Yes, we knew aberforth had been in the original Order, but we didn't know that he was the barman at the Hog's Head. So we've never actually seen him do magic, even though we know he must've at some point.
No you don't. But only because Apple has already made a licensing agreement with the Froenhaufer(sp?) Group. The GP was probably assuming the use of an open source solution, in which case you would be required to pay a license to transcode to MP3.
At any rate, Stallman probably would object to distribution in MP3 format, because to listen to it, the end user would be required to use a patented technology, which he is against. I would imagine that if Stallman could nuke the entire format into nonexistance he would.
Where did you hear that Apache is switching to GPLv3? I have been unable to find any such information, and would really like to hear it from the horse's mouth as it were.
I'm really interested in the rationale for such a change if it is true, since Apache was not under the GPLv2 to begin with.
The problem is not one of EULA. The problem is that Windows Activation locks down the computer if you change more than 3 pieces of hardware in your machine. Makes it kinda hard to use it on a different computer.
You could make the legal argument that she felt compelled because he had the power to have her dismissed. That would make it rape. I'm not saying that this is the case, merely that you could make that argument.
Hey, Sarcasm, It's good to see you again. I didn't recognize you in your new duds. I think I like the verbal clothing much better than this text covering.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support the abolition of copyright. I believe that current terms on copyright do not fulfill their intended function of being an incentive for creativity, but instead motivates authors to rest on the laurels of past success. Take Tolkien, for example. If Christopher Tolkien is really such a great author, why isn't he writing his own stories from his own original ideas instead of republishing works that his father didn't feel were ready for publication?
It is my belief that people are gradually starting to realize that copyrights are futile and wholly unneccessary. Less regulation is almost always preferable to more, and in the case of copyright, I think the public would be best served by its complete revocation.
This isn't to say that I'm not open to argument on the subject, but please realize that those of us who advocate abolition of copyrights aren't all crazy zealots who just want something for nothing.
The summary wasn't necessarily advocating the abolishment of copyright. However, if we do NOT have perpetual copyright, then we WILL have some sort of public domain. which is right and good. the line you quoted, This community can surely supply a plethora of arguments for the public domain, says just that, that there are reasons to maintain a public domain. It nowhere implied that abolishment of copyright is a good or bad thing. In point of fact, it didn't mention that at all.
As to your suggestion to leave it alone, I'm afraid that's not really practical. Copyright, as it stands today is badly broken. Everybody agrees on that. The thing nobody agrees on is exactly how to fix it.
I don't know where you were buying your CDs, but I have never in my life paid that much money for a CD. Back when I was purchasing CDs regularly, say, 10-15 years ago, I was buying them for between 11 and 13. Today, the only place I see them for less than 15 is used.
If the software does not specify a certain version of the GPL, then you are free to use any of them. If you specify a GPL version number, then you are also free to allow the "or any later version" clause as well, but it is not necessary. In fact part of the reason people were so terrified about GPLv3 being possibly incompatible with GPLv2 was because the Linux kernel does not have the "or any later version" clause, so it will always be locked to GPLv2 unless Linus can track down each and every contributor to authorize the change.
However, as I understand it, this shouldn't affect your notion that the v2 fork will be absorbed back into v3 code.
Actually, my understanding is that linking to a.torrent file, which in and of itself is not a copyrighted work is not illegal in the country that hosts The Pirate Bay. Since a.torrent file is not actually the content which infringes, TPB is legally in the clear where they are located. In the US, I'm sure they could be charged with contributory infringement, but as I understand it, that is not the case there.
Actually, the indicator of whether or not something requires a citation is whether or not it is something that is "common knowledge." If it is something that the average person in the field could reasonably be expected to know, then it doesn't require a citation. This is obviously not the case for direct quotation, but I don't believe that is what you were referring to in your post.
actually, the joke was probably referencing the fact that there are some schools out there who claim ownership of any work you do for the program. For example, some architectural schools require you to abdicate ownership of any architectural plans you create on assignment. I could see this being the case in some english or Computer science or many different disciplines in Engineering as well, although I have only ever seen it in architecture. So the OP was indeed based in fact and I laughed at the joke.
Spock's birth as well was only possible with medical intervention. However, I think that canon says that Beh'lana was a natural conception, according to the voyager writers. I never did much care for that idea.
What I find funny is that the entire practice of weather prediction is based on a logically fallacy. They take the data from previous years and say, ok, last time conditions looked like this x happened, so we predict x will happen again. Anybody who's taken an introductory logic class knows that you can't correlation does not equal causation. Plus, we've only been studying the skies for about a hundred years, so we don't have enough data to make a decent correlation in the first place.
I wouldn't exactly call MP3 an open format, as it is patented and requires a royalty for legal use, but that's just picking nits. I otherwise agree with your statements.
Slashdot Mirror
No, In Deathly Hallows, we find out that Petunia wrote to Dumbledore to beg for admission to Hogwarts, but Dumbledore refused.
Yes, we knew aberforth had been in the original Order, but we didn't know that he was the barman at the Hog's Head. So we've never actually seen him do magic, even though we know he must've at some point.
No you don't. But only because Apple has already made a licensing agreement with the Froenhaufer(sp?) Group. The GP was probably assuming the use of an open source solution, in which case you would be required to pay a license to transcode to MP3.
At any rate, Stallman probably would object to distribution in MP3 format, because to listen to it, the end user would be required to use a patented technology, which he is against. I would imagine that if Stallman could nuke the entire format into nonexistance he would.
minor nit-pick:
Capitol Records didn't make that music. And they almost certainly screwed the artist in question royally in their contract.
Where did you hear that Apache is switching to GPLv3? I have been unable to find any such information, and would really like to hear it from the horse's mouth as it were.
I'm really interested in the rationale for such a change if it is true, since Apache was not under the GPLv2 to begin with.
The problem is not one of EULA. The problem is that Windows Activation locks down the computer if you change more than 3 pieces of hardware in your machine. Makes it kinda hard to use it on a different computer.
You could make the legal argument that she felt compelled because he had the power to have her dismissed. That would make it rape. I'm not saying that this is the case, merely that you could make that argument.
Hey, Sarcasm, It's good to see you again. I didn't recognize you in your new duds. I think I like the verbal clothing much better than this text covering.
As is your spelling.
It is my belief that people are gradually starting to realize that copyrights are futile and wholly unneccessary. Less regulation is almost always preferable to more, and in the case of copyright, I think the public would be best served by its complete revocation.
This isn't to say that I'm not open to argument on the subject, but please realize that those of us who advocate abolition of copyrights aren't all crazy zealots who just want something for nothing.
As to your suggestion to leave it alone, I'm afraid that's not really practical. Copyright, as it stands today is badly broken. Everybody agrees on that. The thing nobody agrees on is exactly how to fix it.
They're probably being purchased in and shipped to Nigeria with stolen credit cards.
I don't know where you were buying your CDs, but I have never in my life paid that much money for a CD. Back when I was purchasing CDs regularly, say, 10-15 years ago, I was buying them for between 11 and 13. Today, the only place I see them for less than 15 is used.
If the software does not specify a certain version of the GPL, then you are free to use any of them. If you specify a GPL version number, then you are also free to allow the "or any later version" clause as well, but it is not necessary. In fact part of the reason people were so terrified about GPLv3 being possibly incompatible with GPLv2 was because the Linux kernel does not have the "or any later version" clause, so it will always be locked to GPLv2 unless Linus can track down each and every contributor to authorize the change.
However, as I understand it, this shouldn't affect your notion that the v2 fork will be absorbed back into v3 code.
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Actually, my understanding is that linking to a .torrent file, which in and of itself is not a copyrighted work is not illegal in the country that hosts The Pirate Bay. Since a .torrent file is not actually the content which infringes, TPB is legally in the clear where they are located. In the US, I'm sure they could be charged with contributory infringement, but as I understand it, that is not the case there.
Actually, the indicator of whether or not something requires a citation is whether or not it is something that is "common knowledge." If it is something that the average person in the field could reasonably be expected to know, then it doesn't require a citation. This is obviously not the case for direct quotation, but I don't believe that is what you were referring to in your post.
If you want real news, perhaps you should try frequenting a real news site.
have you tried creating a robots.txt file? that seems to be the industry standard.
actually, the joke was probably referencing the fact that there are some schools out there who claim ownership of any work you do for the program. For example, some architectural schools require you to abdicate ownership of any architectural plans you create on assignment. I could see this being the case in some english or Computer science or many different disciplines in Engineering as well, although I have only ever seen it in architecture. So the OP was indeed based in fact and I laughed at the joke.
Isn't a the Republic of Ireland indeed a part of the United Kingdom. I thought the UK consisted of Britain, Ireland, Wales, and Sccotland.
Well, all I know is that they weren't available where I live and so I didn't purchase one. I would have if it had been available.
Spock's birth as well was only possible with medical intervention. However, I think that canon says that Beh'lana was a natural conception, according to the voyager writers. I never did much care for that idea.
What I find funny is that the entire practice of weather prediction is based on a logically fallacy. They take the data from previous years and say, ok, last time conditions looked like this x happened, so we predict x will happen again. Anybody who's taken an introductory logic class knows that you can't correlation does not equal causation. Plus, we've only been studying the skies for about a hundred years, so we don't have enough data to make a decent correlation in the first place.
I wouldn't exactly call MP3 an open format, as it is patented and requires a royalty for legal use, but that's just picking nits. I otherwise agree with your statements.