I've always wanted to be able to sample songs in some proportion to some function of them, typically how much I like them. I want to hear songs I like more, more often, and songs I like less, less often. I still want to hear them occasionally, just not as much.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
In a federal lawsuit, the guild is requesting an injunction against 13 companies that either rent movies that have been edited or sell software that allows consumers, through computers or DVD players, to edit movies themselves.
So it appears that the lawsuit is not only against companies like Clean Flicks which edit the movies for their customers, but also against companies which sell software that allow consumers to edit the movies themselves.
I'm really surprised that there is such debate on this topic, and I've got to believe that wouldn't be the case if this case wasn't about editing movies in a way people here don't like.
This has nothing to do with censorship. Censorship removes choice to receive a work the way the author intended. This adds choice to receive a work in a way the author didn't intend. The movies aren't being censored.
This is all about copyright. Among other things, copyright gives the exclusive right to create derivative works, and to distribute the work. The law has already established that renting is legal, however, provided that each copy is purchased, so that the author receives their royalties.
So it boils down to whether removing parts of a work constitutes as creating a "derivative work". If you want to argue in favor of the lawsuit, this is the ground to stand on.
I've gotta say 'No', tearing pages from a book, or removing whole scenes from a movie isn't creating a derivative work. Whether a middle man is doing it, or whether I'm purchasing software to do it myself, I think it falls pretty clearly on the consumer side of copyright.
A lot of people are saying that because the Clean Flicks co-op is doing it on behalf of its members, and then renting out the result, that somehow changes things. But not in the eyes of the law -- redistributing via rental a copy duly purchased is legal (thank goodness!). Since renting is legal, this is about whether copyright holders have the power to prevent people from removing pieces of their work. More than that, about whether companies can sell software as a tool for people to edit movies in this fashion!!
Take a look at the interactive graph here to see a how the votes break down by county. Try different candidates on the x-axis, and leave Buchanan on the y.
I think it's clear that there were definitely people confused, and it could well have changed the outcome of the national election (though we'll have to wait for the overseas ballots to get a better idea of that.) Yet, I don't think there was any fraud or illegal action here, everything followed the legal procedures of designing and verifying a "fair" ballot, and there are no provisions to vote again. Especially after knowing the importance in a clearly Gore county, the people in that county will be hugely influenced by their heightened effect on the election.
Now, if blacks were obstructed from voting at all, (or dead people did vote) that's a totally different matter, and very illegal, though I'm not sure what the law dictates as the correct way to deal with it.
In any case, I don't think we should be ale to just make up what we think is a good remedy now. We have laws, we should figure out how they apply and live by them. If we don't like it, then let's change them, but we can't just ignore them when we don't like them!
Every decision he wants to make is going to be outvoted and quashed by the paid tools of corporate America. How do you think he's going to feel after a year of failure? Pretty bad would be my guess, and that's why I feel sorry for him.
I agree that he's going to have a heck of a time accomplishing anything directly, but, like something Karl mentions in the Salon article, simply being a director gives him power. He's now able to get into all sorts of records and documents about the corporation, as well as reporting to the public, or at least the membership, his analysis of things from the inside, including his or other peoples positions, decisions.
In essence, ICANN can't hide anything behind closed doors anymore, even if they still have the votes.
They've got a technology to use the spectrum differently. Right now, information is transmitted by sending out continuous waves while modulating their frequency, and we've pretty much reached the limit of how much information we can send in one chunk of the spectrum.
These guys have a totally different idea -- instead of a continuous wave, they use wave pulses, millions pers second or more, I think, to transmit the information.
Any physics folks here have any idea about the potential? They claim it has a lot.
I recently shopped for one, and purchased one after doing a ton of reading and comparing online. But, there are so many out there with different trade offs, it all depends on what's important to you. I would really recommend starting by going to a site like Active Buyer's Guide which will allow you to give it preferences, and it will suggest cameras and allow you to compare several ones side by side.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
I've always wanted to be able to sample songs in some proportion to some function of them, typically how much I like them. I want to hear songs I like more, more often, and songs I like less, less often. I still want to hear them occasionally, just not as much.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
from the actually-its-name-is-homer dept.
I'm betting it's a reference to the long debate on the authorship of the Iliad and Odyssey, culminating in the great quote:
"The poems were not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name!"
On second thought, let's not read the link. It is a silly page.
Right...
Sir Galahad actually says, "Blue... no clear, aaaahhhhhhhhh!"
His favorite color is clear! I guess it's because he is "Sir Galahad, the pure"
And covered by slashdot three years ago:3 8
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/11/14252
Here
Not many...
But everybody did refer to the standalone browser as Phoenix, so if it were renamed Firebird, I bet people would use the name.
From the Salon article:
In a federal lawsuit, the guild is requesting an injunction against 13 companies that either rent movies that have been edited or sell software that allows consumers, through computers or DVD players, to edit movies themselves.
So it appears that the lawsuit is not only against companies like Clean Flicks which edit the movies for their customers, but also against companies which sell software that allow consumers to edit the movies themselves.
I'm really surprised that there is such debate on this topic, and I've got to believe that wouldn't be the case if this case wasn't about editing movies in a way people here don't like.
This has nothing to do with censorship. Censorship removes choice to receive a work the way the author intended. This adds choice to receive a work in a way the author didn't intend. The movies aren't being censored.
This is all about copyright. Among other things, copyright gives the exclusive right to create derivative works, and to distribute the work. The law has already established that renting is legal, however, provided that each copy is purchased, so that the author receives their royalties.
So it boils down to whether removing parts of a work constitutes as creating a "derivative work". If you want to argue in favor of the lawsuit, this is the ground to stand on.
I've gotta say 'No', tearing pages from a book, or removing whole scenes from a movie isn't creating a derivative work. Whether a middle man is doing it, or whether I'm purchasing software to do it myself, I think it falls pretty clearly on the consumer side of copyright.
A lot of people are saying that because the Clean Flicks co-op is doing it on behalf of its members, and then renting out the result, that somehow changes things. But not in the eyes of the law -- redistributing via rental a copy duly purchased is legal (thank goodness!). Since renting is legal, this is about whether copyright holders have the power to prevent people from removing pieces of their work. More than that, about whether companies can sell software as a tool for people to edit movies in this fashion!!
Dave
Take a look at the interactive graph here to see a how the votes break down by county.
Try different candidates on the x-axis, and leave Buchanan on the y.
I think it's clear that there were definitely people confused, and it could well have changed the outcome of the national election (though we'll have to wait for the overseas ballots to get a better idea of that.) Yet, I don't think there was any fraud or illegal action here, everything followed the legal procedures of designing and verifying a "fair" ballot, and there are no provisions to vote again. Especially after knowing the importance in a clearly Gore county, the people in that county will be hugely influenced by their heightened effect on the election.
Now, if blacks were obstructed from voting at all, (or dead people did vote) that's a totally different matter, and very illegal, though I'm not sure what the law dictates as the correct way to deal with it.
In any case, I don't think we should be ale to just make up what we think is a good remedy now. We have laws, we should figure out how they apply and live by them. If we don't like it, then let's change them, but we can't just ignore them when we don't like them!
Every decision he wants to make is going to be outvoted and quashed by the paid tools of corporate America. How do you think he's going to feel after a year of failure? Pretty bad would be my guess, and that's why I feel sorry for him.
I agree that he's going to have a heck of a time accomplishing anything directly, but, like something Karl mentions in the Salon article, simply being a director gives him power.
He's now able to get into all sorts of records and documents about the corporation, as well as reporting to the public, or at least the membership, his analysis of things from the inside, including his or other peoples positions, decisions.
In essence, ICANN can't hide anything behind closed doors anymore, even if they still have the votes.
Have you guys seen what Time Domain is up to?
They've got a technology to use the spectrum differently. Right now, information is transmitted by sending out continuous waves while modulating their frequency, and we've pretty much reached the limit of how much information we can send in one chunk of the spectrum.
These guys have a totally different idea -- instead of a continuous wave, they use wave pulses, millions pers second or more, I think, to transmit the information.
Any physics folks here have any idea about the potential? They claim it has a lot.
Lean over so I can stick my finger in your ear...
I recently shopped for one, and purchased one after doing a ton of reading and comparing online.
But, there are so many out there with different trade offs, it all depends on what's important to you.
I would really recommend starting by going to a site like Active Buyer's Guide
which will allow you to give it preferences, and it will suggest cameras and allow you to compare several ones side by side.
Then, start reading around about it. For some good expert evaluations, try:
Megapixel
Imaging Resource
Steve's Digicams
For some generally useful user reviews, check out:
PC Photo Review
Good Luck!