But part of what you pay for in an audio book, and what makes it a novel work worthy of copyright, is the reader actually reading out loud. However, a machine's mechanical reading is in no way novel. It's just a form of format shifting. And perhaps one day, the machine will be able to read a book a loud as well as a human being. But even now, any human being can read it aloud as well as a human being (with your monotonous college physics professor being the exception).
What is the difference between you reading your book aloud, and a machine reading it aloud? And why is one subject to an additional license on top of having purchased the book when the other isn't?
These days, the job of the union has been supplanted by the lawyers. A lawsuit will take care of all the abuses.
Now, as for inability to fire a unionized employee and all of the nice perks the unions bring along, well, that's just people's sense of entitlement speaking.
Probably, women take the approach, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," whereas for men, it's more like "If it ain't broke, break it."
The whole idea of putting it back together into a functional form is little more than an afterthought, when after it has been broken, you need it but only have the pieces.
You act like everyone should be aware of a computer hardware manufacturer, so I hope you hold yourself to the same standard and are aware of all the big names in all the other fields covered by slashdot news.
There are things that are other people's responsibility, and there are things that are your responsibility. Then there are the occasional things that aren't so clear whose responibility it is. But this falls into the, It's so fucking trivial, why are you making such a big fuss over nothing! category.
The difference is those guys vigoriously defended their trademark as soon as they saw it being misused.
Psion sent out C&D letters only after netbook became widely used. There's a case for Psion abandoning their trademark and for the term being generic.
Trademark isn't like patents. You can't troll a trademark. You need to nip trademark infringement in the bud, or if it becomes too widespread, you can be perceived to have abandoned it, and the term can become generic. In fact, you can protect your trademark from abandonment by acknowledging and allowing 3rd parties to use your trademark. But you'd still run the risk of it becoming generic.
Because at the end of the day, if Google starts making their apps incompatible with other people, there are still other app vendors to use. Microsoft for one, has this nifty office productivity suite.
She's specifically referring to online advertising. And GP is legitimite in wondering what barriers to entry there are that would warrant Google's existing monopoly to be of concern.
But that's the thing. Google doesn't have a monopoly on their services. Even in search, they're around 44% at last glance, which is much larger than Yahoo or Live, but it's nowhere near a monopoly. Google has competition everywhere and dominance nowhere, except in advertising. There were people a little while back who claimed that if Yahoo converted to Adsense, they'd make more money than if they used their own existing ad serving algorithms. For every service, there is a competing service out there, many of which use Google or Doubleclick to serve ads to make money. If Google were to use this against such sites, say, by taking a larger cut from them than from other people, or by denying said sites for no reason other than because the nature of the site competes with one of Google's existing services, and they very well could, then it would constitute as an abuse of a monopoly. But otherwise, they can have a monopoly and not be in violation of anti-trust laws. They haven't done any such thing yet, so I'm rather doubtful that they will in the near future. But if management ever changed, then it'd be a good time to start re-evaluating whether "Do no evil" still applies.
Basically, an article on how the King Kong defense appeared on Wikipedia within minutes of the term being used is now notable, but the King Kong defense itself still isn't until journalists start sourcing said Wikipedia article for the definition of the King Kong defense in their pieces.
Chewbacca is a Wookie. King Kong is a giant ape. What does a Wookie have to do with a giant ape? Nothing. It doesn't make sense. Therefore, you must acquit.
Chewbacca co-pilots the millenium falcon. King Kong was shot down by pilots. What does this have to do with anything? Nothing. Therefore, you must acquit.
Chewbacca is 7'4.75 inches tall. King Kong is 50' tall. King Kong can squish Chewbacca with his finger. It doens't make sense. Therefore, you must acquit.
Chewbacca can do the Kessel run in 12 parsecs. King Kong can climb the Empire State Building in 2 minutes. This is a travesty. Therefore you must acquit.
Chewbacca has a life debt to Han Solo. King Kong lost his life to protect Ann Darrow. How are they related? It doens't make sense. Therefore, you must acquit.
Chewbacca is a minor character in the Star Wars trilogy. There are three movies named after King Kong. This does not make sense. Therefore, you must acquit.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Chewbacca and King Kong have no relationship. They are both furry and not human, but they are completely unrelated. Ladies and gentlemen, it is for this reason that you must acquit.
Fraud, slander, libel, falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc. The list goes on. And when it comes to lying to authority figures, there's always obstruction of justice and perjury.
Problem isn't you putting up your info, problem is all of your friends and family putting things up about you or with you in it. You can't maintain any semblence of privacy anymore if you wish to socialize.
I haven't touched facebook since they first started advertising over the I2 Direct Connect hub, and yet, there's still a plethora of information about me, most of which is completely insecure.
What most people don't seem to realize is that their original TOS wasn't too hot to begin with as it were. It's not so much that the conditions under their TOS are unusual, but more that it offers no consideration for the kind of data that the TOS covers.
If Youtube claims an automatic all-use license for content uploaded onto their servers, it's not that big a deal, as all it has are videos. If Flickr did the same, it's a little worse, but still not that big a deal as all they really have are pictures and some comments.
But Facebook contains a huge amount of personal information--and they are as anal in keeping information as a wiki--some of which may be protected by privacy laws. Even if AOL said they keep all logs of all conversations that go through AIM and can use it for whatever purpose they like, there isn't nearly as much personally identifiable information as there is on Facebook, and that and more was effectively what Facebook's original TOS entailed. Such a TOS on their part is irresponsible at best, and criminal at worst.
If a program is already running on your computer then it means the firewall is no longer responsible for stopping that application in any way - the firewall only protects against outside threats.
For all the insight you displayed with the local settings bit, this really shows you have no idea what a firewall should be doing.
A firewall is meant to regulate the traffic that flows between two nodes, effectively partitioning the network into the local intranet and the external internet. Firewalls are typically separately maintained, on a box separate from the main machine, acting as a gatekeeper between a heavily-regulated internal intranet and the wild west that is the internet. In the case of a software firewall, your computer is partitioned from the rest of the world. The regulation happens both ways. The firewall dictates what packets can enter, and what packets can exit. This is to prevent you from initiating connections to destinations that you have blacklisted, e.g. at work, you can't get to certain sites. Firewalls prevent both intrusions and data leaks.
If CS4 was to automatically whitelist itself without asking the user, it is a trojan horse.
Now as for one-way protection, you're thinking of a NAT. And the one-way protection that a NAT gives you is actually a shortcoming of the design, not some kind of fancy built-in feature.
No copyright content is hosted on The Pirate Bay's web servers;...
That's technically false. At the very least, the ASCII art that goes into the nfo and hence the torrent descriptions are protected by copyright. And, the comments are copyright TPB or the owner of the comments, whatever the implicit or explicit TOS is for the site.
So there is plenty of copyrighted works on TPB, just none that they can be sued over.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
Or something like that.
Bernie Maddoff is the perfect counter-example. A guy who is so powerful nobody would even dare expose his wrong-doings for years. A guy who stole $50 billion (that's billion with a "B"). And to top it off, even after he was caught, he's going to walk away with a slap-on-the-wrist plea bargain.
Imagine if Bernie Maddoff was the head of some organized crime (mafia, triad, mob, etc.). You can bet that such a system would be used improperly.
Hell, just think back to Hoover, who's second-in-command took down a president. Imagine the kind of power Hoover had...
Slashdot Mirror
But part of what you pay for in an audio book, and what makes it a novel work worthy of copyright, is the reader actually reading out loud. However, a machine's mechanical reading is in no way novel. It's just a form of format shifting. And perhaps one day, the machine will be able to read a book a loud as well as a human being. But even now, any human being can read it aloud as well as a human being (with your monotonous college physics professor being the exception).
What is the difference between you reading your book aloud, and a machine reading it aloud? And why is one subject to an additional license on top of having purchased the book when the other isn't?
These days, the job of the union has been supplanted by the lawyers. A lawsuit will take care of all the abuses.
Now, as for inability to fire a unionized employee and all of the nice perks the unions bring along, well, that's just people's sense of entitlement speaking.
Probably, women take the approach, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," whereas for men, it's more like "If it ain't broke, break it."
The whole idea of putting it back together into a functional form is little more than an afterthought, when after it has been broken, you need it but only have the pieces.
You act like everyone should be aware of a computer hardware manufacturer, so I hope you hold yourself to the same standard and are aware of all the big names in all the other fields covered by slashdot news.
There are things that are other people's responsibility, and there are things that are your responsibility. Then there are the occasional things that aren't so clear whose responibility it is. But this falls into the, It's so fucking trivial, why are you making such a big fuss over nothing! category.
They call it a pound cake.
The difference is those guys vigoriously defended their trademark as soon as they saw it being misused.
Psion sent out C&D letters only after netbook became widely used. There's a case for Psion abandoning their trademark and for the term being generic.
Trademark isn't like patents. You can't troll a trademark. You need to nip trademark infringement in the bud, or if it becomes too widespread, you can be perceived to have abandoned it, and the term can become generic. In fact, you can protect your trademark from abandonment by acknowledging and allowing 3rd parties to use your trademark. But you'd still run the risk of it becoming generic.
Because at the end of the day, if Google starts making their apps incompatible with other people, there are still other app vendors to use. Microsoft for one, has this nifty office productivity suite.
She's specifically referring to online advertising. And GP is legitimite in wondering what barriers to entry there are that would warrant Google's existing monopoly to be of concern.
But that's the thing. Google doesn't have a monopoly on their services. Even in search, they're around 44% at last glance, which is much larger than Yahoo or Live, but it's nowhere near a monopoly. Google has competition everywhere and dominance nowhere, except in advertising. There were people a little while back who claimed that if Yahoo converted to Adsense, they'd make more money than if they used their own existing ad serving algorithms. For every service, there is a competing service out there, many of which use Google or Doubleclick to serve ads to make money. If Google were to use this against such sites, say, by taking a larger cut from them than from other people, or by denying said sites for no reason other than because the nature of the site competes with one of Google's existing services, and they very well could, then it would constitute as an abuse of a monopoly. But otherwise, they can have a monopoly and not be in violation of anti-trust laws. They haven't done any such thing yet, so I'm rather doubtful that they will in the near future. But if management ever changed, then it'd be a good time to start re-evaluating whether "Do no evil" still applies.
As opposed to mathematicians and theologists, who are interested in absolute values.
Basically, an article on how the King Kong defense appeared on Wikipedia within minutes of the term being used is now notable, but the King Kong defense itself still isn't until journalists start sourcing said Wikipedia article for the definition of the King Kong defense in their pieces.
Chewbacca is a Wookie. King Kong is a giant ape. What does a Wookie have to do with a giant ape? Nothing. It doesn't make sense.
Therefore, you must acquit.
Chewbacca co-pilots the millenium falcon. King Kong was shot down by pilots. What does this have to do with anything? Nothing.
Therefore, you must acquit.
Chewbacca is 7'4.75 inches tall. King Kong is 50' tall. King Kong can squish Chewbacca with his finger. It doens't make sense.
Therefore, you must acquit.
Chewbacca can do the Kessel run in 12 parsecs. King Kong can climb the Empire State Building in 2 minutes. This is a travesty.
Therefore you must acquit.
Chewbacca has a life debt to Han Solo. King Kong lost his life to protect Ann Darrow. How are they related? It doens't make sense.
Therefore, you must acquit.
Chewbacca is a minor character in the Star Wars trilogy. There are three movies named after King Kong. This does not make sense.
Therefore, you must acquit.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Chewbacca and King Kong have no relationship. They are both furry and not human, but they are completely unrelated. Ladies and gentlemen, it is for this reason that you must acquit.
I rest my case.
Fraud, slander, libel, falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc. The list goes on. And when it comes to lying to authority figures, there's always obstruction of justice and perjury.
If she lies in court, she'd be committing perjury. That'd be the appropriate time for the chickens to come home to roost.
That's because the hammer didn't hit your head; your head hit the hammer!
Problem isn't you putting up your info, problem is all of your friends and family putting things up about you or with you in it. You can't maintain any semblence of privacy anymore if you wish to socialize.
I haven't touched facebook since they first started advertising over the I2 Direct Connect hub, and yet, there's still a plethora of information about me, most of which is completely insecure.
What most people don't seem to realize is that their original TOS wasn't too hot to begin with as it were. It's not so much that the conditions under their TOS are unusual, but more that it offers no consideration for the kind of data that the TOS covers.
If Youtube claims an automatic all-use license for content uploaded onto their servers, it's not that big a deal, as all it has are videos. If Flickr did the same, it's a little worse, but still not that big a deal as all they really have are pictures and some comments.
But Facebook contains a huge amount of personal information--and they are as anal in keeping information as a wiki--some of which may be protected by privacy laws. Even if AOL said they keep all logs of all conversations that go through AIM and can use it for whatever purpose they like, there isn't nearly as much personally identifiable information as there is on Facebook, and that and more was effectively what Facebook's original TOS entailed. Such a TOS on their part is irresponsible at best, and criminal at worst.
I move to create a Boycott Facebook group on facebook.
I'd go start one up right now, but I don't have a facebook account, seeing as I'm boycotting it.
Damn, why isn't this guy modded higher?
These are the kinds of posts that facilitate the kinds of threads that I came to slashdot to read.
If a program is already running on your computer then it means the firewall is no longer responsible for stopping that application in any way - the firewall only protects against outside threats.
For all the insight you displayed with the local settings bit, this really shows you have no idea what a firewall should be doing.
A firewall is meant to regulate the traffic that flows between two nodes, effectively partitioning the network into the local intranet and the external internet. Firewalls are typically separately maintained, on a box separate from the main machine, acting as a gatekeeper between a heavily-regulated internal intranet and the wild west that is the internet. In the case of a software firewall, your computer is partitioned from the rest of the world. The regulation happens both ways. The firewall dictates what packets can enter, and what packets can exit. This is to prevent you from initiating connections to destinations that you have blacklisted, e.g. at work, you can't get to certain sites. Firewalls prevent both intrusions and data leaks.
If CS4 was to automatically whitelist itself without asking the user, it is a trojan horse.
Now as for one-way protection, you're thinking of a NAT. And the one-way protection that a NAT gives you is actually a shortcoming of the design, not some kind of fancy built-in feature.
XP is still functioning perfectly.
And the way Vista has turned out and 7 is turning out, I think XP will continue to function fine for quite a bit longer.
From TFA:
No copyright content is hosted on The Pirate Bay's web servers;...
That's technically false. At the very least, the ASCII art that goes into the nfo and hence the torrent descriptions are protected by copyright. And, the comments are copyright TPB or the owner of the comments, whatever the implicit or explicit TOS is for the site.
So there is plenty of copyrighted works on TPB, just none that they can be sued over.
my eye exams have gotten worse and worse since I first discovered adults films and other activities.
But your palms didn't start spontaneously growing hair? Blasphemy!
And we know where there are monkeys, there are probably pirates nearby too.
That's 'cause most of us produce software. And most of the software we produce is free anyway.
Now, if we worked as a Lego bruckmaster or even at the Lego manufacturing plant...
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
Or something like that.
Bernie Maddoff is the perfect counter-example. A guy who is so powerful nobody would even dare expose his wrong-doings for years. A guy who stole $50 billion (that's billion with a "B"). And to top it off, even after he was caught, he's going to walk away with a slap-on-the-wrist plea bargain.
Imagine if Bernie Maddoff was the head of some organized crime (mafia, triad, mob, etc.). You can bet that such a system would be used improperly.
Hell, just think back to Hoover, who's second-in-command took down a president. Imagine the kind of power Hoover had...