The authors guild has no guns to stick to. They have no power over the publishers and cannot "withdraw" anything. Not even the actual authors could. This is probably an attempt to win some kind of rights "back" because many authors (sometimes quite rightly) feel screwed by publishers.
Unfortunately this is continuing the transformation of "copyright" to a "do-as-I-say-right", as we are all too familiar with the DMCA and the EULA.
We haven't had reliable data on the antartic for "decades". Second, generalising a huge continent which by itself has a highly complex climate is a little hasty. Third, while some local growth can be observed, the net result is firmly ice loss.
Arctic ice is very dynamic. The vast majority isn't more than a few years old. The problem is that more is disappearing than is being created. Indeed it is likely that the arctic will become ice-free in summer in the pretty near future.
How do you swim in those things? Does water sometime spill down the neck? I bet that would be uncomfortable. Another thing I've always wondered: How do you dry you clothes in arctic conditions? Even from normal perspiration.
Re:"Wasn't So Long Ago?!"
on
Jurassic Web
·
· Score: 1
Yes you are. 13 years ain't nothing.
I would disagree. 13 years before 1996 it was 1983, before computers had GUI's, and 13 years before that, gasp, 1970. I don't know how you'd want to describe the computing "experience" from back then, but it sure wasn't pretty. In all of these intervals there were huge leaps in technology and usage patterns.
During the next 13 years we won't see much of a change, sure things may look different, get shiner, get faster and smaller, just like cars, TVs, phones, etc. But we're not going to see some new earth shattering websites like Amazon, Facebook, MySpace, Google, eBay, YouTube, Hulu, et al.
You could also look at it this way: Facebook and Myspace are shiny, easy to use, mass-market versions of 1996 the "homepage". eBay and Amazon also existed. Video on demand streaming had been predicted long before, I remember reading an article about the "Multimedia" buzzword from 1993 or so.
You can never make reliable predictions on future technological developments, so it's a bit quick to say that YoutTube and Facebook are the end-all of internet applications. Personally one of the only things that has amazed me over the last years was GoogleEarth.
The Web of today would likely be very recognizable to a user from 1996. In fact, they will probably be amazed that we still haven't got a standard for integrating video into the web.
I consider a technical understanding of the patent matter more relevant to this discussion than the qualification to practice law. It is, in my opinion, most fundamental to give an opinion on a patent. It is after all engineers who conceive the patents. A lawyer can give advice on the best legal response, but unless he has technical knowledge he is unlikely to be able to judge e.g. the inventiveness or usefulness.
The idea that one should need the advice of a lawyer for every aspect of the legal system is absurd, as would become clear by choosing analogies with other laws.
Apart from that, legal advice is often boring or predictable. I this case we have heard typical legal advice: Try and settle to avoid a risky lawsuit.
Both wrong. A Patent can only be evaluated by a patent agent. Unlike much of the rest of the world, in the United States you can only give advice if you are also a lawyer.
While neither are formally qualified, I guess I'm more interested in the opinion of an engineer that knows little about law than a lawyer that knows little about the technology.
Maybe you should consider the implications of your wording yourself. That is, you instantly gather all types of "freedom" in one pot and say it's untouchable. In reality it's always a question of balance and we need to encourage and prioritize certain liberties while we need laws to limit and regulate certain aspects of society. Otherwise you have negative liberty.
The problem is that by equating "free speech" to pretty much publishing and distributing everything imaginable to everyone under the sun, we impair the substance of the real intention of free speech when conflict arises.
By reasoning from the current situation: GTA is free speech so Porn must be free speech too. We limit sale of porn, because many people don't like it being sold. Conclusion: if enough people agree we can say that whether or not your "free speech" is protected depends very much on whether we like the content of it or not.
We should be trying to limit this kind of contradiction, particularly for something as fundamental as the constitution.
And the makers of large hard drives, iPods and iPod-like devices, mp3 phones, photocopiers, cameras, flash drives, blank cd and dvd media, and anything else that "aids breaches of copyright."
Actually in Sweden as well as many other european countries, there is a rate you have to pay on blank media which goes to "copyright oraganizations". The idea is that people make "private copies"(backups or a copy for their car) and that this makes up for the "damages" that the creators (more specifically the members of the organizations) suffer.
But, just as in the US it is still illegal to make Copies of DVDs if you have to break the protection. It's fucking rediculous.
These rates make up a huge proportion of the price on blank DVDs and CDs. In Germany, you have to pay the upwards of thirty dollars on a new multifunctional laser printer! Who the fuck even uses those things for anything other than their own paperwork?
Then you'd need a time machine. The iMac wasn't released until August 1998.
If you bought a PC in 1997, and went out and bought an printer a month later, you bought a parallel one or maybe serial. Period. You probably weren't even aware of USB, and if you were it was the fact that you didn't really know how it worked and those printers cost twice as much.
I know anecdocal evidence doesn't really count for much, but I happened to buy a PC a few months after the release of the iMac. It had USB ports, which the speaker system used. And the standard Deskjet printer came with a USB cable, as well as parallel. Not that you'd have wanted to use it like that however, as printing over USB 1.0 totally sucks ass.
While many here will certainly applaud this decision, I find the double-standard amazing. If we can ban sales of pictures of people having sex to minors and impose other draconian punishment, then why is obscene violence any different?
I somehow doubt the founding fathers would have equated free speech to depictions of extreme violence, though I'll undoubtedly get modded down for this. There's certainly a case for forbidding censorship of any kind, but mixing up the values brings up crap like this.
I certainly am not happy about my freedom to criticize politicians being considered on the same level as some spotty fifteen year old kid's "right" to buy GTA.
Not necessarily. I jetpack where you controlled the thrust and thrust vestoring directly and manually would be hard if not impossible to control. But inertial measurement and autopilot make them as easy as any videogame. I we relied on computers to avoid accidents too, then everything would be a hell of a lot safer.
It's not that much different from cars, where ESC systems, power steering and modern automatic transmission have made cars much easier to drive.
The are plenty of phones you can buy which don't do anything other than phone and write texts. They often have great battery life and cost as little as $30 unlocked. I use a Nokia 1110i and it has been all I needed. But I still understand why people might want something more.
It's not relevant how many PCs were replaced within the years 1996-1998, and neither is any speculation about statistics to how many PCs were working with USB.
The fact is that a PC sold in 1998 with Windows 98 installed would likely have a USB port and support a lot of USB hardware.
And just because it wasn't instantly implemented across the whole Windows family doesn't strengthen your argument either. If minorities mattered then iMacs would be out straight away.
Now, you can twist words however you like. Maybe the iMac did give USB an extra push. But you were essentially saying that the iMac was using USB as a standard for many years before PC users were aware of USB.
BTW, could we leave the fanboy accusations out of this? It's a bit silly.
Read my comment. The point is that advertisements that I've seen in recent years have rarely included more than $1000 models. Hence, I would conclude that expensive PCs are rare and less popular.
Most PCs are sold for much less than Apple computers (and have similar technical specs, but that's a different issue)
First your argument was that PCs didn't come with USB ports, so software was irrelevant. Now you've switched.
In fact, when I said 'until 2000 or so' that was exactly what I was referring to. Somewhere around 1999 the proportions switched and you were more likely to find working USB than not.
You were arguing the they weren't physically there, and if you're making a point about the chronological order, four years is well off.
I don't see what Windows NT has to do with it at all, it's not a consumer OS. The only ones really relevant are Win 95 and 98. And the simple fact is that Windows 98 PCs supported USB just like any iMac. The releases of the two products also happened to coincide, so it's a bit of a stretch to give all credit to Apple.
which is why the GPL only grants freedoms and does not restrict them - at least as compared to unlicensed copyrighted media
Uh, yeah sure... Except for those freedoms like being able to distribute my own code under a license like say BSD or something if I happen to include part of a GPL program. GPL restricts your freedom to do that.
Read the second part. You are not allowed to distribut GPL code under another license, just like you can't distribute any other copyrighted material under a new license.
There's no license-anything with a book. Copyright determines who is allowed to copy the book and its contents. Once it's printed and you own the copy, you can do whatever you like with it. Copyright isn't something that can really be "owned". The creator has the right to copy (hence the word), and there's only one.
AFAIK, this new interpretation of a product "as a license" rests solely on the fact that you generally have to copy the bits from one medium to the other (Disc to hard drive), and would need a license agreement to do that. That's a dubious claim to say the least.
Slashdot Mirror
The authors guild has no guns to stick to. They have no power over the publishers and cannot "withdraw" anything. Not even the actual authors could.
This is probably an attempt to win some kind of rights "back" because many authors (sometimes quite rightly) feel screwed by publishers.
Unfortunately this is continuing the transformation of "copyright" to a "do-as-I-say-right", as we are all too familiar with the DMCA and the EULA.
We haven't had reliable data on the antartic for "decades". Second, generalising a huge continent which by itself has a highly complex climate is a little hasty. Third, while some local growth can be observed, the net result is firmly ice loss.
Arctic ice is very dynamic. The vast majority isn't more than a few years old. The problem is that more is disappearing than is being created.
Indeed it is likely that the arctic will become ice-free in summer in the pretty near future.
How do you swim in those things? Does water sometime spill down the neck? I bet that would be uncomfortable.
Another thing I've always wondered: How do you dry you clothes in arctic conditions? Even from normal perspiration.
Top gear has the answer too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl3bsL7Nbnk
Yes you are. 13 years ain't nothing.
I would disagree. 13 years before 1996 it was 1983, before computers had GUI's, and 13 years before that, gasp, 1970. I don't know how you'd want to describe the computing "experience" from back then, but it sure wasn't pretty. In all of these intervals there were huge leaps in technology and usage patterns.
During the next 13 years we won't see much of a change, sure things may look different, get shiner, get faster and smaller, just like cars, TVs, phones, etc. But we're not going to see some new earth shattering websites like Amazon, Facebook, MySpace, Google, eBay, YouTube, Hulu, et al.
You could also look at it this way: Facebook and Myspace are shiny, easy to use, mass-market versions of 1996 the "homepage". eBay and Amazon also existed. Video on demand streaming had been predicted long before, I remember reading an article about the "Multimedia" buzzword from 1993 or so.
You can never make reliable predictions on future technological developments, so it's a bit quick to say that YoutTube and Facebook are the end-all of internet applications. Personally one of the only things that has amazed me over the last years was GoogleEarth.
The Web of today would likely be very recognizable to a user from 1996. In fact, they will probably be amazed that we still haven't got a standard for integrating video into the web.
I consider a technical understanding of the patent matter more relevant to this discussion than the qualification to practice law.
It is, in my opinion, most fundamental to give an opinion on a patent. It is after all engineers who conceive the patents.
A lawyer can give advice on the best legal response, but unless he has technical knowledge he is unlikely to be able to judge e.g. the inventiveness or usefulness.
The idea that one should need the advice of a lawyer for every aspect of the legal system is absurd, as would become clear by choosing analogies with other laws.
Apart from that, legal advice is often boring or predictable. I this case we have heard typical legal advice: Try and settle to avoid a risky lawsuit.
Both wrong. A Patent can only be evaluated by a patent agent.
Unlike much of the rest of the world, in the United States you can only give advice if you are also a lawyer.
While neither are formally qualified, I guess I'm more interested in the opinion of an engineer that knows little about law than a lawyer that knows little about the technology.
Everyone knows that when you divide yourself by zero you explode.
Consider it honoured by inculding the orange box, along with a load of other sequals and compilations on the list. Absolutely worthless!
Maybe you should consider the implications of your wording yourself. That is, you instantly gather all types of "freedom" in one pot and say it's untouchable.
In reality it's always a question of balance and we need to encourage and prioritize certain liberties while we need laws to limit and regulate certain aspects of society. Otherwise you have negative liberty.
The problem is that by equating "free speech" to pretty much publishing and distributing everything imaginable to everyone under the sun, we impair the substance of the real intention of free speech when conflict arises.
By reasoning from the current situation:
GTA is free speech so Porn must be free speech too. We limit sale of porn, because many people don't like it being sold.
Conclusion: if enough people agree we can say that whether or not your "free speech" is protected depends very much on whether we like the content of it or not.
We should be trying to limit this kind of contradiction, particularly for something as fundamental as the constitution.
And the makers of large hard drives, iPods and iPod-like devices, mp3 phones, photocopiers, cameras, flash drives, blank cd and dvd media, and anything else that "aids breaches of copyright."
Actually in Sweden as well as many other european countries, there is a rate you have to pay on blank media which goes to "copyright oraganizations".
The idea is that people make "private copies"(backups or a copy for their car) and that this makes up for the "damages" that the creators (more specifically the members of the organizations) suffer.
But, just as in the US it is still illegal to make Copies of DVDs if you have to break the protection. It's fucking rediculous.
These rates make up a huge proportion of the price on blank DVDs and CDs.
In Germany, you have to pay the upwards of thirty dollars on a new multifunctional laser printer! Who the fuck even uses those things for anything other than their own paperwork?
If you bought an iMac in 1997
Then you'd need a time machine. The iMac wasn't released until August 1998.
If you bought a PC in 1997, and went out and bought an printer a month later, you bought a parallel one or maybe serial. Period. You probably weren't even aware of USB, and if you were it was the fact that you didn't really know how it worked and those printers cost twice as much.
I know anecdocal evidence doesn't really count for much, but I happened to buy a PC a few months after the release of the iMac. It had USB ports, which the speaker system used. And the standard Deskjet printer came with a USB cable, as well as parallel. Not that you'd have wanted to use it like that however, as printing over USB 1.0 totally sucks ass.
While many here will certainly applaud this decision, I find the double-standard amazing. If we can ban sales of pictures of people having sex to minors and impose other draconian punishment, then why is obscene violence any different?
I somehow doubt the founding fathers would have equated free speech to depictions of extreme violence, though I'll undoubtedly get modded down for this.
There's certainly a case for forbidding censorship of any kind, but mixing up the values brings up crap like this.
I certainly am not happy about my freedom to criticize politicians being considered on the same level as some spotty fifteen year old kid's "right" to buy GTA.
Will it necessarily support their hardware, can they legally play DVDs and can they run the software they have already bought / want to buy?
Probably falls somewhere between arbitrary and generic.
How widespread was the use of the term window before Microsofts OS anway?
Not necessarily. I jetpack where you controlled the thrust and thrust vestoring directly and manually would be hard if not impossible to control. But inertial measurement and autopilot make them as easy as any videogame.
I we relied on computers to avoid accidents too, then everything would be a hell of a lot safer.
It's not that much different from cars, where ESC systems, power steering and modern automatic transmission have made cars much easier to drive.
The are plenty of phones you can buy which don't do anything other than phone and write texts. They often have great battery life and cost as little as $30 unlocked.
I use a Nokia 1110i and it has been all I needed. But I still understand why people might want something more.
It's not relevant how many PCs were replaced within the years 1996-1998, and neither is any speculation about statistics to how many PCs were working with USB.
The fact is that a PC sold in 1998 with Windows 98 installed would likely have a USB port and support a lot of USB hardware.
And just because it wasn't instantly implemented across the whole Windows family doesn't strengthen your argument either. If minorities mattered then iMacs would be out straight away.
Now, you can twist words however you like. Maybe the iMac did give USB an extra push. But you were essentially saying that the iMac was using USB as a standard for many years before PC users were aware of USB.
BTW, could we leave the fanboy accusations out of this? It's a bit silly.
Read my comment. The point is that advertisements that I've seen in recent years have rarely included more than $1000 models. Hence, I would conclude that expensive PCs are rare and less popular.
Most PCs are sold for much less than Apple computers (and have similar technical specs, but that's a different issue)
First your argument was that PCs didn't come with USB ports, so software was irrelevant. Now you've switched.
In fact, when I said 'until 2000 or so' that was exactly what I was referring to. Somewhere around 1999 the proportions switched and you were more likely to find working USB than not.
You were arguing the they weren't physically there, and if you're making a point about the chronological order, four years is well off.
I don't see what Windows NT has to do with it at all, it's not a consumer OS. The only ones really relevant are Win 95 and 98.
And the simple fact is that Windows 98 PCs supported USB just like any iMac. The releases of the two products also happened to coincide, so it's a bit of a stretch to give all credit to Apple.
One reason could be that car makers have attempted to enforce the same business model and practises, but have failed.
which is why the GPL only grants freedoms and does not restrict them - at least as compared to unlicensed copyrighted media
Uh, yeah sure... Except for those freedoms like being able to distribute my own code under a license like say BSD or something if I happen to include part of a GPL program. GPL restricts your freedom to do that.
Read the second part. You are not allowed to distribut GPL code under another license, just like you can't distribute any other copyrighted material under a new license.
There's no license-anything with a book. Copyright determines who is allowed to copy the book and its contents.
Once it's printed and you own the copy, you can do whatever you like with it.
Copyright isn't something that can really be "owned". The creator has the right to copy (hence the word), and there's only one.
AFAIK, this new interpretation of a product "as a license" rests solely on the fact that you generally have to copy the bits from one medium to the other (Disc to hard drive), and would need a license agreement to do that. That's a dubious claim to say the least.
I want to have sex with various, unnamed celebrity starlets, but that doesn't mean that they have to let me.
What a flwaless analogy!