The value of "freedom" as an american ideal was a great thing and shaped the very foundations of our government. That value is long since dead. Early Americans understood the value of personal freedom. [...] Be it hunting bans or gay marriage or prohibiting heroin, nearly everyone is in favor of passing at least one law to tell other people how to live their lives. I'd be surprised if you got different results from your experiment if you got back in your time machine and performed it. In some respects Americans have a great deal more freedom now than they did back then because the Bill of Rights has been applied to state law.
I had a neighbor who's dog barked. The thought of killing it crossed my mind, but that didn't seem fair to the dog just because she had idiot owners. I also considered calling the police, but there's a good chance that they would do nothing since they don't have to live with the noise. So I went over and talked to the neighbors. Yes, it sucks having to do that, but is it worse than living with a dog that barks incessantly? Would you want the dog's death on your head?
So I talked to them. These people are obviously not competent enough to train the dog to stop barking, so let them know that there are shock collars that will do it for them. Just try to be nice and pleasant. If they won't do anything then you have the option of being less pleasant, but at least you will have tried to do the right thing first.
Some people simply need to be reminded of the laws and the consequences for breaking them That's right. Everybody should be forced to watch legal warnings and previews every time they watch a movie, because gosh darn it, people need to learn! Thank you, Ned Flanders.
I just love it when people get angry at/about RedHat without realizing that without RedHat, Linux would not be where it is today. But not without a price. Red Hat tries to walk the line between GNU and Microsoft. For as much as they contribute, they certainly practice some rather anti-GNU like behavior. Nobody would complain if they made money just selling support, but apparently that wasn't enough.
Besides that, projects like Apache and Debian have shown that you really don't need a corporate master to run the show.
You're mixing up two word usages. I've heard "ding ding ding" in conversation, and it's meant like a game-show sound for the correct answer, and not negative in any way. Then again, I grew up in the 80s, and this kind of sound now has been phased out for more modern versions.
I've also heard the usage in the negative manner, to say you "got dinged", but that's more along the lines as if you had gotten struck and dented.
You speak blasphemy, sir! Netscape was a GREAT browser in its heyday (how quickly people seem to forget). In fact, it was pretty much the ONLY browser for a time. How quickly people forget indeed. NCSA Mosaic was quite popular before Marc Andreessen left NCSA to start Netscape. People also forget that Netscape extended and broke web standards left and right, and enjoyed a monolopy on the web as the de facto standard before Microsoft came along and beat them at their own game.
Kubrick's film misses a key element that is responsible for much of the novel's power. In the book, there is considerable suspense as to whether or not the father will succumb to the influence of the hotel. In Kubrick's version, Jack Nicolson is directed as so nearly crazed from the outset that there is never any doubt how things will go. Good point. In addition, one of the odder ways the movie differs from the book is what happens to the old black guy. He goes on this epic journey to save the boy, and *wham*, gets it as soon as he walks in the door. I actually laughed from being so surprised. Kind of a downer, though.
And yes, I got my money back after contacting his local police. That's one way to route around ebay:) I'm surprised, though, that the police took action. Were you out of state and just phoned them? What happened then?
The demand for legal use of the skills required to pull this off, is already saturated with the supply of legal workforce, so the criminal moves to a more lucrative marketplace, the black market. Not always the case. The urge to steal is a natural one. Some people give in to it, even though rationally they could make a decent living working legitimately. It also might come down to a life-style choice. There's a big difference between grinding out a job vs the thought of "easy money" and more excitement.
If I buy a $23.43 widget from Widget Co, I create a new Card for $30, use it once. I read on another Slashdot post a week or so ago that Citibank automatically adds a buffer on top of the limit you set, so you are authorizing even more than you expect. I don't remember the exact amount or have a link handy, though.
Well, you have gone from "near zero" to "a whole lot of my time and a significant amount of money". It's great that you choose to give your work away, but I also respect those who choose not to. The amount of work involved is significantly more than your "get me a beer while you're at it" analogy implies.
produce at near-zero cost You want the people who spend their time and money creating the music to give it away for free? I suppose "near-zero" is easy to say when it's not your time and money.
Rather than leaving for another provider, it would be even better to stop trusting all the providers and to encrypt by default. The trick is overcoming inertia.
Your argument boils down to that the copyright holders should have a business model that exactly fits your desires, and if it doesn't you'll be justified to illegally copy. In reality, you're just rationalizing what you really want: Stuff for free.
If you actually believe in copyrights, then the moral thing to do is not violate the copyright of others, but to patronage those who do the "right" thing in your mind.
I'm sure you meant the specs for the Flash protocol, not the player... that's beside the point. I mean the specs required to implement a Flash player. That includes the swf and flv file formats (those specs forbid implementing an alternative player). It also means you need to be able to use the Flash player to verify you are compatible with it (which Adobe also forbids, hence that bit from the FAQ). In other words, I want an open spec like PDF, not the locked-down, lawsuit-waiting-to-happen crap like the Flash player and specs.
Here's the PDF I wanted to to browse through: AMF spec. And I really don't care, since it all rests on their proprietary player. Anything that's opened on top of that as an enticement to use their proprietary stuff doesn't encourage me in the least.
In the meantime, reverse engineering is producing good work. Debatable, but not the point I was making. "Proprietary, huh?" is what I was responding to, with an emphatic YES. The existence of Wine doesn't mean Windows isn't a proprietary platform, and neither does the existence of Gnash.
Yes, it is proprietary. The spec is controlled by Adobe and forbids others from creating alternative players. Instead of working directly from the spec, Gnash has to reverse-engineer the protocol:
How do Gnash developers work with the Adobe/Macromedia EULA?
There is some debate about whether the Adobe/Macromedia Flash EULA can be considered binding, but Gnash developers prefer to avoid the issue by not installing Adobe/Macromedia tools, and thereby not accepting the EULA. We can use tools like Ming to generate Flash testcases, and we rely on the efforts of volunteers to run our testcases on commercial software and report the result.
You or I can't do that, but the big boys can. Happens every day. I believe you. I threw out the claim mainly to elicit a response:) I don't play in the markets, though I was considering it years ago before the dot-bust. I figured there were enough big players for this kind of manipulation to still be true. Many modern-day traders still recommend the Reminiscences book, even though it came out over 80 years ago.
For a contrary argument (and I'm assuming NOUAL -- None Of Us Are Lawyers) Well, this guy is a lawyer. Reading his article, it seems quite unlikely Chuck Norris has a case, considering that the work is clearly satire protected under the First Amendment:
"Under either a publicity or privacy theory, subjects can recover for some unauthorized uses of their names and likenesses. A problem arises, however, when one person's publicity/privacy rights come in conflict with another person's rights under the First Amendment. Suppose a newspaper publisher wants to place a picture of Cher on the front page of its paper. Is her permission needed? The answer is no.
Although Cher's name and likeness is portrayed in the newspaper, this "product" is also a form of "protected expression." Products such as books, movies and plays [emphasis mine] are modes of expression protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment also allows journalists to write about others without their consent. Otherwise, subjects could prevent any critical reporting of their activities. When one person's right of publicity conflicts with another person's rights under the First Amendment, the First Amendment rights are often, if not always, paramount.
When the likeness of Elvis Presley is used on an ash tray, however, there is no expression deserving protection. The seller of this product is not making a statement or expressing an opinion. He is simply trying to make money by exploiting the name and likeness of Elvis. Since there are no competing First Amendment concerns, the right of publicity in this instance should prevent the unauthorized use of Elvis's likeness. In summary, the law draws a distinction between products that contain protected expression and those that do not."
Me? I'm voting for Ron Paul. He doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. He thinks "In God We Trust" is a valid thing to have on the currency, despite the fact that it violates the constitution. No thanks.
and there is noting illegal about selling stock to drive the price down and then snapping up deals. Market-makers do it every day to shake out margin traders. This was the central message of Reminiscences of a Stock Operator. It was called "swinging a big line". It's been claimed that the market is too big and diverse for this to happen in the modern world.
According to LGPL people, plugins must use the same license, so you can't create an LGPL plugin for commercial software. Do you have a cite for this?
uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system So the software, at runtime, installs the plugin. It then loads and uses the plugin. The user then needs a way to modify the plugin that was installed on the system. License satisfied, both in spirit and technically.
I don't want to convert my house to solar for environmental reasons. Ok, I may have partially taken your "I don't give a rip about the environment" out of context, but I say partially because your general attitude has been that individuals shouldn't worry about the environment, and that every concern that comes along is just a fad. This attitude leads to a worse environment and bigger problems before corrective action is taken.
I grew up in LA and I remember how the smog used to hang over the basin. It's quite pleasant out there now. But even then we didn't destroy the environment. We tried and failed. Wouldn't it have been better not to have the smog in the first place?
Oh, and I'd like you to name one doomsday prophecy that's come true. I prefaced my comments with "Forget all this doomsday stuff. There's quality of life to consider." So don't blame me as the only one misreading arguments.
Live your life and be happy. Stop worrying about trends that come and go. Think globally. Act locally. The whole is made up of individuals.
Actually, you have no idea what I think or why. I have a pretty good idea:
"I don't give a rip about the environment because I don't think man could destroy it even if he tried. The doomsday people have been wrong for decades, but the earth just keeps on healing itself no matter what the going wisdom is at the time. [...] Live your life and be happy. Stop worrying about trends that come and go."
If every person had this short-sighted attitude we wouldn't have any environmental laws.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a neighbor who's dog barked. The thought of killing it crossed my mind, but that didn't seem fair to the dog just because she had idiot owners. I also considered calling the police, but there's a good chance that they would do nothing since they don't have to live with the noise. So I went over and talked to the neighbors. Yes, it sucks having to do that, but is it worse than living with a dog that barks incessantly? Would you want the dog's death on your head?
So I talked to them. These people are obviously not competent enough to train the dog to stop barking, so let them know that there are shock collars that will do it for them. Just try to be nice and pleasant. If they won't do anything then you have the option of being less pleasant, but at least you will have tried to do the right thing first.
It's the quantum fluctuations of observing it.
Besides that, projects like Apache and Debian have shown that you really don't need a corporate master to run the show.
You're mixing up two word usages. I've heard "ding ding ding" in conversation, and it's meant like a game-show sound for the correct answer, and not negative in any way. Then again, I grew up in the 80s, and this kind of sound now has been phased out for more modern versions.
I've also heard the usage in the negative manner, to say you "got dinged", but that's more along the lines as if you had gotten struck and dented.
Well, you have gone from "near zero" to "a whole lot of my time and a significant amount of money". It's great that you choose to give your work away, but I also respect those who choose not to. The amount of work involved is significantly more than your "get me a beer while you're at it" analogy implies.
Rather than leaving for another provider, it would be even better to stop trusting all the providers and to encrypt by default. The trick is overcoming inertia.
Your argument boils down to that the copyright holders should have a business model that exactly fits your desires, and if it doesn't you'll be justified to illegally copy. In reality, you're just rationalizing what you really want: Stuff for free.
If you actually believe in copyrights, then the moral thing to do is not violate the copyright of others, but to patronage those who do the "right" thing in your mind.
How does that open up the specs for the Flash player?
Yes, it is proprietary. The spec is controlled by Adobe and forbids others from creating alternative players. Instead of working directly from the spec, Gnash has to reverse-engineer the protocol:
How do Gnash developers work with the Adobe/Macromedia EULA? There is some debate about whether the Adobe/Macromedia Flash EULA can be considered binding, but Gnash developers prefer to avoid the issue by not installing Adobe/Macromedia tools, and thereby not accepting the EULA. We can use tools like Ming to generate Flash testcases, and we rely on the efforts of volunteers to run our testcases on commercial software and report the result.
"Under either a publicity or privacy theory, subjects can recover for some unauthorized uses of their names and likenesses. A problem arises, however, when one person's publicity/privacy rights come in conflict with another person's rights under the First Amendment. Suppose a newspaper publisher wants to place a picture of Cher on the front page of its paper. Is her permission needed? The answer is no.
Although Cher's name and likeness is portrayed in the newspaper, this "product" is also a form of "protected expression." Products such as books, movies and plays [emphasis mine] are modes of expression protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment also allows journalists to write about others without their consent. Otherwise, subjects could prevent any critical reporting of their activities. When one person's right of publicity conflicts with another person's rights under the First Amendment, the First Amendment rights are often, if not always, paramount.
When the likeness of Elvis Presley is used on an ash tray, however, there is no expression deserving protection. The seller of this product is not making a statement or expressing an opinion. He is simply trying to make money by exploiting the name and likeness of Elvis. Since there are no competing First Amendment concerns, the right of publicity in this instance should prevent the unauthorized use of Elvis's likeness. In summary, the law draws a distinction between products that contain protected expression and those that do not."
"I don't give a rip about the environment because I don't think man could destroy it even if he tried. The doomsday people have been wrong for decades, but the earth just keeps on healing itself no matter what the going wisdom is at the time. [...] Live your life and be happy. Stop worrying about trends that come and go."
If every person had this short-sighted attitude we wouldn't have any environmental laws.