No, I didn't know that. But that just shows that your telephone analogy is not a good one. You can set up your own ISP. If you don't like the TOS or practices of your current one, that might be a reasonable option.
Does this mean that because if yout email provider does some sort of spam filtering, if they miss pornographic spam and your daughter gets it, you can sue your mailprovider?
I do, actually. It may be a more reasonable place than where you work, but it is still real.
marketing manager that demands he needs admin rights. other managers that think they need admin rights so it snowballs and then corperate deems that most have admin rights
If you are reasonable with people, they will be reasonable with you. Why does the marketing manager need admin rights? If she does, give them to her. If she is just demanding for no reason, say 'no'. Where I work departments can buy their own machines, but we don't have to take care of them if they choose to, so we have some leverage.
or better yet the idiots in the NOC set the global user profile to put them in the administrator group for some failed attemptto push out a path and forgets to move everyone back.
The NOC's first move was excessive, and then they were negligent. If they keep being incompetent, get someone who isn't.
corperate IT is hell. as the NOC morons are sure they know more, the managers demand more access or threaten your job, then bitch that they clicked on a strange attachment and want to know why you are not protecting them.
I'm happy I don't work where you do.
solution? thow their asses under the bus. when a manager or Director infects his computer and then the office, ANNOUNCE who it was, espically to the IT heads.
No, that's not a very good solution. That will just get more people mad and unreasonable. If someone has no need for a dangerous privlige, don't let them have it. Be willing to send out low-level techs to do admin-work on people's computers and install the software they don't have rights to install. Don't humilate people.
this is akin to the phone company blocking access to certain numbers because they just don't want to route them. How would you feel if you weren't allowed to call a phone number you wanted, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because your telephone provider is the only one in town?
If the phone company started blocking access to numbers, they would probably not be doing it just to annoy you; they would be doing it to a large number of people. So what's stopping you from stepping in and setting up a new telco to serve/profit from all these people who would leave their old one if they had anywhere to go?
Did you read your terms of service with your ISP? ISPs (with the exception of some like Speakeasy that make a selling point of it) generally all have exceptions int the TOS for port blocking and anything else they think they might need. So it's not fraud at all.
I have people that we have had to LOCK DOWN their computer completely with TrustNoEXE because they can not understand what it means when we say "DO NOT DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL ANYTHING". Somehow they interpet that as "Please install Webshots, Elf bowling, yahoo Toolbar and oh that cute free time keeper app! we LOVE it when you install that cutsey stuff."
If no one is allowed to install any programs, why don't you have all the computers set up that way by default?
How many people must a man beat up,
Before he's invented the wheel?
Yes and how many throats must a poor man slit,
Before his field can drink?
Yes and how many times must he maim in the night,
Before he's invented fire?
The answer, my friends, is only 42.
The anwser is only 42.
My point is that going into an airport, and causing trouble because someone whose job is to enforce the law couldn't quote the actual wording to you like a lawyer, and not accepting "it's what the law says" as a reasonable explanation when common sense tells you the law could well say that, is an unhelpful approach.
To bring suit you generally need some form of standing, which you can unsually get only by being harmed. Gilmore almost cerainly knew in advance that they would want ID and wanted to test if he really had to give it. It may be a little troublesome to the screeners, but he had to do it to bring the suit.
Please clarify your stated difference between the sampling of text and the sampling of other media forms. The major differences I see are monetary value, and historical precedents (for text), rather than any qualitative difference.
There is nothing substantively different about text as opposed to other forms. I didn't mean to imply there was.
Also, is there an implied limit to "re-interpreting pre-existing creative-thoughts", which would in your opinion prevent direct quotes?
Quotes for the purpose of criticism or parody should be fine. So I should be able to - on a radio show - play a chorous of a song in order to respond to an aspect of it. This is different from how creative sampling is usually done, where people take portions of many works and recombine them to make a new work. Audio sampling, if it has an analogy, would be like taking paragraphs of books and recombining them to make a new one.
If I can use direct quotes from the State of the Union in a report, why can't I use "quotes"/samples in a report comparing/contrasting, for instance, banjo picking styles in bluegrass vs. country music? Or tracing the evolution of musical styles in american folk music?
Aside from that the State of the Union is public domain, they should be the same scenario. But what you have described is substantively different from standard sampling and remixing.
When material is presented as text, then quoting means the use of text. When material is presented in another media format, then doesn't "quoting" of necessity imply sampling?
Again, yes. But I meant sampling in a different sense than you. I'm not saying that both senses are and should be illegal, just that sampling-as-quoting needs to be legal, while sampling-as-remixing is nice but not nessicary.
Note finaly that when I quote you, I make it clear what are my words and what are yours, and if this were not a post-and-reply system I would need to attribute the quote as well. This would be true for your example of musical documentary quoting as well. In sampling in the creation of music, however, it is not very clear what comes from where.
It is, in fact, morally evil on some level to prevent other's from re-interpreting pre-existing creative-thoughts into their own, substantially new ideas.
But re-interpreting pre-existing creative-thoughts into one's own is allowed, as long as the result is substantially different from each component. And as long as it is just the thoughts one re-interprets. Once I start taking sound or video samples, the situation is pretty different.
Probably not I.8.8. That section, with its "exclusive right to their creations" should pretty easily restrict derived works in at least some sense of "derived". An argument about conflict of rights from First Amendment or Due Process grounds might be more likely.
I'm sorry but your American constitution is pretty much irrelevent anywhere else.
Except I'm here, the works were mostly created here, and international copyright is generally based on the copyright of the work in the country it was origonally published in.
Also that just gives the Congress the power to have a copyright law, it doesn't restrict them from having a copyright law to serve a purpose other than the one stated.
Probably not. If what they are doing is not properly promoting the progress of the useful arts and sciences, they're not authorized to use that power. This interpretation is similar to the standard one used for the 2nd amendment where there's a similar issue.
Also it doesn't restrict the limiting time, it could be a million years.
The time is restricted in part by interpretations of "intent" and in part by what does promote properly.
In other words, the Constitution would mean the authors having exclusive rights. In other words, if they don't want you to have the right to download it, you don't have the right to download it. Not 'you can't download it unless you really really want to and think you deserve it for free because those evil artists make too much money anyway', but 'you can't download it'. Full stop. End of discussion. QED.
Mostly, unless you believe that the law as it applies to the particular work is unconstitutional.
Copyright's up to, what, life of the author + 70 years? How's the public good served by that?
Copyright law isn't there to serve the public good, it's there to protect the copyright owner from the 'public', the public being people who would steal their intellectual property. The law is to protect everyone, not just the mysterious 'public'. Are you saying that people with copyrighted works aren't part of the public?
Copyrights are allowed by the constitution in the following way:
"The Congress shall have Power To...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" - US Constitution, I.8.8
So the goal is to help art and science, something that restricting these works for life of the author and then 78 more years does not do efficiently. People would keep making art even if they knew that in 20 years it would be free for anyone to use. And the shorter the restriction time, the more recent material other artists can work from. Notice how patents work fine with 20 years?
The settlers came from America. That's why they're American settlers. You think it was the other way round? Then where did the European settlers come from, I ask you!
No, you've got it backways. In the 1600's, when we colonized Europe, we brought along our legal system. Since then it has flourished, but grown apart from its parent. Not that this is a bad thing, just not everything is applicable back on this side of the Atlantic.
I depends on what peices you start with, but I figure the most likely outcome is that white captures black's second peice on turn 2. This leaves black not in check and with no legal moves
How can this happen? On a 2x2 board with two kings, each king can move to any square they're not on, and as such will always be in checkmate by your definintion.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I didn't know that. But that just shows that your telephone analogy is not a good one. You can set up your own ISP. If you don't like the TOS or practices of your current one, that might be a reasonable option.
Does this mean that because if yout email provider does some sort of spam filtering, if they miss pornographic spam and your daughter gets it, you can sue your mailprovider?
I do, actually. It may be a more reasonable place than where you work, but it is still real.
marketing manager that demands he needs admin rights. other managers that think they need admin rights so it snowballs and then corperate deems that most have admin rights
If you are reasonable with people, they will be reasonable with you. Why does the marketing manager need admin rights? If she does, give them to her. If she is just demanding for no reason, say 'no'. Where I work departments can buy their own machines, but we don't have to take care of them if they choose to, so we have some leverage.
or better yet the idiots in the NOC set the global user profile to put them in the administrator group for some failed attemptto push out a path and forgets to move everyone back.
The NOC's first move was excessive, and then they were negligent. If they keep being incompetent, get someone who isn't.
corperate IT is hell. as the NOC morons are sure they know more, the managers demand more access or threaten your job, then bitch that they clicked on a strange attachment and want to know why you are not protecting them.
I'm happy I don't work where you do.
solution? thow their asses under the bus. when a manager or Director infects his computer and then the office, ANNOUNCE who it was, espically to the IT heads.
No, that's not a very good solution. That will just get more people mad and unreasonable. If someone has no need for a dangerous privlige, don't let them have it. Be willing to send out low-level techs to do admin-work on people's computers and install the software they don't have rights to install. Don't humilate people.
If the phone company started blocking access to numbers, they would probably not be doing it just to annoy you; they would be doing it to a large number of people. So what's stopping you from stepping in and setting up a new telco to serve/profit from all these people who would leave their old one if they had anywhere to go?
Did you read your terms of service with your ISP? ISPs (with the exception of some like Speakeasy that make a selling point of it) generally all have exceptions int the TOS for port blocking and anything else they think they might need. So it's not fraud at all.
If no one is allowed to install any programs, why don't you have all the computers set up that way by default?
How many people must a man beat up,
Before he's invented the wheel?
Yes and how many throats must a poor man slit,
Before his field can drink?
Yes and how many times must he maim in the night,
Before he's invented fire?
The answer, my friends, is only 42.
The anwser is only 42.
Ok, then, how about "I amn't"?
To bring suit you generally need some form of standing, which you can unsually get only by being harmed. Gilmore almost cerainly knew in advance that they would want ID and wanted to test if he really had to give it. It may be a little troublesome to the screeners, but he had to do it to bring the suit.
List of Language Acadamies
Have you considered "I'm not"?
There is nothing substantively different about text as opposed to other forms. I didn't mean to imply there was.
Also, is there an implied limit to "re-interpreting pre-existing creative-thoughts", which would in your opinion prevent direct quotes?
Quotes for the purpose of criticism or parody should be fine. So I should be able to - on a radio show - play a chorous of a song in order to respond to an aspect of it. This is different from how creative sampling is usually done, where people take portions of many works and recombine them to make a new work. Audio sampling, if it has an analogy, would be like taking paragraphs of books and recombining them to make a new one.
If I can use direct quotes from the State of the Union in a report, why can't I use "quotes"/samples in a report comparing/contrasting, for instance, banjo picking styles in bluegrass vs. country music? Or tracing the evolution of musical styles in american folk music?
Aside from that the State of the Union is public domain, they should be the same scenario. But what you have described is substantively different from standard sampling and remixing.
When material is presented as text, then quoting means the use of text. When material is presented in another media format, then doesn't "quoting" of necessity imply sampling?
Again, yes. But I meant sampling in a different sense than you. I'm not saying that both senses are and should be illegal, just that sampling-as-quoting needs to be legal, while sampling-as-remixing is nice but not nessicary.
Note finaly that when I quote you, I make it clear what are my words and what are yours, and if this were not a post-and-reply system I would need to attribute the quote as well. This would be true for your example of musical documentary quoting as well. In sampling in the creation of music, however, it is not very clear what comes from where.
But re-interpreting pre-existing creative-thoughts into one's own is allowed, as long as the result is substantially different from each component. And as long as it is just the thoughts one re-interprets. Once I start taking sound or video samples, the situation is pretty different.
Probably not I.8.8. That section, with its "exclusive right to their creations" should pretty easily restrict derived works in at least some sense of "derived". An argument about conflict of rights from First Amendment or Due Process grounds might be more likely.
If the check were not server-initiated, it would be really easy for WINE to get around it.
Except I'm here, the works were mostly created here, and international copyright is generally based on the copyright of the work in the country it was origonally published in.
Also that just gives the Congress the power to have a copyright law, it doesn't restrict them from having a copyright law to serve a purpose other than the one stated.
Probably not. If what they are doing is not properly promoting the progress of the useful arts and sciences, they're not authorized to use that power. This interpretation is similar to the standard one used for the 2nd amendment where there's a similar issue.
Also it doesn't restrict the limiting time, it could be a million years.
The time is restricted in part by interpretations of "intent" and in part by what does promote properly.
In other words, the Constitution would mean the authors having exclusive rights. In other words, if they don't want you to have the right to download it, you don't have the right to download it. Not 'you can't download it unless you really really want to and think you deserve it for free because those evil artists make too much money anyway', but 'you can't download it'. Full stop. End of discussion. QED.
Mostly, unless you believe that the law as it applies to the particular work is unconstitutional.
The check is server-side.
Copyrights are allowed by the constitution in the following way:
So the goal is to help art and science, something that restricting these works for life of the author and then 78 more years does not do efficiently. People would keep making art even if they knew that in 20 years it would be free for anyone to use. And the shorter the restriction time, the more recent material other artists can work from. Notice how patents work fine with 20 years?
Why not just ghost the activated version?
Yes.
The settlers came from America. That's why they're American settlers. You think it was the other way round? Then where did the European settlers come from, I ask you!
You forgot:
3) Fire Rick Berman out of a cannon (sell tickets)
No, you've got it backways. In the 1600's, when we colonized Europe, we brought along our legal system. Since then it has flourished, but grown apart from its parent. Not that this is a bad thing, just not everything is applicable back on this side of the Atlantic.
How can this happen? On a 2x2 board with two kings, each king can move to any square they're not on, and as such will always be in checkmate by your definintion.
Do you count the intersections when you play? 1...2...3...4.........359...360...361