yes I tried using Ubuntu,, but it does not fit side by side with XP in my 512.
And I need XP for Creative Soundblaster and my music production .wav editing.
Eventually , I plan to have machines with both XP (offline) and Ubuntu ( online) .
Am I a geek yet ?
( p.s. My Dad is now -- my he live long and be well --a retired "data system analyst" , who learned computer stuff in the early 1950s while in the air force. ( I still remember playing with the computers & "punch-cards" when he brought me to work sometimes.)
Dad very happily retired in 1987 @ the age of 55. After years of NEVER touching a computer , till 2002 , he then at my urging bought a computer ,, a 128 MB for XP.
After a week , he trashed it , and it is now mine to play with.
Now Dad has a crazy space laptop with 3G.
He wants 4G, but not sure if it worth the $$.
Dad was a geek before anybody knew what geek was. He also beats me -- soundly --in political discussions till this day. But Mom helps so it is not really fair.
Hey,, its Father's Day soon, and might be reading this)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
"I used the quote to show that the idea that monopoly rights were natural thoughout history (a claim you made) was in no way true. I used *different* quotes (not the Macpherson letter) to show that prior to the Constitution, he was concerned about such monopoly rights, and that their harm might outweigh their benefit."
At the time , in the midst of our dissussion, I saw you useing Jefferson to suport you views on copyrights as they stand today. My reaction was is response to that. If that was not you intent to me it was not clear from the context of the diccussion at that time. But I am not perfect.
I did my interpretation based on what I saw ,, and still see -- maybe incorrectly -- on you mis-interpretation of the word "idea" in T.J.'s quote.
I will admit,,,,,,,,,: That I do disagree with ol' T.J. on his view that on copyright & patent -- as he wrote into the U.S. Constitution-- DOES NOT manifist form Natural Right.
I believe CopyRight and Patent Laws ARE a manifistcation of Natural Right.
And I am allowed to do so academically. Just as I did with John Locke's views on "Reason" in this paper here:
I might take on T.J.'s views one day , but got other things to occupy my life now-- like the Met-Yankee game*** on tonite. {intetional mis-spell}.
As far as the commas:
1] As I stated elsewhere , I am dyslexic. I do not read and see the words the way a "normal" (-- weak but only term that fits--).
When posting here , I find the commas help me and other dyslexics read the posts much easier.
2] Once seeing that commas help my dyslexic brain read online posts and emails, et al ,, ,, , , ,, , I decided to make it an are form. With my keyboard as the artists tool.
3] you will find that my "John Locke" paper (--- -- cited and linked above-- which was written for an honors philosophy/english lit course -- you were able to apply the course to either major ----- for whcich I got an "A" in and was 90% of the grade ----- and this paper to which the prof , not only gave me an "A" but also added how much he enjoyed reading it -----------) there is zero grammatical error.
------
and back to :
"We've covered this silly move in the past by music publishers and songwriters, but they're apparently still at it, and the NY Times is giving them publicity for trying to shut down lyrics sites online. This is ridiculous for any number of reasons, but shows you the state of some parts of the music industry these days. Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business " http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml#c2291
"Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business "
That is patently false ( pun indented).
AND you owe Robert Hunter (the lyricist for the "Grateful Dead") , AND all "Tin Pan Alley" and "Brill Building" folks ( who put American History into song) , and me, an apology for saying "lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business" .
Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
Giberish Mike,, and you know it ,, the words speak for themsevles.
You used this quote to attempt to show haw T.J. would if alive today be in perfect sync , with your outlandish views on copyright and patent law. Clearyl you you are wrong , and are not mature enough to admit it.
"Have you no decency , Sir?" ***
***Army–McCarthy hearings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Army–McCarthy hearings were a series of hearings held by the United States Senate's Subcommittee on Investigations between March 1954 and June 1954. ...
Background - McCarthy Hearings - Homosexuality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army–McCarthy_hearings -
Is circumventing DRM really against the law?
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 states that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [copyright law]." Some very narrow exceptions are made, but for the most part, trying to dodge DRM systems—even when the restrictions imposed are not reasonable—is a criminal offense. The sale of hardware or software whose purpose is to help you get around DRM is likewise illegal.
"Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8
[Volume 3, Page 42]
Document 12
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333--35
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that [Volume 3, Page 43] these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905.
and to change the sbject ,, you might find this funny
my internet goes on and off when it rains,,
I have been working with cablevision for 2 months now, Multiple home appointments, missed appointments ,, the wrong tech person assigned to the appointment . It has been fun
Is circumventing DRM really against the law?
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 states that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [copyright law]." Some very narrow exceptions are made, but for the most part, trying to dodge DRM systems—even when the restrictions imposed are not reasonable—is a criminal offense. The sale of hardware or software whose purpose is to help you get around DRM is likewise illegal."
"A few months back, Public Knowledge released its five ideas for copyright reform, and we asked people to defend why any of them didn't make sense. Oddly -- despite the vast number of copyright system defenders who populate the comments around here -- not a single person suggested any reason why the five suggested reforms didn't make sense. Some people suggested other ideas for reform, but the regular defenders of the system miraculously disappeared when asked to defend the current system. I'd say it was funny... but, really, it's just sad."
No Mike , it probably just was not worth their time to reply to a ludicrous proposal.
The only folks who want to re-form copyright laws ,,are the people currently breaking copyright laws.
(ASCAP wants to expand them , not re-form them.)
Law-breakers always want to change the law. If they cannot , it means the lawmakers cannot be convinced their claim has any merit.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
512MB machine, with XP sp 3.
And I need XP for Creative Soundblaster and my music production .wav editing.
Eventually , I plan to have machines with both XP (offline) and Ubuntu ( online) .
Am I a geek yet ?
( p.s. My Dad is now -- my he live long and be well --a retired "data system analyst" , who learned computer stuff in the early 1950s while in the air force. ( I still remember playing with the computers & "punch-cards" when he brought me to work sometimes.)
Dad very happily retired in 1987 @ the age of 55. After years of NEVER touching a computer , till 2002 , he then at my urging bought a computer ,, a 128 MB for XP.
After a week , he trashed it , and it is now mine to play with.
Now Dad has a crazy space laptop with 3G.
He wants 4G, but not sure if it worth the $$.
Dad was a geek before anybody knew what geek was. He also beats me -- soundly --in political discussions till this day. But Mom helps so it is not really fair.
Hey,, its Father's Day soon, and might be reading this)
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: I would suggest, however, that with the evidence in place today, he might reconsider. But, obviously, no one knows that one way or the other.
I clear browsing data in Mozzilla -- by habit ,, at least once and hour. I find if I don't ol' Moz slows down on my 512MB machine, with XP sp 3.
I find techdirt's posting features-- which are GREAT -- thanks Mike --- works best in Mozzilla
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
typohs
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
- like the Met-Yankee game*** on tonite. {intetional mis-spell}.
Go find the whole quote if you want .
Do a post on it.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
At the time , in the midst of our dissussion, I saw you useing Jefferson to suport you views on copyrights as they stand today. My reaction was is response to that. If that was not you intent to me it was not clear from the context of the diccussion at that time. But I am not perfect.
I did my interpretation based on what I saw ,, and still see -- maybe incorrectly -- on you mis-interpretation of the word "idea" in T.J.'s quote.
I will admit,,,,,,,,,: That I do disagree with ol' T.J. on his view that on copyright & patent -- as he wrote into the U.S. Constitution-- DOES NOT manifist form Natural Right.
I believe CopyRight and Patent Laws ARE a manifistcation of Natural Right.
And I am allowed to do so academically. Just as I did with John Locke's views on "Reason" in this paper here:
" How Voltaire and Samuel Johnson Deal with John Locke’s Emotional Problems."
http://tilliebaum.blogspot.com/2002/05/how-voltaire-and-samuel-johnson-deal_03.html
I might take on T.J.'s views one day , but got other things to occupy my life now-- like the Met-Yankee game*** on tonite. {intetional mis-spell}.
As far as the commas:
1] As I stated elsewhere , I am dyslexic. I do not read and see the words the way a "normal" (-- weak but only term that fits--).
When posting here , I find the commas help me and other dyslexics read the posts much easier.
2] Once seeing that commas help my dyslexic brain read online posts and emails, et al ,, ,, , , ,, , I decided to make it an are form. With my keyboard as the artists tool.
3] you will find that my "John Locke" paper (--- -- cited and linked above-- which was written for an honors philosophy/english lit course -- you were able to apply the course to either major ----- for whcich I got an "A" in and was 90% of the grade ----- and this paper to which the prof , not only gave me an "A" but also added how much he enjoyed reading it -----------) there is zero grammatical error.
------
and back to :
"We've covered this silly move in the past by music publishers and songwriters, but they're apparently still at it, and the NY Times is giving them publicity for trying to shut down lyrics sites online. This is ridiculous for any number of reasons, but shows you the state of some parts of the music industry these days. Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business "
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml#c2291
"Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business "
That is patently false ( pun indented).
AND you owe Robert Hunter (the lyricist for the "Grateful Dead") , AND all "Tin Pan Alley" and "Brill Building" folks ( who put American History into song) , and me, an apology for saying "lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business" .
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
You used this quote to attempt to show haw T.J. would if alive today be in perfect sync , with your outlandish views on copyright and patent law. Clearyl you you are wrong , and are not mature enough to admit it.
"Have you no decency , Sir?" ***
***Army–McCarthy hearings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Army–McCarthy hearings were a series of hearings held by the United States Senate's Subcommittee on Investigations between March 1954 and June 1954. ...
Background - McCarthy Hearings - Homosexuality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army–McCarthy_hearings -
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.
Now , I ask you to apologize to me and Thomas Jefferson for to mis-use of T.J.'s quote and your attacks on me base on the quote thereof.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Clearly untrue , even to a simple mind,
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
As given proper citation , even the average techdirt poster could figure out , that you are citing T.J. wrongly and completely out of context.
Any reply Mike?
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1164014,00.asp
Is circumventing DRM really against the law?
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 states that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [copyright law]." Some very narrow exceptions are made, but for the most part, trying to dodge DRM systems—even when the restrictions imposed are not reasonable—is a criminal offense. The sale of hardware or software whose purpose is to help you get around DRM is likewise illegal.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.
I feel I do have "reasonable cause to believe" that you , Mike , did try to block me from techdirt -- however briefly.
Proof , I do not have , as I do not have the tech skills to prove it from my end of the internet, but "reasonable cause to believe" I do have.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.
{as a ]verb.
from thesaurus:::
avoid doing, be cunning, be sly, beguile, bypass, circonvenir, circumscribere, cloak, conceal, confuse, contravene, contrive, counteract, counterwork, cover, deceive, defeat, defraud, delude, disrupt, elude, escape, evade, foil, hoax, mislead, outreach, outwit, pettifog, practice chicanery, prevaricate, proceed by stratagem, scheme, swindle, thwart, tourner la loi, traverse, trick
Associated concepts: circumvent the law
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/circumventing
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
"Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
[Volume 3, Page 42]
Document 12
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333--35
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that [Volume 3, Page 43] these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, Document 12
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html
The University of Chicago Press
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905.
© 1987 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2000
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
and to change the sbject ,, you might find this funny
I have been working with cablevision for 2 months now, Multiple home appointments, missed appointments ,, the wrong tech person assigned to the appointment . It has been fun
http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/2010/05/it-rains-my-internet-modem-goes-on-and.htm l
enjoy
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.
I will humbly correct and remove my blog post.
And I will openly admit some lack of expertise on DMCA vis a vi DRM.
But even with that I stand by the comments for a legal wonk perspective, by not as a tech-pro.
It is almost Sabbath ,, i got to go. Enjoy your weekend.
I hope to be back to learn more.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Or I will keep commenting.
What Does DRM Really Mean?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1164014,00.asp
Is circumventing DRM really against the law?
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 states that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [copyright law]." Some very narrow exceptions are made, but for the most part, trying to dodge DRM systems—even when the restrictions imposed are not reasonable—is a criminal offense. The sale of hardware or software whose purpose is to help you get around DRM is likewise illegal."
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
No Mike , it probably just was not worth their time to reply to a ludicrous proposal.
The only folks who want to re-form copyright laws ,,are the people currently breaking copyright laws.
(ASCAP wants to expand them , not re-form them.)
Law-breakers always want to change the law. If they cannot , it means the lawmakers cannot be convinced their claim has any merit.
In my humble opinion
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
That what the deliberative bodies that make law have said.
If the law is unconstitutional , challenge it.
If not , change it by lobbying.
but you will loose there.
in my humble opinion
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Any time you Circumvent the law , it is illegal.
in my humble -- unsupported and UN-researched -- opinion.
really don't have the time to look it up.
Next >>