But the cgaracters or other intellectual works within the copyrighted work can have a much longer life. Think mickey mouse. The little blighter has been going on for decades through indidual works. One might make profits from mickey for at least ninety-nine years.
So give the intelectual property within a work 99 years. Give the work overall 30 years.
Regarding your unprecedented creation of a new kind of "intelectual property" (perhaps you're thinking of trademarks?), consider how many "cgaracters" aren't mickey mouse. Why should they be locked up too, never to be heard about due to their obscurity? Disney should pay for the privilege of special longevity for exclusive marketing - I personally wouldn't object if the renewal fee was high enough.
I wonder if Mexico would have their controversy for a less-known character...
Just stop spouting bullshit about the oppression of hemp. Everyone knows the dreadlocked white kids on college campuses aren't interested in legalizing hemp, so stop pretending already.
Nice straw man. Was there anything in particular in the poster's remarks or the linked timeline that you know to be bullshit? I didn't think so.
if hemp was so fucking awesome then every country that had legalized pot would be using it extensively and would be using this magical plant material that The Man keeps you from having.
Not if the bulk of R&D went into competing materials, making them cheaper^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmore profitable for end-usage.
I find it particularly funny when people say that Mozilla/Firefox/Safari/Opera etc do not render web pages properly when compared to IE
If you ever see/hear this, you could correct them. Mozilla/Firefox/Safari/Opera etc tend to render web pages properly whereas MSIE tends to render them as the author/artist intended, not quite the same thing.
Bot license are missing some final and decisive wording , both have the same flaw, those words which are missing : AT ALL TIME.
You've obviously looked at this in some depth, so could you link to one or more specific URLs that should have their content changed? Can you cite (or, better yet, link) other licenses/certifications that include this "AT ALL TIMES" text? Are you a lawyer or have you consulted lawyers?
I'd've thought that "at all times" (or, more popularly, "perpetual") tended to be assumed. Isn't that what a "blanket statement" is?
I'm guessing that what you want is for each entity internally distributing (not merely externally distributing) software to make their changes public to the whole world. But someone shouldn't LOSE MONEY when their little script for internal use becomes slashdotted and the bandwidth bills go up: that'd discourage work. I apologize if this is a strawman - it was the only scenario I could think of that could fit with what you'd said.
Alternatively, perhaps you're getting free software and copyleft mixed up - they aren't the same. Free software only looks at the one distributor and descendants (i.e. one transfer), while copyleft deals with all successive transfers.
You obviously don't see the budgets required to produce software. The perception that commerical software is "cheap to make" is crap... It may be "cheaper" (than physical processes) but it certainly isn't cheap... if it were then ALL software companies would be making billions, but they aren't... if it were cheap then ALL internet startup companies would be making billions, but they aren't...
It depends on the commercial software: some is trivial, some takes numerous man-years. Even so, if the big stuff was cheap to make, then why exactly would you expect companies to make billions, especially since their competition could make it just as cheaply? This doesn't make any sense to me, what am I missing here?
The main reason why software patents should be in place is to help the little guy fight off the big guys who will happily steal their ideas and make lots of money... The real problem with patents (of any flavour) is that there are too many given out for "obvious ideas" which shouldn't happen..
What's wrong with having both big guys and little guys being able to use the same ideas and having a level playing field for something that has essentially no barrier to entry?
The real problem with patents (of any flavor) is that they don't add value, they only add exclusivity.
Poor analogy. When you turn your ignition key to off, it turns off. When you press the power button on a computer it does not turn off.
That may be true, but if you're in motion on the freeway when you do this, you'll tend to lose control of the steering wheel and who knows what havoc will result. That's why I compared it with getting the car parked - arguably a known initial state.
He's not asking for the computer to respond to your email when you press the power button. He's asking for it to turn off, when you tell it to turn off! Now!
Someone already responded that what the person should do is a "hibernate", not shut off. I won't repeat that argument, but I'll add that one could (with appropriate software) rig the off switch to hibernate instead of an orderly shut down.
If one really wants an immediate off rather than a shutdown, one should toggle their power strip's button. The meaning of the power button has changed, like it or not; Microsoft themselves switched during the Windows NT 4.0 days.
I wholeheartedly agree with the grandparent. There is absolutely no reason, with journaling file systems and rapid copying of memory that the system couldn't ALWAYS be prepared to instantly turn off, and instantly turn on. 5 minute log offs or log ons are crazy, and poor operating system design.
The majority of "5 minute" waiting (I haven't needed to wait more than one, I'd say the installation you dreamed up is defective) is for userland processes/services, not operating system processes. And you should complain to Microsoft too: Microsoft Windows 2000 and Microsoft Windows XP both suffer from the same slowness at shutdowns (and may be worse since if a specific process is hung it won't tell you which so you won't immediately know how to troubleshoot; I have ended up waiting more than 5 minutes for Microsoft Windows, finally giving up after 15+). Shutting down the OS itself takes very little time.
Motor vehicles are machines that don't park themselves when you turn off the ignition.
Sometimes I turn off the ignition and some hasshat motorist flips a finger and says I'll get a ticket if I don't pull over to the shoulder of the freeway. I can't do that because I've already bailed out of the car. I wake up hours later and the fucking cops are still THERE!
When I turn OFF the ignition switch, I want the stupid car to be parked. Be parked now. No driving home, no opening my garage door, no complaints from my kids playing basketball in the driveway, no nothing...just park its fucking self.
Search this discussion for "587" (RFC 2476; authenticated SMTP).
While it obviously isn't as secure as tunneling over ssh, it also doesn't require as much of a recipe, and chances are you already have it available on your server side.
There are plenty of non-Linux people here just to contribute flames. If you found an article in which a "Linux community" was "pissing" (whatever that means) on commercial hardware manufacturers, you really ought to cite it.
During install, there are checkboxes for whether or not to create new links/shortcuts (Start Menu, Desktop, Quick Launch). Have you been unchecking them when you install?
On second thought, it looks like bug 245392 still exists in 1.0.4 and won't be fixed until 1.1. Ouch.
You'd think, but haven't some states passed laws to the effect that the only way to READ their legal code is by way of a lawyer? (It was tangled up with copyright somehow, but that was the net effect -- no more public access to the legal code. I forget the details.)
The one site I like, though the reviews are few and far between, is Ars.Technica. Only reason, is because they BUY THEIR OWN HARDWARE:)
Was that smiley for sarcasm or for approval? Your wording doesn't make it obvious.
In a forum posting, I bitched about how the Ars.Technica folks had put up a combination of hardware that was nearly guaranteed to fail for what they recommended. The reply doesn't give much hope that they've improved.
Btw, getting rid of copyrights will also destroy every open source project as some greedy company would be able to easily rip off the hard work of the developers.
If you eliminate IP then selling ideas would be against the law. All ideas would be free and without copyrights any idea is public domain. I mean of course you wouldn't be able to provide yourself a means to live if you were in the trade of ideas.
I meant that the link text has "Slashdot" in it, while the link target has nothing to do with Slashdot. Additionally, I was thinking of Slashdot as a noun or adjective, not a verb (i.e. someone who'd scammed Slashdot). "Slashdot the scammers!" would make it more obvious that you're using it as a verb. Still somewhat misnamed, though, since it has nothing to do with Slashdot.
Googlebombing by using sneaky techniques to promote your
"403 Weapons of Mass Destruction Not Found" and "Miserable Failure"->"whitehouse.gov"
pages was technically similar to SEO lying - but it was clever and
amusing metacontent, and deserved its 15 minutes of fame, and watching
the sleazy Republicans reply in kind was amusing too, but it's Been
Done Now. -- Bill Stewart Slashdot Scammers
Apparently you haven't comprehended the earlier articles on Slashdot post-moderation. Otto and others have done logging of the devices' interactions with "the mothership" and found no wrongdoing, especially if you've contacted TiVo and told them not to use even anonymous statistics.
Please stop trolling unless you can actually back up what you're saying with something new.
As more and more publicity like this spreads, then LESS companies will use GPL code, not MORE. Fewer companies will allow FOSS/GPL code through their doors out of fear of "contaminating" their developers and calling into question any software products they release. This will keep OSS out of the corporate world, not encourage its use!
I shouldn't feed the troll, but...
It depends on the company. Some want to be known for their code, some want it all to be of a proprietary nature. For the latter: Let them fear the GPL. If they can't understand it (which usually means they're unwilling to read it), then they shouldn't touch it, and instead they should be spending their own time/money creating their own code from scratch or using code of licenses they prefer.
A strawman of my own: I don't think we'd want a situation where they used GPL code, their code was forced open, and then it was later found that more code they'd used without authorization got comingled with other GPL-based projects. Not every use of OSS should be encouraged.
Later, I get notice that my web-site thing is "wrong" but I can no longer reach the guy that made it? What do I do??????
Proper notification requires that the web-site thing be named, lest it be a competitor's site created to ruin your good name or other ruse.
Once you have the site's URI, you could contractually hire someone else to track down how to gain access to it and to alter/remove part of it. Or, at worst, persuade the virtual site's owner to delete it. Really, all the virtual site's owner would need to do is verify your address and/or phone number (surely your web-site thing has these!), social engineering notwithstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if Mexico would have their controversy for a less-known character...
Hey, that's how coins in the USA work, you need to know how to read in English. Why should trading be different?
Copyrights/patents/trademarks are more about fame then anything else. Fame could potentially lead to money, but it might not.
I'd've thought that "at all times" (or, more popularly, "perpetual") tended to be assumed. Isn't that what a "blanket statement" is?
I'm guessing that what you want is for each entity internally distributing (not merely externally distributing) software to make their changes public to the whole world. But someone shouldn't LOSE MONEY when their little script for internal use becomes slashdotted and the bandwidth bills go up: that'd discourage work. I apologize if this is a strawman - it was the only scenario I could think of that could fit with what you'd said.
Alternatively, perhaps you're getting free software and copyleft mixed up - they aren't the same. Free software only looks at the one distributor and descendants (i.e. one transfer), while copyleft deals with all successive transfers.
The real problem with patents (of any flavor) is that they don't add value, they only add exclusivity.
If one really wants an immediate off rather than a shutdown, one should toggle their power strip's button. The meaning of the power button has changed, like it or not; Microsoft themselves switched during the Windows NT 4.0 days.
The majority of "5 minute" waiting (I haven't needed to wait more than one, I'd say the installation you dreamed up is defective) is for userland processes/services, not operating system processes. And you should complain to Microsoft too: Microsoft Windows 2000 and Microsoft Windows XP both suffer from the same slowness at shutdowns (and may be worse since if a specific process is hung it won't tell you which so you won't immediately know how to troubleshoot; I have ended up waiting more than 5 minutes for Microsoft Windows, finally giving up after 15+). Shutting down the OS itself takes very little time.Sometimes I turn off the ignition and some hasshat motorist flips a finger and says I'll get a ticket if I don't pull over to the shoulder of the freeway. I can't do that because I've already bailed out of the car. I wake up hours later and the fucking cops are still THERE!
When I turn OFF the ignition switch, I want the stupid car to be parked. Be parked now. No driving home, no opening my garage door, no complaints from my kids playing basketball in the driveway, no nothing...just park its fucking self.
So... it's available for Firefox? You did read the story title, yes?
While it obviously isn't as secure as tunneling over ssh, it also doesn't require as much of a recipe, and chances are you already have it available on your server side.
Perfect "copying" doesn't affect the source.
But most likely you're just trolling again.
On second thought, it looks like bug 245392 still exists in 1.0.4 and won't be fixed until 1.1. Ouch.
HTML Tidy, while it won't substitute a non-DTD-compliant page with an error for anyone's pages, at least you can nearly immediately see some issues.
I have no disagreement with the rest of your comment.
In a forum posting, I bitched about how the Ars.Technica folks had put up a combination of hardware that was nearly guaranteed to fail for what they recommended. The reply doesn't give much hope that they've improved.
On the other hand, perhaps you meant "expressions" instead of "ideas" throughout your posting; you certainly didn't elaborate on specifics.
I have nothing against the site. I, too, have run the Lad Vampire on occasion. Haven't tried Spam Research tool or others much yet, though.
Just remove -search from "clean" and you'll get the expected results.
Please stop trolling unless you can actually back up what you're saying with something new.
It depends on the company. Some want to be known for their code, some want it all to be of a proprietary nature. For the latter: Let them fear the GPL. If they can't understand it (which usually means they're unwilling to read it), then they shouldn't touch it, and instead they should be spending their own time/money creating their own code from scratch or using code of licenses they prefer.
A strawman of my own: I don't think we'd want a situation where they used GPL code, their code was forced open, and then it was later found that more code they'd used without authorization got comingled with other GPL-based projects. Not every use of OSS should be encouraged.
Once you have the site's URI, you could contractually hire someone else to track down how to gain access to it and to alter/remove part of it. Or, at worst, persuade the virtual site's owner to delete it. Really, all the virtual site's owner would need to do is verify your address and/or phone number (surely your web-site thing has these!), social engineering notwithstanding.
try "toolzall electrician" (not "electrical")