originally I had similar thoughts to your post. However, there are some differences:
- consumers who purchase movie DVDs or music CDs do not intent to distribute and sell them. They are indeed the "end"-users. Not so for the media companies. And I seriously doubt that their intent here is for "greater freedom of information", and more likely is just to lower their costs. However, that doesn't mean that they cannot also manage to do some (unintentional?) good in the process anyway.
- I am not conversant with laws regarding fair use, however, again, it seems unlikely that fair use applies when you intend to make money from distribution.
although I have to say that, so far, I am fairly neutral about this case, since I have yet to understand both the details of the case and the implications from it.
Whooooa, there Cap'n! While I have been attempting to keep this discussion amiable in tone, if a little spicy for "flavor," you seem to be getting a might worked up.
Bear in mind that what would be tone of voice doesn't come across in email, which, while stylistically weak, emoticons, expressions like "meh" and so forth come in handy while trying to convey the convivial, jocular or otherwise self-deprecatory intent of the writer.
really? I hold to the opinion that using words which concisely convey specific meaning or meanings is a much better form of written communication than using non-descriptive "words" which are weak when spoken and even more useless when written down.
To emphasize my point, I find "meh" to convey nothing of "convivial, jocular or otherwise self-deprecatory intent". In fact, I tend to find the use of it dismissive and bordering on rudeness. Just to show that how useless such expressions are in written language when two people can have such different view of it in the same context.
You think I am getting worked up? Just because I am verbose and disagree with your opinions? or am I reading you wrong again, and you are just being "self-deprecatory"?
Moorcock should be recognized as the genius he is
totally subjective. And the point is that, the idea is not an original one even at the time of Moorcock's writing, so why should he be credited as such? So if you find it to be a better or best execution of such an idea, it still does not justify why Moorcock deserves to gain from other people's rendtions of the idea.
if this fleshes out, I hope it will turn out better than MirrorMask and Neverwhere.
Granted, both MirrorMask and Neverwhere were originally written as scripts, but I just thought they lacked that dark atmosphere in his books. The reworked Neverwhere novel did regain that feel though.
The point was, I did read Moorcock years ago, and it never made an lasting impression on me. You probably didn't pick that up because I didn't use expressions like "meh".
To refresh your memory, some of Moorcock's books are about a guy who finds himself in a war and has to fight alongside versions of himself from alternate dimensions. It was a theme he explored in more than one book/series of books.
I just wanna see the guy get a fat check from Gaiman's box office reciepts, that's all I'm sayin'!
You do realise that you cannot patent an idea? and even copyright doesn't extend to just ideas. The idea that a protagonist fights with different version or versions of his/herself is not new, and Moorcock was certainly not the first to explore it. Did Moorcock pay anybody to use the idea of the doomed hero idea? what about Elric's pale features? did he pay someone to use that idea?
these days (2000's) there are people who think books from the 70's are better, so back in the 70's, there are probably people who think that books in the 50's were better, and in the 50's there are probably people who thought the books were better in the 20's, and so on and so forth. It doesn't necessary have to end at Chaucer, it's just a far back enough to make the point, that's all.
"This poor guy now faces daunting reality of having to litigate this on appeal against Gateway," Palefsky said. "By winning, he's lost."
So the take home lesson is that the little guys should never attempt to sue big companies? that even if they have a chance of winning, the big guns will put them "in a world of hurt"? this is how the legal system is supposed work?
many many journals don't like getting figures submitted in RGB, because often the conversion to CMYK looks quite bad, since the colour space do not correspond 100% (as I understand it). The problem as I understand is that CMYK looks more like how it's going to turn out on paper, and while colour in figures is not always important, sometimes it's crucial.
The publication does not want to take responsibility. The scientific journal publishing is totally different from the normal book/magazine publication. In almost all cases, the authors have to pay to get things published, and there is NO royalty. Authors do not make money out of the publications. Or at least not directly, since publication is related to whether you can get your future funding, so it is in a sense related, but certainly not royalties.
I've never used Lyx, but just went through their graphical tour (http://www.lyx.org/LGT/).
some gripes I have about Lyx:
1. working with the GUI elements is very slow, compared to just typing Latex source code. If you have a page of formulae, it's much faster to just type Latex then going through the graphical menus and selecting the symbols. Of course there are keyboard shortcuts and so on, but by the time you learn them and remember them, you could have just learnt Latex!
2. It doesn't seem to be a true WYSIWYG. You type in a window that resembles the common text editors, but the true output is still shown on a different window (xdvi). So, perhaps you can argue that this is a decent compromise, but I'd say it's no improvement at all. since it lacks the true benefits of editing documents as WYSIWYG and also lacks the ability to see the underlying code.
I wrote my entire PhD thesis in Latex, and while I am not totally fond of it, I consider it a better choice than MS Office.
serves me right for not checking things before submitting...
[in plain old text]
although it'd be nice if Slashdot editors can be bothered to spell his name correctly.
Many posts so far express some surprise that journals even accept anything other than Latex. Having been through the system several times, I can say that the reason that big journals like Science and Nature accept MS docs as the default format is because of biologists.
Essentially, Latex is used only in Mathematics and Physics related sciences. Unlike them, most biologists don't know much about computers, and couldn't really give a rat's arse about the formats.
Having trained in Physics (Bachelor) and Med/Bio (PhD) and now working in bioinformatics, I have had many arguments with people about this particular issue. My argument being that, the fact that the scientific process is an open process should also mean that the format in which the data are preserved should also be open, and not locked in some proprietary format like MS Doc and, yes, shock-and-horror, Powerpoint files. I've bitched many times to my old boss that he was spending a few thousand dollars on getting Photoshop licenses just to crop some pictures or change the levels. Although the lack of proper CYMK support in GIMP is a bit of a setback, but even then, just a couple licenses would have been sufficient for that purpose, rather than getting a license for every machine. I mean, these guys were using Photoshop as an image _viewer_!
The situation in Physics is quite diffferent. Of course there are many hardcore OSS users, but many people just used BSD/Linux/(and even some old Unix machines are still chugging along), simply because they are free and they are sometimes also the best tools for the job.
I remember in a few years ago working with an Astrophysics group during a summer vacation, and we had some time on the Parkes telescope, and we were able to remotely control the telescope from Sydney, which would have been impossible under MS Windows (at the time).
Back to the point, ODF would hopefully bridge this difference, since if the biological scientists don't want to learn Latex, a WYSIWYG editor using ODF (such as OpenOffice.org) should be acceptable to them.
although it'd be nice if Slashdot editors can be bothered to spell his name correctly.
Many posts so far express some surprise that journals even accept anything other than Latex. Having been through the system several times, I can say that the reason that big journals like Science and Nature accept MS docs as the default format is because of biologists.
Essentially, Latex is used only in Mathematics and Physics related sciences. Unlike them, most biologists don't know much about computers, and couldn't really give a rat's arse about the formats.
Having trained in Physics (Bachelor) and Med/Bio (PhD) and now working in bioinformatics, I have had many arguments with people about this particular issue. My argument being that, the fact that the scientific process is an open process should also mean that the format in which the data are preserved should also be open, and not locked in some proprietary format like MS Doc and, yes, shock-and-horror, Powerpoint files. I've bitched many times to my old boss that he was spending a few thousand dollars on getting Photoshop licenses just to crop some pictures or change the levels. Although the lack of proper CYMK support in GIMP is a bit of a setback, but even then, just a couple licenses would have been sufficient for that purpose, rather than getting a license for every machine. I mean, these guys were using Photoshop as an image _viewer_!
The situation in Physics is quite diffferent. Of course there are many hardcore OSS users, but many people just used BSD/Linux/(and even some old Unix machines are still chugging along), simply because they are free and they are sometimes also the best tools for the job.
I remember in a few years ago working with an Astrophysics group during a summer vacation, and we had some time on the Parkes telescope, and we were able to remotely control the telescope from Sydney, which would have been impossible under MS Windows (at the time).
Back to the point, ODF would hopefully bridge this difference, since if the biological scientists want to learn Latex, a WYSIWYG editor using ODF (such as OpenOffice.org) should be acceptable to them.
I always wanted to buy a computer from the back of a stolen van in a dark alley, but I've been a bit worried about getting robbed in such situations. Do you think Dell can cater to my needs here?
it's like saying, GPL grants you the right to own guns and use it in specific circumstances, i.e. it restricts your freedom to randomly kill people, therefore, it does not properly represent freedom to choose and use.
but BSD grants you both the right to own guns AND to use in however way you want to, as long as you inform your victims the maker of the gun just before you shoot them.
My point is, and it is a very old argument I know, freedom without restriction just degrades to anarchy.
Personally, I find your comment "Meanwhile, those who use licenses like the BSD license or the MIT license tend to be more focused on technical excellency." very offensive. Perhaps what I perceive is not your intent, but it's how it comes across anyway.
well, I am guessing that Google and other search engine/portal sites will be wetting their pants out of excitement, if what you fear becomes prevalent, as people will have to rely more and more on searching for the sites and clicking the link rather than typing in the address.
But seriously, I think most navigations these days are done through clicking anyway, rather than actually typing the address into the navigation bar, and even then the auto-complete feature means you rarely have to type the entire address.
There also also tools like the useful Firefox extension that turns any text string into a url, which really reduces the necessity of having to type out an address.
I think the only web address I ever type these days is my bank's address.
what hole have you been hiding in?
RIAA has been claiming damages to the tunes of %750 PER SONG, I have no idea how much MPAA has been claiming.
The point is both about the amount and not about the amount. It's about that the MAFIAA have been claiming that piracy has put such a dent in their God-given right to make tonnes of money, that they should be asking for such disproportionate amount of damage to cover their losses. And YET, when THEY are the ones "stealing" other people's work, all of a sudden, it's not such a big matter? Do you think the MAFIAA would let people get away if they just say that they never put links to the songs they downloaded, they never publicised it and it was purely for personal use?
nah, Spielberg is not spectacular enough. Bruckheimer will do a much better job in showing Earth heating up so much that it explodes! the ultimate gratuitous explosion! that will get people's attention much better than some UN report.
Slashdot Mirror
originally I had similar thoughts to your post. However, there are some differences:
- consumers who purchase movie DVDs or music CDs do not intent to distribute and sell them. They are indeed the "end"-users. Not so for the media companies. And I seriously doubt that their intent here is for "greater freedom of information", and more likely is just to lower their costs. However, that doesn't mean that they cannot also manage to do some (unintentional?) good in the process anyway.
- I am not conversant with laws regarding fair use, however, again, it seems unlikely that fair use applies when you intend to make money from distribution.
although I have to say that, so far, I am fairly neutral about this case, since I have yet to understand both the details of the case and the implications from it.
really? I hold to the opinion that using words which concisely convey specific meaning or meanings is a much better form of written communication than using non-descriptive "words" which are weak when spoken and even more useless when written down.
To emphasize my point, I find "meh" to convey nothing of "convivial, jocular or otherwise self-deprecatory intent". In fact, I tend to find the use of it dismissive and bordering on rudeness. Just to show that how useless such expressions are in written language when two people can have such different view of it in the same context.
You think I am getting worked up? Just because I am verbose and disagree with your opinions? or am I reading you wrong again, and you are just being "self-deprecatory"?
Moorcock should be recognized as the genius he istotally subjective. And the point is that, the idea is not an original one even at the time of Moorcock's writing, so why should he be credited as such? So if you find it to be a better or best execution of such an idea, it still does not justify why Moorcock deserves to gain from other people's rendtions of the idea.
if this fleshes out, I hope it will turn out better than MirrorMask and Neverwhere.
Granted, both MirrorMask and Neverwhere were originally written as scripts, but I just thought they lacked that dark atmosphere in his books. The reworked Neverwhere novel did regain that feel though.
You do realise that you cannot patent an idea? and even copyright doesn't extend to just ideas. The idea that a protagonist fights with different version or versions of his/herself is not new, and Moorcock was certainly not the first to explore it. Did Moorcock pay anybody to use the idea of the doomed hero idea? what about Elric's pale features? did he pay someone to use that idea?
(Sigh...) no, the argument goes like:
these days (2000's) there are people who think books from the 70's are better, so back in the 70's, there are probably people who think that books in the 50's were better, and in the 50's there are probably people who thought the books were better in the 20's, and so on and so forth. It doesn't necessary have to end at Chaucer, it's just a far back enough to make the point, that's all.
I'd recommend American Gods.
I remember reading some Moorcock books, but have zero recollection on what they are about.
Everything being done these days was done better in the '70's!I sincerely hope that this was not an entirely serious comment. Going by that logic, we'd all still be reading Canterbury Tales.
that everytime I recognise the person on the other end of the phone by recognising their "voice characteristics" I have to pay Microsoft tax?
"Hi mom! oh damn..., I mean, hi stranger whose voice I don't recognise but I am wildly guessing is probably my mother..."
So the take home lesson is that the little guys should never attempt to sue big companies? that even if they have a chance of winning, the big guns will put them "in a world of hurt"? this is how the legal system is supposed work?
then just write the address and add the stamp on the letter/cheque itself, don't bother with the envelope. You can saves trees at the same time!
yeah, the editors got it wrong, it's not an "Enigma" app, it's an enema app...
many many journals don't like getting figures submitted in RGB, because often the conversion to CMYK looks quite bad, since the colour space do not correspond 100% (as I understand it). The problem as I understand is that CMYK looks more like how it's going to turn out on paper, and while colour in figures is not always important, sometimes it's crucial.
The publication does not want to take responsibility. The scientific journal publishing is totally different from the normal book/magazine publication. In almost all cases, the authors have to pay to get things published, and there is NO royalty. Authors do not make money out of the publications. Or at least not directly, since publication is related to whether you can get your future funding, so it is in a sense related, but certainly not royalties.
not just preserved in publications, but for internal use also.
.txt or .tex file has no problem being read today... although latex is not really good format for data entry.
Can you imagine that ten years later, you want to look at some old data and find that the data files can longer be read properly?
A 20 yo
I've never used Lyx, but just went through their graphical tour (http://www.lyx.org/LGT/).
some gripes I have about Lyx:
1. working with the GUI elements is very slow, compared to just typing Latex source code. If you have a page of formulae, it's much faster to just type Latex then going through the graphical menus and selecting the symbols. Of course there are keyboard shortcuts and so on, but by the time you learn them and remember them, you could have just learnt Latex!
2. It doesn't seem to be a true WYSIWYG. You type in a window that resembles the common text editors, but the true output is still shown on a different window (xdvi). So, perhaps you can argue that this is a decent compromise, but I'd say it's no improvement at all. since it lacks the true benefits of editing documents as WYSIWYG and also lacks the ability to see the underlying code.
I wrote my entire PhD thesis in Latex, and while I am not totally fond of it, I consider it a better choice than MS Office.
serves me right for not checking things before submitting...
[in plain old text]
although it'd be nice if Slashdot editors can be bothered to spell his name correctly.
Many posts so far express some surprise that journals even accept anything other than Latex. Having been through the system several times, I can say that the reason that big journals like Science and Nature accept MS docs as the default format is because of biologists.
Essentially, Latex is used only in Mathematics and Physics related sciences. Unlike them, most biologists don't know much about computers, and couldn't really give a rat's arse about the formats.
Having trained in Physics (Bachelor) and Med/Bio (PhD) and now working in bioinformatics, I have had many arguments with people about this particular issue. My argument being that, the fact that the scientific process is an open process should also mean that the format in which the data are preserved should also be open, and not locked in some proprietary format like MS Doc and, yes, shock-and-horror, Powerpoint files. I've bitched many times to my old boss that he was spending a few thousand dollars on getting Photoshop licenses just to crop some pictures or change the levels. Although the lack of proper CYMK support in GIMP is a bit of a setback, but even then, just a couple licenses would have been sufficient for that purpose, rather than getting a license for every machine. I mean, these guys were using Photoshop as an image _viewer_!
The situation in Physics is quite diffferent. Of course there are many hardcore OSS users, but many people just used BSD/Linux/(and even some old Unix machines are still chugging along), simply because they are free and they are sometimes also the best tools for the job.
I remember in a few years ago working with an Astrophysics group during a summer vacation, and we had some time on the Parkes telescope, and we were able to remotely control the telescope from Sydney, which would have been impossible under MS Windows (at the time).
Back to the point, ODF would hopefully bridge this difference, since if the biological scientists don't want to learn Latex, a WYSIWYG editor using ODF (such as OpenOffice.org) should be acceptable to them.
although it'd be nice if Slashdot editors can be bothered to spell his name correctly. Many posts so far express some surprise that journals even accept anything other than Latex. Having been through the system several times, I can say that the reason that big journals like Science and Nature accept MS docs as the default format is because of biologists. Essentially, Latex is used only in Mathematics and Physics related sciences. Unlike them, most biologists don't know much about computers, and couldn't really give a rat's arse about the formats. Having trained in Physics (Bachelor) and Med/Bio (PhD) and now working in bioinformatics, I have had many arguments with people about this particular issue. My argument being that, the fact that the scientific process is an open process should also mean that the format in which the data are preserved should also be open, and not locked in some proprietary format like MS Doc and, yes, shock-and-horror, Powerpoint files. I've bitched many times to my old boss that he was spending a few thousand dollars on getting Photoshop licenses just to crop some pictures or change the levels. Although the lack of proper CYMK support in GIMP is a bit of a setback, but even then, just a couple licenses would have been sufficient for that purpose, rather than getting a license for every machine. I mean, these guys were using Photoshop as an image _viewer_! The situation in Physics is quite diffferent. Of course there are many hardcore OSS users, but many people just used BSD/Linux/(and even some old Unix machines are still chugging along), simply because they are free and they are sometimes also the best tools for the job. I remember in a few years ago working with an Astrophysics group during a summer vacation, and we had some time on the Parkes telescope, and we were able to remotely control the telescope from Sydney, which would have been impossible under MS Windows (at the time). Back to the point, ODF would hopefully bridge this difference, since if the biological scientists want to learn Latex, a WYSIWYG editor using ODF (such as OpenOffice.org) should be acceptable to them.
WTF! You mean there's no gravity?
I always wanted to buy a computer from the back of a stolen van in a dark alley, but I've been a bit worried about getting robbed in such situations. Do you think Dell can cater to my needs here?
let me give a very perverted analogy:
it's like saying, GPL grants you the right to own guns and use it in specific circumstances, i.e. it restricts your freedom to randomly kill people, therefore, it does not properly represent freedom to choose and use.
but BSD grants you both the right to own guns AND to use in however way you want to, as long as you inform your victims the maker of the gun just before you shoot them.
My point is, and it is a very old argument I know, freedom without restriction just degrades to anarchy.
Personally, I find your comment "Meanwhile, those who use licenses like the BSD license or the MIT license tend to be more focused on technical excellency." very offensive. Perhaps what I perceive is not your intent, but it's how it comes across anyway.
it's an abstract for a meeting (see http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AAS...209.3703J and http://www.aas.org/meetings/aas209/), so it was probably either a presentation or just a poster.
toilets are in fact, gateways to other people's homes? perhaps someone could make a pretty picture to make this argument more plausible.
crappy rap videos made by Sony PR flacks pretending to be kids who want a PSP for Christmas...
well, I am guessing that Google and other search engine/portal sites will be wetting their pants out of excitement, if what you fear becomes prevalent, as people will have to rely more and more on searching for the sites and clicking the link rather than typing in the address. But seriously, I think most navigations these days are done through clicking anyway, rather than actually typing the address into the navigation bar, and even then the auto-complete feature means you rarely have to type the entire address. There also also tools like the useful Firefox extension that turns any text string into a url, which really reduces the necessity of having to type out an address. I think the only web address I ever type these days is my bank's address.
since when does Apple allow others to poke under its drawers to have a look around and fiddle with?
what hole have you been hiding in? RIAA has been claiming damages to the tunes of %750 PER SONG, I have no idea how much MPAA has been claiming. The point is both about the amount and not about the amount. It's about that the MAFIAA have been claiming that piracy has put such a dent in their God-given right to make tonnes of money, that they should be asking for such disproportionate amount of damage to cover their losses. And YET, when THEY are the ones "stealing" other people's work, all of a sudden, it's not such a big matter? Do you think the MAFIAA would let people get away if they just say that they never put links to the songs they downloaded, they never publicised it and it was purely for personal use?
nah, Spielberg is not spectacular enough. Bruckheimer will do a much better job in showing Earth heating up so much that it explodes! the ultimate gratuitous explosion! that will get people's attention much better than some UN report.