In the original copyright act it was 14 years plus an optional 14 year extension. The revised copyright act earlier this century changed that to life+x years. I don't see the major difference between patents and copyright in this instance either.
To be consistent with Thermodynamics, all entities must radiate energy, even black holes. The radiation emitted by black holes is called Hawking radiation.
XHTML is valid HTML and valid XML. Since you want to view it in an HTML browser, you need to supply a content-type of text/html for the browser to view it properly (unless of course the browser understands XML, which lynx does not).
It's fully XHTML 1.0 Strict Compliant. And it's viewable with Lynx. Perhaps you are just forgetting the content-type meta tag? ie. <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"/>
OpenCM is currently under the GPL because of dependencies on GPL'd libraries. I believe they wish to migrate away from GPL to the CPL due to some IP issues.
Build me a car that you can drive perfectly right away the first time you sit in it. Build me a plane so easy to fly. One size does not fit all my friend.
Perhaps you should rephrase these statements to "programming often has little to do numerical math". Programming has everything to do with Discrete math (which is formal reasoning and logic).
That's what the founding fathers intended in the constitution, where "economic rights" are secondary to the "natural rights" of mankind.
Copyright is not a natural right, it is artificial. Natural would be no copyright, since anytime I see a new idea and think it's good, I can just walk off and utilize it. Copyright prevents this for the benefit of the original creator to encourage them to innovate. Thus, extending copyright is trampeling on our "natural rights".
I agree that at this particular juncture the plethora of services is still necessary (unless they cut out phone services altogether) since everyone and their uncle uses all sorts of different technologies to communicate. But (hopefully) it won't always be this way.
The internet is the future for of business transactions, and a properly designed webservice is pretty much all you'll need to communicate using any sort of device.
It's getting very close to the time when I want to refuse all calls and email unless the other party has a token indicating that I have given permission.
What you describe is very similar to the capability security model. Check out EROS and E programming language for more info.
IANAL, but I think it was mentioned here a while ago that if you had direct consent from the artists, no webcasting fees were needed.
Let's be clear and say you need consent from the copyright owners, not the artists. If the artist has signed away his rights to material, he cannot grant you the right to webcast.
The issue in my head is whether someone else has a right to tell you whether or not you should be able to design your site as you see fit.
No one has an intrinsic right to tell you to do anything. We as human individuals have absolute freedom, but we consciously limit this freedom to enable us to live with each other to our mutual benefit. The only way this can be accomplished is by fairly granting everyone equal rights and freedoms.
Wrong thing I read as immoral: wrong is a synonym for immoral. I applied it to our conversation, it seemed to me you were saying not helping is immoral.
Wrong means immoral, agreed. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps you're under the assumtion that charity is moral, I was simply saying that only discriminate charity is moral.
However you seem to think that there should be a law to force me to change my website so blind people can visit it.
If you are a commercial entity providing services to people, I think it would be fair to design in such a way that it is accessible to everyone regardless of condition. It is not asking anything unreasonable, in fact, it's quite simple. Yet people whine and complain instead of doing the job right the first time. Since people have a tendency to do the wrong thing, laws are instated to ensure it doesn't happen again. The law is there to ensure fairness for all.
"It should not be a law to hold elevator doors for people in wheelchairs... because that is not immoral. It should be a law that websites should be blind compliant [because it is immoral to do otherwise]"
Indeed. The difference lies in commercial versus individual actors. If the door opening is a commercial service, ie. you are the founder of Door Openers Inc., then you must be non-discriminating in rendering your services. Finally, if you consciously do not hold open doors for the disabled simply because they are disabled, that is immoral since your attitude is discriminatory. That does not mean there should be a law against this particular action since it does not really put them at a disadvantage to anyone else.
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
The two stimuli: blind and non-blind accessing the site with different devices. Response: non-blind can use the site, blind cannot.
1) If I run a non-blind-compliant website, how am I treating the blind different? Everyone gets the same website.
If I create a non-ramp accessible building, how am I treating the disabled differently? Everyone gets the same entrance. As you can see, it doesn't quite work that way.
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing.
The blind and non-blind are distinguished in the fact that one can read the site as-is, one cannot.
2) I am not distinguishing between the two.
You are not, the website is.
I agree with *every point* you've made past what I interpret to be you calling for a law to require blind-compliance.
There is a limit. Commercial entities should be non-discriminatory in everything they do, therefore they should be blind-compliant. What you do in your own time with your own resources is your business.
I do not believe a foreign body should decide what my morals should be.
No foreign body decides your morals, but as a society of individuals we have agreed to a social contract which is the law. The law decides things which we cannot do, one of which is discrimination in commercial ventures. This decision was reached fairly and can be rationally justified as I have briefly tried to do in this post.
Non-action can be discriminating as well. Not opening a door to a building for disabled persons is discriminating non-action (the person must open the door for anyone to enter the building). If you say he is deliberately not opening the door for disabled persons (implying action), I can just as easily say the website was similarly deliberatly designed. Good design practices for compatibility are well documented, and just as ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, so ignorance is no excuse for stupid design (which may have ended up breaking the law in this case).
I don't doubt that the other services produce compliance with ADA except for the special offers/prices/benefits available only on the web. That simple fact makes this a little more questionable, but moving on...
I wasn't questioning that they were probably in comliance, I was simply disputing the statement that it's cheaper to setup and maintain multiple services than a single web service which is useable from multiple devices. It is a matter of thinking outside ones usual limited scope of "good design" and approaching the problem from higher perspective. Look at Google for example. No flashiness, no "higher creative vision" than simple usability. Honestly, what more do you need? You can make a professional, polished site without the flash and glamour, so why does it need to be there in the first place?
Secondly, the look, layout, whatever you want to call it, is not orders of magnitude more complex than my homepage. You are still stuck in "old school" web design patterns. The interactions between all the pages, the sophistication of the ordering system, etc. is far more complex, but that functionality is completely orthogonal to the way it is presented. And you can make a professional look with just CSS (look at alistapart.com, happycog.com, verybigdesign.com, etc., etc.)
Your home page is several orders of magnitude less complex and less frequently modified in ways that were unanticipated at design time than that of Southwest's web site. you're comparing apples to oranges.
Which is why it only took 1 person a few hours. This is my point. 5 designers working for a few weeks (or months) could put together a far more complex site yet still manage to be useable by multiple devices.
If this wasn't the case, then the ADA wouldn't need to mandate cross-compatability with aural and braile browsers, because people would just do it anyhow.
Momentum is funny that way. It convinces people that the way things are done, are the best and easiest way they can possibly be done.
Really? I designed my homepage in a few hours and it has required zero maintenance since then. It is viewable and useable in all browsers and has no reason not to work in all other devices I can imagine. All it has cost me is my DSL connection. You're telling me that's more expensive than reserving and maintaining multiple 1-800 numbers and specialized programs operating on dial tones?
Granted their pipe to the net would have to be faster, but I'm sure it would be easier and cheaper to maintain one service with multiple front-ends than the multiple services catering to specific audiences (website, phone service, TTY service, and God knows what else).
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody who uses a biological weapon would have to be the biggest idiot alive, or have a death wish for all humanity.
In the original copyright act it was 14 years plus an optional 14 year extension. The revised copyright act earlier this century changed that to life+x years. I don't see the major difference between patents and copyright in this instance either.
That a law is unconsitutional, does not mean it violates the first amendment. There are other amendments in the consitution.
Why not just make it one limited time, ie. 50 years period. Thus, the inventor and his estate each benefit 50 years of accrued benefit.
To be consistent with Thermodynamics, all entities must radiate energy, even black holes. The radiation emitted by black holes is called Hawking radiation.
Kodak envisions OLED technology as a replacement for bulky desktop computer and laptop liquid-crystal display screens.
:-)
Never thought I'd hear LCD's referred to as "bulky". Then again, the 15" screen in the article is only 1.4mm thick. Very cool.
XHTML is valid HTML and valid XML. Since you want to view it in an HTML browser, you need to supply a content-type of text/html for the browser to view it properly (unless of course the browser understands XML, which lynx does not).
Check out my homepage then:
/>
http://naasking.homeip.net/
It's fully XHTML 1.0 Strict Compliant. And it's viewable with Lynx. Perhaps you are just forgetting the content-type meta tag? ie.
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
It can't be perpetual since copyright is limited. After copyright expires, it is in the public domain and SF can continue using it anyway though.
OpenCM is currently under the GPL because of dependencies on GPL'd libraries. I believe they wish to migrate away from GPL to the CPL due to some IP issues.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php
OpenCM
Build me a car that you can drive perfectly right away the first time you sit in it. Build me a plane so easy to fly. One size does not fit all my friend.
EROS, KeyKOS, and pretty much any properly designed capability operating system
Perhaps you should rephrase these statements to "programming often has little to do numerical math". Programming has everything to do with Discrete math (which is formal reasoning and logic).
That's what the founding fathers intended in the constitution, where "economic rights" are secondary to the "natural rights" of mankind.
Copyright is not a natural right, it is artificial. Natural would be no copyright, since anytime I see a new idea and think it's good, I can just walk off and utilize it. Copyright prevents this for the benefit of the original creator to encourage them to innovate. Thus, extending copyright is trampeling on our "natural rights".
Einstein was also the first to trash the electric and magnetic fields and say that they too were one single entity, an electromagnetic field.
Huh? I don't think so. Maxwell's equations correlate electricity and magnetism and they were derived at least 50 years before relativity (IIRC).
Please remain seated. The Men In Black will be over momentarily.
I agree that at this particular juncture the plethora of services is still necessary (unless they cut out phone services altogether) since everyone and their uncle uses all sorts of different technologies to communicate. But (hopefully) it won't always be this way.
The internet is the future for of business transactions, and a properly designed webservice is pretty much all you'll need to communicate using any sort of device.
It's getting very close to the time when I want to refuse all calls and email unless the other party has a token indicating that I have given permission.
What you describe is very similar to the capability security model. Check out EROS and E programming language for more info.
IANAL, but I think it was mentioned here a while ago that if you had direct consent from the artists, no webcasting fees were needed.
Let's be clear and say you need consent from the copyright owners, not the artists. If the artist has signed away his rights to material, he cannot grant you the right to webcast.
The issue in my head is whether someone else has a right to tell you whether or not you should be able to design your site as you see fit.
... because that is not immoral. It should be a law that websites should be blind compliant [because it is immoral to do otherwise]"
No one has an intrinsic right to tell you to do anything. We as human individuals have absolute freedom, but we consciously limit this freedom to enable us to live with each other to our mutual benefit. The only way this can be accomplished is by fairly granting everyone equal rights and freedoms.
Wrong thing I read as immoral: wrong is a synonym for immoral. I applied it to our conversation, it seemed to me you were saying not helping is immoral.
Wrong means immoral, agreed. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps you're under the assumtion that charity is moral, I was simply saying that only discriminate charity is moral.
However you seem to think that there should be a law to force me to change my website so blind people can visit it.
If you are a commercial entity providing services to people, I think it would be fair to design in such a way that it is accessible to everyone regardless of condition. It is not asking anything unreasonable, in fact, it's quite simple. Yet people whine and complain instead of doing the job right the first time. Since people have a tendency to do the wrong thing, laws are instated to ensure it doesn't happen again. The law is there to ensure fairness for all.
"It should not be a law to hold elevator doors for people in wheelchairs
Indeed. The difference lies in commercial versus individual actors. If the door opening is a commercial service, ie. you are the founder of Door Openers Inc., then you must be non-discriminating in rendering your services. Finally, if you consciously do not hold open doors for the disabled simply because they are disabled, that is immoral since your attitude is discriminatory. That does not mean there should be a law against this particular action since it does not really put them at a disadvantage to anyone else.
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
The two stimuli: blind and non-blind accessing the site with different devices. Response: non-blind can use the site, blind cannot.
1) If I run a non-blind-compliant website, how am I treating the blind different? Everyone gets the same website.
If I create a non-ramp accessible building, how am I treating the disabled differently? Everyone gets the same entrance. As you can see, it doesn't quite work that way.
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing.
The blind and non-blind are distinguished in the fact that one can read the site as-is, one cannot.
2) I am not distinguishing between the two.
You are not, the website is.
I agree with *every point* you've made past what I interpret to be you calling for a law to require blind-compliance.
There is a limit. Commercial entities should be non-discriminatory in everything they do, therefore they should be blind-compliant. What you do in your own time with your own resources is your business.
I do not believe a foreign body should decide what my morals should be.
No foreign body decides your morals, but as a society of individuals we have agreed to a social contract which is the law. The law decides things which we cannot do, one of which is discrimination in commercial ventures. This decision was reached fairly and can be rationally justified as I have briefly tried to do in this post.
How is it recursive?
I believe discrimination implys action.
Non-action can be discriminating as well. Not opening a door to a building for disabled persons is discriminating non-action (the person must open the door for anyone to enter the building). If you say he is deliberately not opening the door for disabled persons (implying action), I can just as easily say the website was similarly deliberatly designed. Good design practices for compatibility are well documented, and just as ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, so ignorance is no excuse for stupid design (which may have ended up breaking the law in this case).
I don't doubt that the other services produce compliance with ADA except for the special offers/prices/benefits available only on the web. That simple fact makes this a little more questionable, but moving on...
I wasn't questioning that they were probably in comliance, I was simply disputing the statement that it's cheaper to setup and maintain multiple services than a single web service which is useable from multiple devices. It is a matter of thinking outside ones usual limited scope of "good design" and approaching the problem from higher perspective. Look at Google for example. No flashiness, no "higher creative vision" than simple usability. Honestly, what more do you need? You can make a professional, polished site without the flash and glamour, so why does it need to be there in the first place?
Secondly, the look, layout, whatever you want to call it, is not orders of magnitude more complex than my homepage. You are still stuck in "old school" web design patterns. The interactions between all the pages, the sophistication of the ordering system, etc. is far more complex, but that functionality is completely orthogonal to the way it is presented. And you can make a professional look with just CSS (look at alistapart.com, happycog.com, verybigdesign.com, etc., etc.)
Your home page is several orders of magnitude less complex and less frequently modified in ways that were unanticipated at design time than that of Southwest's web site. you're comparing apples to oranges.
Which is why it only took 1 person a few hours. This is my point. 5 designers working for a few weeks (or months) could put together a far more complex site yet still manage to be useable by multiple devices.
If this wasn't the case, then the ADA wouldn't need to mandate cross-compatability with aural and braile browsers, because people would just do it anyhow.
Momentum is funny that way. It convinces people that the way things are done, are the best and easiest way they can possibly be done.
Really? I designed my homepage in a few hours and it has required zero maintenance since then. It is viewable and useable in all browsers and has no reason not to work in all other devices I can imagine. All it has cost me is my DSL connection. You're telling me that's more expensive than reserving and maintaining multiple 1-800 numbers and specialized programs operating on dial tones?
Granted their pipe to the net would have to be faster, but I'm sure it would be easier and cheaper to maintain one service with multiple front-ends than the multiple services catering to specific audiences (website, phone service, TTY service, and God knows what else).