It's a good point. Linux use would probably surge if software like Pro Tools, Nuendo/Cubase, Photoshop, FinalCut and Avid ran (and ran well) on Linux. At least among professional creative users.
That said, though I use such software at work, and have such software at home on Windows, I do use a lot of OS and alternative license software for doing similar work (or play) at home.
In windows its in the "control panel" under "networking" and it has been for 12+ years on EVERY windows box... ever.
I don't know if that's entirely true. I mean, I don't know about changing the IP specifically, but every time I've upgraded windows it seems like networking features are in different places. Imagine me as a power user at best, and the following can be quite disconcerting when I'm trying to set up my system or network:
- Why was the default workgroup, "WORKGROUP", but later on, "MSHOME"?
- Why is rearranging the order of my network service connections different in Win2K than it is in XP Home, and different again in XP Pro?
- Why can you right click on some things in windows to get the menu you need, but the same kind of menu for a different windows function involves opening "My Computer" or "My Network Places"? Why am I always hunting for the "Advanced" menu?
- Why when I click the "X" in the upper right hand corner of MSN Messenger does it minimize the application to the systray instead of closing the program like other "X"s do?
Now, I'll admit, this is just a couple of petty examples, but I find working in Windows to be perpetually inconsistent...and I have to switch between Windows OSs quite frequently between work and home (anywhere from 98 to XP.) Having tried to help my friend find certain features in Vista, I am once again baffled. It's not a slam on Vista, but on Microsoft in general for changing things that used to work fine.
By comparison, once I understand the basic concepts of how Linux works (and let's face it, at some point we all had to learn the basic concepts of how Windows worked), I can switch between Gnome, KDE and Xfce, or Ubuntu, RedHat and Slackware and find what I'm looking for with very little work. I genuinely don't spend a lot of time hunting for things in Linux, and I think people that are spending a lot of time doing so have already made up their minds about the OS rather than taking a breath and saying to themselves, "where is a logical place for such and such a feature" and then going there. I definitely think that it is a familiarity issue.
In addition, and no comfort to those uncomfortable with a command line, one must admit that Linux has used consistent commands in it's shells for some time now. 12 year old advice on commands tends to hold true even today. But since the discussion really is about consistency in the GUI...
Where are all the documents on my 7 year old linux box? Tell me the exact path name if my username is "dude". Can you? You can take about 5 educated guesses, but you can't tell me exactly because it varies by distro... and really there isn't a consistent place because some apps will put things in your home, and others will use.folders and some distros use a "documents" folder and others have a "my documents" folder.
Your documents? Probably wherever you chose to save them. I find "/home/username" to be a pretty consistent place. That's where most linux users I know keep their documents. Naturally, all my windows documents are in My Documents...oh yeah...except for the ones on the desktop. Or the ones that I downloaded to some other folder because I forget to change the defaults on some program I installed. Seriously, it can happen on either system. "My Documents" is ostensibly just a folder labeled something convenient. It's up to the user to actual use that folder to store their documents. "Home" is just as valid a choice. That isn't an issue with OS consistency, but user consistency.
As for installers in Windows, I've never had to "man" a Windows installer. The internal technology may be different in each, but they are, at their core, the same user experience.
I double click it, I click next about 8 times and it is installed. That's just it. Whether it's MSI, or WISE, or whatever, it's just "click click click" and you don't have to know what the installer is doing.
System updates, sure. But does it update the rest of your software, or do they have their own independent updaters? Sorry. In this case, the modern Linux box is more efficient, easier to use, and easier to understand. I have Linux dual-booted on a P4-3GHz, and Linux outperforms XP every time...both have a ton of software installed and numerous apps running, but Linux does less work and eats up less processor power and memory...oh, and it tells me when there are updates...for all of that stuff, I approve it, and it goes to get them.
In windows, I get different pop-ups for different programs...sometimes hidden behind another window...sometimes at inopportune times. And even if we were just talking about system updates, Ubuntu doesn't harass me every 5 minutes to remind me that I need to shut down for my system updates to take effect. I know that. I told it I'll shut down later. Why does it have to keep reminding me?
Wait...the nature of Linux is that it contains a package manager to handle updates, removal, and addition of software, in a unified, organized fashion. That's the point. If you'd rather have inefficient bloatware on your machine that requires proprietary action to make anything function, you would just continue using Windows apps.
Sure, due to reasons of marketing and distribution (and let's face it, that's the real reason Windows is the dominant OS) "industry standard" software is available on Windows and Mac. If there were a greater interest in Linux, many of those developers may migrate (or at least port) those apps over to Linux if they expected to see a sufficient return on them. I suspect those that attempted to use custom updaters and such would still tend to lose out to the wide variety of free software available in the package managers, unless the app was absolutely crucial. Pro Tools, for example, or Avid.
Even then, I'm a professional audio engineer, and I'm migrating my way over to alternative DAWs (Digital Audio Workstations) to Pro Tools because though it's a fine program functionally for my work, it is loaded with irritants of the free market (proprietary qualities, artificially limited track counts, lack of transparency, bloat, poor plug-in management, etc...)
Except, and I'm not positive on this, if the store has a no returns policy for opened merchandise, and that policy is clearly stated, is it the responsibility of the store, the distributor, the manufacturer, or the original producers of the content? I would think the store would be covered. If I try to sell a big with a ripped off cover (depending on the nature of the book), I am doing so illegally because according to the notice inside the book I am attempting to resell product that was to be destroyed. But what if it wasn't a strip, and was instead just an accident? Would that still hold?
Or maybe there are states in Africa that actually concern our government? Rogue states, of course. Legitimate governments don't concern us because we put them there.
Naval maneuvers would also be handy to spot. I admit to speculating here and will likely get assaulted for it, but I'd think (depending on the altitude and trajectory of the orbit) that passing over North America would give you a good look at both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
A super secret sat is not responding for unknown reasons. This requires a shootdown which just happens to occur during a lunar eclipse.
Wow, who gets the movie rights for this one? Why, Slashdot, of course.
Absurd. Look, Hydrazine is not good for us, absolutely true. But you think there is a lawyer out there who is going to get past the firewall of obfuscation that is the U.S. Attorney General in this administration? Such a person is more likely to "disappear."
Besides which, the actual threat posed by this hydrazine is minimal compared to the "benefit" of shooting down one of our own spy satellites in front of China and Russia. Which reason fits the behavioral pattern of the Bush administration better? Protecting the common person from what is ostensibly an industrial accident? Or projection of force in order to make us "safer." For some people, these wouldn't be mutually exclusive, but for this administration, I'll pick Occam's Razor every time.
Wait...I'm looking for the sarcasm mod...no, I guess you were serious.
Nothing useful in terms of spy gear is going to make it through re-entry. What might make it through re-entry is a large, resilient fuel tank containing high-toxic, probably carcinogenic, fuel. You seriously think a government as naive as that of the United States - one that's spent a fortune on a war based on its own lies, that is uninterested in the health care of it's general population except as a brief distraction a couple summers ago (notice how they stopped talking about it), that refused to acknowledge any human contribution to global warming, that supports the storage of nuclear waste in it's own backyard - an administration that has spent the past six years using any opportunity for military posturing, unilateralism (unless multilateral means, "y'all do it our way") and the protection of "state secrets" by way of executive privilege - that has no fear of reprisal over the abuse of human rights or dignity, and has offered little excuse for the death of thousands both military and civilian - you actually think that government is afraid of a little hydrazine giving a few dozen people cancer?
Logic dictates that if there was really something classified on the satellite that they didn't want to survive re-entry they simply would have designed it to not survive re-entry or they would have installed a self-destruct. Shooting it down at this point for the reason you're implying doesn't make sense.
Besides, if it's the gear (rather than the fuel) that concerns them then why haven't they bothered shooting down other de-orbiting sats in the past? From the BBC:
An out-of-control [emphasis mine] US spy satellite - possibly the size of small bus - is believed to be plummeting out of its orbit and is expected to crash somewhere on the planet within weeks. ...
Normally, when US spy satellites reach the end of their lives, they are disposed of through a controlled re-entry and dumped in the Pacific Ocean, so that no-one can learn their secrets. And finally, a few notes about hydrazine.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright cast the threat from the satellite in much less dire terms. Even if the hydrazine were released, he noted, the effects would likely be mild -- akin to chlorine gas poisoning, which can cause burning in the lungs, and elsewhere. The area affected would be "roughly the size of two football fields [where you might] incur something that would make you go to the doctor." ...
Especially when you consider that several other hydrazine-filled object have come crashing down to Earth. Not only did the space shuttle Columbia have a similar tank, which survived re-entry, with no toxic gas cloud. Several other hydrazine-laced objects have also crashed into the atmosphere, with no ill effects. Space researcher Ed Kyle notes that there were 42 major reentry objects for 2007, including 9 satellites -- at least one of which contained a form of hydrazine, UMDH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine). Look, I don't put it beyond the American government (and especially this American government) to spend "$60 million...to make sure that some fuel doesn't contaminate an acre or so of land" as the previous poster stated, but the notion that this is about contamination or saving lives (I'm trying to remember the last person known to die from falling spacing debris) is just bull.
Interestingly, this is during the totality of Wednesday's lunar eclipse, which may or may not make debris easier to observe." Well, Wednesday may or may not be the 20th or the 21st. The satellite debris may or may not land in the ocean. We may or may not call this journalism.
No. Seriously. This is slashdot. No journalism here.
I would just like to chime in that though OpenOffice loads slowly on my P4, 3GHz, 1.5GB RAM Win XP machine, it does load within about 8 seconds on my P3, 800MHz, 128MB RAM Xubuntu machine.
I also think Linux adoption is very much like adoption of alternate energy. Once it comes standard on more computers, it will probably gain quite a bit of acceptance...particularly with distros like Ubuntu which I confess have proven reliable, stable and easy to use for me compared to previous distros (no offense to them.) When that acceptance has picked up, more and better software will probably become available.
Unfortunately, though there's a ton of software out there now, none of it is as "pretty" as most Win or Mac software, and none of it has the marketing that makes it recognizable to most people. People are comforted when they see the slick program that they've heard everyone is using (the commercial or ad in the magazine told them so.)
Linux adoption will require preinstalled out-of-the-box, a more helpful linux community willing to communicate simply and clearly (this is getting better), stronger and more unified configuration tools that do not require the console (this is also getting better), and either a few amazing Linux only games or some serious productivity software that never gets in the way of the person using it (I'm talking to you, DAW makers...I shouldn't have to configure an external program before configuring the internal program that has to connect to the external program, etc...I just want to record, edit, mix and hear the results!) Easier and better Wine compatibility wouldn't hurt either.
In fairness, I think Linux has come a long way, and I use it quite a bit now (as does my girlfriend, who moves effortlessly between Linux and Windows.) Ubuntu really is quite wonderful, Wine is getting better all the time, and even the games are becoming quite playable and enjoyable.
My girlfriend, of course, would be much happier if OpenOffice wasn't usurping her bullet options all the time...but then I'd be much happier if the new MS Office wasn't designed for fans of mystery meat navigation.
I would also like to add, particularly for those claiming to hear those super high frequencies, or having turned it up ever so slightly and being blasted (assuming it's not the equipment) that there are "ultrasonic" sounds out there all the time that we never think about. We might feel the headache. Maybe they're too quiet. Maybe we (some of us) do hear them but just can't figure out what they are because they're not a simple sine wave. Let's beware of the notion that because our hearing tapers off around 20kHz, so does most sound.
1) I'm confused. I thought the article said -
The device works by emitting a pulse at 17-18 kilohertz that switches on and off four times a second for up to 20 minutes. Teenagers can pick it up through minute hairs in their inner ears - but those hairs tend to die off by the time they reach 25. ...and I think the link at the top of TFA read -
Under 25? Listen here | Over-25s, listen here ...meaning those under the age of 25, and those over the age of 25. It would be highly unlikely (and I do mean highly unlikely) that any human being could hear 25kHz. I suspect it would be about as amazing as a human being who could see infrared or ultraviolet light.
2) Nothing to do with this poster (I had to respond somewhere) but I find it absurd, in the age of iPods, earbuds and an almost complete lack of education on auditory health, to presume that most teenagers (particularly the troublesome types) haven't suffered significant damage to those inner ear hairs. Age isn't the only thing that kills hearing, particularly at high frequencies.
Shouldn't a "house of the future" be smaller than current houses? If they are to be available to all humans, I mean. "I hear the directors of Genetic Control have been buying all the
properties that have recently been sold, taking risks oh so bold.
It's said now that people will be shorter in height,
they can fit twice as many in the same building site.
(they say it's alright)
- Genesis, "Get Em Out By Friday"
Never thought I'd get to use that one on slashdot.
In the mean time, no flying cars Really, people. You don't want flying cars. Think about it. Assuming it were at all economical to own one, you get more smog and noise pollution, a cluttered sky, increased likelihood of bad accidents (with cars on land it's not too often one comes crashing down on your house)...plus, you'd have to learn a whole new set of navigation tools. GPS could remedy the navigation to some degree, but flying, though well within the reach of most people technically, may not be within the reach of their patience. You think there's road rage now? People aren't watching the road? It's much more difficult to spot traffic in the air, and on top of any other stresses people have had throughout the day, you now have to deal with an added dimension and additional physics.
Isn't the idea to make your life easier?
Of course, what do I know. In all likelihood the cars will fly themselves, sticking to well defined skyways - freeing you up to watch movies, talk on the phone and do your hair, all the while doing it without noise on hydrogen fuel cell engines (humidity would be mitigated by giant dew traps throughout the city.) Oh, and there will be world peace.
That said, I completely agree with the poster's assessment of most futurists.
For the record, propellers actually function very much like wings but in a different configuration. So we hadn't really separated their functions...from a certain point of view.
Your point, however, seems accurate and well taken.
I think you make some good points. I would like to clarify a few things, though.
The discussion is about copyright, which is essentially about the monetary value of a work. It is by scarcity (to be simplistic) and demand that a work of art attains monetary value.
Personally, of course, I'm just thinking of rent and supper. If I work creatively and enjoy what I do (and I do), it's too my benefit. If others enjoy what I do, I might be able to derive further benefit from what I've created by "exploiting" the work. I think this is the case whether one is a musician, a woodworker, or an electrical engineer. Copyright merely protects the artist's ability to exploit those works, since those works are the "intellectual property" of the artist. Those who produce tangible goods don't require those kinds of protections (but may have other protections instead.)
All that said, it is the creative side that I think most artists would rather spend their time with, and not the commercial side, and I credit those who do it merely for their own pleasure or the pleasure of those around them. It's just that when one starts to think one is good at something, and really enjoys doing that something, one begins to consider using that something as their means of keeping life and limb together.
I do not believe creativity (in the long term) would be harmed or diminished by a drastically shortened copyright life. You're probably right. Creativity would not be impacted negatively, but would we get to experience as much of it? Without a significant paradigm change in other areas of our social and economic behaviors, I think not. Personally, I'm all for trying that paradigm change, though. My short years have jaded me, methinks =D
And just in case anyone decides to come after me over the "intellectual property" issue...remember that all property could be considered an artificial construct, whether intellectual or otherwise. Isn't there a joke that goes something like, "Why do you own this land?" "Because I inherited it from my father." "And how did he come to own it?" "He bought it from his uncle." "And how did his uncle come by it." "He fought for it." "Then I'll fight you for it!"
Actually, I think this past decade has been one of the most creative decades for Television since the medium began. Anywhere from BSG, The Sopranos and 30 Rock to Lost, The Office and Heroes. And let's not forget Firefly.
Seriously tho the length a copyright can be held should be drastically shortened, it would keep the creative types pumping out new works. No, it wouldn't. At least not necessarily. I do agree that copyright beyond the life of the author is absurd, but a shortened copyright period may provide less, incentive because the potential for returns on their work would be dramatically minimized.
Say the copyright period were 14 years. I could write a song now and be well ahead of my time. I do everything I can to exploit the work, but nobody's biting. Have I written a bad song? Maybe...maybe it's just not the right "market" for the song.
20 years from now perhaps I have some success...or perhaps I don't...but the song's time has come. Whatever it is...the style, the form, the lyrics...whatever...it's a huge hit. Everybody wants this song that I've spent 20 years trying to exploit (because you virtually never stop trying to make money on your work...part of the business no-one seems to pay much attention to.)
And I don't make a dime off of it, because it's in the public domain.
Now some say, "Great! Now's your chance to pump out some more work like it, and you can make money on that!" As anyone in the creative field knows, sometimes it just doesn't work that way. You're in a different place in your life. You have different perspectives. Sure, you can craft stuff, but it's just not as good, or it's different...or perhaps it's also 20 years ahead of it's time.
Just as an addendum, when people talk about the amount of work that goes into creating a song, they periodically forget the amount of work that goes into promoting and exploiting a song (or other creative work.) It doesn't stop when the pencil comes off the page. If no-one ever hears it, then you'll never make any money off it.
"Being creative" is no different than providing any other sort of service. Wrong. It is a completely different kind of service. Someone mentioned painting a house as analogous, but it's not, because over time the paint degrades and a house painter will need to be called on again, while the actual content of the intellectual property does not physically degrade (in contrast to the container the content is carried in.)
For most types of services, you get paid for what people think is the value of the provided service, at the time that you provide the service. Only the greedy want to get paid over and over for providing a single act of service. This suggests that the service is provided once, by the provider. It may be performed once, but again, this completely excludes the consumer of the service in the equation.
An accountant comes to do the books for a sole proprietor. One person's books are done. Accountant gets paid.
An accountant (who is apparently a programmer as well) writes a program that will do the books for 100 sole proprietors. If they all want and use the software, should the accountant only be paid once? Does it matter that 100 people are benefiting from the accountant's methods and ingenuity rather than just one? Clearly it is not in the accountant's best interest to distribute the program, as the sole proprietorships can also use the program again the next time they need the books done, etc... In this case, there is no incentive for the accountant.
A better analogy still. This is where creative arts as services breaks down. There is a commodity at hand here. There is a desired "product", even if the "product" is ephemeral. If a dancer performs on stage and we pay to see her, we consider that acceptable, but if the show is recorded, then it should be passed out for free? "Yes," some say, "but she's already performed it once, the media is "free", and people initially paid for the "experience of seeing it live." That's hogwash. Whether people desire to see it live or on video, they desire to see it, and that means there is a demand for it, and if there is a demand for it then the consumers of her work should be paying her for it.
I personally do not advocate "pay-per-play", and neither does the market. I, too, am a "consumer" and have my limits. However I do believe an artist should be paid for the work in some manner by each person that is deriving satisfaction from that work, and that differentiates it from being an ordinary service.
I've purchased hundreds of MP3 and AAC tracks. Not once have I proceeded to purchase the CD version, nor have I gone to see the performer play live, or -- to use the Slashdot cliche -- "bought a t-shirt." The track was the product, not an ad. And the fact is that there are many, many consumers like me. If I could have legally gotten those MP3 files for free, then the copyright owner would have seen exactly zero money from me. Let's not pretend that MP3 files hold no value... while I acknowledge that many people reading this use P2P as their primary source for music, Apple and others have done quite well in the business of selling downloads. Absolutely correct. I think the assumption is that because the "physical" supply is unlimited, then there is no value to the product, completely dismissing the demand side of the equation. It presumes the container is the measure of value and not the contents.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to use the product as promotion (and am attempting to do so myself in my own band) but that should be a decision on the part of the artist/publisher.
Some people don't want T-Shirts, and they don't go to concerts. They just want a soundtrack for their lives. Why shouldn't artists be compensated for that?
I hold hundreds of copyrights, two having ISBN numbers. The two registered ones would have gone into the public domain already if I'd had my way, as they are both over 20 years old. IANAL but doesn't Section 203 of the Copyright Act allow you to release your works in to the public domain if you are the sole copyright holder? Or am I completely misunderstanding how that works...?
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good point. Linux use would probably surge if software like Pro Tools, Nuendo/Cubase, Photoshop, FinalCut and Avid ran (and ran well) on Linux. At least among professional creative users.
That said, though I use such software at work, and have such software at home on Windows, I do use a lot of OS and alternative license software for doing similar work (or play) at home.
In windows its in the "control panel" under "networking" and it has been for 12+ years on EVERY windows box... ever.
I don't know if that's entirely true. I mean, I don't know about changing the IP specifically, but every time I've upgraded windows it seems like networking features are in different places. Imagine me as a power user at best, and the following can be quite disconcerting when I'm trying to set up my system or network:
- Why was the default workgroup, "WORKGROUP", but later on, "MSHOME"?
- Why is rearranging the order of my network service connections different in Win2K than it is in XP Home, and different again in XP Pro?
- Why can you right click on some things in windows to get the menu you need, but the same kind of menu for a different windows function involves opening "My Computer" or "My Network Places"? Why am I always hunting for the "Advanced" menu?
- Why when I click the "X" in the upper right hand corner of MSN Messenger does it minimize the application to the systray instead of closing the program like other "X"s do?
Now, I'll admit, this is just a couple of petty examples, but I find working in Windows to be perpetually inconsistent...and I have to switch between Windows OSs quite frequently between work and home (anywhere from 98 to XP.) Having tried to help my friend find certain features in Vista, I am once again baffled. It's not a slam on Vista, but on Microsoft in general for changing things that used to work fine.
By comparison, once I understand the basic concepts of how Linux works (and let's face it, at some point we all had to learn the basic concepts of how Windows worked), I can switch between Gnome, KDE and Xfce, or Ubuntu, RedHat and Slackware and find what I'm looking for with very little work. I genuinely don't spend a lot of time hunting for things in Linux, and I think people that are spending a lot of time doing so have already made up their minds about the OS rather than taking a breath and saying to themselves, "where is a logical place for such and such a feature" and then going there. I definitely think that it is a familiarity issue.
In addition, and no comfort to those uncomfortable with a command line, one must admit that Linux has used consistent commands in it's shells for some time now. 12 year old advice on commands tends to hold true even today. But since the discussion really is about consistency in the GUI...
Where are all the documents on my 7 year old linux box? Tell me the exact path name if my username is "dude". Can you? You can take about 5 educated guesses, but you can't tell me exactly because it varies by distro... and really there isn't a consistent place because some apps will put things in your home, and others will use .folders and some distros use a "documents" folder and others have a "my documents" folder.
Your documents? Probably wherever you chose to save them. I find "/home/username" to be a pretty consistent place. That's where most linux users I know keep their documents. Naturally, all my windows documents are in My Documents...oh yeah...except for the ones on the desktop. Or the ones that I downloaded to some other folder because I forget to change the defaults on some program I installed. Seriously, it can happen on either system. "My Documents" is ostensibly just a folder labeled something convenient. It's up to the user to actual use that folder to store their documents. "Home" is just as valid a choice. That isn't an issue with OS consistency, but user consistency.
As for installers in Windows, I've never had to "man" a Windows installer. The internal technology may be different in each, but they are, at their core, the same user experience. I double click it, I click next about 8 times and it is installed. That's just it. Whether it's MSI, or WISE, or whatever, it's just "click click click" and you don't have to know what the installer is doing.
Yeah. I go
System updates, sure. But does it update the rest of your software, or do they have their own independent updaters? Sorry. In this case, the modern Linux box is more efficient, easier to use, and easier to understand. I have Linux dual-booted on a P4-3GHz, and Linux outperforms XP every time...both have a ton of software installed and numerous apps running, but Linux does less work and eats up less processor power and memory...oh, and it tells me when there are updates...for all of that stuff, I approve it, and it goes to get them.
In windows, I get different pop-ups for different programs...sometimes hidden behind another window...sometimes at inopportune times. And even if we were just talking about system updates, Ubuntu doesn't harass me every 5 minutes to remind me that I need to shut down for my system updates to take effect. I know that. I told it I'll shut down later. Why does it have to keep reminding me?
Wait...the nature of Linux is that it contains a package manager to handle updates, removal, and addition of software, in a unified, organized fashion. That's the point. If you'd rather have inefficient bloatware on your machine that requires proprietary action to make anything function, you would just continue using Windows apps.
Sure, due to reasons of marketing and distribution (and let's face it, that's the real reason Windows is the dominant OS) "industry standard" software is available on Windows and Mac. If there were a greater interest in Linux, many of those developers may migrate (or at least port) those apps over to Linux if they expected to see a sufficient return on them. I suspect those that attempted to use custom updaters and such would still tend to lose out to the wide variety of free software available in the package managers, unless the app was absolutely crucial. Pro Tools, for example, or Avid.
Even then, I'm a professional audio engineer, and I'm migrating my way over to alternative DAWs (Digital Audio Workstations) to Pro Tools because though it's a fine program functionally for my work, it is loaded with irritants of the free market (proprietary qualities, artificially limited track counts, lack of transparency, bloat, poor plug-in management, etc...)
Except, and I'm not positive on this, if the store has a no returns policy for opened merchandise, and that policy is clearly stated, is it the responsibility of the store, the distributor, the manufacturer, or the original producers of the content? I would think the store would be covered. If I try to sell a big with a ripped off cover (depending on the nature of the book), I am doing so illegally because according to the notice inside the book I am attempting to resell product that was to be destroyed. But what if it wasn't a strip, and was instead just an accident? Would that still hold?
Maybe not a perfect analogy, but just a thought.
Or maybe there are states in Africa that actually concern our government? Rogue states, of course. Legitimate governments don't concern us because we put them there.
Naval maneuvers would also be handy to spot. I admit to speculating here and will likely get assaulted for it, but I'd think (depending on the altitude and trajectory of the orbit) that passing over North America would give you a good look at both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Absurd. Look, Hydrazine is not good for us, absolutely true. But you think there is a lawyer out there who is going to get past the firewall of obfuscation that is the U.S. Attorney General in this administration? Such a person is more likely to "disappear."
Besides which, the actual threat posed by this hydrazine is minimal compared to the "benefit" of shooting down one of our own spy satellites in front of China and Russia. Which reason fits the behavioral pattern of the Bush administration better? Protecting the common person from what is ostensibly an industrial accident? Or projection of force in order to make us "safer." For some people, these wouldn't be mutually exclusive, but for this administration, I'll pick Occam's Razor every time.
Nothing useful in terms of spy gear is going to make it through re-entry. What might make it through re-entry is a large, resilient fuel tank containing high-toxic, probably carcinogenic, fuel. You seriously think a government as naive as that of the United States - one that's spent a fortune on a war based on its own lies, that is uninterested in the health care of it's general population except as a brief distraction a couple summers ago (notice how they stopped talking about it), that refused to acknowledge any human contribution to global warming, that supports the storage of nuclear waste in it's own backyard - an administration that has spent the past six years using any opportunity for military posturing, unilateralism (unless multilateral means, "y'all do it our way") and the protection of "state secrets" by way of executive privilege - that has no fear of reprisal over the abuse of human rights or dignity, and has offered little excuse for the death of thousands both military and civilian - you actually think that government is afraid of a little hydrazine giving a few dozen people cancer?
Logic dictates that if there was really something classified on the satellite that they didn't want to survive re-entry they simply would have designed it to not survive re-entry or they would have installed a self-destruct. Shooting it down at this point for the reason you're implying doesn't make sense.
Besides, if it's the gear (rather than the fuel) that concerns them then why haven't they bothered shooting down other de-orbiting sats in the past? From the BBC:
An out-of-control [emphasis mine] US spy satellite - possibly the size of small bus - is believed to be plummeting out of its orbit and is expected to crash somewhere on the planet within weeks. ... Normally, when US spy satellites reach the end of their lives, they are disposed of through a controlled re-entry and dumped in the Pacific Ocean, so that no-one can learn their secrets. And finally, a few notes about hydrazine.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright cast the threat from the satellite in much less dire terms. Even if the hydrazine were released, he noted, the effects would likely be mild -- akin to chlorine gas poisoning, which can cause burning in the lungs, and elsewhere. The area affected would be "roughly the size of two football fields [where you might] incur something that would make you go to the doctor." ... Especially when you consider that several other hydrazine-filled object have come crashing down to Earth. Not only did the space shuttle Columbia have a similar tank, which survived re-entry, with no toxic gas cloud. Several other hydrazine-laced objects have also crashed into the atmosphere, with no ill effects. Space researcher Ed Kyle notes that there were 42 major reentry objects for 2007, including 9 satellites -- at least one of which contained a form of hydrazine, UMDH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine). Look, I don't put it beyond the American government (and especially this American government) to spend "$60 million...to make sure that some fuel doesn't contaminate an acre or so of land" as the previous poster stated, but the notion that this is about contamination or saving lives (I'm trying to remember the last person known to die from falling spacing debris) is just bull.
No. Seriously. This is slashdot. No journalism here.
I would just like to chime in that though OpenOffice loads slowly on my P4, 3GHz, 1.5GB RAM Win XP machine, it does load within about 8 seconds on my P3, 800MHz, 128MB RAM Xubuntu machine.
I also think Linux adoption is very much like adoption of alternate energy. Once it comes standard on more computers, it will probably gain quite a bit of acceptance...particularly with distros like Ubuntu which I confess have proven reliable, stable and easy to use for me compared to previous distros (no offense to them.) When that acceptance has picked up, more and better software will probably become available.
Unfortunately, though there's a ton of software out there now, none of it is as "pretty" as most Win or Mac software, and none of it has the marketing that makes it recognizable to most people. People are comforted when they see the slick program that they've heard everyone is using (the commercial or ad in the magazine told them so.)
Linux adoption will require preinstalled out-of-the-box, a more helpful linux community willing to communicate simply and clearly (this is getting better), stronger and more unified configuration tools that do not require the console (this is also getting better), and either a few amazing Linux only games or some serious productivity software that never gets in the way of the person using it (I'm talking to you, DAW makers...I shouldn't have to configure an external program before configuring the internal program that has to connect to the external program, etc...I just want to record, edit, mix and hear the results!) Easier and better Wine compatibility wouldn't hurt either.
In fairness, I think Linux has come a long way, and I use it quite a bit now (as does my girlfriend, who moves effortlessly between Linux and Windows.) Ubuntu really is quite wonderful, Wine is getting better all the time, and even the games are becoming quite playable and enjoyable.
My girlfriend, of course, would be much happier if OpenOffice wasn't usurping her bullet options all the time...but then I'd be much happier if the new MS Office wasn't designed for fans of mystery meat navigation.
Well put.
I would also like to add, particularly for those claiming to hear those super high frequencies, or having turned it up ever so slightly and being blasted (assuming it's not the equipment) that there are "ultrasonic" sounds out there all the time that we never think about. We might feel the headache. Maybe they're too quiet. Maybe we (some of us) do hear them but just can't figure out what they are because they're not a simple sine wave. Let's beware of the notion that because our hearing tapers off around 20kHz, so does most sound.
The device works by emitting a pulse at 17-18 kilohertz that switches on and off four times a second for up to 20 minutes. Teenagers can pick it up through minute hairs in their inner ears - but those hairs tend to die off by the time they reach 25. ...and I think the link at the top of TFA read -
Under 25? Listen here | Over-25s, listen here ...meaning those under the age of 25, and those over the age of 25. It would be highly unlikely (and I do mean highly unlikely) that any human being could hear 25kHz. I suspect it would be about as amazing as a human being who could see infrared or ultraviolet light.
2) Nothing to do with this poster (I had to respond somewhere) but I find it absurd, in the age of iPods, earbuds and an almost complete lack of education on auditory health, to presume that most teenagers (particularly the troublesome types) haven't suffered significant damage to those inner ear hairs. Age isn't the only thing that kills hearing, particularly at high frequencies.
properties that have recently been sold, taking risks oh so bold.
It's said now that people will be shorter in height,
they can fit twice as many in the same building site.
(they say it's alright)
- Genesis, "Get Em Out By Friday"
Never thought I'd get to use that one on slashdot.
YES!!! This is just what we need. An intelligent home that insults us.
Isn't the idea to make your life easier?
Of course, what do I know. In all likelihood the cars will fly themselves, sticking to well defined skyways - freeing you up to watch movies, talk on the phone and do your hair, all the while doing it without noise on hydrogen fuel cell engines (humidity would be mitigated by giant dew traps throughout the city.) Oh, and there will be world peace.
That said, I completely agree with the poster's assessment of most futurists.
For the record, propellers actually function very much like wings but in a different configuration. So we hadn't really separated their functions...from a certain point of view.
Your point, however, seems accurate and well taken.
The discussion is about copyright, which is essentially about the monetary value of a work. It is by scarcity (to be simplistic) and demand that a work of art attains monetary value.
Personally, of course, I'm just thinking of rent and supper. If I work creatively and enjoy what I do (and I do), it's too my benefit. If others enjoy what I do, I might be able to derive further benefit from what I've created by "exploiting" the work. I think this is the case whether one is a musician, a woodworker, or an electrical engineer. Copyright merely protects the artist's ability to exploit those works, since those works are the "intellectual property" of the artist. Those who produce tangible goods don't require those kinds of protections (but may have other protections instead.)
All that said, it is the creative side that I think most artists would rather spend their time with, and not the commercial side, and I credit those who do it merely for their own pleasure or the pleasure of those around them. It's just that when one starts to think one is good at something, and really enjoys doing that something, one begins to consider using that something as their means of keeping life and limb together.
I do not believe creativity (in the long term) would be harmed or diminished by a drastically shortened copyright life. You're probably right. Creativity would not be impacted negatively, but would we get to experience as much of it? Without a significant paradigm change in other areas of our social and economic behaviors, I think not. Personally, I'm all for trying that paradigm change, though. My short years have jaded me, methinks =D
And just in case anyone decides to come after me over the "intellectual property" issue...remember that all property could be considered an artificial construct, whether intellectual or otherwise. Isn't there a joke that goes something like, "Why do you own this land?" "Because I inherited it from my father." "And how did he come to own it?" "He bought it from his uncle." "And how did his uncle come by it." "He fought for it." "Then I'll fight you for it!"
(sigh) I never was good at jokes.
I thought they did play a tiebreaker...and the Giants won. =D
Okay...maybe not strictly a tiebreaker...but for once, the NFL was entertaining.
Actually, I think this past decade has been one of the most creative decades for Television since the medium began. Anywhere from BSG, The Sopranos and 30 Rock to Lost, The Office and Heroes. And let's not forget Firefly.
Now are the geeks happy?
Say the copyright period were 14 years. I could write a song now and be well ahead of my time. I do everything I can to exploit the work, but nobody's biting. Have I written a bad song? Maybe...maybe it's just not the right "market" for the song.
20 years from now perhaps I have some success...or perhaps I don't...but the song's time has come. Whatever it is...the style, the form, the lyrics...whatever...it's a huge hit. Everybody wants this song that I've spent 20 years trying to exploit (because you virtually never stop trying to make money on your work...part of the business no-one seems to pay much attention to.)
And I don't make a dime off of it, because it's in the public domain.
Now some say, "Great! Now's your chance to pump out some more work like it, and you can make money on that!" As anyone in the creative field knows, sometimes it just doesn't work that way. You're in a different place in your life. You have different perspectives. Sure, you can craft stuff, but it's just not as good, or it's different...or perhaps it's also 20 years ahead of it's time.
Just as an addendum, when people talk about the amount of work that goes into creating a song, they periodically forget the amount of work that goes into promoting and exploiting a song (or other creative work.) It doesn't stop when the pencil comes off the page. If no-one ever hears it, then you'll never make any money off it.
An accountant comes to do the books for a sole proprietor. One person's books are done. Accountant gets paid.
An accountant (who is apparently a programmer as well) writes a program that will do the books for 100 sole proprietors. If they all want and use the software, should the accountant only be paid once? Does it matter that 100 people are benefiting from the accountant's methods and ingenuity rather than just one? Clearly it is not in the accountant's best interest to distribute the program, as the sole proprietorships can also use the program again the next time they need the books done, etc... In this case, there is no incentive for the accountant.
A better analogy still. This is where creative arts as services breaks down. There is a commodity at hand here. There is a desired "product", even if the "product" is ephemeral. If a dancer performs on stage and we pay to see her, we consider that acceptable, but if the show is recorded, then it should be passed out for free? "Yes," some say, "but she's already performed it once, the media is "free", and people initially paid for the "experience of seeing it live." That's hogwash. Whether people desire to see it live or on video, they desire to see it, and that means there is a demand for it, and if there is a demand for it then the consumers of her work should be paying her for it.
I personally do not advocate "pay-per-play", and neither does the market. I, too, am a "consumer" and have my limits. However I do believe an artist should be paid for the work in some manner by each person that is deriving satisfaction from that work, and that differentiates it from being an ordinary service.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to use the product as promotion (and am attempting to do so myself in my own band) but that should be a decision on the part of the artist/publisher.
Some people don't want T-Shirts, and they don't go to concerts. They just want a soundtrack for their lives. Why shouldn't artists be compensated for that?
------------------
Do You Experiment?