..."
"If we don't deal with alcohol and drug abuse and revamp our system of crime and justice, one of every 20 Americans born in 1997 will spend some time in jail
I assume that for earlier cohorts the percentage is less that 1 in 20. Are you just pessimistic by nature? Anyway, where do your figures come from?
Say what? From wiki: As of June 30, 2005, about 1 out of every 136 U.S. residents was incarcerated either in prison or jail.
Well, you were only out by one order of magnitude.
time to recalibrate your sarcasm meter maybe?
or as someone once (almost) wrote: their claim is rank, it smells to heaven. On the other hand, what do they have to gain by making such fools of themselves?
Mandriva Flash: http://www.mandriva.com/en/linux/2007/node_3481/