"Presumably, having perfected this temporal technique, the industry now plans to shift time back to 1992 and freeze it there. See you at the record store!"
I heard about those - oh yeah, they existed about the same time as book stores...
Funny bon mots aside, I LOVE second-hand book stores. Of course, with some of these dodo's in "big media" trying to block reselling books, videos, and such, the used book store may also join their siblings, the brick and mortar book and record stores... :-( sigh.
Well put. The US government has shown its lack of respect for Public Domain, by placing PD works back into Copyright, long after the Copyright had expired. And we think they should be equally respectful of PD software? Right! That, and $5 will get you a nice latte at Starbucks these days! And to think, I still remember the 10c cuppa joe... :-)
As stated, keeping FOSS under copyright keeps it protected from pinheads that will take advantage of it and then place their versions behind paywalls - witness the BusyBox kerfuffle a couple of years ago dealing with router and other set-top vendors who used BB's open source software without providing access to changes back to the community, as required by the GPL licenses that they had agreed to by using the software!
So, PD is great, but there definitely is a place for GPL'd and CC'd licenses - you want to use it, NP. You want to charge for it (commercial use), pay us to support it! You want to change it? NP. Just provide proper attribution, and release the changes under the same caveats that we provided with the original source! PD doesn't allow for that, and yet that is what will keep the open source community health and vibrant - just my opinion... :-)
Mike, don't be so nit-picky! :-) Amanda gave a phenomenal presentation of exactly what TD stands for! I'd give her a 9.9 if this were Olympic skating!
At least CES did the right thing and fired CNET/CBS and decided to award the best-in-show prize to Dish's DVR after all. Hopefully, MWC will get a clue from that for the future!
Copyrights + Patents = Full Employment Act for Attorneys...
A good reason why most corporate execs should be summarily fired with cause today - they are truly clueless about how to run a company in the 21st century! Everyone has an "Oh sh!t" moment occasionally - so just sign off on it and move on!
In a few years, a goodly percentage of FB's users are going to be centenarians, given the increase in longevity that modern medicine (costs be darned) is allowing us! Sounds very near-sighted to me, and being a myopic 65yo with otherwise good/great health, that is something I can relate to! :-)
If they don't provide a minimum amount of free "pages", then I could care less about this model! Let me read the first couple of chapters. If the book hasn't captured me by then, I am not interested! I refuse to pay good $$ for something that isn't of interest to me! I can go to B&N and read the hard-copy for awhile (at no cost other than to drive to the store) to see if I want to buy it. I INSIST on the same ability for e-books as well... Listen up publishers. You are going to lose a good customer if you don't deal with this properly! Between me and my wife, we own a medium-sized library of hard-copy books, and are going digital in a serious fashion - I own at least 200 e-books (non-drm-encumbered) that I have purchased with cold, hard credit-card cash!
""But surely if we can send a man to the moon, we must be able to tackle porn on the internet."
That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen a politician say, which has to be a new record. For many reasons, but I'll focus on the two most obvious:
First, define "porn". You can't. It's a totally subjective term. Sure, hardcore penetrative sex might be unquestionably porn, but what about mere nudity? If so, how much nudity? Does the definition of such change depending on whether the subject is young or old, male or female? Going to the moon is easy by comparison - it's a clearly defined goal, the only hard part is working out how. With blocking porn, you can't even tie down an objective since every Icelandic citizen will have a different idea of what "porn" is.
Secondly, the issue is not blocking porn, it's how to do it accurately without destroying perfectly legitimate material. Every attempt to implement any such block *always* stops non-pornographic material and *always* leaves some porn unblocked. On top of that, even if you somehow managed to accurately block every time, that one horny teenager is going to find a way to route around said blocks and then it's completely ineffective. Yes, that includes offline methods, which you're not going to be able to block - I shudder to think of some of the unintended consequences.
Oh, and from the original (urgh) Daily Mail article that the Mashable link is referring to:
"This move is not anti-sex. It is anti-violence because young children are seeing porn and acting it out"
Sounds like you have a *parenting* problem... Just another "for the children!" excuse for implementing censorship on adults.
"
So, I have to ask, just how long have kids been playing "Doctor", or "Mommy and Daddy At Night"? A LONG time before the Internet I think... :rolleyes:
"and how did that work out for you ???"
Well, he got fired after Big Content complained to the members of the committee he worked for... It's clear enough to me who Congress works for, and it isn't "The People". :-(
Where can we donate to his legal fund? I'd be happy to cough up $50USD or so to help... :-)
I'd rather believe my lawyer than my banker... :-)
Is there a recorded version of the discussion available? All I get right now is a message that "The live broadcast is completed."... :-(
If you (Hyndman) live in Illinois, give me a call! :-) Phone (blocked for the obvious reasons)...
P.S. My own attorney also is the banjo player in my bluegrass band, so I don't think I'll let him go just yet... he is also a good friend and colleague, and we do a lot of quid-pro-quo! :-)
What's next? That these asshats will just lie about the results of their testing, or skew the results? GSK and others have no real interest in truth, just in selling us more crud to make them more $$. Am I cynical? Nah! Just observant of their past/present/continued behavior... :-(
You send "normal" stuff, but that is just a digital envelope. Inside the envelope is real data, that has been encrypted as well, so even if someone detects that there is a payload hidden there, it will still be difficult or impossible to decode without the appropriate keys. Done correctly, steganography is very difficult to detect. You could send a home video that has some "noise" in it... :-)
Really smart Chinese have to be extremely clever to get messages regarding personal freedoms out into the wild without getting in serious trouble with the authorities back home, who tend to be very literal. Personally, I think this was such a message, or at least I'd like it to be... :-)
Just disable Google search and ads for Italy or Italian companies, and see how long it takes for these pinheads to be disabused of their ignorance...
Every invalid DMCA take-down issued should cost the issuer a cool $1M which gets split between the FSF and EFF... :-)
Duh?
What could POSSIBLY go wrong? If 6 strikes is voluntary for the ISP, then I will find one that doesn't subscribe to it!