Moreover, I'm pretty sure the circumcised infants weren't the ones giving consent for their foreskins to be used in this product. So I'm not really sure the word "donated" is entirely appropriate.
At the very least, they ought to be financially compensated for the use of their skin. Especially in what is (presumably?) a for-profit product.
keep in mind that I'm a redneck from the southern US and I will shoot you if you try anything.
It's interesting that you would shoot someone for attempted rape. I noticed a while ago that I had a similar attitude, but when I stopped to think about it I realized that didn't make sense.
In general, it seems our culture has an equally strong reaction against rape as against murder. It's almost as if they were the same thing. But by any rational standard murder is far worse than rape. They're not even comparable.
If you really wanted to punish a rapist fairly, you'd get some big dude to rape him in the ass (of course don't warn him ahead of time, as the element of surprise and uncertainty is important). But you wouldn't kill him.
Of course I'm not saying that rape isn't a horrible thing to do to someone. But it's far *less* horrible than, say, cutting off someone's genitals or killing them. And, honestly, I think elevating rape to that level diminishes murder and other worse crimes. It's really quite disturbing.
Profanity in language is just as much a subjective measure of acceptability as these pictures.
Although I agree about the subjectivity and baselessness of considering some words to be somehow "bad", I think it's worth pointing out that profanity isn't substantially relevant to most articles, and can be replaced with other words without loss of information. That doesn't necessarily mean it's justified to censor it, but it does mean that there isn't any reason to specifically insist on its inclusion either (with some exceptions).
It's also worth noting that the No POV rules of Wikipedia probably rule out most profanity. Not because it's "offensive", but rather because it's difficult to put profanity into a sentence and still have the sentence come across as having a neutral point of view (to most readers, anyway)
If Novell says they don't believe that Microsoft's patents that cover GPLv3 software are valid, or they don't know which patents are infringed, or they think there is some reason the patents aren't infringed, then they aren't knowingly relying on the patent license, and they escape.
Yup. And that would be exactly as if they'd never made the Microsoft deal at all. So it's moot. Microsoft can still sue over patent infringement, they don't need Novell for that. So I fail to see your point.
The only use the Novell deal has to Microsoft is if Novell depends on Microsoft's patent protection to implement Microsoft-patented technology into Free Software. GPLv3 would keep that from happening.
I believe this excerpt from the GPLv3 is relevant to this discussion:
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all.
IANAL, but I read this as saying that--for instance--if you are unable to propagate the patent rights that you have relating to the software, then you may not redistribute it. An almost identical clause exists in the GPLv2 as well, but the patent issues are made explicit in the GPLv3 elsewhere in the license, giving this clause more bite regarding patent rights.
So although Microsoft may not be in any hot water, Novell still would be. Novell cannot distribute GPLv3 software if their patent deal with Microsoft doesn't allow them to pass on the patent rights Microsoft gives them in a way that is consistent with GPLv3 terms. This may also implicitly be the case with the GPLv2, but due to being implicit it's substantially shakier in that case.
As far as I can tell, the point of the GPLv3 was not so much to trap Microsoft as it was to keep the Novell/Microsoft deal (and other similar deals) from trapping Free Software. In that goal I think it succeeds. Assuming people adopt the GPLv3, anyway.
It is worth pointing out that the predictability of a response is not grounds for dismissing it. For example, if the question, "What is 1 + 1?" were posed to a person, the obvious predictability of their response (hopefully "2") would in fact be a sign of sound reasoning. Of course, incorrect responses are often equally predictable, so it is not grounds for claiming correctness either. My point is simply that you cannot rightfully dismiss or discredit something on that basis.
Having said that, I (mostly) agree with the rest of your post. Copyright law is a useful tool for making certain industries viable. Ideally it would be good to move toward business models that don't depend on copyright. But even assuming that happens, doing so will have to be a slow process, and thus in the meantime copyright law is still necessary and should be respected within reason.
This firm has designed hardware/firmware that would let printer manufacturers digitally restrict your use of their product
It's the difference between: - Digital-Rights Management and - Digital Rights-Management
I'm reasonably certain that DRM refers to the former, not the latter, lest things like electronic home security systems or electronic locks be deemed DRM (digitally restricting how people can use your home, etc.).
Incidentally, I do find this behavior from the printer businesses distasteful at best, and unethical at worst. But this and DRM are two different issues. This is just run-of-the-mill anti-competitive behavior.
If I was a popular musical artist living in Norway.. I would be getting ready to pack my bags and move.
Right... because live concerts don't exist, and even if they did they certainly wouldn't bring in any money...
The thing that continually baffles me is how little acknowledgment is given to the money-making power of performances. Even movies have their theater runs (which, incidentally, are what a movie's supposed "success" is based on, not DVD sales). And television has advertising revenue.
Honestly, the business models of the movie and TV industries are already set up to not need copyright law. The part that depends on copyright (DVD sales) is secondary, not primary.
And in the case of the music industry, the publishers might take a hit, but not so much the musicians. From what I understand, the musicians in most cases make their money from concerts far more than CD sales (although in some genres I imagine that's not the case).
So would abolishing copyright reduce profits? Sure.
Would it make any of those industries crumble? Probably not.
At worst it would make movie studios more cautious about leaks before theater release, and music publishers might get exposed as the no-longer-necessary dead weight that they are.
That being said, I'm not in favor of abolishing copyright law. I'm not even in favor of legalizing the non-commercial file sharing of copyrighted works. But I do think that copyright law as it stands now is absurdly (strong emphasis on "absurdly") out of whack with the present world, and I think making DRM illegal and severely shortening copyright terms are both extremely good ideas.
Do you really think music records itself, markets itself?
Um, I'm pretty sure no one thinks that, no.
Rather, I suspect that what people mistakenly believe is that every single possible means of doing so is under the control of the RIAA.
With this wonderful thing we call the "internet", artists can distribute their music entirely outside of the main music publishing industry. And as far as recording the music goes, artists can go and pay for time at a recording studio. And I personally think it's worth any musician's time to learn to mix their own music (with the advent of personal computers this is perfectly viable).
And as for marketing... well, that's the beauty of things like P2P. Release a couple of your best songs for free download, and off you go (if your music is considered good by enough people, anyway). I'm sure there are countless other clever ways to market music, as well.
With the exception of musicians that are already under restrictive contracts, there is nothing keeping them from selling their music on their own (or with some hired help) in non-evil ways, entirely outside of the RIAA.
Creating music involves a more than the artists, an agent in a cowboy hat and a stoner in a tie die shirt sitting in a recording booth.
Really?
Well, I suppose the cowboy hat and tie-dye shirt would be a bit unsavory. But those aside you've more-or-less nailed it, actually. For higher quality recordings you'll proably want more than that, but it isn't strictly necessary. Especially not for musicians that are just starting out.
Distributing the music is another matter, of course.
It's rather interesting that even though the hardcore Blender users immediately personally attack anyone who complains about the interface, the developers are willing to acknowledge that there's a problem.
I believe I can be considered a hard-core Blender user (been using it for ~5 years), but I never attacked anyone. Of course, then again, I am also a developer.
Anyway, being part of the Blender community, I can say that there are plenty of long-time users of Blender that also think that the UI should be improved.
I think the backlash by Blender users to such comments is simply a matter of misinterpretation. When you say, "Blender's UI has several bad design choices and should be improved," they interperete it as something to the effect of, "Blender's UI is inconsistant with existing arbitraryily chosen GUI standards; get rid of Blender's uniqueness for the sake of newbies."
So, in other words, they aren't seeing is as meaning that there are things in Blender's GUI that are simply bad for any GUI, regardless of conformity to other GUI types.
The people who complain about Blenders UI wouldn't manage with any 3d application. If you read any of the numerous tutorials on Blender, you can get the hang of the UI in less than a half hour. I'm not saying be efficient and quick, but at least use it without difficulty.
I've been using Blender for just under 5 years, and have become damned fast at using even its most advanced features.
That said, I think its GUI has significant room for improvement. I do think that there are definite pluses to its GUI design--which should be kept--but there are also many things that should be changed, a few of which actually hinder the power users' speed (having used it for 5 years, I can really see where the bottle-necks in the GUI are; there's not nearly as many as in most apps, but they are there).
The easiest--and one of the more significant--changes that could be made would be a simple visual change in how the GUI elements look. For instance, make menu's have a distinct look from buttons. As it is, everything looks like a button. And changing the visual look of the GUI elements would not hurt the power users (such as myself) one bit. But it would be a godsend for newbies.
To their credit, however, the Blender community is actually working on exactly that (giving all the GUI elements a distinct look).
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover, I'm pretty sure the circumcised infants weren't the ones giving consent for their foreskins to be used in this product. So I'm not really sure the word "donated" is entirely appropriate.
At the very least, they ought to be financially compensated for the use of their skin. Especially in what is (presumably?) a for-profit product.
keep in mind that I'm a redneck from the southern US and I will shoot you if you try anything.
It's interesting that you would shoot someone for attempted rape. I noticed a while ago that I had a similar attitude, but when I stopped to think about it I realized that didn't make sense.
In general, it seems our culture has an equally strong reaction against rape as against murder. It's almost as if they were the same thing. But by any rational standard murder is far worse than rape. They're not even comparable.
If you really wanted to punish a rapist fairly, you'd get some big dude to rape him in the ass (of course don't warn him ahead of time, as the element of surprise and uncertainty is important). But you wouldn't kill him.
Of course I'm not saying that rape isn't a horrible thing to do to someone. But it's far *less* horrible than, say, cutting off someone's genitals or killing them. And, honestly, I think elevating rape to that level diminishes murder and other worse crimes. It's really quite disturbing.
Although I agree about the subjectivity and baselessness of considering some words to be somehow "bad", I think it's worth pointing out that profanity isn't substantially relevant to most articles, and can be replaced with other words without loss of information. That doesn't necessarily mean it's justified to censor it, but it does mean that there isn't any reason to specifically insist on its inclusion either (with some exceptions).
It's also worth noting that the No POV rules of Wikipedia probably rule out most profanity. Not because it's "offensive", but rather because it's difficult to put profanity into a sentence and still have the sentence come across as having a neutral point of view (to most readers, anyway)
Yup. And that would be exactly as if they'd never made the Microsoft deal at all. So it's moot. Microsoft can still sue over patent infringement, they don't need Novell for that. So I fail to see your point.
The only use the Novell deal has to Microsoft is if Novell depends on Microsoft's patent protection to implement Microsoft-patented technology into Free Software. GPLv3 would keep that from happening.
IANAL, but I read this as saying that--for instance--if you are unable to propagate the patent rights that you have relating to the software, then you may not redistribute it. An almost identical clause exists in the GPLv2 as well, but the patent issues are made explicit in the GPLv3 elsewhere in the license, giving this clause more bite regarding patent rights.
So although Microsoft may not be in any hot water, Novell still would be. Novell cannot distribute GPLv3 software if their patent deal with Microsoft doesn't allow them to pass on the patent rights Microsoft gives them in a way that is consistent with GPLv3 terms. This may also implicitly be the case with the GPLv2, but due to being implicit it's substantially shakier in that case.
As far as I can tell, the point of the GPLv3 was not so much to trap Microsoft as it was to keep the Novell/Microsoft deal (and other similar deals) from trapping Free Software. In that goal I think it succeeds. Assuming people adopt the GPLv3, anyway.
It is worth pointing out that the predictability of a response is not grounds for dismissing it. For example, if the question, "What is 1 + 1?" were posed to a person, the obvious predictability of their response (hopefully "2") would in fact be a sign of sound reasoning. Of course, incorrect responses are often equally predictable, so it is not grounds for claiming correctness either. My point is simply that you cannot rightfully dismiss or discredit something on that basis.
Having said that, I (mostly) agree with the rest of your post. Copyright law is a useful tool for making certain industries viable. Ideally it would be good to move toward business models that don't depend on copyright. But even assuming that happens, doing so will have to be a slow process, and thus in the meantime copyright law is still necessary and should be respected within reason.
It's the difference between:
- Digital-Rights Management and
- Digital Rights-Management
I'm reasonably certain that DRM refers to the former, not the latter, lest things like electronic home security systems or electronic locks be deemed DRM (digitally restricting how people can use your home, etc.).
Incidentally, I do find this behavior from the printer businesses distasteful at best, and unethical at worst. But this and DRM are two different issues. This is just run-of-the-mill anti-competitive behavior.
Right... because live concerts don't exist, and even if they did they certainly wouldn't bring in any money...
The thing that continually baffles me is how little acknowledgment is given to the money-making power of performances. Even movies have their theater runs (which, incidentally, are what a movie's supposed "success" is based on, not DVD sales). And television has advertising revenue.
Honestly, the business models of the movie and TV industries are already set up to not need copyright law. The part that depends on copyright (DVD sales) is secondary, not primary.
And in the case of the music industry, the publishers might take a hit, but not so much the musicians. From what I understand, the musicians in most cases make their money from concerts far more than CD sales (although in some genres I imagine that's not the case).
So would abolishing copyright reduce profits? Sure.
Would it make any of those industries crumble? Probably not.
At worst it would make movie studios more cautious about leaks before theater release, and music publishers might get exposed as the no-longer-necessary dead weight that they are.
That being said, I'm not in favor of abolishing copyright law. I'm not even in favor of legalizing the non-commercial file sharing of copyrighted works. But I do think that copyright law as it stands now is absurdly (strong emphasis on "absurdly") out of whack with the present world, and I think making DRM illegal and severely shortening copyright terms are both extremely good ideas.
Um, I'm pretty sure no one thinks that, no.
Rather, I suspect that what people mistakenly believe is that every single possible means of doing so is under the control of the RIAA.
With this wonderful thing we call the "internet", artists can distribute their music entirely outside of the main music publishing industry. And as far as recording the music goes, artists can go and pay for time at a recording studio. And I personally think it's worth any musician's time to learn to mix their own music (with the advent of personal computers this is perfectly viable).
And as for marketing... well, that's the beauty of things like P2P. Release a couple of your best songs for free download, and off you go (if your music is considered good by enough people, anyway). I'm sure there are countless other clever ways to market music, as well.
With the exception of musicians that are already under restrictive contracts, there is nothing keeping them from selling their music on their own (or with some hired help) in non-evil ways, entirely outside of the RIAA.
Really?
Well, I suppose the cowboy hat and tie-dye shirt would be a bit unsavory. But those aside you've more-or-less nailed it, actually. For higher quality recordings you'll proably want more than that, but it isn't strictly necessary. Especially not for musicians that are just starting out.
Distributing the music is another matter, of course.
It's rather interesting that even though the hardcore Blender users immediately personally attack anyone who complains about the interface, the developers are willing to acknowledge that there's a problem.
I believe I can be considered a hard-core Blender user (been using it for ~5 years), but I never attacked anyone. Of course, then again, I am also a developer.
Anyway, being part of the Blender community, I can say that there are plenty of long-time users of Blender that also think that the UI should be improved.
I think the backlash by Blender users to such comments is simply a matter of misinterpretation. When you say, "Blender's UI has several bad design choices and should be improved," they interperete it as something to the effect of, "Blender's UI is inconsistant with existing arbitraryily chosen GUI standards; get rid of Blender's uniqueness for the sake of newbies."
So, in other words, they aren't seeing is as meaning that there are things in Blender's GUI that are simply bad for any GUI, regardless of conformity to other GUI types.
The people who complain about Blenders UI wouldn't manage with any 3d application. If you read any of the numerous tutorials on Blender, you can get the hang of the UI in less than a half hour. I'm not saying be efficient and quick, but at least use it without difficulty.
I've been using Blender for just under 5 years, and have become damned fast at using even its most advanced features.
That said, I think its GUI has significant room for improvement. I do think that there are definite pluses to its GUI design--which should be kept--but there are also many things that should be changed, a few of which actually hinder the power users' speed (having used it for 5 years, I can really see where the bottle-necks in the GUI are; there's not nearly as many as in most apps, but they are there).
The easiest--and one of the more significant--changes that could be made would be a simple visual change in how the GUI elements look. For instance, make menu's have a distinct look from buttons. As it is, everything looks like a button. And changing the visual look of the GUI elements would not hurt the power users (such as myself) one bit. But it would be a godsend for newbies.
To their credit, however, the Blender community is actually working on exactly that (giving all the GUI elements a distinct look).