great advice! though, as I have a three foot high pile of Sky & Telescope & "Astronomy" here, & speaking as a ten-year veteran armchair astronomer - I have more advice for the beginner observer than I know what to do with;) (actually the tip about planning what to look at and logging stuff is new to me & sounds good.)
Whilst faking a huge mirror using interferometry (see also Gemini North and South) gives you resolution, but it won't give you the photons. You've got a huge light bucket, but you're squinting through a couple of eyeholes drilled in the bottom.
Now, if you want to talk about genuinely huge telescopes -- the GCT is only slightly bigger than the Kecks, after all -- the planned OWL (Overwhelmingly Large Telescope) is probably what you're looking for.
Only yesterday I was looking longingly at the Meade site and wondering if I could possibly justify a whole eight inch LX200 rather than one of those little ETX series things - I can't help thinking they're the equivalent of desktop routers vs a Cisco 6500. In theory the recent drop in the dollar should make them effectively half price (as I'm in the UK and £1 == $2.03 or so today). Sadly it doesn't seem to work that way:(
ugh, sorry to reply to my own post, should have proofed it:((
I meant that the MCPS collect publishing income, the PRS collect mechanicals.
Also - there's *often* only one recording of a work, but standards (eg. Yesterday) get covered by many artists. Paul McCartney doesn't get that income any more, as (IIRC) he sold his share of the Beatles' publishing to Michael Jackson who sold them to... someone else. I forget. (Actually i don't care, amounts to the same thing:) ) However you'll notice there's still an EMI logo on teh back of a Beatles CD - they still own the mechanical rights.
Yes, it is interesting, however... I'm afraid you just walked straight into my trap! *twirls moustache(*
1) The copyright to the actual music is held by the composer.
2) The copyright in the actual record is held by the publisher.
As luck would have it I used to work for a music publisher.:)
There are actually two "rights" involved in commercial music. There's a copyright in the "work" (in the case of a song, it's the lyric and the topline melody.) There's also what's called the "mechanical rights" - the right to reproduce a particular recording of that work. (That's why it infringes copyright to sell unauthorised duplicates of, say, an EMI recording of the Mozart Requiem. The music is in the public domain, but the rights to publish that particular recording of it belong to EMI.) In the particular case of western pop of the last 50 years, there's only one recording of a work. Authors whose songs are covered by many artists (standards) get the *publishing* income from every record sold. That's why, e.g., Robbie Williams' co-writer on all his good material is a very very rich man but can walk down the street unrecognised:) It's also how record producers and similar riff-raff get rich -- they pick up "points", typically a few percentages points of the publishing and/or mechanical rights.
This is also why there are generally two separate rights bodies collecting and distributing the money from music sales. In the UK it's the MCPS that control collection & distribution, and the PRS (Performing Rights Society) that collects mechanicals.
Anyway -- modern artists will usually sell the right to collect their royalties to their record and publishing companies respectively. (They're often, but not always, the same firm. Eg in my day at X Music Publishing we did publishing deals with artists who hadn't got record deals - we would give them a small advance (10 or 20K) and a lot of cheap studio time, whilst they and their management shopped around for a deal, tried to build a buzz, organised live dates , press etc.
This all has nothing to do with selling the copyright, which I assure you authors (of music AND books) do. Otherwise, they'd all be suing their publishers....
Journalism is well beyond being unsullied these days ...you're right, of course, but it's hugely unfair to generalise from TV anchors, paps and tabloid sleazeballs (Daily Mail journalists have a special circle of hell waiting for them) to everyone else in the profession - especially now, when many journalists are losing their lives trying to do their job and report the news..
Eh? What's wrong with... that word?! Perfectly innocuous term meaning "I disagree with what I believe to an untrue statement"? I dunno, kid today, muttter mutter
You are mistaken. Try this experiment: photocopy a book, then try selling the photocopies. Observe who sues you. Yes, it's the publisher.
If you look in the front of a recently published book you'll see some terms about the "moral rights of the author" -- this is all they have left. They've sold the copyright to a publisher. That's why the publisher isn't breaking the law distributing something that the copyright belongs to someone else.
Yeah, but the article's bollocks. Take this:
Barrett says the new features may make life easier for small law firms and solo attorneys. Assuming they can look at a computer's data without corrupting or altering it, lawyers doing a quick scan can determine whether relevant information might be stored on a PC.
"If you can't afford a forensics expert for every case, at least you can take a look to see if... some potentially discoverable documents have been on a computer," he says. "Once you determine [that],... then you can talk about hiring experts."
Sorry, I may not be a lawyer, but I sure as hell know that any half-way competent defence attorney would have the case laughed out of court. "So where's the chain of custody? What's that, you mean non-technical lawyers pulled out evidence and tinkered with it to see if they could find anything incriminating? BWAAAAAAAAAHahahahahahhahahaaha!!! Get out of my court and mind you don't get your big red floppy feet stuck in the door on the way out."
Currently tagged as "crackpot", which is odd as this sounds like String theory - which may be incorrect, or may not be science, but is surely NOT crackpot. You don't get people with enormous pulsating brains like Ed Witten devoting his career to crackpottery.
The most important thing here is when I was a kid I was interested in technology for the TECHNOLOGY. I wanted the latest and the greatest and you know what? I STILL do. Never has software freedom factored into that.
Great, I'm very happy for you, and your purpose for hanging around on Slashdot trolling threads about one Free software license vs another is what, exactly?
Do you know anyone sane who actually support ebola, the Aids Virus, or TB? No, but I do know a Doctor of Molecular Biology who says his favourite animal is HIV, because it's so fiendishly cunning. Of course he doesn't think it's a good idea for anyone to catch it, just that he finds beauty and elegance in it's composition.
yeah, actually he's one of the good guys and was only doing his job... however he should have done it two weeks ago, but now I look like a burke because I assumed he'd read a doc I sent him. It's totally nothing to do with him being Belgian, except that basic human need to be nasty about an "outgroup" in social psychology terms, and Belgians are acceptable because you don't get petrol bombed or lose your job or beaten up because you're a Belgian in the UK, for instance.
Now imagine a large open source project consisting of portions written by hundreds of authors. Some of them dead, some of them impossible to find or contact. As you cannot get their permission for relicensing, you cannot use any GPL code in your software Just another good reason to have contributors gift the copyright in their work to the project itself, eg. the FSF or mozilla.org .
GPL 3 is so different from GPL 2 that I find it hard to claim that it's a revision or iteration. Well, then you don't understand it (don't worry, lots of people don't either, e.g., Linus).
And that is where this whole thread started... my assertion that many people clearly didn't really understand the GPLv2 properly. I can understand Linus' annoyance that he didn't fully understand the FSF and the purpose of GNU and the GPL.
Seems to me that he should either relicense as BSD (or write his own similar license) or ensure that the whole kernel is strictly v2 only - none of that "or later versions" language.
Point of order. I believe the term 'system' means 'that combination of hardware and software which, taken as a whole, comprise a functioning device.
Releasing your GPL'd source whilst using technical measures to make it impossible for someone to modify *and execute* that source (presumably on the custom hardware the vendor's supplying, in the Tivo example) is clearly contrary to the fundamental purpose of the FSF. If you can't (as an example) change the startup banner to say "Welcome to freddy's mad tellybox!" in the source, then load and run that source on the hardware (assuming you have the technical skills & resources to do so) *because they've put a self-destruct device in that melts the CPU if you open the lid* (as a random example) that's clearly against the spirit of the GPL. (I take it no-one disputes that, at least?) It does seem that pulling the Tivo stunt complies with the letter, but not the spirit of the GPL 2.
That argument is a straw man. Apart from being their guardian, Linus owns those physical machines. They do not BELONG to his kids, therefore they do not have the moral right to seize full control of them. When they're adults, no doubt they'll buy (or be given) machines that really are theirs. At this rate, I expect they'll be running Solaris, FreeBSD or OS X r17....
Once again the FSF are ahead of the game - by asking GNU contributors to please contribute their actual copyright to the FSF. That's how come the FSF don't take legal cases where some scumbag corporate is redistributing Linux without respecting the GPL (ie., illegally): they don't own the copyright on the kernel. (Fortunately lots of the basic toolchain are FSF's so in those circumstances there's generally enough FSF code to actually stop the bastards getting away with it.)
Exactly. Some people say the GPL is evil and viral. This is because they either do not understand it properly, or because they disagree with it. If you are in avour of free software, you can go the GPL route or the BSD route. You writes your code and takes your choice... the GPL is one of the most elegant hacks ever, and having been involved in some legal shenangans on the topic, I can honestly say I've never known anything else that can ruin a lawyer's day quite so effectively. It's a fucking work of art.
Pardon my language, it's late and I had a long week... (bloody Belgians!!... don't ask.)
Reading the article, my main impression was that I'd like to see Linus' quotes in context. Reading the article, my main impression was that I'd like to see Linus' quotes... period. The article claims this was posted on a public list on 20th June, three or four weeks ago... but something tells me that if he'd posted this to the kernel list, it'd have been on Slashdot (and other sources) rather earlier than this. (No, I don't read LKLM myself.)
I am pretty sure suggesting a revolution or anything similar would qualify someone as a terrorist under the Patriot Act or some other law that may be passed under the same spirit.
If you know of any nations whose legislation permits the formenting of armed revolt against the state, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Seems as good a point as any to mention that the EFF's continuing legal fight for information on illegal surveillance has turned up definitely evidence that Gonzales was lying when he acted all surprised to hear that NSLs (National Security Letters, the things you're not allowed to tell anyone about if you get one.) Turns out the FBI were well aware NSLs were being abused for routine (non-terrorist) surveillance. In fact Gonzales had been sent a report on one such incident the week before he testified - under Oath - to Congress that there were no such problems.
I'm actually starting to feel slightly hopeful for the first for years - this century, in fact! - that the tide of BigBrother-dom is going to get rolled back somewhat. The first cracks in the dam are appearing as the end of the Dubya regime approaches. It's just like Saddam's generals doing deals with the US through back-channels in 2002-3. Except without the bombs and bullets and such, obviously.
Slashdot Mirror
Good tip, I wasn't aware of them. On a quick look, they don't seem to do S-Cs.
Hmmm, you may know the answer to this then -- is there any particular reason I couldn't pay dollars and have it shipped over the Atlantic?
great advice! though, as I have a three foot high pile of Sky & Telescope & "Astronomy" here, & speaking as a ten-year veteran armchair astronomer - I have more advice for the beginner observer than I know what to do with ;) (actually the tip about planning what to look at and logging stuff is new to me & sounds good.)
Now, if you want to talk about genuinely huge telescopes -- the GCT is only slightly bigger than the Kecks, after all -- the planned OWL (Overwhelmingly Large Telescope) is probably what you're looking for.
Only yesterday I was looking longingly at the Meade site and wondering if I could possibly justify a whole eight inch LX200 rather than one of those little ETX series things - I can't help thinking they're the equivalent of desktop routers vs a Cisco 6500. In theory the recent drop in the dollar should make them effectively half price (as I'm in the UK and £1 == $2.03 or so today). Sadly it doesn't seem to work that way :(
I meant that the MCPS collect publishing income, the PRS collect mechanicals.
Also - there's *often* only one recording of a work, but standards (eg. Yesterday) get covered by many artists. Paul McCartney doesn't get that income any more, as (IIRC) he sold his share of the Beatles' publishing to Michael Jackson who sold them to... someone else. I forget. (Actually i don't care, amounts to the same thing :) ) However you'll notice there's still an EMI logo on teh back of a Beatles CD - they still own the mechanical rights.
As luck would have it I used to work for a music publisher. :)
There are actually two "rights" involved in commercial music. There's a copyright in the "work" (in the case of a song, it's the lyric and the topline melody.) There's also what's called the "mechanical rights" - the right to reproduce a particular recording of that work. (That's why it infringes copyright to sell unauthorised duplicates of, say, an EMI recording of the Mozart Requiem. The music is in the public domain, but the rights to publish that particular recording of it belong to EMI.) In the particular case of western pop of the last 50 years, there's only one recording of a work. Authors whose songs are covered by many artists (standards) get the *publishing* income from every record sold. That's why, e.g., Robbie Williams' co-writer on all his good material is a very very rich man but can walk down the street unrecognised :) It's also how record producers and similar riff-raff get rich -- they pick up "points", typically a few percentages points of the publishing and/or mechanical rights.
This is also why there are generally two separate rights bodies collecting and distributing the money from music sales. In the UK it's the MCPS that control collection & distribution, and the PRS (Performing Rights Society) that collects mechanicals.
Anyway -- modern artists will usually sell the right to collect their royalties to their record and publishing companies respectively. (They're often, but not always, the same firm. Eg in my day at X Music Publishing we did publishing deals with artists who hadn't got record deals - we would give them a small advance (10 or 20K) and a lot of cheap studio time, whilst they and their management shopped around for a deal, tried to build a buzz, organised live dates , press etc.
This all has nothing to do with selling the copyright, which I assure you authors (of music AND books) do. Otherwise, they'd all be suing their publishers....
You are mistaken. Try this experiment: photocopy a book, then try selling the photocopies. Observe who sues you. Yes, it's the publisher.
If you look in the front of a recently published book you'll see some terms about the "moral rights of the author" -- this is all they have left. They've sold the copyright to a publisher. That's why the publisher isn't breaking the law distributing something that the copyright belongs to someone else.
Sorry, I may not be a lawyer, but I sure as hell know that any half-way competent defence attorney would have the case laughed out of court. "So where's the chain of custody? What's that, you mean non-technical lawyers pulled out evidence and tinkered with it to see if they could find anything incriminating? BWAAAAAAAAAHahahahahahhahahaaha!!! Get out of my court and mind you don't get your big red floppy feet stuck in the door on the way out."
Bollocks. How do you think publishing works?
Great, I'm very happy for you, and your purpose for hanging around on Slashdot trolling threads about one Free software license vs another is what, exactly?
yeah, actually he's one of the good guys and was only doing his job... however he should have done it two weeks ago, but now I look like a burke because I assumed he'd read a doc I sent him. It's totally nothing to do with him being Belgian, except that basic human need to be nasty about an "outgroup" in social psychology terms, and Belgians are acceptable because you don't get petrol bombed or lose your job or beaten up because you're a Belgian in the UK, for instance.
And that is where this whole thread started... my assertion that many people clearly didn't really understand the GPLv2 properly. I can understand Linus' annoyance that he didn't fully understand the FSF and the purpose of GNU and the GPL. Seems to me that he should either relicense as BSD (or write his own similar license) or ensure that the whole kernel is strictly v2 only - none of that "or later versions" language.
Good luck with that one.
Releasing your GPL'd source whilst using technical measures to make it impossible for someone to modify *and execute* that source (presumably on the custom hardware the vendor's supplying, in the Tivo example) is clearly contrary to the fundamental purpose of the FSF. If you can't (as an example) change the startup banner to say "Welcome to freddy's mad tellybox!" in the source, then load and run that source on the hardware (assuming you have the technical skills & resources to do so) *because they've put a self-destruct device in that melts the CPU if you open the lid* (as a random example) that's clearly against the spirit of the GPL. (I take it no-one disputes that, at least?) It does seem that pulling the Tivo stunt complies with the letter, but not the spirit of the GPL 2.
That argument is a straw man. Apart from being their guardian, Linus owns those physical machines. They do not BELONG to his kids, therefore they do not have the moral right to seize full control of them. When they're adults, no doubt they'll buy (or be given) machines that really are theirs. At this rate, I expect they'll be running Solaris, FreeBSD or OS X r17....
Once again the FSF are ahead of the game - by asking GNU contributors to please contribute their actual copyright to the FSF. That's how come the FSF don't take legal cases where some scumbag corporate is redistributing Linux without respecting the GPL (ie., illegally): they don't own the copyright on the kernel. (Fortunately lots of the basic toolchain are FSF's so in those circumstances there's generally enough FSF code to actually stop the bastards getting away with it.)
Linus is wrong about this and the FSF is right.
Pardon my language, it's late and I had a long week... (bloody Belgians!!... don't ask.)
Anyone got a link to a list archive somewhere?
If you know of any nations whose legislation permits the formenting of armed revolt against the state, I'd be interested to hear about it.
I'm actually starting to feel slightly hopeful for the first for years - this century, in fact! - that the tide of BigBrother-dom is going to get rolled back somewhat. The first cracks in the dam are appearing as the end of the Dubya regime approaches. It's just like Saddam's generals doing deals with the US through back-channels in 2002-3. Except without the bombs and bullets and such, obviously.
I'm not.