Whats up with people with mod points today? I've seen at least one huge troll go up to 4 before it was modded down (though last time I looked it was still "0, Informative" which made me laugh. And now this is "Insightful".
I have to wonder if somehow the folks at/. managed to give out free drugs to people with mod points today. Now that would be an interesting web interface:)
How did this get up to a 3? It espouses Open Source writing? So writers are not allowed to make money from their efforts? I know that the publishing houses suck just as the music and software publishers do. It's a fact of life.
The writers still need to make a living and since epublishing still sucks that means print is their best option.
If I had mod points this would be marked troll.
I have no idea why this is marked flamebait. MS is doing the same thing to the company I work for (a fortune 125 company) with a "friendly" audit. We are nearly entirely an MS company having standardized on Office and Win2000, and we've negotiated the typical deals with MS for their products. They are getting plenty from us, but they want more. We have people that keep track of the licenses, but it is a huge pain making sure enverything is tracked down. Hell, I had to reinstall a couple things to reread the agreement to make sure they were legal.
Linux would be great, but we have standardized on enterly MS platforms for email and nearly everythign else. Moving would be very costly. More then the audit. More then multiple audits? That I don't know...
If they were using the web to gather information, that is one thing. If they were directly reprinting information, then I think that would be questionable. br.I agree that it probably wouldn't be worth the fight, but I would still reserve the right to be angry about it and say nasty things aout them on Slashdot:)
IANAL either, but I would have to say that no matter what the legal boilerplate on the the forum says, the fact remains that companies are not legally able to profit off of volunteer labor. AOL and Everquest are going through this right now. I doubt that the legal fees would make it worthwhile to go after the coffee mug, but the law would be on the side of the writer, I think.
That covers some types of writing, but from what I understand of freelance writing is that the publisher buys a specific set of publishing rights from the author, such as first publishing, reprinting, and the like. Unless all rights are explicitly sold, this lets the writer then shop the article around other places. The authors in this suit are saying that internet publishing rights were not explicitly purchased.
I have to say that I am hoping for the authors on this. If the tables were turned and they published their stories online, the newpapers would propbably be sueing them.
No, the NYT didn't explicitly buy the rights to republish in a different format. And they make money off the republishing. They are reselling the articles in the different format. They currently require the internet republishing rights but they didn't always.
And I doubt too many people on/. were selling the MP3s they copied, so I think a little moral outrage is allowed.
It isn't a matter of what the media is - it's the distribution. If the newspaper decided to sell the stories it covers to some other format, like toilet paper so people had something to read in there, they would be getting more money for the same content. Money that does not go back to the writer. And this use of the article would presumably not be covered in the original purchase agreement. The new distribution method AND the money that comes from that distribution is what the writers are complaining about.
I have no idea what the rights the different publishing companies buy when they buy the aricle, but from what I understand they usually get first publishing and limited republishing in set format rights from the author. I'm sure all current purchases specify internet publishing, but going back a decade or more ago, I doubt that was part of the deal.
So they know someone in 22032 watches Sopranos, and Buffy, and Nova, and... They don't know it is me. If they did, and it influenced a hiring choice, then I wouldn't have wanted to work for or with them anyway.
True, and I feel the same way. But I (and I would guess you) are in a position where we have the option to turn down employment like that. Not everyone does. And who's to say there won't be some sort of McCarthy-like hunt for people who like violent shows in 5-10 years. And Hey! Tivo wants to help hunt down the ner-do-wells. I admit it is a worst case senario, but not out of the realm of possiblity.
If it is a big deal to you, call 1-877-FOR-TIVO (se page 72 of your manual) and opt-out. Now it really is a small deal isn't it?
It's good that Tivo lets people opt out. The problem with that is how many people read the manual? How many people (outside of the concerned population of/.) know about the data collected? And of those that do, how many have opted out? I doubt that many have.
Slippery slope to what? This is different to selling info about things that matter, its just what tv you watch, isnt it?
The problem comes when people can search through the data. Say that you watch a pornographic movie. Now I know this is purely hypothetical since no one on/. would do something like that:) Now say your boss or prospective employer manages to get this information in some sort of standard report, presents it to you and points out the morals clause in your employment contract.
It isn't such a small detail now, is it?
Or think of an even more stupid senario: Think of the most conservative, narrow-minded person you know. Now think of the silliest, stupidest show you really enjoy (we all have one or a dozen of those). now imagine that the narrowminded one is using your viewing data to make a decision about you (job, loan, college, whatever). Do you still feel comfortable?
I put together something similar for the company I work for. The topic of a specific policy for the discussion areas never came up, but then the company has a pretty simple electronic messaging policy which covers email and internet/intranet activity.
One other thing that I think keeps people on their better behavior is that they are required to sign into the webpage to post a message, and their name gets attached to everything they put out there.
Something that you might be more concerned about is getting people to use it. The areas I have setup are for this global company with probably around 1000 or so people reading the website and discussion area but there are usually only 3-5 posts a week. A discussion area needs a large population to get a lot of activity, or at least a small population of outspoken individuals who are comfortable using the website as a communication tool. The group I work with is just finally coming around to using the web as a means of communication but it has taken nearly a year for people to get interested in it and using it.
Good Luck with your effort!
It has to be a personal transportation device.
on
What is 'IT'?
·
· Score: 1
It's going to be an alternative to "dirty, expensive, and sometimes dangerous" products? He has to be talking about cars. And I can't think of anything else that would need refitting a city to deal with IT. The auto industry is still a huge thing. If he had a simple, cheap, safe, and fun replacement for the car, I can see that growing to $60 billion in less then ten years.
Here's an article about a personal flying machine that is close to the size they mention in the article. The article is talking about NASA and Silicon Valley, but I imagine others would be working on the same idea.
I would have pretty serious doubts about the value of an open source text book for a nubmer of reasons.
First, ebooks still have huge usability problems. Anyone having to deal with advanced classes shouldn't have to worry about fighting the book in addition to the content. Being able to highlight an write notes in the book is very important. Plus, classes that allow open book but not open note exams would have trouble with this sort of thing. Besides, the panic factor of a student discovering that the batteries of their ebook ran out at 2am the night before a test is very bad. I'm sure a lot of people on Slashdot are familiar with that experience with a calculator.
Second, if a book is open source, what is to keep someone from taking a book filled with useful, accurate information and adding in their own take on the subject and using that for class? Such as deciding that evolution is not correct and should be replaced with creationism? Part of the value of text books is that the publishing process can weed out useless or inaccurate stuff, and reviews can be made of those that are out there. So you can find out if the book is crap or not. That would be more difficult with an open source book.
Third, I would argue that the information is available. Open source (as I understand it) applies to the copyright/left of the project. Publishing is a big thing in the academic world. People do it for the prestige, and the addition to their resume. I'm not sure how well a collaborative project for publishing would go over.
I would suggest a better open source education project would be more of a project book or lesson plan. Walk though problems or labs or stories with aids and the like. Something a student could use as an aid for a class or a teacher could use as a basis for the classroom. If I had some extra interactive guides for my classes, some of the classes would have be a much better experience. And having a number of teachers for friends, I know they are always looking for ideas to make class more interesting.
I would suggest that a big part of flaming comes from people that glance over the text and get the wrong opinion or idea. That person then feels compelled to put there two cents out on the subject, which again can then be misinterpreted.
Communication is a lot harder with just text. People who are not used to it can easily jump to the wrong idea. Text bandwidth is so much smaller then voice or visual, so a lot of the visual and audible cue people are used to are lost.
I think there is alot more to it then just the idea of the economy taking a downturn. Much more emphasis is being placed on IT in business and a lot more relies on someone who knows the system. Now technologies and practices are coming out much too fast for older companies (and people) to adopt as they come out. They need IT to put this in place. Even in a downturn, IT will become too important to a company to cut them as drastically as they might like to.
or make a functional binary and distribute that.... then it isn't the code, it's a collection of 1's and 0's..
Then it is software, not code. The code is what is considered free speech. Software is subject to more legal stuff, such as not beign able to export certain strengths of encryption software but you can send a book out of the country with the code printed in it.
The debate is between people that belive in a literal interpretation of the Biblical story of creation. According to people who have studied the Bible much more then I have, the world is between 5000 and 7000 years old and God create all the living creatures pretty much as they are today. According to physical scientists, the world is much older and all living creatures evolved, or mutated over long periods of time, into the forms of life we know today. The problem is that evolution is still a theory, meaning that it isn't proven. And it can't be unless someone developes a time machine. And since there are people that belive that their religion supercedes everything else, we get conflicts over teaching evolution in school.
I think the response brought up some very valid points. If the copyright is invalid, then there is nothing wrong. Just because I say I have a copywrite on a tape of the Matrix because I dubbed in my own voice over the agent's dialog doesn't mean I can sue people who then distribute it.
For all the people complaining that they were not consulted and they want their money form the book - do you know that professional writers only get 2-5 cents per word? That is how much your words are worth. Now everyone that would get more hen $5 (100 words or ~ 1 medium paragraph) raise your hand. Not too many of you.
Now realise the amount of editing needed to combine a huge collection of comments and conflicting points, and often out and out errors. That is a lot of editing. I've done similar work, though on much smalelr scale, and it is still a lot of work.
If you tihnk you are that important, or your insight that valuable, shut the fsck up and write it yourself. Do NOT start condemning others for getting up and actually doing something. It is hard work putting a book together. Even harder to put one together that talks about a topic like this. So unless you have gotten off your ass and made people think about the issues personally, don't complain about people that are doing it, and doing it for charity to boot.
My more then $0.02, and Slashdot can use these comments whereever they want.
As for the 4th point - contributors being paid for thier work - do you know how much your words are worth? From my understanding of the publishing world (IANAWriter), you would be lucky to get 5 cents a word. Now imagine the time spent to send a $1 check to every person who had 20 words, the paperwork for taxes that involves, not to mention the contract nessesary for such a transaction to occur in the first place, the time spent contacting each to get their name, address, blah blah blah. It is not reasonable to do that.
And anyone expecting to get rich from writing is in for a surprise. Unless your name is Steven King or something:)
I always have to wonder about announcements like this. It reminds me of a George Carlin joke (at least I think it was him). He said the best way the military could beat others is to announce a new stealth airplane, but not actually make one. Announce successful tests, deployment, missions, nd jut drive the other military groups crazy trying to find the thing.I can see this being the same. Make sure the JEDI soldier has a definate trackable signal, and then just mass produce something that makes the signal. Anyone tracking them will think there are thousands of the people there.On the other hand, does this mean WinCE and the rest now count as munitions for sale and export? Though I suppose most of us already knew it was a bomb...
Slashdot Mirror
Wow...
:)
AC- who ever you are - you have my respect and admiration.
An actual first post "First Post", that is on topic . I think this is a first
How about this solution which works 100 percent of the time? I don't see why this isn't a solution.
It isn't a matter of who is right. The challenge is making sure no one is wrong. Reread the challenge.
Whats up with people with mod points today? I've seen at least one huge troll go up to 4 before it was modded down (though last time I looked it was still "0, Informative" which made me laugh. And now this is "Insightful".
/. managed to give out free drugs to people with mod points today. Now that would be an interesting web interface :)
I have to wonder if somehow the folks at
How did this get up to a 3? It espouses Open Source writing? So writers are not allowed to make money from their efforts? I know that the publishing houses suck just as the music and software publishers do. It's a fact of life. The writers still need to make a living and since epublishing still sucks that means print is their best option. If I had mod points this would be marked troll.
Doesn't this make misspelling a way of circumventing a content restriction system? So doesn't that make misspelling illegal under the DMCA?
I have no idea why this is marked flamebait. MS is doing the same thing to the company I work for (a fortune 125 company) with a "friendly" audit. We are nearly entirely an MS company having standardized on Office and Win2000, and we've negotiated the typical deals with MS for their products. They are getting plenty from us, but they want more. We have people that keep track of the licenses, but it is a huge pain making sure enverything is tracked down. Hell, I had to reinstall a couple things to reread the agreement to make sure they were legal.
Linux would be great, but we have standardized on enterly MS platforms for email and nearly everythign else. Moving would be very costly. More then the audit. More then multiple audits? That I don't know...
If they were using the web to gather information, that is one thing. If they were directly reprinting information, then I think that would be questionable. :)
br.I agree that it probably wouldn't be worth the fight, but I would still reserve the right to be angry about it and say nasty things aout them on Slashdot
IANAL either, but I would have to say that no matter what the legal boilerplate on the the forum says, the fact remains that companies are not legally able to profit off of volunteer labor. AOL and Everquest are going through this right now. I doubt that the legal fees would make it worthwhile to go after the coffee mug, but the law would be on the side of the writer, I think.
That covers some types of writing, but from what I understand of freelance writing is that the publisher buys a specific set of publishing rights from the author, such as first publishing, reprinting, and the like. Unless all rights are explicitly sold, this lets the writer then shop the article around other places. The authors in this suit are saying that internet publishing rights were not explicitly purchased.
I have to say that I am hoping for the authors on this. If the tables were turned and they published their stories online, the newpapers would propbably be sueing them.
No, the NYT didn't explicitly buy the rights to republish in a different format. And they make money off the republishing. They are reselling the articles in the different format. They currently require the internet republishing rights but they didn't always.
/. were selling the MP3s they copied, so I think a little moral outrage is allowed.
And I doubt too many people on
It isn't a matter of what the media is - it's the distribution. If the newspaper decided to sell the stories it covers to some other format, like toilet paper so people had something to read in there, they would be getting more money for the same content. Money that does not go back to the writer. And this use of the article would presumably not be covered in the original purchase agreement. The new distribution method AND the money that comes from that distribution is what the writers are complaining about.
I have no idea what the rights the different publishing companies buy when they buy the aricle, but from what I understand they usually get first publishing and limited republishing in set format rights from the author. I'm sure all current purchases specify internet publishing, but going back a decade or more ago, I doubt that was part of the deal.
So they know someone in 22032 watches Sopranos, and Buffy, and Nova, and... They don't know it is me. If they did, and it influenced a hiring choice, then I wouldn't have wanted to work for or with them anyway.
/.) know about the data collected? And of those that do, how many have opted out? I doubt that many have.
True, and I feel the same way. But I (and I would guess you) are in a position where we have the option to turn down employment like that. Not everyone does. And who's to say there won't be some sort of McCarthy-like hunt for people who like violent shows in 5-10 years. And Hey! Tivo wants to help hunt down the ner-do-wells. I admit it is a worst case senario, but not out of the realm of possiblity.
If it is a big deal to you, call 1-877-FOR-TIVO (se page 72 of your manual) and opt-out. Now it really is a small deal isn't it?
It's good that Tivo lets people opt out. The problem with that is how many people read the manual? How many people (outside of the concerned population of
Slippery slope to what? This is different to selling info about things that matter, its just what tv you watch, isnt it?
/. would do something like that :) Now say your boss or prospective employer manages to get this information in some sort of standard report, presents it to you and points out the morals clause in your employment contract.
The problem comes when people can search through the data. Say that you watch a pornographic movie. Now I know this is purely hypothetical since no one on
It isn't such a small detail now, is it?
Or think of an even more stupid senario: Think of the most conservative, narrow-minded person you know. Now think of the silliest, stupidest show you really enjoy (we all have one or a dozen of those). now imagine that the narrowminded one is using your viewing data to make a decision about you (job, loan, college, whatever). Do you still feel comfortable?
I put together something similar for the company I work for. The topic of a specific policy for the discussion areas never came up, but then the company has a pretty simple electronic messaging policy which covers email and internet/intranet activity.
One other thing that I think keeps people on their better behavior is that they are required to sign into the webpage to post a message, and their name gets attached to everything they put out there.
Something that you might be more concerned about is getting people to use it. The areas I have setup are for this global company with probably around 1000 or so people reading the website and discussion area but there are usually only 3-5 posts a week. A discussion area needs a large population to get a lot of activity, or at least a small population of outspoken individuals who are comfortable using the website as a communication tool. The group I work with is just finally coming around to using the web as a means of communication but it has taken nearly a year for people to get interested in it and using it.
Good Luck with your effort!
It's going to be an alternative to "dirty, expensive, and sometimes dangerous" products? He has to be talking about cars. And I can't think of anything else that would need refitting a city to deal with IT. The auto industry is still a huge thing. If he had a simple, cheap, safe, and fun replacement for the car, I can see that growing to $60 billion in less then ten years.
Here's an article about a personal flying machine that is close to the size they mention in the article. The article is talking about NASA and Silicon Valley, but I imagine others would be working on the same idea.
I would have pretty serious doubts about the value of an open source text book for a nubmer of reasons.
First, ebooks still have huge usability problems. Anyone having to deal with advanced classes shouldn't have to worry about fighting the book in addition to the content. Being able to highlight an write notes in the book is very important. Plus, classes that allow open book but not open note exams would have trouble with this sort of thing. Besides, the panic factor of a student discovering that the batteries of their ebook ran out at 2am the night before a test is very bad. I'm sure a lot of people on Slashdot are familiar with that experience with a calculator.
Second, if a book is open source, what is to keep someone from taking a book filled with useful, accurate information and adding in their own take on the subject and using that for class? Such as deciding that evolution is not correct and should be replaced with creationism? Part of the value of text books is that the publishing process can weed out useless or inaccurate stuff, and reviews can be made of those that are out there. So you can find out if the book is crap or not. That would be more difficult with an open source book.
Third, I would argue that the information is available. Open source (as I understand it) applies to the copyright/left of the project. Publishing is a big thing in the academic world. People do it for the prestige, and the addition to their resume. I'm not sure how well a collaborative project for publishing would go over.
I would suggest a better open source education project would be more of a project book or lesson plan. Walk though problems or labs or stories with aids and the like. Something a student could use as an aid for a class or a teacher could use as a basis for the classroom. If I had some extra interactive guides for my classes, some of the classes would have be a much better experience. And having a number of teachers for friends, I know they are always looking for ideas to make class more interesting.
The idea that waking up from the dream could destroy the world is something I've always suspected. That's the reason I hate mornings.
I would suggest that a big part of flaming comes from people that glance over the text and get the wrong opinion or idea. That person then feels compelled to put there two cents out on the subject, which again can then be misinterpreted.
Communication is a lot harder with just text. People who are not used to it can easily jump to the wrong idea. Text bandwidth is so much smaller then voice or visual, so a lot of the visual and audible cue people are used to are lost.
I think there is alot more to it then just the idea of the economy taking a downturn. Much more emphasis is being placed on IT in business and a lot more relies on someone who knows the system. Now technologies and practices are coming out much too fast for older companies (and people) to adopt as they come out. They need IT to put this in place. Even in a downturn, IT will become too important to a company to cut them as drastically as they might like to.
or make a functional binary and distribute that.... then it isn't the code, it's a collection of 1's and 0's.. Then it is software, not code. The code is what is considered free speech. Software is subject to more legal stuff, such as not beign able to export certain strengths of encryption software but you can send a book out of the country with the code printed in it.
The debate is between people that belive in a literal interpretation of the Biblical story of creation. According to people who have studied the Bible much more then I have, the world is between 5000 and 7000 years old and God create all the living creatures pretty much as they are today. According to physical scientists, the world is much older and all living creatures evolved, or mutated over long periods of time, into the forms of life we know today. The problem is that evolution is still a theory, meaning that it isn't proven. And it can't be unless someone developes a time machine. And since there are people that belive that their religion supercedes everything else, we get conflicts over teaching evolution in school.
I think the response brought up some very valid points. If the copyright is invalid, then there is nothing wrong. Just because I say I have a copywrite on a tape of the Matrix because I dubbed in my own voice over the agent's dialog doesn't mean I can sue people who then distribute it.
For all the people complaining that they were not consulted and they want their money form the book - do you know that professional writers only get 2-5 cents per word? That is how much your words are worth. Now everyone that would get more hen $5 (100 words or ~ 1 medium paragraph) raise your hand. Not too many of you.
Now realise the amount of editing needed to combine a huge collection of comments and conflicting points, and often out and out errors. That is a lot of editing. I've done similar work, though on much smalelr scale, and it is still a lot of work.
If you tihnk you are that important, or your insight that valuable, shut the fsck up and write it yourself. Do NOT start condemning others for getting up and actually doing something. It is hard work putting a book together. Even harder to put one together that talks about a topic like this. So unless you have gotten off your ass and made people think about the issues personally, don't complain about people that are doing it, and doing it for charity to boot.
My more then $0.02, and Slashdot can use these comments whereever they want.
As for the 4th point - contributors being paid for thier work - do you know how much your words are worth? From my understanding of the publishing world (IANAWriter), you would be lucky to get 5 cents a word. Now imagine the time spent to send a $1 check to every person who had 20 words, the paperwork for taxes that involves, not to mention the contract nessesary for such a transaction to occur in the first place, the time spent contacting each to get their name, address, blah blah blah. It is not reasonable to do that.
:)
And anyone expecting to get rich from writing is in for a surprise. Unless your name is Steven King or something
I always have to wonder about announcements like this. It reminds me of a George Carlin joke (at least I think it was him). He said the best way the military could beat others is to announce a new stealth airplane, but not actually make one. Announce successful tests, deployment, missions, nd jut drive the other military groups crazy trying to find the thing.I can see this being the same. Make sure the JEDI soldier has a definate trackable signal, and then just mass produce something that makes the signal. Anyone tracking them will think there are thousands of the people there.On the other hand, does this mean WinCE and the rest now count as munitions for sale and export? Though I suppose most of us already knew it was a bomb...