Which was my point. As someone who moved from a lower elevation to a higher elevation, I know well that just sitting around doesn't do much, but any sort of even moderate activity requires you to adapt to the new elevation (really, more the oxygen mix in the air).
In Colorado, however, you're also dealing with the fact that the air is deceptively dry. Whenever there are conventions here, it's important to remind the out-of-staters that we're technically in a high desert, and as such you need to drink more water than you're used to drinking to stay properly hydrated.
What was the sentencing judge trying to say with that sentence? It's a very sort of "traditional" span of time. Was this a "you don't do any real harm, but you must realize that this behavior is not acceptable?" type of message?
While I won't argue that Hollywood isn't currently stuck in a "remake rut", realize that much of what we consider to be classics of literature (the popular medium before moving pictures) was considered popular trash at the time. That's before we even consider that what we now perceive as the "quality" of years past is simply the filtered gems of those eras, with the chaff cast away and trodden into obscurity by the relentless march of popular culture.
There are gems still hidden here and there in the modern age, even in pop music. For example, did you know that one of Avril Lavigne's hits "Damn Cold Night" is actually a waltz?
And if the Live service agreement states that you cannot use modded hardware (maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I don't know), I don't see why they should have to refund your subscription fee, either.
Exactly. While people should be able to mod their consoles, Microsoft's TOS clearly stated that modded consoles were not allowed on XBL. Dunno how one can see this lawsuit succeeding.
Proposing a Wyse terminal equivalent in this day and age is cause for immediate termination with extreme predudice
Depends entirely on what the job role is that you're replacing. SunRay 1 machines were more than capable of handling most folks' email, word processing, and web surfing needs in a thinclient form factor back in 1999-2000 (main issue was, as usual, that it wasn't running "Windows"). Thinclient tech is perfect in a lot of non-development situations.
Varies widely, depending on the app. For my part, I am skeptical that 100,000 apps, many of which do trivial things, are well-maintained, or are even worth downloading.
The Constitution is only the beginning (or, more properly, an early chapter) of copyright in the western world.
Unless you're going to be a strict constructionist, which is also insanity, you need to consider the history of interpreting the US Constitution, by people far smarter than either of us, and how Congress has chosen to embody those directives.
We will apparently need to agree to disagree, however, when you say
When you can explain to me how that encourages people to create, then you'll have argued for its constitutionality.
you must realize that the test for constitutionality is that it provides a limited monopoly for a "limited time", which is *how* the authors decreed the "goal" as you say, would be achieved, and left it to Congress to decide the proper length. There is no mechanism, short of a constitutional amendment, that can change the "process" by which the "goal" is attained.
Congress,and the courts, have repeatedly decided that the "limited time" is not what you think it should be. Since the authors did not specify "only if people are still living" and that the original 14 years was a matter of an Act of Congress, not in the Constitution, AND the trend for copyright length has been traditionally to increase the length, and the fact that increasing length wasn't considered onerous until very recently when, AND seeing as I happen to agree that IP shouldn't be considered different for the purpose of estate planning, you and I will never agree on this point.
Still sounds like an administration problem. Plus, if its "groundbreaking pop music" it probably wasn't a matter of "not being able to find the rights holders", but rather, "the rights holders had no interest in talking to them." Popular works rarely have rights holders that are hard to find.
You will note that even in the days of the original US Copyright Act, if someone publishes a work and then immediately dies, their estate will still get proceeds from that work.
Additionally, the whole point of copyright *was* to create a Constitutional artificial monopoly.
You need to do more research on the history of copyright, as you apparently lack knowledge in the area.
None of that prevents people from creating new works and embarking on new endeavors. They are disputes over administrative matters. For example:
There are TV shows that can't be released in their original form due to music rights.
The factual way to state this is "there are TV shows that cannot be released in their original form because the parties cannot come to an agreement about how much the licensing will cost". Eventually, this ends up working out. See: Ally McBeal.
The only way to avoid every single thing you've listed is to abolish copyright entirely, which is not only stupid, but would be unconstitutional unless you got an amendment passed.
And since none of this prevents people from making new works, again, [Citation Fucking Needed].
Slashdot Mirror
5. Galaxies are powered by vast electric circuits; beads on a string.
Oh, you mean the Electric Universe Hypothesis....
Almost as if Nvidia were looking at some other market than gamers....
Interesting. So, basically, he was found technically guilty and given what was essentially the minimum possible given the crime at hand?
Sounds like the venue management's fault for not properly preparing for the crowd. Tweeting does not compel people to do anything, civil or uncivil.
Which was my point. As someone who moved from a lower elevation to a higher elevation, I know well that just sitting around doesn't do much, but any sort of even moderate activity requires you to adapt to the new elevation (really, more the oxygen mix in the air).
In Colorado, however, you're also dealing with the fact that the air is deceptively dry. Whenever there are conventions here, it's important to remind the out-of-staters that we're technically in a high desert, and as such you need to drink more water than you're used to drinking to stay properly hydrated.
What was the sentencing judge trying to say with that sentence? It's a very sort of "traditional" span of time. Was this a "you don't do any real harm, but you must realize that this behavior is not acceptable?" type of message?
Drinking water is fine, but unless someone is doing some strenuous activity, that particular pressurization doesn't mean a whole lot.
Perhaps you need to not associate "drinking" with "hangovers".
I detect someone who has a hard time with drinking in moderation.
There was one time when Picard had to manually control thrusters to get out of an asteroid belt that had a trap in it, IIRC.
Let us not speak of the "manual control" in "Insurrection"
While I won't argue that Hollywood isn't currently stuck in a "remake rut", realize that much of what we consider to be classics of literature (the popular medium before moving pictures) was considered popular trash at the time. That's before we even consider that what we now perceive as the "quality" of years past is simply the filtered gems of those eras, with the chaff cast away and trodden into obscurity by the relentless march of popular culture.
There are gems still hidden here and there in the modern age, even in pop music. For example, did you know that one of Avril Lavigne's hits "Damn Cold Night" is actually a waltz?
Art is there if you have your eyes open.
False equivalence:
Hollywood does not output the entirety of American art.
The somewhat relevant xkcd strip for this idea.
Because without stuff like this, conservatives won't keep getting elected by protecting us from "socialism" and "communism".
Seriously.
And if the Live service agreement states that you cannot use modded hardware (maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I don't know), I don't see why they should have to refund your subscription fee, either.
Exactly. While people should be able to mod their consoles, Microsoft's TOS clearly stated that modded consoles were not allowed on XBL. Dunno how one can see this lawsuit succeeding.
SL is a half-assed graphical implementation of MUSH/MUSE games from the early-mid 1990's.
The interface is the main hurdle to using it. If that engine was better, the system itself would be really intriguing.
You're fired if you're my IT guy
Proposing a Wyse terminal equivalent in this day and age is cause for immediate termination with extreme predudice
Depends entirely on what the job role is that you're replacing. SunRay 1 machines were more than capable of handling most folks' email, word processing, and web surfing needs in a thinclient form factor back in 1999-2000 (main issue was, as usual, that it wasn't running "Windows"). Thinclient tech is perfect in a lot of non-development situations.
Varies widely, depending on the app. For my part, I am skeptical that 100,000 apps, many of which do trivial things, are well-maintained, or are even worth downloading.
Depends on if the apps are maintained, or any good, for that matter.
What, is it "geek-cool" to not like the Matrix now, or something?
The Constitution is only the beginning (or, more properly, an early chapter) of copyright in the western world.
Unless you're going to be a strict constructionist, which is also insanity, you need to consider the history of interpreting the US Constitution, by people far smarter than either of us, and how Congress has chosen to embody those directives.
We will apparently need to agree to disagree, however, when you say
When you can explain to me how that encourages people to create, then you'll have argued for its constitutionality.
you must realize that the test for constitutionality is that it provides a limited monopoly for a "limited time", which is *how* the authors decreed the "goal" as you say, would be achieved, and left it to Congress to decide the proper length. There is no mechanism, short of a constitutional amendment, that can change the "process" by which the "goal" is attained.
Congress,and the courts, have repeatedly decided that the "limited time" is not what you think it should be. Since the authors did not specify "only if people are still living" and that the original 14 years was a matter of an Act of Congress, not in the Constitution, AND the trend for copyright length has been traditionally to increase the length, and the fact that increasing length wasn't considered onerous until very recently when, AND seeing as I happen to agree that IP shouldn't be considered different for the purpose of estate planning, you and I will never agree on this point.
Still sounds like an administration problem. Plus, if its "groundbreaking pop music" it probably wasn't a matter of "not being able to find the rights holders", but rather, "the rights holders had no interest in talking to them." Popular works rarely have rights holders that are hard to find.
You will note that even in the days of the original US Copyright Act, if someone publishes a work and then immediately dies, their estate will still get proceeds from that work.
Additionally, the whole point of copyright *was* to create a Constitutional artificial monopoly.
You need to do more research on the history of copyright, as you apparently lack knowledge in the area.
Yeah, obviously I will take you at your word that your nick is a reflection of your true nature AND that you're being truthful. Look at me go!
I don't need to convince you. You need to convince the US Congress and SCOTUS that it should be different than it is now. I happen to agree with them.
None of that prevents people from creating new works and embarking on new endeavors. They are disputes over administrative matters. For example:
There are TV shows that can't be released in their original form due to music rights.
The factual way to state this is "there are TV shows that cannot be released in their original form because the parties cannot come to an agreement about how much the licensing will cost". Eventually, this ends up working out. See: Ally McBeal.
The only way to avoid every single thing you've listed is to abolish copyright entirely, which is not only stupid, but would be unconstitutional unless you got an amendment passed.
And since none of this prevents people from making new works, again, [Citation Fucking Needed].
Welcome to slashdot, where headlines and summaries are routinely wrong. Your userid # shows me you have no excuse for not knowing that.