Then copyright is inherently contradictory to the modern internet. By publishing my content, I fully expect and depend on that content being distributed. And in the internet world without paper, that means copied data. Anyone using an accelerator, site guard for children, VNC client, thin client, etc... are effectively viewing sometimes reprocessed but invariably republished version of the site the parent machine looked up.
If an agent of the RIAA were to blanket a whole block with one of their songs, they do not have the right to collect royalties or payment from the denizens who resided within that block had they not agreed to the blanketing in the first place. That is broadcast law. But they do have the right, as copyright holders, to disallow anyone from making a tape of said broadcast.
Now, if the RIAA broadcasted their song with a sign saying, "RECORD ME", they lose that right to take the one guy with a tape recorder(and bad taste in music) to court.
The Internet is a defaulted "RECORD ME". Unless you don't want it seen by anyone. At which point you're in intranet territory. But even there, you would be stating RECORD ME to all persons within the intranet.
I won't lie and state that copyright law as it is has any clue in the modern world of information exchange. But certainly, this isn't blanket copyright infringement. And apparently, the legal system agrees:
A court ruling last month granted the Internet Archive's motion to dismiss the charges
However, she isn't even challenging on the basis of copyright infringement. She is suing pertaining to a shrink wrap EULA of, "By viewing this site, of which you must be viewing to read this, you agree to the following..." which have been thrown out in the past in the cases of Microsoft and Symantec software licenses anyways.
Archive.org is archiving websites. All credit to the author, etc... remain. Equally, Archive.org is not profiting from the mirrored copy. Upon request, archive.org can and most probably will remove the copy from their site.
As has been stated before, you save a copy of all websites you visit. It's called cache. Archive.org could be seen as a computer browser with a robotic viewer and a bigass cache folder.
Equally, the internet works on the premise that the information is -out there-. If the site existed only in a local intranet, then that would be a different story. This site was published to be seen and, by extension, copied, as so long as the rights of the content provider are upheld.
If you don't want your site copied, DON'T PUT IT ON THE INTERNET. Or, at the very least, put some level of protection on it. A human-only readable notice does not protection make. Otherwise, you are defaulting to a "copy me" state, as that is the default state of http. She has the right, however, as the copyright holder, to ask that all copies be purged.
To use a real world analogue. Say you go golfing. While golfing, you hear "FORE!" but keep playing. A golf ball smacks you in the head and you get a concussion, the extent of which prohibits you from going to work that week. Can you sue the golf course or the golfer(assuming he wasn't maliciously attempting to zing you across the skull)? No. You did not have a reasonable expectation not to be around flying white harbingers of pain. If you go golfing at a golf course, any reasonable person knows that there will be other golfers. So you accept the possibility and the consequences.
When you publish to the internet, your site will be copied. If someone you don't like does it too, you have no right to bitch about it. You published it out to be seen by the world. It's out there now. Too bad. However, as the copyright holder, you reserve the right to approach one of the copiers and ask, "I wish for you to delete that." The copier may have fair use defenses for it or may end up deleting it out of respect. Equally, as the copyright holder, you can definitely say, "That copy you have, you can't make money off it or take credit for it or deface it in any way or hide its source." Archive.org is not doing anything of the sort.
This, of course, is ignoring the fact that this woman more then likely has used a search engine at least once in her life. As a result, should she attest that these activities are illegal, it means she willingly participated in a query of a database doing that which she believes is wrong. That is not only hypocritical, but downright vile and questionably as illegal as that which she is alleging.
I'm not quite sure if you were playing devil's advocate or are actually an RIAA-worthy ignorant copyright Nazi, but either way, you definitely didn't put much thought into your post.
Meanwhile, you can go ahead and vegetate, not caring about anything at all nor progressing towards any goal. Meanwhile, I'll actually attempt to be something other then useless.
The scientific method can be applied to anything. "Why is a painting beautiful?" That's not a scientific question. "Why is a painting beautiful to some humans?" That is a scientific question that could yield very interesting and important insights as to how we work.
Leonardo DaVinci tried very hard to explains such things as beauty and found out many useful things about human anatomy and symmetry as a result. That and his art is considered by many to be beautiful.
Everything in life should be sibjected to the scientific method at some point or other. If for no other reason, at least because it's there and could lead to wonderful insights. The very same insights responsible for the device that lets you sit there and be a lame troll on slashdot(admittedly a double edged insight).
And that which we have not, can not, or have found no reason yet to apply the scientific method should definitely not be defaulted to a text older then the currently established civilizations anyways.
Old texts are meant to be studied to draw new conclusions. Not followed blindly in the absence of alternatives.
A republican senator from the USA, is using US copyright law to strike down a worldwide trade treaty brought to WIPO that would give too much power to larger corporations and those with means in a not only easily abused draft but as well as an unethical transfer of rights away from the creators of original works...
But why? If the company has already switched and have a staff capable of running the possibly equally buggy Linux software, why invest much more money into using an apparently equally buggy software and retrain again?
Such a very insightful post polluted by such moronic replies....sigh
But I agree entirely. All this "kill all dem terre-or-wrists" mentality is enough to make me throw up. Terrorists have causes or at least a predisposition of animosity towards their target fueled by fanatics. Take those causes away(or at least minimize them) and the terrorist count goes down. Or at least take away their reasons for animosity. If the children grow up without having their dads blown up by American arms or their resources stripped by foreign companies, they will follow their fanatics with far more reluctance.
You can never have pure security. All you can do is the best security you can manage without infringing on the freedom of your populace.
To quote one of your previous and wiser presidents:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safet"
They stole this feature from Firefox! How dare they!
Seriously, since when is defaulting to a -chosen- search engine being monopolistic? I mean, technically, AOL sent you to AOL's search page whether you liked it or not.
There are plenty more things to be critical of MS then this, don't waste perfectly good flame time on silly things.
How about the right of the next person NOT to get cancer because you felt infringed upon following half truths and conveniences and an overall paranoia about the infidelity of your offspring?
Did Merck have an ulterior motive? Yes. Definitely.
Does this mean that people should shy away from possibly ERADICATING a very dangerous threat to people? Absofuckinglutely not.
I shudder to think what will happen should a viable and safe AIDS vaccine comes to light....
"I have a God given right to continue spreading AIDS, dammit! Besides, my little Lucy won't get it. Ain't that right angel?"
Vista will sell many units, but people don't need/. to tell them as an OS, it's pathetic. The secueity's been shown to be laughable. The dialogues are annoying and most agree completely ineffective in securing the PC. The UI is bloated, and with Aero Glass, super bloated.
The OS costs much more then it should, has draconian licenses, confusing version names and, here's the big one, nothing significant over XP that merits the exorbitant price tag.
It's common to say that "This site keeps spinning stories about how bad item x is, so item x is actually good, just every site out there is wrong."
It happened with the PS3, and now Vista. The issue is that while sites like this may end up overstating flaws, there are flaws to overstate. And plenty of them. And if weren't for sites stating and overstating them, all you'd hear is the marketing drivel shot to you by the massive ad budgets the interested party has invested.
You come to an obviously Linux invested groups' website and complain about being told too much of Vista's flaws and the horrible spin they put on them. But I'm sure you go to Windows' favored sites or MS sponsored sites and complain to them how much they spin, right?
Prompting people to accept every little action does not a secure Windows make. XP is fine by Windows standards. Vista is garnished to seem safer, but annoys you with so many dialogues requesting you to double and triple check what you are about to do as to desensitize you into paying attention to the actual warning in the first place.
I've had few if any truly horrid security problems with my Windows. Those that I know which have had done so by running that which they shouldn't, trusting untrustable content or just simply acting irresponsibly. Vista can't change that. It can only look prettier as it's failing.
I wish to know the phone number to your family so that I may inform them of your constant molestation of the young boy who lives near your house. Or maybe get one of your female co-workers to claim you sexual harassed her.
And if you say "I won't stop you." or that I "have every right to do so", I know for sure that you are full of shit. Those types of speech could very well ruin a person's life and they sure as hell shouldn't be protected. And I'm damn sure you'd do just about anything possible to stop me from doing so.
Well, I don't use OSX. Never have. Not sure if I ever will.
But I asked the question in order to find out why the thought of Linux+proprietary software makes you so squeamish as to avoid it outright and believe it would be its doom.
The points you listed may be very valid points for you, though for most people they aren't that big a deal(or even on the radar). I'm in IT and I don't quite care about 90% of what you just stated. So how does Joe Blow stack up?
For those who wish to have all those things, Linux variants will undoubtedly exist until the end of time. Use them and enjoy them. For everyone else, this is a very good thing.
Many seem to forget the sheer contradiction of having a "completely open system" that bars proprietary things. If it is completely open, everything should run on it. Linux did gain lots due to its open nature. Opening the road to optional(keyword) proprietary softwares lends it to be more open.
This won't stop people from creating FOSS derivatives like they always did, it just allows those who don't speak Assembly to enjoy the software before FOSSGuy creates an alternative.
You like Debian, keep it. It ain't going anywhere. I like Ubuntu. I like the prospect of a hassle free DVD player on Ubuntu. I like being able to buy things for Ubuntu. And ya know what? Ubuntu will STILL run all those things you just stated, regardless of the Click n' Run partnership.
Quoted from "Every OS Sucks"
-Three Dead Trolls In A Baggie
Now there's lih-nux or lie-nux,
I don't know how you say it,
Or how you install it, or use it, or play it,
Or where you download it, or what programs run,
But lih-nux, or lie-nux, don't look like much fun.
However you say it, it's getting great press,
Though how it survives is anyone's guess,
If you ask me, it's a great big mess,
For elitist, nerdy shmucks.
"It's free!" they say, if you can get it to run,
The Geeks say, "Hey, that's half the fun!"
Yeah, but I got a girlfriend, and things to get done,
The Linux OS SUCKS.
(I'm sorry to say it, but it does.)
Okay, I was initially going to bat for you(not because of your copy/pasting, but because the theory sounded interesting) but now this is entirely stupid and avoid the actual question asked: If the time dimension is expanding, under what metric? As expansion in space-time is scale relative to time, how can the space dimension expand any if time is no longer a factor(being time itself as it were)?
If asked a question, you do not post an unformatted clipboard copy of the entire FAQ page. That just shows that you are completely clueless on the subject and are letting the linked-to page do the arguing for you(and badly).
Though this closely resembles copy+paste spam, the theory does sound intriguing, and definitely is one I've never heard of. Any actual physics majors here willing to throw their 2 cents at debunking it?
That's the issue here. They only own them because they were federally assisted in building them. At least half of those lines belong to the public. We damn well better have some say in them.
Slashdot Mirror
Then copyright is inherently contradictory to the modern internet. By publishing my content, I fully expect and depend on that content being distributed. And in the internet world without paper, that means copied data. Anyone using an accelerator, site guard for children, VNC client, thin client, etc... are effectively viewing sometimes reprocessed but invariably republished version of the site the parent machine looked up.
If an agent of the RIAA were to blanket a whole block with one of their songs, they do not have the right to collect royalties or payment from the denizens who resided within that block had they not agreed to the blanketing in the first place. That is broadcast law. But they do have the right, as copyright holders, to disallow anyone from making a tape of said broadcast.
Now, if the RIAA broadcasted their song with a sign saying, "RECORD ME", they lose that right to take the one guy with a tape recorder(and bad taste in music) to court.
The Internet is a defaulted "RECORD ME". Unless you don't want it seen by anyone. At which point you're in intranet territory. But even there, you would be stating RECORD ME to all persons within the intranet.
I won't lie and state that copyright law as it is has any clue in the modern world of information exchange. But certainly, this isn't blanket copyright infringement. And apparently, the legal system agrees:
A court ruling last month granted the Internet Archive's motion to dismiss the charges
However, she isn't even challenging on the basis of copyright infringement. She is suing pertaining to a shrink wrap EULA of, "By viewing this site, of which you must be viewing to read this, you agree to the following..." which have been thrown out in the past in the cases of Microsoft and Symantec software licenses anyways.
Archive.org is archiving websites. All credit to the author, etc... remain. Equally, Archive.org is not profiting from the mirrored copy. Upon request, archive.org can and most probably will remove the copy from their site.
As has been stated before, you save a copy of all websites you visit. It's called cache. Archive.org could be seen as a computer browser with a robotic viewer and a bigass cache folder.
Equally, the internet works on the premise that the information is -out there-. If the site existed only in a local intranet, then that would be a different story. This site was published to be seen and, by extension, copied, as so long as the rights of the content provider are upheld.
If you don't want your site copied, DON'T PUT IT ON THE INTERNET. Or, at the very least, put some level of protection on it. A human-only readable notice does not protection make. Otherwise, you are defaulting to a "copy me" state, as that is the default state of http. She has the right, however, as the copyright holder, to ask that all copies be purged.
To use a real world analogue. Say you go golfing. While golfing, you hear "FORE!" but keep playing. A golf ball smacks you in the head and you get a concussion, the extent of which prohibits you from going to work that week. Can you sue the golf course or the golfer(assuming he wasn't maliciously attempting to zing you across the skull)? No. You did not have a reasonable expectation not to be around flying white harbingers of pain. If you go golfing at a golf course, any reasonable person knows that there will be other golfers. So you accept the possibility and the consequences.
When you publish to the internet, your site will be copied. If someone you don't like does it too, you have no right to bitch about it. You published it out to be seen by the world. It's out there now. Too bad. However, as the copyright holder, you reserve the right to approach one of the copiers and ask, "I wish for you to delete that." The copier may have fair use defenses for it or may end up deleting it out of respect. Equally, as the copyright holder, you can definitely say, "That copy you have, you can't make money off it or take credit for it or deface it in any way or hide its source." Archive.org is not doing anything of the sort.
This, of course, is ignoring the fact that this woman more then likely has used a search engine at least once in her life. As a result, should she attest that these activities are illegal, it means she willingly participated in a query of a database doing that which she believes is wrong. That is not only hypocritical, but downright vile and questionably as illegal as that which she is alleging.
I'm not quite sure if you were playing devil's advocate or are actually an RIAA-worthy ignorant copyright Nazi, but either way, you definitely didn't put much thought into your post.
Meanwhile, you can go ahead and vegetate, not caring about anything at all nor progressing towards any goal. Meanwhile, I'll actually attempt to be something other then useless.
The scientific method can be applied to anything. "Why is a painting beautiful?" That's not a scientific question. "Why is a painting beautiful to some humans?" That is a scientific question that could yield very interesting and important insights as to how we work.
Leonardo DaVinci tried very hard to explains such things as beauty and found out many useful things about human anatomy and symmetry as a result. That and his art is considered by many to be beautiful.
Everything in life should be sibjected to the scientific method at some point or other. If for no other reason, at least because it's there and could lead to wonderful insights. The very same insights responsible for the device that lets you sit there and be a lame troll on slashdot(admittedly a double edged insight).
And that which we have not, can not, or have found no reason yet to apply the scientific method should definitely not be defaulted to a text older then the currently established civilizations anyways.
Old texts are meant to be studied to draw new conclusions. Not followed blindly in the absence of alternatives.
Let me get this straight...
A republican senator from the USA, is using US copyright law to strike down a worldwide trade treaty brought to WIPO that would give too much power to larger corporations and those with means in a not only easily abused draft but as well as an unethical transfer of rights away from the creators of original works...
I think Hell just froze over O_o
But why? If the company has already switched and have a staff capable of running the possibly equally buggy Linux software, why invest much more money into using an apparently equally buggy software and retrain again?
"If Canada wants access to US movies and music then they have to play by our rules."
Okay, then. Nice knowing you.
Dammit, should have used the preview button.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Such a very insightful post polluted by such moronic replies....sigh
But I agree entirely. All this "kill all dem terre-or-wrists" mentality is enough to make me throw up. Terrorists have causes or at least a predisposition of animosity towards their target fueled by fanatics. Take those causes away(or at least minimize them) and the terrorist count goes down. Or at least take away their reasons for animosity. If the children grow up without having their dads blown up by American arms or their resources stripped by foreign companies, they will follow their fanatics with far more reluctance.
You can never have pure security. All you can do is the best security you can manage without infringing on the freedom of your populace.
To quote one of your previous and wiser presidents:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safet"
Prove it.
You can't? Well I can't prove one exists either.
Agnosticism is great;)
They stole this feature from Firefox! How dare they!
Seriously, since when is defaulting to a -chosen- search engine being monopolistic? I mean, technically, AOL sent you to AOL's search page whether you liked it or not.
There are plenty more things to be critical of MS then this, don't waste perfectly good flame time on silly things.
How about the right of the next person NOT to get cancer because you felt infringed upon following half truths and conveniences and an overall paranoia about the infidelity of your offspring?
Did Merck have an ulterior motive? Yes. Definitely.
Does this mean that people should shy away from possibly ERADICATING a very dangerous threat to people? Absofuckinglutely not.
I shudder to think what will happen should a viable and safe AIDS vaccine comes to light....
"I have a God given right to continue spreading AIDS, dammit! Besides, my little Lucy won't get it. Ain't that right angel?"
Vista will sell many units, but people don't need /. to tell them as an OS, it's pathetic. The secueity's been shown to be laughable. The dialogues are annoying and most agree completely ineffective in securing the PC. The UI is bloated, and with Aero Glass, super bloated.
The OS costs much more then it should, has draconian licenses, confusing version names and, here's the big one, nothing significant over XP that merits the exorbitant price tag.
It's common to say that "This site keeps spinning stories about how bad item x is, so item x is actually good, just every site out there is wrong."
It happened with the PS3, and now Vista. The issue is that while sites like this may end up overstating flaws, there are flaws to overstate. And plenty of them. And if weren't for sites stating and overstating them, all you'd hear is the marketing drivel shot to you by the massive ad budgets the interested party has invested.
You come to an obviously Linux invested groups' website and complain about being told too much of Vista's flaws and the horrible spin they put on them. But I'm sure you go to Windows' favored sites or MS sponsored sites and complain to them how much they spin, right?
Agreed. I myself consider myself agnostic for those very reasons.
Bah, Greenpeace doesn't let logic get in the way of their self-righteousness.
Prompting people to accept every little action does not a secure Windows make. XP is fine by Windows standards. Vista is garnished to seem safer, but annoys you with so many dialogues requesting you to double and triple check what you are about to do as to desensitize you into paying attention to the actual warning in the first place.
I've had few if any truly horrid security problems with my Windows. Those that I know which have had done so by running that which they shouldn't, trusting untrustable content or just simply acting irresponsibly. Vista can't change that. It can only look prettier as it's failing.
Now make it run using ants instead of water and we have HEX!
I wish to know the phone number to your family so that I may inform them of your constant molestation of the young boy who lives near your house. Or maybe get one of your female co-workers to claim you sexual harassed her.
And if you say "I won't stop you." or that I "have every right to do so", I know for sure that you are full of shit. Those types of speech could very well ruin a person's life and they sure as hell shouldn't be protected. And I'm damn sure you'd do just about anything possible to stop me from doing so.
Bury this guy. He;s been pasting it in physics related articles. He answers questions by pasting some more.
Well, I don't use OSX. Never have. Not sure if I ever will.
But I asked the question in order to find out why the thought of Linux+proprietary software makes you so squeamish as to avoid it outright and believe it would be its doom.
The points you listed may be very valid points for you, though for most people they aren't that big a deal(or even on the radar). I'm in IT and I don't quite care about 90% of what you just stated. So how does Joe Blow stack up?
For those who wish to have all those things, Linux variants will undoubtedly exist until the end of time. Use them and enjoy them. For everyone else, this is a very good thing.
Many seem to forget the sheer contradiction of having a "completely open system" that bars proprietary things. If it is completely open, everything should run on it. Linux did gain lots due to its open nature. Opening the road to optional(keyword) proprietary softwares lends it to be more open.
This won't stop people from creating FOSS derivatives like they always did, it just allows those who don't speak Assembly to enjoy the software before FOSSGuy creates an alternative.
You like Debian, keep it. It ain't going anywhere. I like Ubuntu. I like the prospect of a hassle free DVD player on Ubuntu. I like being able to buy things for Ubuntu. And ya know what? Ubuntu will STILL run all those things you just stated, regardless of the Click n' Run partnership.
Most of the features I miss from Linux are not possible (or not easy) on OS X because it is proprietary.
Like what?
Quoted from "Every OS Sucks" -Three Dead Trolls In A Baggie
Now there's lih-nux or lie-nux,
I don't know how you say it,
Or how you install it, or use it, or play it,
Or where you download it, or what programs run,
But lih-nux, or lie-nux, don't look like much fun.
However you say it, it's getting great press,
Though how it survives is anyone's guess,
If you ask me, it's a great big mess,
For elitist, nerdy shmucks.
"It's free!" they say, if you can get it to run,
The Geeks say, "Hey, that's half the fun!"
Yeah, but I got a girlfriend, and things to get done,
The Linux OS SUCKS.
(I'm sorry to say it, but it does.)
Okay, I was initially going to bat for you(not because of your copy/pasting, but because the theory sounded interesting) but now this is entirely stupid and avoid the actual question asked: If the time dimension is expanding, under what metric? As expansion in space-time is scale relative to time, how can the space dimension expand any if time is no longer a factor(being time itself as it were)?
If asked a question, you do not post an unformatted clipboard copy of the entire FAQ page. That just shows that you are completely clueless on the subject and are letting the linked-to page do the arguing for you(and badly).
Though this closely resembles copy+paste spam, the theory does sound intriguing, and definitely is one I've never heard of. Any actual physics majors here willing to throw their 2 cents at debunking it?
That's the issue here. They only own them because they were federally assisted in building them. At least half of those lines belong to the public. We damn well better have some say in them.
At least Viacom still makes the clips from every episode available at ifilm.com
But I do agree this will probably hurt them.