If you drive a Sidekick around a sharp right hand turn, and try to accellerate to join the traffic, the gearbox will downshift TWO gears, accellerate wildly to 7500 revs, hit the limiter protection, almost shut down the engine and then accellerate again.
So that's how Suzuki solved the roll over problem.
for the love of god grab the key and TURN OFF THE ENGINE. Yes, you will lose power steering and brakes -- this is still preferable to attempting to drive the car at 100MPH until it runs out of gas.
But what if both your gear shift and iginition push button are software controlled, and the software is the problem?
The point is that when a non x86 based system is designed, built and sold, there is a break with backwards compatibility at the binary level.
Apple users said the same thing when Apple switched from the Apple II series (MOS 6502) to the Macintosh (Motorola 68000 ). They repeated their argument when Apple switched from the Motorola 68000 series CPU to the PowerPC CPU. They said it yet again when Apple switched from the PowerPC CPU to the Intel CPU.
Apple users weren't the only ones. Commodore 64 and Atari 400/800 users said the same thing when they had to leave their dying MOS 6502 CPU based system, and switch to the Amiga (Motorola 68000 series), Atari ST (Motorola 68000 series), or the multiple IBM PC clones (Intel x86).
My point being that switching CPU architectures are a sign of a industry/market evolving to take advantage of any advances in the newest designs. Or in the case of Apple's last transition, the market realities of Intel dominance. The legacy software argument are what CPU manufacturers use to cling to their customers who don't see any advantage from changing from what they currently have.
The main reason that Intel dominates in the small computer market is because they formed an alliance with Microsoft. Intel is safe as long as Microsoft developed most of its products for the x86 platform. Microsoft also recognized that if they did leave the Intel platform, they would lose their incredible advantage since they pretty much shut out most of their competitors in the Intel arena. I'll hazard a guess that Microsoft wouldn't be able to repeat some of their tactics to capture a new market, and they know this. This is probably why Microsoft is worried about the industry's move to appliances and "cloud" computing.
Anyway, when it comes to other CPUs, there are general purpose boards available for most any processor out there. You can find these by googling for 'ARM', 'PPC', etc.
You are blaming a CPU architecture for the actions of a hardware manufacturer. The hardware manufacturer can lock-down any platform at the ROM/Bootstrap level.
On a related topic, people who pray for the end of x86 should be careful what they wish for, because their desire brings completely closed platforms and proprietary app stores. There is one reason why you can install software on your Windows machine without a "developer key" or Microsoft's explicit approval, and that reason is backwards compatibility.
yea, because we can't possibly be able to write programs for the ARM CPU. Oh wait, we can...
Of course we couldn't run linux on an ARM CPU. Oh wait, we can... Ubuntu on ARM
Excellent observation! Like the Puerto Ricans, Apple users are a vibrant and creative culture just trying to make it in the bad New York streets with all those Windows thugs snapping their fingers in some weird choreographed dance fight.
What is being discussed is whether or not individuals who are part of a cult-like self-reinforcing hivemind can be considered "freethinking".
The exact same thing can be said for Linux fans, Windows fans, or any other clique.
I heard something this morning about the "hidden brain" on NPR's Morning Edition, and the author was explaining how the choices we make may not entirely come from our "rational" conscious mind. I know I'm butchering this up so go find a podcast, but your "hidden brain" is rather dumb and makes its choices by what is sees as prevalent in the environment around them.
So this could be:
"I like Windows - because everybody around me uses windows." or
"I think Apple Users are gay, because I observe that 1) the "creative artists" in popular culture appear to be gay, and 2) I see Apple is creative with their designs therefore they must be gay too." or
"I like Apple because I observe a lot of Windows machines crash and have viruses" or
"I like linux because I observe a lot of nerds uses it and I want to be a nerd too."
Anyway, it's just a theory...
I like Apples myself and I'm not gay and I don't think all my scientist colleagues which use Macs are either... not that there is anything wrong with being gay (Sienfield Reference).
Use what you are happy with, everything else is an illusion.
Most amateur level astronomical CCDs (amateur is a relative term in this case) are pretty low resolution.
Let me introduce you to Apogee Instruments ccd.com. You can go much higher than 800x600. Of course, these aren't "cheap" but the article did state that the amateur astronomer spend more than £20,000.
The Amateur Radio Operators are providing a tested network of volunteers to send "health and welfare" messages to friends and family outside of the disaster network.
they do this reliably and at a significantly lower cost.
109a is about the transfer of ownership. It states that you can sell, give, or throw-away a book.
And by extension loan a book, charge late fees, sale the book to make room for more books.
"lending" has always been a natural right. Just like there is no law regarding the lending of a shovel or horse.
A shovel and a horse are tangible objects, and more importantly outside the scope of copyright. While a book and phonorecording are tangible media, copyright applies to the intangibles like the writings of a mystery writer or the recording of a musician that is placed on that media.
Section 106(3) as referenced by section 109a gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to do and to authorize "(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;".
Section 109 conveniently titled "Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord" gives the library the right to dispose of its copy as it sees fit. This includes lending this particular copy to its patrons, collect late fees, and ultimately sale the book to make room for more books.
So after further study of the copyright law, I guess I was technically more correct than than my detractors and the library was granted "permission" by section 109 to lend books with regards to section 106(3). Yea I said it...;)
After some thought, I think I need to make a clarification.
While you tried to mimic the same terms as lending a book (ie. only one person agrees to use it at a time), you still made a complete copy of the work which runs you afoul of copyright law.
Thought I would spice things up with a nautical term...;)
Well I believe it does. I can say that I and the person that I shared a copy with will not use it at the same time.
Unfortunately, you still made a copy of a complete work. Also, the original author didn't give you permission to enter into agreement with that other person on the use of that work.
Now if you gave a single person your authorized copy of that work, and destroyed any copies in your possession you may have a leg to stand on... but I'm not a lawyer...
You keep saying this over & over. Unfortunately that doesn't make it true.
Nope, but the text of 109.a does make it true.
" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."
This explicitly states that copyright owners can only control the first sale of the book. Also, it gives the library the ability to dispose of the book by resale or by extension "loan" the book to its patrons.
But what codifies your ability to resale something you purchased? Why that will be good old Section 109!
Many arguments made against sharing on P2P networks also apply to lending dead trees books.
For example, "Sharing on P2P networks makes works available to people who do not pay for them, and so must be stopped."
No. The argument is that P2P networks are being used to commit copyright infringement. "Dead tree lending" does not contribute to copyright infringement. Therefore your argument doesn't apply.
Copyright infringement doesn't alway mean denying income (eg. The terms of the GPL is enforced using copyright).
Of course if I were to make an argument relating to the economics of copyright infringement on P2P networks versus library lending of materials, I could say that lending materials doesn't diminish the scarcity of the material therefore doesn't affect the revenue of the author that much. However duplicating a file on a P2P network does diminish the scarcity of the material and thus the revenue. This is especially true considering the libraries inability to purchase enough copies of a book to satisfy readers demand which gives people incentive to buy a copy instead of waiting for that best seller to become available for checkout.
The ease of copying things digitally doesn't negate the need for copyrights. Instead, some people would argue it just means it needs better enforcement or better DRM.
As for licensing, that's entirely a different topic all together and outside the scope of my original post.
Of course not. Libraries don't need permission because they already have permission. It's even explicitly given in section 109 of the US Copyright code (look at the many other replies for a link).
However, I had to make a contrasting difference between the ability of the library to loan books, and one's inability to distribute digital copies.
Let me reword it for you: "A person usually doesn't have permission from the author to make digital copies available. On the other hand, Libraries are permitted to loan books."
My using the "permission" instead of "permitted" in my original post, does not change the argument. Instead it only provided cannon fodder to the pedantic commenters...
There is still only one book. What someone else does with the book you loaned them is on their conscience and not yours.
My point wasn't about limiting the readership of a book (the GP used 2 downloads in their example), instead it was pointing out that loaning a book isn't the same as giving someone a digital copy of said book.
I see nothing wrong with using the library to browse YouTube or MySpace. The computers at my library don't have speakers, so you would have to bring your own headphones. Also, my branch has a "computer lab" with a glass wall separating it from the study area and book stacks.
I agree that the homeless use the library as a shelter. However as soon as they start lying on floor or begin harassing other patrons, they are asked to leave. Most of the time, they are just like any other patron during the day except maybe older and not as clean.
In a P2P network, you are the one publishing the work. You made a digital file available for one or more people to copy. You are not loaning out material and expecting it to be returned, nor are you making the file available for only one person with the intent of letting someone else borrow it when it is returned.
In addition, the ability of someone else copying a book that you loaned has no bearing with your behavior. Unless of course, you helped them make the photocopies.
Yeah, I was up to you until that point. It's the other way around. Nobody "gives" people permission to lend or even copy books.
Actually Section 109 gives you permission to lend a book. Copyright forces you to get permission from the source material's author to copy it.
The right to use information is among the inalienable right granted by our Creator (whomever this might be), the right of liberty. It is enshrined in the first amendment, the right to free speech, because the written word is a manifestation of speech.
How does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." give you the right to copy a book? Except maybe you confused the right to publicly speak and/or publish about our grievances with our government, with some ability to copy someone else's work...
So yes - you do have permission as explicitly given by section 109 of the US Copyright law (aka "First Sale Doctrine").
As for the rest of your post, there is "DRM on dead trees". Because the amount of effort to memorize and recite a library book would deter the average people. Sort of like digital DRM would deter the average person. Both forms of DRM can be circumvented if someone is determined to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
So that's how Suzuki solved the roll over problem.
But what if both your gear shift and iginition push button are software controlled, and the software is the problem?
Even better if he said 'Hi, my name is Steve Wozniak.'
Apple users said the same thing when Apple switched from the Apple II series (MOS 6502) to the Macintosh (Motorola 68000 ). They repeated their argument when Apple switched from the Motorola 68000 series CPU to the PowerPC CPU. They said it yet again when Apple switched from the PowerPC CPU to the Intel CPU.
Apple users weren't the only ones. Commodore 64 and Atari 400/800 users said the same thing when they had to leave their dying MOS 6502 CPU based system, and switch to the Amiga (Motorola 68000 series), Atari ST (Motorola 68000 series), or the multiple IBM PC clones (Intel x86).
My point being that switching CPU architectures are a sign of a industry/market evolving to take advantage of any advances in the newest designs. Or in the case of Apple's last transition, the market realities of Intel dominance. The legacy software argument are what CPU manufacturers use to cling to their customers who don't see any advantage from changing from what they currently have.
The main reason that Intel dominates in the small computer market is because they formed an alliance with Microsoft. Intel is safe as long as Microsoft developed most of its products for the x86 platform. Microsoft also recognized that if they did leave the Intel platform, they would lose their incredible advantage since they pretty much shut out most of their competitors in the Intel arena. I'll hazard a guess that Microsoft wouldn't be able to repeat some of their tactics to capture a new market, and they know this. This is probably why Microsoft is worried about the industry's move to appliances and "cloud" computing.
Anyway, when it comes to other CPUs, there are general purpose boards available for most any processor out there. You can find these by googling for 'ARM', 'PPC', etc.
You are blaming a CPU architecture for the actions of a hardware manufacturer. The hardware manufacturer can lock-down any platform at the ROM/Bootstrap level.
yea, because we can't possibly be able to write programs for the ARM CPU. Oh wait, we can...
Of course we couldn't run linux on an ARM CPU. Oh wait, we can... Ubuntu on ARM
Oh I guess you must be mistaken.
I think he meant the actual search service, not the other software products.
Besides not all Google products are open sourced (free != open source).
What makes Bing, Yahoo, or any other search engine beside Google bad?
I would think that options are good... otherwise we would all be using Windows now.
Excellent observation! Like the Puerto Ricans, Apple users are a vibrant and creative culture just trying to make it in the bad New York streets with all those Windows thugs snapping their fingers in some weird choreographed dance fight.
The exact same thing can be said for Linux fans, Windows fans, or any other clique.
I heard something this morning about the "hidden brain" on NPR's Morning Edition, and the author was explaining how the choices we make may not entirely come from our "rational" conscious mind. I know I'm butchering this up so go find a podcast, but your "hidden brain" is rather dumb and makes its choices by what is sees as prevalent in the environment around them.
So this could be:
"I like Windows - because everybody around me uses windows." or
"I think Apple Users are gay, because I observe that 1) the "creative artists" in popular culture appear to be gay, and 2) I see Apple is creative with their designs therefore they must be gay too." or
"I like Apple because I observe a lot of Windows machines crash and have viruses" or
"I like linux because I observe a lot of nerds uses it and I want to be a nerd too."
Anyway, it's just a theory...
I like Apples myself and I'm not gay and I don't think all my scientist colleagues which use Macs are either... not that there is anything wrong with being gay (Sienfield Reference).
Use what you are happy with, everything else is an illusion.
Let me introduce you to Apogee Instruments ccd.com. You can go much higher than 800x600. Of course, these aren't "cheap" but the article did state that the amateur astronomer spend more than £20,000.
meant to say "...outside of the disaster area."
need more coffee...
The Amateur Radio Operators are providing a tested network of volunteers to send "health and welfare" messages to friends and family outside of the disaster network.
they do this reliably and at a significantly lower cost.
And by extension loan a book, charge late fees, sale the book to make room for more books.
A shovel and a horse are tangible objects, and more importantly outside the scope of copyright. While a book and phonorecording are tangible media, copyright applies to the intangibles like the writings of a mystery writer or the recording of a musician that is placed on that media.
Section 106(3) as referenced by section 109a gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to do and to authorize "(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;".
Section 109 conveniently titled "Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord" gives the library the right to dispose of its copy as it sees fit. This includes lending this particular copy to its patrons, collect late fees, and ultimately sale the book to make room for more books.
So after further study of the copyright law, I guess I was technically more correct than than my detractors and the library was granted "permission" by section 109 to lend books with regards to section 106(3). Yea I said it... ;)
After some thought, I think I need to make a clarification.
While you tried to mimic the same terms as lending a book (ie. only one person agrees to use it at a time), you still made a complete copy of the work which runs you afoul of copyright law.
Thought I would spice things up with a nautical term... ;)
Unfortunately, you still made a copy of a complete work. Also, the original author didn't give you permission to enter into agreement with that other person on the use of that work.
Now if you gave a single person your authorized copy of that work, and destroyed any copies in your possession you may have a leg to stand on... but I'm not a lawyer...
Agree
Nope, but the text of 109.a does make it true. " Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."
This explicitly states that copyright owners can only control the first sale of the book. Also, it gives the library the ability to dispose of the book by resale or by extension "loan" the book to its patrons.
Your absolutely correct. I should have said that "libraries are permitted to lend books" instead of "libraries have permission to lend books".
So what difference does it make in the loaning vs giving unauthorized copies away discussion? None.
Technically it's more like saying "I have permission to sell my purple t-shirt."
True except maybe firearms, alcohol, tobacco, and maybe stuff deemed illegal.
But what codifies your ability to resale something you purchased? Why that will be good old Section 109!
No. The argument is that P2P networks are being used to commit copyright infringement. "Dead tree lending" does not contribute to copyright infringement. Therefore your argument doesn't apply.
Copyright infringement doesn't alway mean denying income (eg. The terms of the GPL is enforced using copyright).
Of course if I were to make an argument relating to the economics of copyright infringement on P2P networks versus library lending of materials, I could say that lending materials doesn't diminish the scarcity of the material therefore doesn't affect the revenue of the author that much. However duplicating a file on a P2P network does diminish the scarcity of the material and thus the revenue. This is especially true considering the libraries inability to purchase enough copies of a book to satisfy readers demand which gives people incentive to buy a copy instead of waiting for that best seller to become available for checkout.
Copyright can handle the internet age just fine.
The ease of copying things digitally doesn't negate the need for copyrights. Instead, some people would argue it just means it needs better enforcement or better DRM.
As for licensing, that's entirely a different topic all together and outside the scope of my original post.
Of course not. Libraries don't need permission because they already have permission. It's even explicitly given in section 109 of the US Copyright code (look at the many other replies for a link).
However, I had to make a contrasting difference between the ability of the library to loan books, and one's inability to distribute digital copies.
Let me reword it for you: "A person usually doesn't have permission from the author to make digital copies available. On the other hand, Libraries are permitted to loan books."
My using the "permission" instead of "permitted" in my original post, does not change the argument. Instead it only provided cannon fodder to the pedantic commenters...
Your correct.
There is still only one book. What someone else does with the book you loaned them is on their conscience and not yours.
My point wasn't about limiting the readership of a book (the GP used 2 downloads in their example), instead it was pointing out that loaning a book isn't the same as giving someone a digital copy of said book.
I see nothing wrong with using the library to browse YouTube or MySpace. The computers at my library don't have speakers, so you would have to bring your own headphones. Also, my branch has a "computer lab" with a glass wall separating it from the study area and book stacks.
I agree that the homeless use the library as a shelter. However as soon as they start lying on floor or begin harassing other patrons, they are asked to leave. Most of the time, they are just like any other patron during the day except maybe older and not as clean.
In a P2P network, you are the one publishing the work. You made a digital file available for one or more people to copy. You are not loaning out material and expecting it to be returned, nor are you making the file available for only one person with the intent of letting someone else borrow it when it is returned.
In addition, the ability of someone else copying a book that you loaned has no bearing with your behavior. Unless of course, you helped them make the photocopies.
Actually Section 109 gives you permission to lend a book. Copyright forces you to get permission from the source material's author to copy it.
How does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." give you the right to copy a book? Except maybe you confused the right to publicly speak and/or publish about our grievances with our government, with some ability to copy someone else's work...
Well actually it does. It's in Section 109.
So yes - you do have permission as explicitly given by section 109 of the US Copyright law (aka "First Sale Doctrine").
As for the rest of your post, there is "DRM on dead trees". Because the amount of effort to memorize and recite a library book would deter the average people. Sort of like digital DRM would deter the average person. Both forms of DRM can be circumvented if someone is determined to do it.