"I think the way to solve both problems (creators keeping copyright and it not being abused for too long) is to make it last 50 years OR until the death of the creator of the work. "
I'll mostly agree. 50 years is fine. What about the spouse or other family of someone who has created a copyrighted work? I certainly would like my wife to be able to benefit from my works if I die. If I had kids I would certainly like my work to be inheritable to a certain extent...so they could maybe go to college or start a business. What about a charitable trust I set up for proceeds of my works? Just because I die shouldn't mean my works immediately go to public domain.
That's a serious issue. If all ISP's are participating then you can't choose one who is not participating because of the possibility of false negatives. They could all be blocking a site that is legitimately providing "non-bad" content. Like I said...What about those sites that may be providing anatomy content? Hell, a picture of your kids in the tub become problamatical.
Respectfully, I agree with you except for one point. Making money illegally is where he went wrong of course. However, making that much money certainly excludes him from being an idiot.
I think there is a big distinction. Taking legal action to disable someone's site is definitely different than just blocking access. A legal process must be navigated to remove a site versus blocking access because some entity believes their content MAY be illegal. Legal ruling versus opinion. Of course, I can block anything I want on PC's I control as long as I take responsibility. Getting a site taken down is a horse of a different color...
Respectfully, where does it say that you can't have "common carriers (sic) license and restrict content? TV, radio, and ISP's all restrict content to a certain extent.
WTF? "It's unlikely to be abused, especially if there is some transparency." The Canadian government doesn't ever use its laws to abuse and/or restrict its citizens? I'll take that with grain of salt.
"It's very American to automatically respond to this kind of thing as though it was a threat." Great, let's bash the Americans because they are obviously the most paranoid nation on the planet?
Here's a suggestion for you...go drink a Molsen or twelve and fuck a moose.
Here's the obvious problem first. What about sites that are blacklisted where it may not be justified? As an example how about a site that describes and depicts physical differences in human anatomy for educational purposes. I've seen pictures in medical texts that could be considered child pornography just because they showed full frontal nudity of subjects at different ages to compare physical development as humans age.
The other issue I see is that an ISP can block whatever they want. It is their choice as business. If the customer is not happy with their policies or practices then they can choose not to be a customer any longer.
Here in the US the government does censor at times despite the first amendment to the Constitution. But, I think the Supreme Court has historically done a decent job of ruling in favor of free speech.
Are they really trying to make a profit? Or, are they just trying to extend the reach of their products? At first glance they might seem to be the same thing but you can't rule out an altruistic side considering the massive amount of money Bill is dedicating to philanthropic causes. It's not like this tribe probably has a lot of money in the first place and secondly Microsoft will probably be donating software to them instead of asking them to pay for it.
That said, they probably should have at least asked permission first.
Respectfully, all public held businesses have a requirement to protect their business or they are not meeting their responsibilities to their shareholders.
That said, they obviously (to most of us) need to modify their business practices and change their business model to satisfy both their customers and their shareholders. If some of these executives got their heads out of their asses they might see they have fallen way behind the times. If they don't...things will continue the way they are for a while down the road. Of course having politicians in their pocket to legislate in their favor tends to help maintain the status quo.
Respectfully, you may be looking at things a little too shaded by your experience. I have worked for only three different companies in the last 20 years so I may also be in the same position but my experience is different. I just don't see broad disdain for systems other than Windows.
I have worked for a very large, high volume (1500+ stores) retail chain, an international, premier law firm, and one of the largest US based banks. All three of them used non-Windows platforms for very significant parts of their IT infrastructure. From all three here is the list of the ones I can think of quickly: AIX, Solaris, AS400, Xenix, HP Unix, Linux, Novell, Windows of course, and I'm sure I'm missing some. All three used Windows in some capacity be it workstation, server, or both, but critical chunks of their infrastructure were non-Windows. The law firm had it's entire financial and billing system on HP Unix but otherwise employed Windows workstations and mostly Windows servers for all other functions. The retail chain (back in the day at this point) had a couple of Novell servers and some Windows workstations but most folks used dumb terminals to a mainframe. Their point of sale terminals in the stores were Xenix and then migrated to a Linux. The bank's systems spanned the spectrum with Windows only being a majority on the workstation end.
I think that most larger organizations have a distinct need to be more than just a Windows shop. Windows can't do it all...and there are a lot of people out there who know that.
What are you fucking talking about! He's rational and calm as can be for someone who's life is about to be threatened by having his privacy and rights raped right off a fucking cliff. It's the end of civilization! The sky is falling, the sky is falling the sky is...oh wait...
Deep breath...valium...exhale...
Yeah, vote with your wallet but don't act like it's the end of the world.:)
I thought humans were mammals. Maybe you meant from one species to another?
Re:Not exactly on topic but close
on
Computer Voodoo?
·
· Score: 1
All outlets in the room were on the same circuit. That's why it doesn't make sense to me with my limited knowledge of electricity.
Not exactly on topic but close
on
Computer Voodoo?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I had a Lexmark all in one printer, scanner, blah, blah, blah that wouldn't work after we moved. The PC just didn't recognize that it was attached. The copy function worked fine but it didn't depend on the PC for that function. Uninstall and reinstall, troubleshoot USB cable, remove USB hub, all of the normal troubleshooting steps. Finally, buried in Lexmark's website, was the suggestion to have the PC power and printer power be supplied from different outlets. Not different circuits but different outlets. Craziest frickin' thing I've ever heard and even crazier was that it worked! If anyone has a good explanation for why that would work, I would love to know.
As for being on topic...I can guarantee that shit will break everytime I try to take a long weekend or vaction. The corollary is that everytime I'm on site for a "just in case", I end up not being needed.
You're still wrong. If you have a GOOD (expensive) lawyer you will get a favorable decision. There is a great difference...and the right attorney in the right venue can convince a judge or jury in your favor. I have personal experience in this. My stepson was about to go away for a LONG time as an adult at just under 16 years old. $50,000 later he was adjudicated as a juvenile instead of an adult and actually got an appropriate ruling that gave him an opportunity to learn from his actions instead of paying an extreme price...like 20 years in an adult, pound you in the ass, prison.
You can say to the cops "I will not physically resist you, but I do not consent to any search of my home, vehicle, or person." all you want but that doesn't matter for shit in the real world unless there is a media outlet recording everything. Because, in the real world the cops' word carries greater weight and what ever the fuck you say doesn't matter. Much, much, better to play their game and complain afterwards with a really good attorney backing you up. Yeah, it'll cost you some money but you still get to stand up for your rights and you get to do so without getting your ass beat into the fucking hospital. And...this is the biggest concept of my argument...as long as you haven't anything to worry about anyway, you'll still end up okay. If you're doing something illegal then you're out of luck anyway.
Unfortunately, this is the way our legal system works. I say unfortunately because there are a lot of bad mutha' fuckers out there who play the system to get out of the shit they do. Unfortunately, the system is as much a tool for the guilty as the innocent.
I really wish it was different but it isn't. If you can afford the really good lawyers, you'll probably get off. Examples? How about OJ, Michael Jackson, or a dozen other obviously (in my opinion) guilty parties? It isn't about your rights as much as how you play the game and the law is best played with lawyers if you want to win. Just ask the ACLU or the tobacco companies or the drug companies to name a few.
Sorry if I sound cynical but that's the way things are in the real world. I'll stand up for my rights gladly but only with a lawyer at my side.
Wrong! There is no invitation...just a grudging submission. Allowing is a lot different than an invitation. Especially if I have nothing to worry about. I can pursue a remedy based on the fact the REQUEST to search was UNWARRANTED. In the meantime I haven't had my person violated with a face pushed into the hood of a car or my ass beat with a flashlight. I still get to go with "filing a complaint about the unnecessary, and rights infringing implications of not allowing the search" as I said. That's a whole lot better than trying to convince a judge or magistrate that I wasn't trying to "resist arrest" or "obstruct an investigation" which is just the kind of shit that bad cops pull after they beat your ass and take you in without any real justification but just because you decided to play ACLU attorney.
I agree with your reasoning but as with a lot of English, that ain't the way it works in regular usage. The common accepted form is, for some unknown reason, to use the apostrophe at the end of the number when describing a decade period. A PhD on a automotive or aviation mailing list means nothing when it comes to using English. The commonly accepted convention is "60's" so even if it drives you crazy, that is our crazy language.
It makes plenty of sense. That's the way it's been done for years and it's still current now. From wikipedia:
"Some writers omit this apostrophe, and would use it only for the possessive: for example, In 1970's mid-term elections,... (the mid-term elections of the year 1970). In The New York Times, the pluralizing apostrophe is retained, but the truncating apostrophe when the century numerals are omitted is not used, so that the aforementioned decade is described in the NYT as the 70's. The television sitcom That '70s Show uses the apostrophe for the omission of the century numerals and forms the plural with a simple s. It is assumed that, in the NYT, something belonging to the decade of the 1970s might be described as the 1970's' or the 70's'."
Yeah? Well I live in US and the convention I see used in major media outlets uses an apostrophe. It's also what I was taught in school. The UK can do what they want including spelling "colour" with a "u" and "centre" with the "r" and "e" reversed. What about "proprietary"?
He claims personal knowledge of a secure facility and can't post in proper English. If he's actually old enough to have personal experience in such a facility then I would expect him to be old enough to not only post in proper English, but be able to give a little more detail.
My wife used to work for the Department of Navy and she says those old systems were upgraded long ago. 10kW and from the late 60's? The Navy facility in Calvert County, Maryland shut down all of their same era equipment years ago. It's nothing more than a nature preserve at this point. I call bullshit!
Try modding down the parent for bullshit next time.
I don't understand where there is a problem anyway. I just asked my mother-in-law who worked at NSA in Fort Meade until her retirement...a LONG time. She said their computers NEVER went down. Something they are doing is obviously working.
Until I hear otherwise, I'll assume they have acres and acres of car batteries supplying them during BG&E problems. You can count on the government going low tech if it solves a potential problem.
It's not a naive view. I worked for a world class law firm for 8 years and while their clients were more white collar crime than blue collar, you never, ever, admit to something you didn't do in order to get out of jail or end their "grind". I am a patriot and a true American. I will not enable one of the negative sides of our legal system by copping a plea to something I didn't do. I'll use your own words, "But be assertive about maintaining your rights. They are precious and one of the things many people have died to protect. Don't be so passive in simply giving them up." I will maintain my rights. If the system fails me, so be it. At least I stood up for my rights, ideals and principles.
As for consent to search... I think I can better serve our rights by allowing a search and then, after being let go because they didn't find anything, filing a complaint about the unecessary, and rights infringing implications of not allowing the search. I've got balls but 2:00 am by myself, with just some unknown (good or evil?) cop is not my best choice to show them. I'd rather show them downtown in the police station with a lawyer present while I file an official complaint. If the cop didn't have any just cause to ask for the search you can bet his supervisors won't be pleased about the compaint. The added benefit is that every time a bad cop gets a complaint, whether it is found to be with merit or not, it still goes in his record and sooner or later it will be his downfall. Defense attorney: "Mr. Ossifer, how come you have 30 citizen complaints in your file?" Prosecutor: "Only 2 of those complaints were found to have merit". Jury: "Bad cop with other bad cops' testimony saving his ass". Defendent found innocent.".
You do have to stand up for your rights but put some thought into when is the right time. Just you and a cop by the side of the road in the middle of the night is not the right place to play lawyer. Much better to be cooperative and not get the crap beat out of you, or drugs put in your vehicle, or even get shot. There ARE some bad cops out there. I like to hope they are the minority. The best way to fight them is not on their turf in the middle of the night.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think the way to solve both problems (creators keeping copyright and it not being abused for too long) is to make it last 50 years OR until the death of the creator of the work. "
I'll mostly agree. 50 years is fine. What about the spouse or other family of someone who has created a copyrighted work? I certainly would like my wife to be able to benefit from my works if I die. If I had kids I would certainly like my work to be inheritable to a certain extent...so they could maybe go to college or start a business. What about a charitable trust I set up for proceeds of my works? Just because I die shouldn't mean my works immediately go to public domain.
That's a serious issue. If all ISP's are participating then you can't choose one who is not participating because of the possibility of false negatives. They could all be blocking a site that is legitimately providing "non-bad" content. Like I said...What about those sites that may be providing anatomy content? Hell, a picture of your kids in the tub become problamatical.
Respectfully, I agree with you except for one point. Making money illegally is where he went wrong of course. However, making that much money certainly excludes him from being an idiot.
I think there is a big distinction. Taking legal action to disable someone's site is definitely different than just blocking access. A legal process must be navigated to remove a site versus blocking access because some entity believes their content MAY be illegal. Legal ruling versus opinion. Of course, I can block anything I want on PC's I control as long as I take responsibility. Getting a site taken down is a horse of a different color...
I'm positing a POSSIBILITY of the erroneous restriction of information.
Respectfully, where does it say that you can't have "common carriers (sic) license and restrict content? TV, radio, and ISP's all restrict content to a certain extent.
WTF? "It's unlikely to be abused, especially if there is some transparency." The Canadian government doesn't ever use its laws to abuse and/or restrict its citizens? I'll take that with grain of salt.
"It's very American to automatically respond to this kind of thing as though it was a threat." Great, let's bash the Americans because they are obviously the most paranoid nation on the planet?
Here's a suggestion for you...go drink a Molsen or twelve and fuck a moose.
Here's the obvious problem first. What about sites that are blacklisted where it may not be justified? As an example how about a site that describes and depicts physical differences in human anatomy for educational purposes. I've seen pictures in medical texts that could be considered child pornography just because they showed full frontal nudity of subjects at different ages to compare physical development as humans age.
The other issue I see is that an ISP can block whatever they want. It is their choice as business. If the customer is not happy with their policies or practices then they can choose not to be a customer any longer.
Here in the US the government does censor at times despite the first amendment to the Constitution. But, I think the Supreme Court has historically done a decent job of ruling in favor of free speech.
Are they really trying to make a profit? Or, are they just trying to extend the reach of their products? At first glance they might seem to be the same thing but you can't rule out an altruistic side considering the massive amount of money Bill is dedicating to philanthropic causes. It's not like this tribe probably has a lot of money in the first place and secondly Microsoft will probably be donating software to them instead of asking them to pay for it.
That said, they probably should have at least asked permission first.
Respectfully, all public held businesses have a requirement to protect their business or they are not meeting their responsibilities to their shareholders.
That said, they obviously (to most of us) need to modify their business practices and change their business model to satisfy both their customers and their shareholders. If some of these executives got their heads out of their asses they might see they have fallen way behind the times. If they don't...things will continue the way they are for a while down the road. Of course having politicians in their pocket to legislate in their favor tends to help maintain the status quo.
Respectfully, you may be looking at things a little too shaded by your experience. I have worked for only three different companies in the last 20 years so I may also be in the same position but my experience is different. I just don't see broad disdain for systems other than Windows.
I have worked for a very large, high volume (1500+ stores) retail chain, an international, premier law firm, and one of the largest US based banks. All three of them used non-Windows platforms for very significant parts of their IT infrastructure. From all three here is the list of the ones I can think of quickly: AIX, Solaris, AS400, Xenix, HP Unix, Linux, Novell, Windows of course, and I'm sure I'm missing some. All three used Windows in some capacity be it workstation, server, or both, but critical chunks of their infrastructure were non-Windows. The law firm had it's entire financial and billing system on HP Unix but otherwise employed Windows workstations and mostly Windows servers for all other functions. The retail chain (back in the day at this point) had a couple of Novell servers and some Windows workstations but most folks used dumb terminals to a mainframe. Their point of sale terminals in the stores were Xenix and then migrated to a Linux. The bank's systems spanned the spectrum with Windows only being a majority on the workstation end.
I think that most larger organizations have a distinct need to be more than just a Windows shop. Windows can't do it all...and there are a lot of people out there who know that.
What are you fucking talking about! He's rational and calm as can be for someone who's life is about to be threatened by having his privacy and rights raped right off a fucking cliff. It's the end of civilization! The sky is falling, the sky is falling the sky is...oh wait...
:)
Deep breath...valium...exhale...
Yeah, vote with your wallet but don't act like it's the end of the world.
I think killing non-sentient human animals for food would do the world a lot of good.
I thought humans were mammals. Maybe you meant from one species to another?
All outlets in the room were on the same circuit. That's why it doesn't make sense to me with my limited knowledge of electricity.
I had a Lexmark all in one printer, scanner, blah, blah, blah that wouldn't work after we moved. The PC just didn't recognize that it was attached. The copy function worked fine but it didn't depend on the PC for that function. Uninstall and reinstall, troubleshoot USB cable, remove USB hub, all of the normal troubleshooting steps. Finally, buried in Lexmark's website, was the suggestion to have the PC power and printer power be supplied from different outlets. Not different circuits but different outlets. Craziest frickin' thing I've ever heard and even crazier was that it worked! If anyone has a good explanation for why that would work, I would love to know.
As for being on topic...I can guarantee that shit will break everytime I try to take a long weekend or vaction. The corollary is that everytime I'm on site for a "just in case", I end up not being needed.
You're still wrong. If you have a GOOD (expensive) lawyer you will get a favorable decision. There is a great difference...and the right attorney in the right venue can convince a judge or jury in your favor. I have personal experience in this. My stepson was about to go away for a LONG time as an adult at just under 16 years old. $50,000 later he was adjudicated as a juvenile instead of an adult and actually got an appropriate ruling that gave him an opportunity to learn from his actions instead of paying an extreme price...like 20 years in an adult, pound you in the ass, prison.
You can say to the cops "I will not physically resist you, but I do not consent to any search of my home, vehicle, or person." all you want but that doesn't matter for shit in the real world unless there is a media outlet recording everything. Because, in the real world the cops' word carries greater weight and what ever the fuck you say doesn't matter. Much, much, better to play their game and complain afterwards with a really good attorney backing you up. Yeah, it'll cost you some money but you still get to stand up for your rights and you get to do so without getting your ass beat into the fucking hospital. And...this is the biggest concept of my argument...as long as you haven't anything to worry about anyway, you'll still end up okay. If you're doing something illegal then you're out of luck anyway.
Unfortunately, this is the way our legal system works. I say unfortunately because there are a lot of bad mutha' fuckers out there who play the system to get out of the shit they do. Unfortunately, the system is as much a tool for the guilty as the innocent.
I really wish it was different but it isn't. If you can afford the really good lawyers, you'll probably get off. Examples? How about OJ, Michael Jackson, or a dozen other obviously (in my opinion) guilty parties? It isn't about your rights as much as how you play the game and the law is best played with lawyers if you want to win. Just ask the ACLU or the tobacco companies or the drug companies to name a few.
Sorry if I sound cynical but that's the way things are in the real world. I'll stand up for my rights gladly but only with a lawyer at my side.
Wrong! There is no invitation...just a grudging submission. Allowing is a lot different than an invitation. Especially if I have nothing to worry about. I can pursue a remedy based on the fact the REQUEST to search was UNWARRANTED. In the meantime I haven't had my person violated with a face pushed into the hood of a car or my ass beat with a flashlight. I still get to go with "filing a complaint about the unnecessary, and rights infringing implications of not allowing the search" as I said. That's a whole lot better than trying to convince a judge or magistrate that I wasn't trying to "resist arrest" or "obstruct an investigation" which is just the kind of shit that bad cops pull after they beat your ass and take you in without any real justification but just because you decided to play ACLU attorney.
I agree with your reasoning but as with a lot of English, that ain't the way it works in regular usage. The common accepted form is, for some unknown reason, to use the apostrophe at the end of the number when describing a decade period. A PhD on a automotive or aviation mailing list means nothing when it comes to using English. The commonly accepted convention is "60's" so even if it drives you crazy, that is our crazy language.
It makes plenty of sense. That's the way it's been done for years and it's still current now. From wikipedia:
... (the mid-term elections of the year 1970). In The New York Times, the pluralizing apostrophe is retained, but the truncating apostrophe when the century numerals are omitted is not used, so that the aforementioned decade is described in the NYT as the 70's. The television sitcom That '70s Show uses the apostrophe for the omission of the century numerals and forms the plural with a simple s. It is assumed that, in the NYT, something belonging to the decade of the 1970s might be described as the 1970's' or the 70's'."
"Some writers omit this apostrophe, and would use it only for the possessive: for example, In 1970's mid-term elections,
Yeah? Well I live in US and the convention I see used in major media outlets uses an apostrophe. It's also what I was taught in school. The UK can do what they want including spelling "colour" with a "u" and "centre" with the "r" and "e" reversed. What about "proprietary"?
Try again moderator...
He claims personal knowledge of a secure facility and can't post in proper English. If he's actually old enough to have personal experience in such a facility then I would expect him to be old enough to not only post in proper English, but be able to give a little more detail.
My wife used to work for the Department of Navy and she says those old systems were upgraded long ago. 10kW and from the late 60's? The Navy facility in Calvert County, Maryland shut down all of their same era equipment years ago. It's nothing more than a nature preserve at this point. I call bullshit!
Try modding down the parent for bullshit next time.
I don't understand where there is a problem anyway. I just asked my mother-in-law who worked at NSA in Fort Meade until her retirement...a LONG time. She said their computers NEVER went down. Something they are doing is obviously working. Until I hear otherwise, I'll assume they have acres and acres of car batteries supplying them during BG&E problems. You can count on the government going low tech if it solves a potential problem.
And we'll believe your post because your spelling errors cause us to think you must be "leet". 60s = 60's and propritary = proprietary.
It's not a naive view. I worked for a world class law firm for 8 years and while their clients were more white collar crime than blue collar, you never, ever, admit to something you didn't do in order to get out of jail or end their "grind". I am a patriot and a true American. I will not enable one of the negative sides of our legal system by copping a plea to something I didn't do. I'll use your own words, "But be assertive about maintaining your rights. They are precious and one of the things many people have died to protect. Don't be so passive in simply giving them up." I will maintain my rights. If the system fails me, so be it. At least I stood up for my rights, ideals and principles. As for consent to search... I think I can better serve our rights by allowing a search and then, after being let go because they didn't find anything, filing a complaint about the unecessary, and rights infringing implications of not allowing the search. I've got balls but 2:00 am by myself, with just some unknown (good or evil?) cop is not my best choice to show them. I'd rather show them downtown in the police station with a lawyer present while I file an official complaint. If the cop didn't have any just cause to ask for the search you can bet his supervisors won't be pleased about the compaint. The added benefit is that every time a bad cop gets a complaint, whether it is found to be with merit or not, it still goes in his record and sooner or later it will be his downfall. Defense attorney: "Mr. Ossifer, how come you have 30 citizen complaints in your file?" Prosecutor: "Only 2 of those complaints were found to have merit". Jury: "Bad cop with other bad cops' testimony saving his ass". Defendent found innocent.". You do have to stand up for your rights but put some thought into when is the right time. Just you and a cop by the side of the road in the middle of the night is not the right place to play lawyer. Much better to be cooperative and not get the crap beat out of you, or drugs put in your vehicle, or even get shot. There ARE some bad cops out there. I like to hope they are the minority. The best way to fight them is not on their turf in the middle of the night.