You repeatedly said that "[consumers] would not be able to 'own' [copies of movies/etc]".
I repeatedly said the opposite, that voiding copyright law would not in any way effect ownership law. And that in teh absence of copyright the default state is everyone owns the IP, not that no one does.
This, of course it is only 5%. IT is easy for a program to write code with 0 white space, and variable/function names that go like this (a, b,...., a0, a1, a2,....). But People should NEVER write code like that. Yes I would save you at least 95% of the disk space it would otherwise use up, but no one would ever be able to debug or change, or add anything to the code. And it would simple never even work, you would never get a finished working program.
I think you are confusing the concept of ownership with that of copyright holding.
They would own their own copy of the movie, either on disc or the bits on their hard drive and have the right to copy, change/edit, sell, or give that copy to anyone. They would in effect have a right to all ideas and concepts invented or discovered by man. A sort of shared heritage.
What are you trying to say? That without copyright laws that people would not be able to watch movies because they could not own intellectual property? You seem very confused.
I have found consistently that MPC "just works" slightly more often. Its interface and controls are completely crap compared to VLC, but its video playback is significantly better. As in, videos that will not play in VLC, will play in MPC.
That I could file a trademark for "Windows 356"? If appending a number on the end of windows is trademarkable, my Microsoft's own admission, then why not?
99% of things journalists show has no legitimate journalistic purpose, other than it falls under freedom of speech and people will tune in/click to see it.
You must talking about some different type of OS than what I have encountered. In my experience OS simply stands for developers who have an ideological reason not to care about their users or community.
I will not pretend to have 10% the experience you likely have, but I would almost suggest leaving the existing program for reference and just start writing your own. Take what is programmed well from the original, and reference the original constantly.
It is actually incredibly simple to create a program to parse some text in a believable fashion. You feed it a ton of input and it tries to create something using similar rules, using statistics based on the input. We did that as an individual project in highschool CS. Even with those first order programs you got semi grammatically correct sentences. And since poems are weird and nonsensical anyways, I imagine if we has tried poetry, it would of produced some quite reasonable results.
Why? Just because it allows you to have weak passwords? Allowing every single password, regardless of length and character sets just make the site even stronger for me (there are more possible passwords that a bruteforcer would have to try).
How does that make sense? So if they ate a pig they would turn into a pig-slug? Likely not, I am assuming, then why not just be born with the photosynthesis genes instead of the exact gene needed to copy them and only them from plants?
I have heard of similar animals who ingested plankton, and then held the plankton in special translucent "stomachs" that leched the energy out as it was being photosynthesized. Sounds far easier than this method.
There are loads of solutions. Most notably subways. And at least some of the roads could be used for this, there is not really any reason to be driving around downtown in a big city anyways. If you have space for two car lanes you have space for a subway line, if you have space to park a few dozen cars you have space for a subway hub.
How does a pin-hole camera even look like a bomb? It should not even be close to big enough to be a worry. You need something like like the size of a mid sized tablet, minimum to have any decent explosive power. Think of a bullet, it has about the power of a punch, and is far bigger that most cameras nowadays. Saying that, I have since seen that camera's they have used, and they really really do look like bombs. with big enough payloads to make quite a dent.
I see a future of heads frozen in jars being labeled as "alive". The corporations that own all these idea will have storage complexes full of them. What the is the point of tying IP to the Authors lifespan when Authors never ever own their creations?
Have you talked to these people. Unfortunately, the the number of individually that have to bought teh whole, you would download a car movie industry line hook line and sinker are a tiny tiny minority. America, and the rest of the world are completely hooked on the idea on owning your inventions intellectual and otherwise, forever.
Slashdot Mirror
You repeatedly said that "[consumers] would not be able to 'own' [copies of movies/etc]".
I repeatedly said the opposite, that voiding copyright law would not in any way effect ownership law. And that in teh absence of copyright the default state is everyone owns the IP, not that no one does.
Most of us do not know that technical jargon sentence, no, but must of us understand what happens when you melt and refreeze something like that.
This, of course it is only 5%. IT is easy for a program to write code with 0 white space, and variable/function names that go like this (a, b, ...., a0, a1, a2, ....). But People should NEVER write code like that. Yes I would save you at least 95% of the disk space it would otherwise use up, but no one would ever be able to debug or change, or add anything to the code. And it would simple never even work, you would never get a finished working program.
I think you are confusing the concept of ownership with that of copyright holding. They would own their own copy of the movie, either on disc or the bits on their hard drive and have the right to copy, change/edit, sell, or give that copy to anyone. They would in effect have a right to all ideas and concepts invented or discovered by man. A sort of shared heritage.
What are you trying to say? That without copyright laws that people would not be able to watch movies because they could not own intellectual property? You seem very confused.
I have found consistently that MPC "just works" slightly more often. Its interface and controls are completely crap compared to VLC, but its video playback is significantly better. As in, videos that will not play in VLC, will play in MPC.
When time is not a constant and may not have always existed?
That I could file a trademark for "Windows 356"? If appending a number on the end of windows is trademarkable, my Microsoft's own admission, then why not?
99% of things journalists show has no legitimate journalistic purpose, other than it falls under freedom of speech and people will tune in/click to see it.
Still, if they are poor they very well might be interesting in selling that free electricity.
Seriously. A week in the can could possibly scare the punk straight, a year will more likely turn him into a hardcore criminal.
"has no way to recover" Well there is the Appendix, but nothing is foolproof.
You must talking about some different type of OS than what I have encountered. In my experience OS simply stands for developers who have an ideological reason not to care about their users or community.
Because they just sound like really shitty apps, to me.
More to the point, if ti was regulations it is regulations that agribusiness spent millions campaigning on.
If there were more secretive courts?
I will not pretend to have 10% the experience you likely have, but I would almost suggest leaving the existing program for reference and just start writing your own. Take what is programmed well from the original, and reference the original constantly.
It is actually incredibly simple to create a program to parse some text in a believable fashion. You feed it a ton of input and it tries to create something using similar rules, using statistics based on the input. We did that as an individual project in highschool CS. Even with those first order programs you got semi grammatically correct sentences. And since poems are weird and nonsensical anyways, I imagine if we has tried poetry, it would of produced some quite reasonable results.
Why? Just because it allows you to have weak passwords? Allowing every single password, regardless of length and character sets just make the site even stronger for me (there are more possible passwords that a bruteforcer would have to try).
How does that make sense? So if they ate a pig they would turn into a pig-slug? Likely not, I am assuming, then why not just be born with the photosynthesis genes instead of the exact gene needed to copy them and only them from plants? I have heard of similar animals who ingested plankton, and then held the plankton in special translucent "stomachs" that leched the energy out as it was being photosynthesized. Sounds far easier than this method.
There are loads of solutions. Most notably subways. And at least some of the roads could be used for this, there is not really any reason to be driving around downtown in a big city anyways. If you have space for two car lanes you have space for a subway line, if you have space to park a few dozen cars you have space for a subway hub.
"Male-Run companies often do better than Female-run ones" ?
What are you talking about, there have been loads of articles just like that. They are used as proof that the world disadvantages women.
How does a pin-hole camera even look like a bomb? It should not even be close to big enough to be a worry. You need something like like the size of a mid sized tablet, minimum to have any decent explosive power. Think of a bullet, it has about the power of a punch, and is far bigger that most cameras nowadays. Saying that, I have since seen that camera's they have used, and they really really do look like bombs. with big enough payloads to make quite a dent.
I see a future of heads frozen in jars being labeled as "alive". The corporations that own all these idea will have storage complexes full of them. What the is the point of tying IP to the Authors lifespan when Authors never ever own their creations?
The American people don't want this.
Have you talked to these people. Unfortunately, the the number of individually that have to bought teh whole, you would download a car movie industry line hook line and sinker are a tiny tiny minority. America, and the rest of the world are completely hooked on the idea on owning your inventions intellectual and otherwise, forever.