Allegedly in UK expires after 50 years if the author is dead, or 70 years after his/her/their death.
IIRC it's not as simple as that. I think the copyright over the recorded performance lasts for 50 years but the copyright over the actual lyrics and music lasts for some time after the artist dies.
Which means that while Cliff Richard could continue to collect royalties from anyone wanting to do a cover of his early work (assuming he wrote it), a radio station could set up playing recordings of his early work and not pay him a thing.
The only question I would pose to any politician regarding this is: "How come everyone else is legally obliged to put away a percentage of the money I earn so I'm not a burden on the state when I'm too old to work yet musicians are exempt?"
No, it's three strikes and then you can go to court and try to prove you're not guilty.
I'm not Irish (I'm actually English), but I'm not sure about this.
Eircom are a private company, they can choose to do business with whoever they please. I'm not even sure you could get a court order to reinstate your broadband.
I'm having difficulty seeing how policies like this marry up with the due process of the law - as far as I can tell they don't.
Seriously, gaming is one area that OSS does not seem to do well in. There are very few OSS games out there, and they tend to be of poor quality and/or knockoff of old commercial games.
OSS doesn't tend to do very well in anything that involves a fair amount of tedium.
A game engine might conceivably be developed with F/OSS methods but the graphics (which may well require drawing a hundred variants of exactly the same thing) are going to stop being interesting long before they're completed.
Probably because there aren't an enormous number of ships worldwide that are equipped to deal with this, and preparing booms to channel the oil (even if it's not really doing much now) is a hell of a lot quicker than building ships.
Oi! I'm a goddamn piece of shit cum-stain on humanity, I would regress us back into the dark ages with a selfish, head-up-haemorrhoid-filled-arse mentality and I object to being compared to the Texas Board of Education.
Which is well and good, but remember most people don't really have the inclination to learn how the security works - they just want to know it's there. Such a suggestion means that you're essentially introducing a new level of security: "sort-of secure, fine if you're not doing anything important".
IMV, this is introducing confusion. For most practical purposes, "refuse a self-signed certificate" is perfectly good advice and eliminates much of the confusion. If you're a company and you don't want to go out and buy certificates for every little server, you can set up your own CA and install the root certificate for that CA into the browser.
IMO, the only reason we don't do it more is because the way browsers handle self-signed certificates is broken.
There's no reason for a browser to throw up nasty error dialogs when it encounters a self-signed certificate. Instead, browsers should silently accept such certificates and record the public key fingerprint. Browsers shouldn't turn on the lock icon when using a self-signed cert, or do anything else to make the user think they're browsing on a secure connection, because they're really not, but they should go ahead and encrypt the traffic
Either you're trolling or you honestly have no idea why it's a good idea to throw up all sorts of errors on encountering a self-signed certificate.
Clue: SSL is intended to guarantee that nobody can eavesdrop on your connection. As soon as you start to see anomalies in the certificate chain (such as a self-signed certificate), that guarantee cannot be upheld. In fact, there was a bug filed against Firefox a while back now when it did flash up such an error and it transpired that the connection was being eavesdropped.
That doesn't really work in this sort of environment, because the majority of people see the computer as a tool, no different to a hammer.
And when you go to a hardware store to buy a hammer, you get offered claw or pin hammer. You don't generally get offered a small iron foundry, a selection of moulds and a copy of "Tool making for Dummies", nor do you want one.
Thanks, that's hilarious. I haven't had such a good laugh all day.
Let me tell you this: when you have a teacher wanting to get on with showing their class something using a particular tool, the single most important thing you can have is uniformity among the PCs. Same software installed, same settings, same everything. You don't need to go down to the level of identical hardware but it does have the advantage that you can switch stuff around without having to engage brain. Which is the exact opposite of what you're going to wind up with if you do that.
I would actually go one step further than this - the latest version of OS X Server includes tools to manage a network full of Macs. So any "we can't administer it centrally" argument goes straight out the window.
Furthermore, I will happily put money on the table now to say if you call up Apple's education sales people and explain who you are, you will not pay anywhere near list price.
Very possibly, but it's not something that can change overnight. I believe you have a term for any politician who advocates taxing a commodity so high as to triple the price - the term is "former politician".
What is the best innovation Microsoft has brought to us?
The BSOD, of course. Bob and Clippy are tied for 2nd place.
Not true. Unix could quite happily kernel panic long before Windows NT was even released.
Rumour has it that there exist algorithms which look at what a user is doing on a PC and can anticipate when the user is trying to figure something out - and that Clippy was originally only meant to trigger when such an algorithm determined that they need help. But Bill decided that it didn't come up often enough, and we were left with that monstrosity.
And that doesn't even get into the Lupo with 1.6 BlueTec diesel... which we can't have here because it won't pass federal crash test requirements.
Cars with small diesel engines aren't exactly a rarity in Europe. You've used the Lupo as an example but every manufacturer has a couple of other cars of similar size which generally get similar mileage.
Though much of Europe probably pays twice or three times what you pay in the US for fuel...
Arguably, however, the constitution was drafted in much simpler times.
A similar effect to the No Fly List could be achieved by informing airlines that the government would no longer enforce it however they could (if they so choose) check their passenger list against the no-fly list and not let anyone who's on the list fly.
Entirely optional, of course. Though the airline would be obliged to pay in full any restitution as a result of a terrorist incident out of their own pocket.
I seriously doubt they do have a handle on spam. The whole point of NNTP is to allow messages to be stored and forwarded more-or-less indiscriminately. There is a "cancel post" mechanism but it is frequently not supported by servers because it's very easy to abuse by cancelling any post you please.
Moderated newsgroups were never as bad but they fall into one of two camps:
1. Administrator-moderated. Now you need an moderator to approve every message before it goes out (whereas most web-based boards, the moderator can remove a post long after it was posted). 2. Self-moderated. But 90% of Usenet clients didn't exactly make it easy to wave the appropriate poultry.
Nice image, but the even more insightful truth is that there is no such group of Al Quaeda operatives, yet this has still happened.
More likely that there was no such group of Al Quaeda operatives. Until we sent a bunch of soldiers over to Afghanistan and then Iraq to fight a guerilla war.
In the US, if you vote for a "third party" you are throwing your vote away (more or less)
"Throwing your vote away" is what you do when you don't bother to vote.
"Throwing your vote away" is what you do when you vote for somebody because you think they'll get in anyway. It's not some sort of "guess the winner, correct guess wins a prize" contest.
"Throwing your vote away" is most definitely not what you do when you cast a vote for who you believe in, regardless of the likelihood of them getting in.
IANAA (an American), but I imagine they decided that being allowed to fly was a privilege rather than a right. You're still free to get from A to B some other way, and the fact that flying is the only practical way in many parts of the US - and for that matter if you want to go to most places outside the US - is neither here nor there.
What the execs didn't seem to appreciate was that for a comparable laptop, Lenovo charge about 25% more than Dell.
If you're a huge company, you can get discounts on the order of about, oooh, say 25% - but we're not a huge company, we just hired some people who probably wanted to go from being a relatively small fish in a huge pond to being a big fish in a much smaller pond.
Oh, and if you've got an account manager with Dell you can also get discounts.
I've heard of that trick being used before. In fact, IIRC the last time I heard of it being used the person using it discovered - to their shock and horror - the executives did go for the recommended option.
If you're in a company with enough staff to merit an IT department and you don't have your spares pre-built with the corporate image and an internal update server so it can download the latest updates at LAN speeds, you are very definitely Doing It Wrong.
Three reasons I can think of are based on what I understand from the UK - where we have the dubious honour of being several years ahead of the US in this:
1. Such databases are fantastically expensive to set up and maintain. (Well, it's not the database per se that's expensive, more setting up and managing all the processes that will involve taking DNA samples, getting them into the computer and then matching up DNA data with evidence collected at the scene).
Not ideal when your country is buried in a mountain of debt.
2. Such databases are of dubious benefit. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I do recall that some enterprising journalist submitted an FOIA request and worked out that for every arrest carried out as a result of the DNA database they'd had to take the DNA of hundreds of thousands of people. At such great expense it would probably have been cheaper and more effective (ie. resulted in more arrests) to simply spend the money on hiring more police officers.
Unfortunately the media loves a government taking a "tough stance" on crime, and there's nothing that gets them excited like a computer system that promises the world, even if it almost certainly will not deliver it.
3. Already mentioned elsewhere: with current technology we don't store all the data that comprises the entirety of a person's DNA - just a subset. Most of the theories concerning how likely a false-positive is to occur have never really seen much testing in reality, so we don't know how accurate they are. What we do know is the number of people you're going to put on the database is high enough that false positives are a dead cert. Bit of a shame, therefore, that most lay juries have spent the last 20 years being brainwashed that DNA evidence is utterly foolproof.
Slashdot Mirror
There is one, it's called GPLv3.
This has already happened.
Allegedly in UK expires after 50 years if the author is dead, or 70 years after his/her/their death.
IIRC it's not as simple as that. I think the copyright over the recorded performance lasts for 50 years but the copyright over the actual lyrics and music lasts for some time after the artist dies.
Which means that while Cliff Richard could continue to collect royalties from anyone wanting to do a cover of his early work (assuming he wrote it), a radio station could set up playing recordings of his early work and not pay him a thing.
The only question I would pose to any politician regarding this is: "How come everyone else is legally obliged to put away a percentage of the money I earn so I'm not a burden on the state when I'm too old to work yet musicians are exempt?"
No, it's three strikes and then you can go to court and try to prove you're not guilty.
I'm not Irish (I'm actually English), but I'm not sure about this.
Eircom are a private company, they can choose to do business with whoever they please. I'm not even sure you could get a court order to reinstate your broadband.
I'm having difficulty seeing how policies like this marry up with the due process of the law - as far as I can tell they don't.
Seriously, gaming is one area that OSS does not seem to do well in. There are very few OSS games out there, and they tend to be of poor quality and/or knockoff of old commercial games.
OSS doesn't tend to do very well in anything that involves a fair amount of tedium.
A game engine might conceivably be developed with F/OSS methods but the graphics (which may well require drawing a hundred variants of exactly the same thing) are going to stop being interesting long before they're completed.
Probably because there aren't an enormous number of ships worldwide that are equipped to deal with this, and preparing booms to channel the oil (even if it's not really doing much now) is a hell of a lot quicker than building ships.
Oi! I'm a goddamn piece of shit cum-stain on humanity, I would regress us back into the dark ages with a selfish, head-up-haemorrhoid-filled-arse mentality and I object to being compared to the Texas Board of Education.
Which is well and good, but remember most people don't really have the inclination to learn how the security works - they just want to know it's there. Such a suggestion means that you're essentially introducing a new level of security: "sort-of secure, fine if you're not doing anything important".
IMV, this is introducing confusion. For most practical purposes, "refuse a self-signed certificate" is perfectly good advice and eliminates much of the confusion. If you're a company and you don't want to go out and buy certificates for every little server, you can set up your own CA and install the root certificate for that CA into the browser.
How's the browser meant to know the difference?
IMO, the only reason we don't do it more is because the way browsers handle self-signed certificates is broken.
There's no reason for a browser to throw up nasty error dialogs when it encounters a self-signed certificate. Instead, browsers should silently accept such certificates and record the public key fingerprint. Browsers shouldn't turn on the lock icon when using a self-signed cert, or do anything else to make the user think they're browsing on a secure connection, because they're really not, but they should go ahead and encrypt the traffic
Either you're trolling or you honestly have no idea why it's a good idea to throw up all sorts of errors on encountering a self-signed certificate.
Clue: SSL is intended to guarantee that nobody can eavesdrop on your connection. As soon as you start to see anomalies in the certificate chain (such as a self-signed certificate), that guarantee cannot be upheld. In fact, there was a bug filed against Firefox a while back now when it did flash up such an error and it transpired that the connection was being eavesdropped.
That doesn't really work in this sort of environment, because the majority of people see the computer as a tool, no different to a hammer.
And when you go to a hardware store to buy a hammer, you get offered claw or pin hammer. You don't generally get offered a small iron foundry, a selection of moulds and a copy of "Tool making for Dummies", nor do you want one.
Thanks, that's hilarious. I haven't had such a good laugh all day.
Let me tell you this: when you have a teacher wanting to get on with showing their class something using a particular tool, the single most important thing you can have is uniformity among the PCs. Same software installed, same settings, same everything. You don't need to go down to the level of identical hardware but it does have the advantage that you can switch stuff around without having to engage brain. Which is the exact opposite of what you're going to wind up with if you do that.
I would actually go one step further than this - the latest version of OS X Server includes tools to manage a network full of Macs. So any "we can't administer it centrally" argument goes straight out the window.
Furthermore, I will happily put money on the table now to say if you call up Apple's education sales people and explain who you are, you will not pay anywhere near list price.
Very possibly, but it's not something that can change overnight. I believe you have a term for any politician who advocates taxing a commodity so high as to triple the price - the term is "former politician".
What is the best innovation Microsoft has brought to us?
The BSOD, of course. Bob and Clippy are tied for 2nd place.
Not true. Unix could quite happily kernel panic long before Windows NT was even released.
Rumour has it that there exist algorithms which look at what a user is doing on a PC and can anticipate when the user is trying to figure something out - and that Clippy was originally only meant to trigger when such an algorithm determined that they need help. But Bill decided that it didn't come up often enough, and we were left with that monstrosity.
And that doesn't even get into the Lupo with 1.6 BlueTec diesel... which we can't have here because it won't pass federal crash test requirements.
Cars with small diesel engines aren't exactly a rarity in Europe. You've used the Lupo as an example but every manufacturer has a couple of other cars of similar size which generally get similar mileage.
Though much of Europe probably pays twice or three times what you pay in the US for fuel...
Arguably, however, the constitution was drafted in much simpler times.
A similar effect to the No Fly List could be achieved by informing airlines that the government would no longer enforce it however they could (if they so choose) check their passenger list against the no-fly list and not let anyone who's on the list fly.
Entirely optional, of course. Though the airline would be obliged to pay in full any restitution as a result of a terrorist incident out of their own pocket.
I seriously doubt they do have a handle on spam. The whole point of NNTP is to allow messages to be stored and forwarded more-or-less indiscriminately. There is a "cancel post" mechanism but it is frequently not supported by servers because it's very easy to abuse by cancelling any post you please.
Moderated newsgroups were never as bad but they fall into one of two camps:
1. Administrator-moderated. Now you need an moderator to approve every message before it goes out (whereas most web-based boards, the moderator can remove a post long after it was posted).
2. Self-moderated. But 90% of Usenet clients didn't exactly make it easy to wave the appropriate poultry.
Nice image, but the even more insightful truth is that there is no such group of Al Quaeda operatives, yet this has still happened.
More likely that there was no such group of Al Quaeda operatives. Until we sent a bunch of soldiers over to Afghanistan and then Iraq to fight a guerilla war.
In the US, if you vote for a "third party" you are throwing your vote away (more or less)
"Throwing your vote away" is what you do when you don't bother to vote.
"Throwing your vote away" is what you do when you vote for somebody because you think they'll get in anyway. It's not some sort of "guess the winner, correct guess wins a prize" contest.
"Throwing your vote away" is most definitely not what you do when you cast a vote for who you believe in, regardless of the likelihood of them getting in.
IANAA (an American), but I imagine they decided that being allowed to fly was a privilege rather than a right. You're still free to get from A to B some other way, and the fact that flying is the only practical way in many parts of the US - and for that matter if you want to go to most places outside the US - is neither here nor there.
We did the same thing, for similar reasons.
What the execs didn't seem to appreciate was that for a comparable laptop, Lenovo charge about 25% more than Dell.
If you're a huge company, you can get discounts on the order of about, oooh, say 25% - but we're not a huge company, we just hired some people who probably wanted to go from being a relatively small fish in a huge pond to being a big fish in a much smaller pond.
Oh, and if you've got an account manager with Dell you can also get discounts.
I've heard of that trick being used before. In fact, IIRC the last time I heard of it being used the person using it discovered - to their shock and horror - the executives did go for the recommended option.
If you're in a company with enough staff to merit an IT department and you don't have your spares pre-built with the corporate image and an internal update server so it can download the latest updates at LAN speeds, you are very definitely Doing It Wrong.
Three reasons I can think of are based on what I understand from the UK - where we have the dubious honour of being several years ahead of the US in this:
1. Such databases are fantastically expensive to set up and maintain. (Well, it's not the database per se that's expensive, more setting up and managing all the processes that will involve taking DNA samples, getting them into the computer and then matching up DNA data with evidence collected at the scene).
Not ideal when your country is buried in a mountain of debt.
2. Such databases are of dubious benefit. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I do recall that some enterprising journalist submitted an FOIA request and worked out that for every arrest carried out as a result of the DNA database they'd had to take the DNA of hundreds of thousands of people. At such great expense it would probably have been cheaper and more effective (ie. resulted in more arrests) to simply spend the money on hiring more police officers.
Unfortunately the media loves a government taking a "tough stance" on crime, and there's nothing that gets them excited like a computer system that promises the world, even if it almost certainly will not deliver it.
3. Already mentioned elsewhere: with current technology we don't store all the data that comprises the entirety of a person's DNA - just a subset. Most of the theories concerning how likely a false-positive is to occur have never really seen much testing in reality, so we don't know how accurate they are. What we do know is the number of people you're going to put on the database is high enough that false positives are a dead cert. Bit of a shame, therefore, that most lay juries have spent the last 20 years being brainwashed that DNA evidence is utterly foolproof.