This looks like a retarded money grab and nothing more. If the author's are so sure they retain "digital rights," why doesn't one of them post a book the publisher still has the rights to, in its entirety, on a website and see what happened.
Is this not what they just did? At least for the dead ones I doubt they have books without a publisher. Maybe you are just angry that they still want money, but you cannot blame the middleman?
I seem to remember that the real problem Flash clones is that documentation is not completely free and if you read it you have to be under strong NDA for the rest of your life. This should also be why Gnash always lags behind. How did he overcome this issue? Or are we waiting for a lawsuit to strike as soon as the plugin becomes usable?
Because if the photos were not photoshopped they would be overwhelming evidence that they are working on the problem. And surely the people in front of the screen are first class engineers and not janitors. And the monitors have not been assembled for this photo only. I guess my point is clear: there are plenty of ways to fake an image and computer elaboration is just the laziest.
I am assuming that recording a conversation for personal use is still OK, and that you can introduce such a "private" recording as evidence in a trial...
No you cannot with this bill. Berlusconi was recorded by a prostitute while enjoying her services. It was quite embarassing for him and he probably cannot help going with prostitutes. As a consequence he wants to prevent them from blackmailing him forever.
Completely misinformed. Don't spread these false info please.
Spreading of wiretappings is already illegal if they are not used as evidence in a trial. The only case I know where this was violated is when Berlusconi's newspaper published private calls of one opposing politician.
A completely different thing is when you end up in trial based on some wiretapping then the information must be public, because no one should be judged based on secret information. It is a basic human right to be able to know what is the evidence against you.
What happened here is that some members of the government were found to be mafia members and the government wants to stop the evidence from being spread.
I don't want to be wiretapped. I want the magistrates to be able to do it. If they do they will throw away the evidence because I am not doing anything and no one will ever know what I said.
Also notice that the people doing the wiretapping is not controlled by the government, so that political use of wiretapping is not possible. (As I said the only case where private information was leaked was done by the current government to stain the reputation of another politician)
Well, actually their obsessive marketing makes them well known and makes everything about them notable. This is not only why there are no many Apple stories on Slashdot, but also why the problems with chinese suicides were linked with Apple despite many companies being involved with the same factory. I would not be surprised if this story was tagged "apple".
A governmental survey is pretty much the best solution for introduction of new technologies... (of course a different test must be carried for any mutation!)
The intent is clear and complete and the list of assessments is definitely reassuring.
The only thing that rings a bell is that the submitter is only required to provide data. I suspect that the evaluators would be better served with samples. Unfortunately the governments do not have the money to run the tests and have to trust the producers for the results...
Finally, I do not appreciate being called luddite when I am just concerned about health. We introduced many dangerous technologies in the past without adequate testing... learning from mistakes seems wise to me.
No one calls that genetic engineering. His work was with plants, he never tried to modify genes directly, he worked on probabilities, changing the environment. Regardless, genetic engineering does not mean that ("genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding"), no matter how much you want to confuse it.
1. You quote me asking for low risk, then accuse me of asking to prove it is never harmful. Don't misrepresent my words, please.
2. How much risk? What about a good study with probability estimates and everyone can decide, or ask his/her preferred physician for an opinion?
3. It seems that you actually suggest to use paying customers as guinea pigs because testing is difficult. I must be misunderstanding, but if this is the case: will they pay sorely, should the product be proven harmful?
I am not asking to prove a negative. Probabilities can be bounded from above with some testing. And if there is a totally new effect that no one could imagine, well that is life and science. But if there is something we can discover now then it is our duty to try before we commit ourselves.
Being a scientist, I would ask for the tests that show GM products to have a low risk of causing harm to the human body. In their absence, given the record of the companies involved that used dangerous pesticidal and antibiotics, I don't trust them to provide a correct view. They played with public health in the past and it would be foolish to assume they won't do it again.
Why not? It's not like you did something to deserve your parents' money, apart from being born in the right family. You are just legally entitled to it.
Completely agreed. I suspect that people are so used to everything being protected that they don't mind anymore. If I cannot legally use Elvis or the Beatles for my amateur short feature/compilation CD/remix/whatever I might as well take a contemporary artist. In for a penny in for a dime.
It seems recursive licensing. If I cannot play it without server copies I don't need a license. If I dohave a license it is for reproducing the work, whatever it may take to do it. I suspect is that the fees per copy are much higher than the fees per performance and they want streaming to fall in that category.
Slashdot Mirror
This looks like a retarded money grab and nothing more. If the author's are so sure they retain "digital rights," why doesn't one of them post a book the publisher still has the rights to, in its entirety, on a website and see what happened.
Is this not what they just did? At least for the dead ones I doubt they have books without a publisher. Maybe you are just angry that they still want money, but you cannot blame the middleman?
Yeah but with AT&T, the entire US continent is a low signal area.
Let me guess, your geography teacher was G.W.B.? :)
What happened to car analogies?
I seem to remember that the real problem Flash clones is that documentation is not completely free and if you read it you have to be under strong NDA for the rest of your life. This should also be why Gnash always lags behind. How did he overcome this issue? Or are we waiting for a lawsuit to strike as soon as the plugin becomes usable?
Because if the photos were not photoshopped they would be overwhelming evidence that they are working on the problem. And surely the people in front of the screen are first class engineers and not janitors. And the monitors have not been assembled for this photo only. I guess my point is clear: there are plenty of ways to fake an image and computer elaboration is just the laziest.
so let's say someone records you while peeing, he can't publish it without your permission
Forgot to add: this is already illegal.
I am assuming that recording a conversation for personal use is still OK, and that you can introduce such a "private" recording as evidence in a trial...
No you cannot with this bill. Berlusconi was recorded by a prostitute while enjoying her services. It was quite embarassing for him and he probably cannot help going with prostitutes. As a consequence he wants to prevent them from blackmailing him forever.
Completely misinformed. Don't spread these false info please.
Spreading of wiretappings is already illegal if they are not used as evidence in a trial. The only case I know where this was violated is when Berlusconi's newspaper published private calls of one opposing politician.
A completely different thing is when you end up in trial based on some wiretapping then the information must be public, because no one should be judged based on secret information. It is a basic human right to be able to know what is the evidence against you.
What happened here is that some members of the government were found to be mafia members and the government wants to stop the evidence from being spread.
I don't want to be wiretapped. I want the magistrates to be able to do it. If they do they will throw away the evidence because I am not doing anything and no one will ever know what I said.
Also notice that the people doing the wiretapping is not controlled by the government, so that political use of wiretapping is not possible. (As I said the only case where private information was leaked was done by the current government to stain the reputation of another politician)
Well, actually their obsessive marketing makes them well known and makes everything about them notable. This is not only why there are no many Apple stories on Slashdot, but also why the problems with chinese suicides were linked with Apple despite many companies being involved with the same factory. I would not be surprised if this story was tagged "apple".
Apps that provide services to a small minority of British citizens. Or... is Starbucks very common in the UK?
Definitely an informative comment, thank you.
A governmental survey is pretty much the best solution for introduction of new technologies... (of course a different test must be carried for any mutation!)
The intent is clear and complete and the list of assessments is definitely reassuring.
The only thing that rings a bell is that the submitter is only required to provide data. I suspect that the evaluators would be better served with samples. Unfortunately the governments do not have the money to run the tests and have to trust the producers for the results...
Finally, I do not appreciate being called luddite when I am just concerned about health. We introduced many dangerous technologies in the past without adequate testing... learning from mistakes seems wise to me.
No one calls that genetic engineering. His work was with plants, he never tried to modify genes directly, he worked on probabilities, changing the environment. Regardless, genetic engineering does not mean that ("genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding"), no matter how much you want to confuse it.
1. You quote me asking for low risk, then accuse me of asking to prove it is never harmful. Don't misrepresent my words, please.
2. How much risk? What about a good study with probability estimates and everyone can decide, or ask his/her preferred physician for an opinion?
3. It seems that you actually suggest to use paying customers as guinea pigs because testing is difficult. I must be misunderstanding, but if this is the case: will they pay sorely, should the product be proven harmful?
I am not asking to prove a negative. Probabilities can be bounded from above with some testing. And if there is a totally new effect that no one could imagine, well that is life and science. But if there is something we can discover now then it is our duty to try before we commit ourselves.
Being a scientist, I would ask for the tests that show GM products to have a low risk of causing harm to the human body. In their absence, given the record of the companies involved that used dangerous pesticidal and antibiotics, I don't trust them to provide a correct view. They played with public health in the past and it would be foolish to assume they won't do it again.
He did not do genetic engineering. Stop clouding the issue. It is complicated enough when discussed rationally.
Why not? It's not like you did something to deserve your parents' money, apart from being born in the right family. You are just legally entitled to it.
They try to be the important things to a very small niche of very vocal people. Don't forget that.
Completely agreed. I suspect that people are so used to everything being protected that they don't mind anymore. If I cannot legally use Elvis or the Beatles for my amateur short feature/compilation CD/remix/whatever I might as well take a contemporary artist. In for a penny in for a dime.
Not very original, since it was the april fool from youtube itself a few years ago.
HALF THE POPULACE IS BELOW AVERAGE!
You surely look unfamiliar with the concept of average.
ALL the companies? For example,will it include EU companies?
Like the Nokia from the summary? I think so.
Where is the careful balance in DMCA?
Yes, I hoped TeX would finally run in a reasonable amount of time.
It seems recursive licensing. If I cannot play it without server copies I don't need a license. If I dohave a license it is for reproducing the work, whatever it may take to do it. I suspect is that the fees per copy are much higher than the fees per performance and they want streaming to fall in that category.