Link to Original Source
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Link to Original Source
you want people to learn from history. studying war artifacts does not promote war. in fact, studying war artifacts might prevent war. like studying the wreck of a slaving ship won't make people become slavers, but might educate future generations about the vile slave trade to affirm our revulsion to slavery
Then you fall into the second category. Or you're just ignorant.
Well, I'm a copyright lawyer, so I doubt I'm "completely and totally ignorant of the law." Have you considered the possibility that your analysis is wrong?
Since we're talking about works that haven't been around long enough to have their copyrights expire, that's totally irrelevant.
Just thought I'd mention it, since you did make a rather broad statement suggesting that works cannot enter the public domain unless deliberately placed there by the copyright holder. While copyright holders can put works into the public domain, it's not true that that is the only way for works to enter the public domain.
"Um, no. That would not be the scenes a faire doctrine."
The scenes a faire doctrine, which I don't have to google for, thanks, permits people to copy without fear of infringement, stock elements from works, which are typical, if not indispensible, for works that have a particular setting, genre, theme, etc.
In this case, where you have a show about teenagers fighting monsters with martial arts and giant robots, it would not infringe if you had a five person team, each member of which had personalities as described above, and where the members of the team were color-coded. It's simply expected of the genre, and therefore fair game, even if you copied it from another copyrighted work.
Now if the specific thing you copied was a very detailed example, and you kept all the details, you might then have a problem. So it depends on how much Power Rangers embellished on this standard device, if they did, and if so, how much of that embellishment, if any, was used in this case.
If you disagree as to my explanation, please feel free to actually say what you think the scenes a faire doctrine is.
I didn't say Disney's Peter Pan. I was talking about JM Barrie's Peter Pan, which Disney's Peter Pan is based on.
A new version of Peter Pan, based on Barrie's, could still tarnish the character well enough (if done right, and if widely published) so as to harm Disney's Peter Pan merely by association. But it would be lawful to do this. Disney's copyright on their version of Peter Pan does not extend to stopping other people from making their own derivatives of Barrie's work, even if they're very unwholesome derivatives.
Do pilots still need licenses in the age of autopilot? Well yes because machines aren't infallible.
Not quite. It's "yes" because most people would be unable to get over their fear of flying in an entirely autonomous plane, not because we need heroic pilots to override the computer when things go wrong.
Consider that about half of all aviation accidents are traced to pilot error. The percentage of crashes caused by autopilot error is zero.
they are alienating hispanics and all other new americans with their immigration stances. these people are productive, progressively richer, they care and they vote
G.O.P is on a steady decline unless they unhitch their horse from old dumb angry white people
The G.O.P. is the party of stupid
The G.O.P. even introduced the term
But among Jindal's most provocative suggestions was the demand that the GOP needed to "stop insulting the intelligence of voters" — and display more intelligence itself. Jindal's comments seemed targeted squarely at conservative candidates in Senate races whose comments on rape and abortion appeared to torpedo their electoral chances.
"We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments," Jindal said.
The Louisiana governor also warned that Republicans were too associated with "big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes."
"We must not be the party that simply protects the well-off so they can keep their toys," Jindal said. "We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive."
it's a good strategy: identify something rich people need and want, then wrangle the idiots with fearmongering into supporting that agenda, even if it hurts the poor idiots. they're idiots, they can't even understand they're hurting themselves. so you have people without adequate healthcare for example, screaming low iq fears about obamacare
this doesn't mean there are no intelligent conservative people, they do exist. stupid liberals also exist
but it's just that if you meet a stupid person, they are more likely to be a conservative, because their simplistic dimwitted way of thinking about the world matches conservative ideology more closely
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found.
From this you get the Republicans are the good guys? If this were my only measure I'd count the Dems as the good guys. This bill is a weird combination of stupid and evil.
There are other convincing reasons to *not* count the Dems as good guys, but this isn't one of them. This is just more evidence that we've got two sets of bad guys with slightly different goals. Generally I find the Dems a hair less evil, but I consider them sufficiently evil that I rarely vote for them. I vote for some third party or other. There's usually one that's less evil in it's promises than the Dems and Repubs are in their actions.
1. putzing around in a top notch Yacht in paradise is its own reward. the search for the Musashi was just a side part time effort
2. allen is from the west coast, of a certain age. so the battle in the Pacific looms large in his upbringing, and he is likewise motivated. your agenda is not his agenda, nor is your agenda magically better than his. in fact, Atlantis is just a myth with a number of sort-of maybe leads. not something you can actually go look for in a specific small area like the Sibuyan Sea
3. now that he has found Musashi, i hopes he keeps playing around in Southeast Asia, screw the Mediterranean, i wouldn't go, boring. Sulawesi sounds fun, i hope he has security though from pirates. not that his proclivities are my proclivities but the simple point is they aren't yours either. he can do whatever the fuck he wants, and nobody needs some random asshole saying their agenda is superior and must be followed. who the fuck are you?
but along your line of interests, maybe he will head here, it's not far from the Philippines, i would:
It's a lot easier and more likely to find a WW2 ship than Atlantis.
I dunno... we usually get about two discoveries of Atlantis a year.
(But I'm starting to worry, because I haven't heard of any new discoveries of Atlantis lately.)
Depends on what you mean by 'reproducible'. Who's going to reproduce the discovery of the Higg's boson? Who's going to reproduce the big bang, biological evolution, climate change, or continental drift. Of if not actually reproduce those events, what counts as reproducing the science behind them.
The devil is in the details.
There might well be a way to do that, though I'm not quite certain what it would be. However, IIRC, Heinlein didn't discuss the ways that would be used to prevent corruption, so it's unfair to presume that they didn't exist as well as to presume that they did.
OTOH, our current system doesn't prevent the powerful from manuvering their progeny into positions of power, so it's reasonable to guess that another system wouldn't either, without strong built in protections. And I can't recall a historical civilization that both tried to do that and was successful. So perhaps that happening wouldn't prevent a culture from lasting, say a couple of hundred years.
I'm going to be picky, but that's not fascism. Fascism is the corporate state, i.e. the corporations and the state working hand in glove. In Mussolini's case he took a bit of time picking sides in WWII, and finally picked what he thought was the winning side BECAUSE he thought it was the winning side, not because he agreed with it. His fascism became militarist because of the environment that it developed in, it wasn't a part of his central ideas, merely a tool in making Italy strong. And though he was anti-intellectual, he wasn't racist, he was nationalist. There really *is* a big difference. His central goal was to make Italy strong, and his choice of how to do it was the corporate state. Everything else was derivative from that, if you include mistakes as being derivative.
Perhaps the movie was fascist propaganda. I never saw it and don't intend to. The book wasn't, though it was militarist. And the viewpoint character spent almost all his time in a military environment. (Fascist has more to do with the corporations and the government working hand in glove. Read Mussolini. You can properly call the US government fascist. And it's quite distinct from Nazi (which, frankly, is bug-fuck crazy rascism, with a few other loony twists).
You are just holding it wrong