I find this idea interesting. Do you think there would be any advantage to allowing interaction between the authorities/prisoners (to reduce any harm from complete isolation) but reduce physical interaction to as limited as possible (solitary without the solitude for all prisoners).
All this means is that you'll need more energy to recover the aluminum from old CDs
Not necessarily although this is a definate possibility (even probability). However another possibility is that separating the fungus from the CD, then chemically separating the aluminum from the fungus may be less energy intensive than separating the aluminum from the CD directly.
I wouldn't want to decide without more information.
Oh I don't know, but I suspect that the yellow journalism from newspapers all owned by Herst in the same time period actually controlled much more mindshare than msn.com does. (wasn't the spanish american war in large part fought because of the froth of public opinion stirred up by these papers, ie. Remember the Maine but IANAH {I'm not a historian} so feel free to enlighten;))
No company has ever dominated so enormous a part of the country's economy as Microsoft is about to do.
Damn ever hear of Morgan, Carnegie, and Rockefeller -- They (and their monopolistic practices as "robber barrons") drove the creation of the anti-trust laws in the first place because they became so dominant the public at large actually was forced to do something about it (instead of the usual sheep role). Hell even after some of the controls went into place Morgan still had enough cash to bail out the New York Stock exchange (can Bill G do that?).
I'm not advocating we should retun to the times of the "Robber barrons" just that this is not the first time corporations and individuals have had such concentrated power, and in fact I believe they had more power in the "Robber barron" period.
What this should do is allow us to learn from our history and try to prevent the kind of concentrated wealth that occurred in this period and hurt a enough people to create a general public outcry. Unfortunately we seem to be quite good at repeating the mistakes of history.
It's nice to finally see a corporation get burned for firing off hastilly prepared "cease and desist" type letters without pausing to think if it might affect them adversely.
Re:I now understand Robert Beltran...
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 2
I feel his pain, the series could have been much better than it turned out. I enjoyed some of the episodes and short bursts of continuing plots but they were too few and far between. The writers avoided the overall situation presented in the shows premise rather than embracing it.
It should have had a much grittier feel to it as the seasons progressed and the federation technology began to need repairs that just weren't possible. They should have been pushed together by circumstance to battle the odds for each other against difficult odds without easy outs. This would have forced difficult moral/ethical choices with some real substance to them and if the stuck to their ethics and came through (even a bit worse for wear) and lived with the consequences it would amplify their principles.
The way it was written they stuck to the stated ethics but they were very rarely truely challenged and when they were they never paid a significant price for sticking to their principals even when faced with overwhelming odds. I think this is one of the reasons the series failed to ring true because moreso than in previous series the risks were greater and the consequences smaller.
Merely screaming nothing at the top of your lungs accomplishes nothing.
I love that observation of what a DoS attack is. The image it brought to mind was of a teacher/parent overwhelmed by a group of three year olds. This is appropriate since this is the typical maturity level of the individuals who launch these attacks.
You can see this now in all its glory in early silent era film.
I was recently looking into finding some early silent era films for which copyright has expired. I figured that since they had fallen into the public domain it would be possible to find copies on the web (although most DivX people are interested in only copying recent releases, I thought there might be a Project Gutenburg equivalent somewhere on the web for people interested in early film). However my search was short lived for a cheap source of copyright free film (although you can purchase DVD of some of the few remaining viable early silent film, for $20.00 a film). Then I thought, what prevents me from purchasing a DVD, and then copying it and setting up my own site (besides the obvious bandwidth costs) or posting DivX copies to newsgroups. Well it seems that the companies who restore the films do everything they can to prevent this. They add music which is still under copyright. They add hand done tinting (ruining the film experience in my opinion) to add creative effort to the work. They release versions of the film still under copyright (a German release of the Cabinet of Dr Caligari, rather than the public domain US version). They also try make the argument that their restoration work adds originality to the work (yes I understand that restoration is important and takes money but does that deserve another 90 year monopoly lease?). Etc...
Not only that, it is difficult to get access to original prints because of their fragility and rarity. Part of the reason for this is that the studios who owned the copyright had no incentive to preserve the work which they copyrighted for posterity. In fact there's more incentive for them to make a "modern" update of the story to "regenerate" their copyright in a new film.
I think that some percentage of the profits made by a copyright should be funnelled back into the preservation of the work for the public (this should only apply to registered copyrights) and again require a copy of the work which is released to the public after the expiration of the copyright. As it is now the sole remaining copies of the work can be locked up in one persons private collection or one studios vault and no one can access it.
Some of the preservation work needed for more recent films is already being done at taxpayer expense. However the parties who own this material (and were not properly taking care of it, or making an effort to restore it before it was unrecoverable) are the ones benefiting (For more info)
Simply they copyright holders in general aren't keeping their end of the bargin by keeping works flowing into the public domain to stimulate the arts and sciences. (This is not to say that we shouldn't hold up the public's end of the bargin and all go download the latest movies and music for free, its just understandable when it happens)
It might be partially due to ratings but I've heard that it was also due to a large number of advertisers pulling out (some links) due to the pull no punches humor.
I loved the 5 minute rant on Canada at the end of one of the episodes, freakin' hillarious.
I have a question about this, how much of the research that led to the development of these drugs was taxpayer (US and other countries, and WHO) funded? I believe the US through NIH and other institutions provides a significant amount of research and information that the drug companies most likely use. Are the taxpayers compensated for this expense when we grant an exclusive monopoly to produce the substance?
I'm not saying that the drug companies should not be able to profit, just that the research done at taxpayer expense should be in someway factored into the amount the drug company is able to profit from a drug where the choices are pay the price they set or die.
Except if anyone ever paid by check at the market then that card can be linked to the account holder of that checking account, along with address, phone number, credit history, etc...
Maybe/. and the Reg coughed up the dough for an AP wire (or Reuters) this is why you can read nearly the exact same story in numerous papers almost verbatim. The new journalism, copy copy copy:).
Well you wonder why I always dress in black
Why you never see bright colors on my back
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone
Well there's a reason for the things that I have on
I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down
Livin' in the hopeless hungry side of town
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime
But is there because he's a victim of the times
I wear the black for those who've never read
Or listened to the words that Jesus said
About the road to happiness through love and charity
Why you'd think he's talking straight to you and me
Well we're doin' mighty fine I do suppose
In our streak of lightning cars and fancy clothes
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back
Up front there oughta be a man in black
I wear it for the sick and lonely old
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold
I wear the black in morning for the lives that could have been
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men
And I wear it for the thousands who have died
Believin' that the Lord was on their side
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died
Believin' that we all were on their side
Well there's things that never will be right I know
And things need changin' everywhere you go
But till we start to make a move to make a few things right
You'll never see me wear a suit of white
Oh I'd love to wear a rainbow every day and tell the world that everything's okay
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back
Till things're brighter I'm the man in black
Guess you need to listen to his older music to find out;)
I agree small claims is designed for exactly this problem. Additionally it usually only costs a small amount to file a claim (here its ~$30) and if the other party doesn't show up they default and you win the judgement and even if you lose your action you only are out the cost of filing and if you get a judgement in your favor and they don't pay they are in contemp of court and judges tend to take that seriously (can you say Bench warrant).
I'm just waiting for RIAA and the MPAA to get to the dongle stage of copy protection failures learned by software makers (before playing you have to attach an approved descrambler to your audio output included with your purchase, only a few dollars more to prevent those evil pirates).
How many times do these people have to learn the same lessons. This type of copyright escalation doesn't work because the cost of protection becomes high enough and annoying enough that you lose your customers altogether. If they continue on this course they'll just push people into getting music through alternate distribution channels (maybe the artists themselves)
However some of these things become less of a problem when dealing with a local merchant over the internet rather than a large corp:
for example the credit card issue and international range of reach can both be eliminated by payment at the time of delivery to established customers (to eliminate fraudulent orders) of the store who might want home delivery (or simply to be able to pick up the entire order) of a list of items from a local store daily/weekly/monthly for a reasonable additional charge allowing placement of web orders. The availability of the website could be advertised simply to existing customers in the area to generate awareness without requiring a search.
A decent website with some simple forms without a payment system and a minimal security system to reduce possibility of fraudulent orders isn't that difficult to set up even if you don't hire a big $$ comp-geek.
Admittedly it is more difficult to do this than to balance the books, requires some investment, and might be easier to do in a manner not using the internet. The risks vs. rewards would need to be looked into to decide if this would be a viable expansion to a business and in a lot of cases today that equation is that it is more trouble than its worth, Having a server with cheap bandwidth and possibly easier website design software might change that equation to make this model more appealing.
Here is a link to the International Fedration of Library Associations and Institutions with a huge bibliography of resources, not a summary but a great source of links to a large number of documents on current IP laws and regulations and some of the problems with the system.
One interesting link is about common myths of copyright.
And here is the copyright FAQ (a bit hard to find since the orignial link from the IFLAI is dead.
Yea that's what I figured I just found it kind of funny that the website didn't bother to mention what that result ment or that it was a possibility.
It would also have been interesting if they told you the strength of each characteristic based on your answers (although I could probably go back and figure out which questions affect each trait).
I completely agree it is risky for them and this stupid patent stance and their "privacy policy" have caused me to seek other retailers to purchase from instead of them, thus they have lost one customer and I know there are many more.
The sad thing is that before this I liked Amazon as a company, they have great customer service, decent prices, and a good selection. They could have beaten Barnes & Noble in the online market just by focusing on their strengths and competeing rather than being hardnosed about a stupid idea which they happened to be able to patent with the current easy going patent office.
For instance B&N doesn't let you return merchandise/get merchandise through their retail stores from their web business. This would have been a serious advantage for B&N they could have over Amazon, simply using their pre-existing distribution channels but they have completely failed to take advantage of it.
I buy most of my books online (except for an occasional novel) and find it depressing anymore to go into even a well stocked bookstore looking for a specific title. I don't think Amazon fully appreciates that they are a service and this is what will keep their customers. Their position on this and their privacy policy doesn't help them win or keep customers and can alienate the customers which they already have.
Frankly I don't understand what makes this 1-click stuff so valuable. The only reason I'm interested in it is that I don't feel that business methods had any business being patentable in general and this is just a prime example of the stupidity of this type of patent.
I took the test at the site linked to from the INTP site and I was rated an INXP does the X mean that it just couldn't classify me, or am I just wierd:)
[King Roland has given in to Dark Helmet's threats, and is telling him the combination to the "air shield"]
Roland: One.
Dark Helmet: One.
Sandurz: One.
Roland: Two.
Dark Helmet: Two.
Sandurz: Two.
Roland: Three.
Dark Helmet: Three.
Sandurz: Three.
Roland: Four.
Dark Helmet: Four.
Sandurz: Four.
Roland: Five.
Dark Helmet: Five.
Sandurz: Five.
Dark Helmet: So the combination is one, two, three, four, five? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard! That's the kind of combination an idiot would put on his luggage!
Rockhound: Hey Harry, you know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has two hundred thousand moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
do you remember which science periodical?
I'm surprised usually the accountant is the last employee.
I find this idea interesting. Do you think there would be any advantage to allowing interaction between the authorities/prisoners (to reduce any harm from complete isolation) but reduce physical interaction to as limited as possible (solitary without the solitude for all prisoners).
All this means is that you'll need more energy to recover the aluminum from old CDs
Not necessarily although this is a definate possibility (even probability). However another possibility is that separating the fungus from the CD, then chemically separating the aluminum from the fungus may be less energy intensive than separating the aluminum from the CD directly.
I wouldn't want to decide without more information.
Oh I don't know, but I suspect that the yellow journalism from newspapers all owned by Herst in the same time period actually controlled much more mindshare than msn.com does. (wasn't the spanish american war in large part fought because of the froth of public opinion stirred up by these papers, ie. Remember the Maine but IANAH {I'm not a historian} so feel free to enlighten ;))
No company has ever dominated so enormous a part of the country's economy as Microsoft is about to do.
Damn ever hear of Morgan, Carnegie, and Rockefeller -- They (and their monopolistic practices as "robber barrons") drove the creation of the anti-trust laws in the first place because they became so dominant the public at large actually was forced to do something about it (instead of the usual sheep role). Hell even after some of the controls went into place Morgan still had enough cash to bail out the New York Stock exchange (can Bill G do that?).
I'm not advocating we should retun to the times of the "Robber barrons" just that this is not the first time corporations and individuals have had such concentrated power, and in fact I believe they had more power in the "Robber barron" period.
What this should do is allow us to learn from our history and try to prevent the kind of concentrated wealth that occurred in this period and hurt a enough people to create a general public outcry. Unfortunately we seem to be quite good at repeating the mistakes of history.
It's nice to finally see a corporation get burned for firing off hastilly prepared "cease and desist" type letters without pausing to think if it might affect them adversely.
I feel his pain, the series could have been much better than it turned out. I enjoyed some of the episodes and short bursts of continuing plots but they were too few and far between. The writers avoided the overall situation presented in the shows premise rather than embracing it.
It should have had a much grittier feel to it as the seasons progressed and the federation technology began to need repairs that just weren't possible. They should have been pushed together by circumstance to battle the odds for each other against difficult odds without easy outs. This would have forced difficult moral/ethical choices with some real substance to them and if the stuck to their ethics and came through (even a bit worse for wear) and lived with the consequences it would amplify their principles.
The way it was written they stuck to the stated ethics but they were very rarely truely challenged and when they were they never paid a significant price for sticking to their principals even when faced with overwhelming odds. I think this is one of the reasons the series failed to ring true because moreso than in previous series the risks were greater and the consequences smaller.
Merely screaming nothing at the top of your lungs accomplishes nothing.
I love that observation of what a DoS attack is. The image it brought to mind was of a teacher/parent overwhelmed by a group of three year olds. This is appropriate since this is the typical maturity level of the individuals who launch these attacks.
You can see this now in all its glory in early silent era film.
I was recently looking into finding some early silent era films for which copyright has expired. I figured that since they had fallen into the public domain it would be possible to find copies on the web (although most DivX people are interested in only copying recent releases, I thought there might be a Project Gutenburg equivalent somewhere on the web for people interested in early film). However my search was short lived for a cheap source of copyright free film (although you can purchase DVD of some of the few remaining viable early silent film, for $20.00 a film). Then I thought, what prevents me from purchasing a DVD, and then copying it and setting up my own site (besides the obvious bandwidth costs) or posting DivX copies to newsgroups. Well it seems that the companies who restore the films do everything they can to prevent this. They add music which is still under copyright. They add hand done tinting (ruining the film experience in my opinion) to add creative effort to the work. They release versions of the film still under copyright (a German release of the Cabinet of Dr Caligari, rather than the public domain US version). They also try make the argument that their restoration work adds originality to the work (yes I understand that restoration is important and takes money but does that deserve another 90 year monopoly lease?). Etc...
Not only that, it is difficult to get access to original prints because of their fragility and rarity. Part of the reason for this is that the studios who owned the copyright had no incentive to preserve the work which they copyrighted for posterity. In fact there's more incentive for them to make a "modern" update of the story to "regenerate" their copyright in a new film.
I think that some percentage of the profits made by a copyright should be funnelled back into the preservation of the work for the public (this should only apply to registered copyrights) and again require a copy of the work which is released to the public after the expiration of the copyright. As it is now the sole remaining copies of the work can be locked up in one persons private collection or one studios vault and no one can access it.
Some of the preservation work needed for more recent films is already being done at taxpayer expense. However the parties who own this material (and were not properly taking care of it, or making an effort to restore it before it was unrecoverable) are the ones benefiting (For more info)
Simply they copyright holders in general aren't keeping their end of the bargin by keeping works flowing into the public domain to stimulate the arts and sciences. (This is not to say that we shouldn't hold up the public's end of the bargin and all go download the latest movies and music for free, its just understandable when it happens)
It might be partially due to ratings but I've heard that it was also due to a large number of advertisers pulling out (some links) due to the pull no punches humor.
I loved the 5 minute rant on Canada at the end of one of the episodes, freakin' hillarious.
I have a question about this, how much of the research that led to the development of these drugs was taxpayer (US and other countries, and WHO) funded? I believe the US through NIH and other institutions provides a significant amount of research and information that the drug companies most likely use. Are the taxpayers compensated for this expense when we grant an exclusive monopoly to produce the substance?
I'm not saying that the drug companies should not be able to profit, just that the research done at taxpayer expense should be in someway factored into the amount the drug company is able to profit from a drug where the choices are pay the price they set or die.
is also quite funny for the true story on how some of the charcters in Star Wars: A New Hope evolved ;)
Except if anyone ever paid by check at the market then that card can be linked to the account holder of that checking account, along with address, phone number, credit history, etc...
Maybe /. and the Reg coughed up the dough for an AP wire (or Reuters) this is why you can read nearly the exact same story in numerous papers almost verbatim. The new journalism, copy copy copy :).
Third hit on Google turned up lyrics for his song Man in Black
;)
5.
MAN IN BLACK
(Johnny Cash)
© '71 House Of Cash
Well you wonder why I always dress in black
Why you never see bright colors on my back
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone
Well there's a reason for the things that I have on
I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down
Livin' in the hopeless hungry side of town
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime
But is there because he's a victim of the times
I wear the black for those who've never read
Or listened to the words that Jesus said
About the road to happiness through love and charity
Why you'd think he's talking straight to you and me
Well we're doin' mighty fine I do suppose
In our streak of lightning cars and fancy clothes
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back
Up front there oughta be a man in black
I wear it for the sick and lonely old
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold
I wear the black in morning for the lives that could have been
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men
And I wear it for the thousands who have died
Believin' that the Lord was on their side
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died
Believin' that we all were on their side
Well there's things that never will be right I know
And things need changin' everywhere you go
But till we start to make a move to make a few things right
You'll never see me wear a suit of white
Oh I'd love to wear a rainbow every day and tell the world that everything's okay
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back
Till things're brighter I'm the man in black
Guess you need to listen to his older music to find out
I agree small claims is designed for exactly this problem. Additionally it usually only costs a small amount to file a claim (here its ~$30) and if the other party doesn't show up they default and you win the judgement and even if you lose your action you only are out the cost of filing and if you get a judgement in your favor and they don't pay they are in contemp of court and judges tend to take that seriously (can you say Bench warrant).
I'm just waiting for RIAA and the MPAA to get to the dongle stage of copy protection failures learned by software makers (before playing you have to attach an approved descrambler to your audio output included with your purchase, only a few dollars more to prevent those evil pirates).
How many times do these people have to learn the same lessons. This type of copyright escalation doesn't work because the cost of protection becomes high enough and annoying enough that you lose your customers altogether. If they continue on this course they'll just push people into getting music through alternate distribution channels (maybe the artists themselves)
However some of these things become less of a problem when dealing with a local merchant over the internet rather than a large corp:
for example the credit card issue and international range of reach can both be eliminated by payment at the time of delivery to established customers (to eliminate fraudulent orders) of the store who might want home delivery (or simply to be able to pick up the entire order) of a list of items from a local store daily/weekly/monthly for a reasonable additional charge allowing placement of web orders. The availability of the website could be advertised simply to existing customers in the area to generate awareness without requiring a search.
A decent website with some simple forms without a payment system and a minimal security system to reduce possibility of fraudulent orders isn't that difficult to set up even if you don't hire a big $$ comp-geek.
Admittedly it is more difficult to do this than to balance the books, requires some investment, and might be easier to do in a manner not using the internet. The risks vs. rewards would need to be looked into to decide if this would be a viable expansion to a business and in a lot of cases today that equation is that it is more trouble than its worth, Having a server with cheap bandwidth and possibly easier website design software might change that equation to make this model more appealing.
Here is a link to the International Fedration of Library Associations and Institutions with a huge bibliography of resources, not a summary but a great source of links to a large number of documents on current IP laws and regulations and some of the problems with the system.
One interesting link is about common myths of copyright.
And here is the copyright FAQ (a bit hard to find since the orignial link from the IFLAI is dead.
Yea that's what I figured I just found it kind of funny that the website didn't bother to mention what that result ment or that it was a possibility.
It would also have been interesting if they told you the strength of each characteristic based on your answers (although I could probably go back and figure out which questions affect each trait).
I completely agree it is risky for them and this stupid patent stance and their "privacy policy" have caused me to seek other retailers to purchase from instead of them, thus they have lost one customer and I know there are many more.
The sad thing is that before this I liked Amazon as a company, they have great customer service, decent prices, and a good selection. They could have beaten Barnes & Noble in the online market just by focusing on their strengths and competeing rather than being hardnosed about a stupid idea which they happened to be able to patent with the current easy going patent office.
For instance B&N doesn't let you return merchandise/get merchandise through their retail stores from their web business. This would have been a serious advantage for B&N they could have over Amazon, simply using their pre-existing distribution channels but they have completely failed to take advantage of it.
I buy most of my books online (except for an occasional novel) and find it depressing anymore to go into even a well stocked bookstore looking for a specific title. I don't think Amazon fully appreciates that they are a service and this is what will keep their customers. Their position on this and their privacy policy doesn't help them win or keep customers and can alienate the customers which they already have.
Frankly I don't understand what makes this 1-click stuff so valuable. The only reason I'm interested in it is that I don't feel that business methods had any business being patentable in general and this is just a prime example of the stupidity of this type of patent.
I took the test at the site linked to from the INTP site and I was rated an INXP does the X mean that it just couldn't classify me, or am I just wierd :)
Gratuitous movie quote:
[King Roland has given in to Dark Helmet's threats, and is telling him the combination to the "air shield"]
Roland: One.
Dark Helmet: One.
Sandurz: One.
Roland: Two.
Dark Helmet: Two.
Sandurz: Two.
Roland: Three.
Dark Helmet: Three.
Sandurz: Three.
Roland: Four.
Dark Helmet: Four.
Sandurz: Four.
Roland: Five.
Dark Helmet: Five.
Sandurz: Five.
Dark Helmet: So the combination is one, two, three, four, five? That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard! That's the kind of combination an idiot would put on his luggage!
Isn't IMDB great (even if the movie stank :)
Rockhound: Hey Harry, you know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has two hundred thousand moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good doesn't it?