Indeed it does not. If you add 2 cups of water to 2 cups of ethanol you get almost 4.1 cups of fluid
I thought we went over this a few days ago. 2 cups of water + 2 cups of ethanol = 4 cups of fluid.
On the other hand 2.0 cups of water + 2.0 cups of ethanol = 4.1 cups of fluid.
Honestly, you're in a city full of excellent, and sometimes inexpensive, cuisine.
I don't think I've ever heard of something in Paris being accused of being inexpensive! Especially on the Camps Elysee. The most expensive bottle of coke I've ever had was at a seemingly cheap place there (at a mere $8 for a half liter)
What would you do, if the owner of the restaurant suddenly grabbed your hair and tried to rip it out of your head? Just get up and leave? I doubt it.
"Popular" is overrated. Just because you're popular doesn't mean you matter. It doesn't mean "good." Windows and Apple are popular. So were Hitler and Stalin.
Yes, actually it does. If you are popular you matter. You are right, popular doesn't mean better, or good. But "matter" doesn't either.
I have yet to see 3-D add anything to the movie. Other than to make it crap.
"3D" IS all bad. And yes I've seen made for 3D movies. And it is a horrible experience. If I turn my head a little, everything is out of focus. The film is dimmer. Every once in a while I see ghosted images. It just isn't worth it. Give me true 3D or don't even bother.
I am one example of a person who needs the implied cinematic distance to immerse myself in the story. Because that's what it's about for me -- the story.
Actually it sounds like the story is NOT what it is about for you. If it was about the story, you wouldn't have a problem with live theatre.
And the recording industry made their fortune by providing a product that was used to circumvent paying for artists playing their music live.
It is a bit inconvenient to listen to a live band while driving a car.
BUT the recording industry DID do what they did with the band's permission. And they also provided a product.
Why are you asserting 10 years is too long?
Movies tend to make a majority of their money in the FIRST weekend, so should copyright be two weeks?
You have to pick a certain amount of time. 10 years just doesn't feel like a very long time, especially given the length of time of current copyrights. No author would get paid for the movie rights as all movie companies would just wait 10 years to make a movie. Most "based on book" movies are probably based on books older than 10 years.
For music a LOT of music that is just 10 years is still popular, and probably still making money.
I think copyright should be broken into personal and corporate copyright. Personal copyright is owned by the author. Corporate by a corporation.
Personal copyright should have a maximum 10 year exclusive license limit, after ten years the license should be renegotiated, and perhaps transfered to another publisher.
You do know that in copyright today, there are two types of copyright? Personal, and corporate. And they have different term lengths?
And why would you take something that is fairly simple, and make it MORE complicated?
Copyright isn't broken. Current copyright lengths are too long, and personally I believe unconstitutional.
But the mess you suggested is just a mess. For one thing you'll force personal copyright away from the person after 10 years? Or was that a 20 year max. Why should corporate length be longer than personal?
Just propose 20 years, and be done with it.
the artist who had the Secret Service raid his home at the behest of Apple
I don't understand. The artist had the Secret Service raid his home? So he filmed himself while the Secret Service raided his home? And why did Apple ask this guy to have the Secret Service raid his home?
I realize the summaries are poorly written sometimes, but at least make them make some sense. No matter how I parse this sentence, no matter where I put the missing commas, I still come up with the artist is the one who asked the Secret Service to do the raiding.
The paid 5 millions dollars? And their advice was to sell their company to a sinking ship (either a ship Goldman knew was sinking, or with a tiny amount of work could have figured it out)
And their defense is "We completed the transaction." That is like saying "Yeah we sold your stuff to the con artist. We knew he was a con artist, and he paid in fake cash, here you go. We did our part"
I think sueing for 1 billion isn't enough. And good luck to the Bakers, from the story it seems they deserve to win.
That is NOT the same as file sharing. That is NOT the same as bit torrent and "piracy" and "copyright infringement" (no matter what side you fall down on in those issues). "sharing mix tapes and songs from family and with friends" has generally been considered fair-use and has been done for DECADES. I am fucking shocked at the responses I've seen all over the place -- showing the extreme fucking ignorance of idiots everywhere -- acting as if trading a mix-tape or duplicating an album for your girlfriend or your brother is the same as going to the pirate bay and uploading and seeding the latest #1 billboard album.
It IS the same thing as file sharing. Fair use has NEVER included creating a mix tape and sharing with your girlfriend or brother.
Copyright is just a tool. RMS' key idea (as I interpret it) is that technology has given us the ability to copy information and knowledge and art and records (as in recordings of historical events), and that this copying allows us to share these things with everyone. He believes that the potential benefit of this sharing to humanity is so large that it outweighs anything else.
Outweighs anything else, including the CREATION of the object that is sharing? That is the #1 thing that is harmed by the sharing.
In a world without copyright, there would not be such large incentives to keeping source code hidden, simply because the pay-per-copy model would be difficult to sustain.
In a world without copyright you have an even GREATER inventive to keep source code hidden. As then you would be the only one who can create a copy. No other company will be able to offer good service on your software.
In a world without copyright you'll find fewer companies sharing their source code. I think it will have the exact opposite effect than you believe.
Not to mention in a world without copyright fewer people will actually write software, and fewer people will write novels and make music.
The term "giving away" implies a situation where one party is deprived of something so another person can have it. This is not an accurate representation of Stallman's views,
This is a VERY accurate representation of Stallman's views. Basically RMS believes its ok to take something someone else worked hard on, without compensating that person, in any way shape or form. I guess he believes that creators will eat off of the "sharing goodness" that will happen as people share.
Taking something and sharing it, when you don't have permission is immoral and wrong. You harm the possibility of the creator creating more of the object that you are sharing.
But I guess RMS believes people create stuff out of the goodness of their heart, or that creations grow on trees.
The so called 'copyright clause' of the US constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) doesn't say that at all - it states "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". It mentions nothing making things profitable.
What do you think "to promote" means? It means to allow the creator to make money so they can create more.
What do you think it means?
That everything will of course be in the cloud-social media collective. They have determined you don't want or need a functioning email client.
What does being in the cloud have to do with having a functioning email client? I have a functioning email client, and yet I can still access my email from a web browser if I wanted (I could also poke my eyes out too)
Outlook Express was a superior email client, and even had some features that Outlook didn't have. Windows Live Mail is ok (and still better than Outlook IMHO)
Neither of those cannibalized Outlook sales...
" it could actually make a difference. " No it can't. Even if everyone in the security line were stripped naked and had cavity checks, it would STILL be possible to get whatever you want into an airport. The security line isn't the only way into an airport.
Other than the current level of terror some people seem to have about flying, an airplane isn't the best target for a terrorist. And yet we do almost everything to protect them and nothing to protect what would be the real targets. Like EVERYTHING else.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed it does not. If you add 2 cups of water to 2 cups of ethanol you get almost 4.1 cups of fluid
I thought we went over this a few days ago. 2 cups of water + 2 cups of ethanol = 4 cups of fluid.
On the other hand 2.0 cups of water + 2.0 cups of ethanol = 4.1 cups of fluid.
LONG list of things to do to steal car...
I am pretty sure there are much easier ways to steal a car... Like say hot wiring it and driving it away.
Honestly, you're in a city full of excellent, and sometimes inexpensive, cuisine.
I don't think I've ever heard of something in Paris being accused of being inexpensive! Especially on the Camps Elysee. The most expensive bottle of coke I've ever had was at a seemingly cheap place there (at a mere $8 for a half liter)
What would you do, if the owner of the restaurant suddenly grabbed your hair and tried to rip it out of your head? Just get up and leave? I doubt it.
The claim is it isn't built to record. But it does have a short buffer. Since it stopped recording, the buffer was not overwritten.
Why didnt he called the police and identified those persons?
He claims he did contact the police, and they were not helpful.
"Popular" is overrated. Just because you're popular doesn't mean you matter. It doesn't mean "good." Windows and Apple are popular. So were Hitler and Stalin.
Yes, actually it does. If you are popular you matter. You are right, popular doesn't mean better, or good. But "matter" doesn't either.
Without that stereoscopic camera setup at the time of shooting, it just doesn't work.
WITH the stereoscopic camera setup at the time of shoot, it just doesn't work either.
I have yet to see 3-D add anything to the movie. Other than to make it crap.
"3D" IS all bad. And yes I've seen made for 3D movies. And it is a horrible experience. If I turn my head a little, everything is out of focus. The film is dimmer. Every once in a while I see ghosted images. It just isn't worth it. Give me true 3D or don't even bother.
I am one example of a person who needs the implied cinematic distance to immerse myself in the story. Because that's what it's about for me -- the story.
Actually it sounds like the story is NOT what it is about for you. If it was about the story, you wouldn't have a problem with live theatre.
And the recording industry made their fortune by providing a product that was used to circumvent paying for artists playing their music live.
It is a bit inconvenient to listen to a live band while driving a car.
BUT the recording industry DID do what they did with the band's permission. And they also provided a product.
10 years is probably too short
Why? Justify that assertion.
Why are you asserting 10 years is too long?
Movies tend to make a majority of their money in the FIRST weekend, so should copyright be two weeks?
You have to pick a certain amount of time. 10 years just doesn't feel like a very long time, especially given the length of time of current copyrights. No author would get paid for the movie rights as all movie companies would just wait 10 years to make a movie. Most "based on book" movies are probably based on books older than 10 years.
For music a LOT of music that is just 10 years is still popular, and probably still making money.
I think copyright should be broken into personal and corporate copyright. Personal copyright is owned by the author. Corporate by a corporation.
Personal copyright should have a maximum 10 year exclusive license limit, after ten years the license should be renegotiated, and perhaps transfered to another publisher.
You do know that in copyright today, there are two types of copyright? Personal, and corporate. And they have different term lengths?
And why would you take something that is fairly simple, and make it MORE complicated?
Copyright isn't broken. Current copyright lengths are too long, and personally I believe unconstitutional.
But the mess you suggested is just a mess. For one thing you'll force personal copyright away from the person after 10 years? Or was that a 20 year max. Why should corporate length be longer than personal?
Just propose 20 years, and be done with it.
the artist who had the Secret Service raid his home at the behest of Apple
I don't understand. The artist had the Secret Service raid his home? So he filmed himself while the Secret Service raided his home? And why did Apple ask this guy to have the Secret Service raid his home?
I realize the summaries are poorly written sometimes, but at least make them make some sense. No matter how I parse this sentence, no matter where I put the missing commas, I still come up with the artist is the one who asked the Secret Service to do the raiding.
The paid 5 millions dollars? And their advice was to sell their company to a sinking ship (either a ship Goldman knew was sinking, or with a tiny amount of work could have figured it out)
And their defense is "We completed the transaction." That is like saying "Yeah we sold your stuff to the con artist. We knew he was a con artist, and he paid in fake cash, here you go. We did our part"
I think sueing for 1 billion isn't enough. And good luck to the Bakers, from the story it seems they deserve to win.
That is NOT the same as file sharing. That is NOT the same as bit torrent and "piracy" and "copyright infringement" (no matter what side you fall down on in those issues). "sharing mix tapes and songs from family and with friends" has generally been considered fair-use and has been done for DECADES. I am fucking shocked at the responses I've seen all over the place -- showing the extreme fucking ignorance of idiots everywhere -- acting as if trading a mix-tape or duplicating an album for your girlfriend or your brother is the same as going to the pirate bay and uploading and seeding the latest #1 billboard album.
It IS the same thing as file sharing. Fair use has NEVER included creating a mix tape and sharing with your girlfriend or brother.
Copyright is just a tool. RMS' key idea (as I interpret it) is that technology has given us the ability to copy information and knowledge and art and records (as in recordings of historical events), and that this copying allows us to share these things with everyone. He believes that the potential benefit of this sharing to humanity is so large that it outweighs anything else.
Outweighs anything else, including the CREATION of the object that is sharing? That is the #1 thing that is harmed by the sharing.
All he does is rant about the one thing that allows people to create things.
In a world without copyright, there would not be such large incentives to keeping source code hidden, simply because the pay-per-copy model would be difficult to sustain.
In a world without copyright you have an even GREATER inventive to keep source code hidden. As then you would be the only one who can create a copy. No other company will be able to offer good service on your software.
In a world without copyright you'll find fewer companies sharing their source code. I think it will have the exact opposite effect than you believe.
Not to mention in a world without copyright fewer people will actually write software, and fewer people will write novels and make music.
The term "giving away" implies a situation where one party is deprived of something so another person can have it. This is not an accurate representation of Stallman's views,
This is a VERY accurate representation of Stallman's views. Basically RMS believes its ok to take something someone else worked hard on, without compensating that person, in any way shape or form. I guess he believes that creators will eat off of the "sharing goodness" that will happen as people share.
Taking something and sharing it, when you don't have permission is immoral and wrong. You harm the possibility of the creator creating more of the object that you are sharing.
But I guess RMS believes people create stuff out of the goodness of their heart, or that creations grow on trees.
The so called 'copyright clause' of the US constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) doesn't say that at all - it states "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". It mentions nothing making things profitable.
What do you think "to promote" means? It means to allow the creator to make money so they can create more.
What do you think it means?
That everything will of course be in the cloud-social media collective. They have determined you don't want or need a functioning email client.
What does being in the cloud have to do with having a functioning email client? I have a functioning email client, and yet I can still access my email from a web browser if I wanted (I could also poke my eyes out too)
No, Outlook Express doesn't count...
Why not? it is better than those other two you mentioned.
Outlook Express was a superior email client, and even had some features that Outlook didn't have. Windows Live Mail is ok (and still better than Outlook IMHO)
Neither of those cannibalized Outlook sales...
And since they are all loaded with ads, why do people even have to pay for them like they are premium channels
Probably for the same reason you pay for newspapers and magazines that are all loaded with ads.
" it could actually make a difference. " No it can't. Even if everyone in the security line were stripped naked and had cavity checks, it would STILL be possible to get whatever you want into an airport. The security line isn't the only way into an airport.
Other than the current level of terror some people seem to have about flying, an airplane isn't the best target for a terrorist. And yet we do almost everything to protect them and nothing to protect what would be the real targets. Like EVERYTHING else.