That definition would exclude the Sistine Chapel, which was built and painted with the purpose of worship. It would also exclude various nudes and erotic art pieces (even if there is a tendancy to deny that these pieces have the particular function that they clearly do have).
In fact I would say that your definition is the exact opposite of good art. Good art inspires or conveys emotion or explores ideas (even if the idea explored is simply the definition of art). I can only think of one "artist" who produces work with the sole purpose of itself and even he would deny it.
Mozilla will be made to support actual video content. Just give me time to learn the extensions API.
Also, stop acting like anyone actully cares about the legal status of codecs. If anyone did then ffmpeg, vlc, etc would not exist. The only important issue here is if the video works when I go to youtube.
what's the bet that this will still result in just plain old stonewalling until the final agreements have been ratified by treaty, and all is needed is legislation in each member state?
In a few of the member states, all thatt would be needed to pass said legislation would be the approval of the politicians that had just been stonewalled. Lets hope there's still some working democracies out there.
I would love to make a PDF copy and put it up on my genealogy site as a free download, however from my reading of copyright laws it appears it is still under copyright.
Why not just do it anyway? Worst that can happen is you get asked to take it down. You're not going to damage anyone's business by distributing something that wouldn't sell anyway so there would be nothing for the copyright holder (whoever that is) to gain from suing.
Disclaimer: not a lawyer, pirate party member, completely biased
So what you're saying is that people still run a crap browser because they need it to use badly written software. Surely one of the main reasons for having web based applications in the first place is to get some independence from the clients' platform.
tbh, hardly anyone in the UK gets too bothered about "government plans stupid controlling idea $X" stories. They usually just mean that some consultancy is going to be paid a load of money to do nothing until the budget comes around and the plan gets silently dropped. It's mildly expensive but not really scary.
Be careful. They might start trying to pull money from people that have already paid the "taxes" (there is some piece of semantics that makes the tv license not quite a tax). For instance dvds of bbc shows aren't noticebly cheaper than other channels despite the bbc's funding model. It's possible that they might take this route with online content if charging becomes normal for other channels.
Also, I do object to the tv license, mostly because of their marketing department. Junkmail is never welcome but theirs often contains borderline threats. They also have a nasty habbit of sending salesmen to people who ask not to be spammed.
The person who received the details WAS an innocent bystander (unless said details were used), they are not responsible for looking after the bank accounts and should not have been expected to take any action. It's perfectly possible that they thought the email was a variation of a Nigeria scam and decided to ignore it. The bank fucked up here and it is absolutely unacceptable that they made it into the email account holder's problem. If they bank wanted to spare their customers the inconvienience of moving account numbers they could have simply covered the cost of any fraud.
Buying hosting in a few countries without this particular silly law isn't difficult. Why waste time with the government? Especially when what they got isn't all that good:
However, that exemption is nullified if the source code is distributed to any of the countries on the U.S embargo list, such as Cuba, Iran or North Korea.
If anything, it's not the government but the people of Britain who owe Turing an apology. As such, it should probably come from the Queen, not Gordon Brown.
The Queen would be a terrible choice to speak on behalf of the people of Britain. Gordon Brown isn't much better but at least we somehow sort of elected his party
Looking at the slashdot comments here, I'd say that claiming they were criticised is a pretty effective way for them to turn public opinion against people.
The trick with a district system is to find the constituencies that are most dissatisfied with their major party candidates. Many industrial areas still remember Thatcher and Labour are looking increasingly ugly so maybe there's room for a smaller party in those constituencies.
Slashdot Mirror
2 questions:
That definition would exclude the Sistine Chapel, which was built and painted with the purpose of worship. It would also exclude various nudes and erotic art pieces (even if there is a tendancy to deny that these pieces have the particular function that they clearly do have).
In fact I would say that your definition is the exact opposite of good art. Good art inspires or conveys emotion or explores ideas (even if the idea explored is simply the definition of art). I can only think of one "artist" who produces work with the sole purpose of itself and even he would deny it.
Mozilla will be made to support actual video content. Just give me time to learn the extensions API.
Also, stop acting like anyone actully cares about the legal status of codecs. If anyone did then ffmpeg, vlc, etc would not exist. The only important issue here is if the video works when I go to youtube.
what's the bet that this will still result in just plain old stonewalling until the final agreements have been ratified by treaty, and all is needed is legislation in each member state?
In a few of the member states, all thatt would be needed to pass said legislation would be the approval of the politicians that had just been stonewalled. Lets hope there's still some working democracies out there.
I'll correct this post when my cynicism wakes up
I would love to make a PDF copy and put it up on my genealogy site as a free download, however from my reading of copyright laws it appears it is still under copyright.
Why not just do it anyway? Worst that can happen is you get asked to take it down. You're not going to damage anyone's business by distributing something that wouldn't sell anyway so there would be nothing for the copyright holder (whoever that is) to gain from suing.
Disclaimer: not a lawyer, pirate party member, completely biased
Not if the only virgins available are other geek engineers
So what you're saying is that people still run a crap browser because they need it to use badly written software. Surely one of the main reasons for having web based applications in the first place is to get some independence from the clients' platform.
Does it matter? As long as no one else can detect them they're effectively good money.
Have you considered how many jobs cancer creates? A ban on chemicals which cause medical problems would probably be a disaster for the US economy.
Why not have both?
You dont need technology fo that! Just do what everyone else in politics does; use the name Liberal for everyone you cant remember.
tbh, hardly anyone in the UK gets too bothered about "government plans stupid controlling idea $X" stories. They usually just mean that some consultancy is going to be paid a load of money to do nothing until the budget comes around and the plan gets silently dropped. It's mildly expensive but not really scary.
Be careful. They might start trying to pull money from people that have already paid the "taxes" (there is some piece of semantics that makes the tv license not quite a tax). For instance dvds of bbc shows aren't noticebly cheaper than other channels despite the bbc's funding model. It's possible that they might take this route with online content if charging becomes normal for other channels.
Also, I do object to the tv license, mostly because of their marketing department. Junkmail is never welcome but theirs often contains borderline threats. They also have a nasty habbit of sending salesmen to people who ask not to be spammed.
I own the copyrights. There's no excuse for violating the rights of others
How about this excuse: rights are just things someone made up and if I feel like it I can make up a right to violate them.
... albeit an amateur British musician, can I just say, no I fucking well do NOT support this.
The person who received the details WAS an innocent bystander (unless said details were used), they are not responsible for looking after the bank accounts and should not have been expected to take any action. It's perfectly possible that they thought the email was a variation of a Nigeria scam and decided to ignore it. The bank fucked up here and it is absolutely unacceptable that they made it into the email account holder's problem. If they bank wanted to spare their customers the inconvienience of moving account numbers they could have simply covered the cost of any fraud.
Buying hosting in a few countries without this particular silly law isn't difficult. Why waste time with the government? Especially when what they got isn't all that good:
However, that exemption is nullified if the source code is distributed to any of the countries on the U.S embargo list, such as Cuba, Iran or North Korea.
The word liberal means "person I disagree with", so Gordon Brown is a liberal. He's also a conservative for exactly the same reason.
If anything, it's not the government but the people of Britain who owe Turing an apology. As such, it should probably come from the Queen, not Gordon Brown.
The Queen would be a terrible choice to speak on behalf of the people of Britain. Gordon Brown isn't much better but at least we somehow sort of elected his party
At the very least this will give fox news some new material to work with. They need it after their recent run of substandard sketches about the NHS.
Looking at the slashdot comments here, I'd say that claiming they were criticised is a pretty effective way for them to turn public opinion against people.
The trick with a district system is to find the constituencies that are most dissatisfied with their major party candidates. Many industrial areas still remember Thatcher and Labour are looking increasingly ugly so maybe there's room for a smaller party in those constituencies.
When you set one up. Political parties don't magically appear because you want them to.
stop and consider the real facts, not what news media is telling you!
The real fact is that Eastern Europeans like to be shit to each other. Russia and Georgia was just a variation on the theme.
...and does anybody think these kids don't already know all the dirty words anyway?
Most parents will go to extreme lengths to keep that delusion intact.