I found my minimum altitude for releasing my chute was approximately 385 feet, but it hurt!
(we were advised that the minimum altitude was 500 feet...I had to test this)
So are you still chasing that Darwin Award, or have you given up;-)
Just like if you were selling your collection of Twilight novels, you couldn't post the full text of each one with your advertisement. What you own is one physical copy. If you want to post pictures of your ceiling, either negotiate with the artist to assign the copyright to you, or get his permission to use the pictures in your advertisements.
The Department of Justice is a federal agency. Federal agencies are agents of the President of the United States. In theory at least, the President is the executive branch. Everybody else is just there to help him carry out his policy because he can't do it all himself. He's the captain of the Article II ship. Their acts are his acts. So it is entirely appropriate to put Obama's name at the top of this article.
Actually, there are two reasons you don't need to get a copyright assignment from the minimum wage guy who paints your house. One is that there is no creative input into painting a room a single, solid color. It is purely functional, therefore no copyright. Two, even if the next Michaelangelo came and painted a Sistine Chapel-esque mural on your ceiling, selling the house (with the mural) would not involve making a copy. So there is no copyright issue. Now, if you wanted to take pictures of your ceiling and sell them, then you'd have a problem.
they have all kinds of Mickey Mouse stuff, including his own show - The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.
Which in the grand Disney tradition, is a complete ripoff of an earlier source---in this case, Dora the Explorer. Pretty much the only high-quality truly original stuff to ever come out of Disney has had the "Pixar" name attached to it.
Wow, that's a nifty link where a guy sanctimoniously draws a bright line between the True Protectors of the Earth(tm) and the "Inactivists," sets up a false dilemma (one and only one of us is right), and then proves his thesis by demonstrating that the "other side" said something that was wrong. But snarky retorts aren't science. I was hoping you'd show me where somebody has proposed an actual controlled experiment where "global warming theory" makes a concrete prediction that somebody can actually test and measure to see if it's correct. Otherwise, it's still just computer models and send Al Gore your money.
there are climate scientists trying to disprove global warming, but they fail,... what does THAT tell you?
That it's not a real, honest-to-goodness, falsifiable scientific theory, but rather just a bunch of "best guesses" based on computer models? But don't worry. Just send all your money to Al Gore and he will personally guarantee that these here carbon dioxide molecules leave you and your family alone. (Alternate metaphor: "The end is near! It is imminent! Send Al Gore your money now to ensure your salvation from the Carbon Beast!")
*SPOILER ALERT* It turns out that Rose isn't dead. The Dalek Emporer just kidnapped her to make her his concubine. Where do you think the "nightmare child" that they mentioned in the End of Time came from? (They call it the "nightmare child" because it's as ugly as a Dalek and as annoying as Rose).
It's not like you're going to be lying there thinking, "Aw man, this really sucks!"
You'd never know you were in a box, would you? It would be just like you were asleep in a box. Not that I'd like to sleep in a box mind you. Not without any air. You'd wake up dead, for a start, and then where would you be---apart from inside a box. That's the bit I don't like, frankly. That's why I don't like thinking about it. Because you'd be helpless, wouldn't you? Stuffed in a box like that, I mean, you'd be in there forever. Even taking into account the fact that you're dead, it's not a very pleasant thought. Especially if you're dead, really. Ask yourself, if I asked you straight off---I'm going to stuff you in this box now. Would you rather be alive or dead? Naturally you'd prefer to be alive. Life in a box is better than no life at all. I expect. You'd have a chance at least. You could lie there thinking, "Well at least I'm not dead. In a minute, somebody is going to bang on this lid and tell me to come out."
I think it's funny that everyone on Slashdot is all libertarian about wanting to limit executive power and preserve freedom and check government run amok. But as soon as a federal agency run amok does something that they just coincidentally agree with, all the sudden the judges are bribed because they choose to uphold the rule of law.
In other words, I think it would be wonderful if the FTC sent me a $1 million prize for my outstanding contributions to interstate commerce, but that wouldn't mean it was a good thing for them to do or that they had any authority to do it.
Ahhh but did they say it was to be optimized for speed? Could it be that they are optimizing your machine for replacement? Optimized for reporting marketing data to best buy? Optimized for suck? Optimized to make other peoples PCs look better?
Did you ever take an introductory CS class? I'm guessing that you wrote some simple program like a bubble sort. Are you saying that everybody's bubble sort program was identical to everybody else's bubble sort program? No, of course not. Bubble sort is a method. A method is patentable if it meets the other (presently ill-defined) requirements. Your little bubblesort.c source file is like the schematic. It is protected by copyright. Nobody is permitted to copy your bubblesort.c without your permission. But that doesn't stop anybody from writing a bubble sort program of their own.
Patents are suppose to be specific so people can add to them and innovate.
The fact that something is patented does not stop you from improving on it, or from patenting your improvements. You don't have to have the right to make and sell something to patent it.
No one has implemented a holographic interface, so I'll patent holographic interface and stifle everyone.
Send me your enabling disclosure, and I will be happy to submit your patent application. I can also help you with licensing
Software patents are more like patenting the idea of a mouse trap rather than a specific apparatus for trapping mouses.
No, both of those are legitimate subject matter for a patent. If you are the first person ever to conceive of the idea of building a trap to catch mice, then you can get a broad patent on mouse traps. If mouse traps are already in the prior art, you can get a patent on your improved mouse trap. Copyright would apply to a diagram or schematic of your mouse trap. A copyright on your schematic would not prevent me from building the trap described by the schematic. It just keeps me from copying the schematic itself. But a patent on your design does keep me from making your mouse trap, regardless of whether or not I actually copy the schematic. Extrapolating out to software is not difficult and is left as an exercise for the reader.
I never said he didn't have policy. In fact, he was quite clear about what his proposed policy was. It's why I didn't vote for him, despite his awesome rhetorical powers. But you and I are not the people he was campaigning to. You and I were already sold one way or another. There was nothing he could do to win my vote short of changing his policy, and there was nothing he could do to lose your vote short of changing his policy. He was campaigning for people in places like Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado---folks who were used to voting Republican but who were tired of all the Republicans' shenanigans. That's where the rhetoric came in. The Republicans had made asses of themselves (take that remark any way you please), and Obama was Different. So they voted for him. But now that he's aggressively doing all the stuff he plainly said he was going to do, suddenly his approval rating is plummeting, like people are surprised at what he's doing. To quote Agent Kay, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
she needs to play by the far too restrictive incumbent protection laws.
McCain-Feingold was crassly unconstitutional. As Scalia said in his scathing (and brilliant) dissent, "it is the first instinct of power to protect power." In a perfect world, all direct contributions to a specific politician would be banned outright as the bribes they are, and PACs would be unregulated, because that's what the First Amendment is all about---the ability to speak out on issues that matter to you. I don't see how a law that makes it illegal to specifically criticize a candidate in the all-important last 30 days before an election is "much-too-loose."
Part of Obama's appeal was that he tried to take the high road.
Sorry, I just threw up a little in my mouth. How exactly did Obama take the "high road"? His whole campaign was straight out of Reagan's (very successful) 1984 playbook. "Change we can believe in" == "It's morning in America." He gave people warm fuzzies, so when they saw his big, charismatic grin, they remembered the warm fuzzies. Rhetoric was not just part of Obama's campaign. Rhetoric was his entire campaign. The guy was elected because he is an outstanding orator. It's not because people knew or particularly cared about his policy plans. In fact, now that he's in office with huge Democratic majorities, people seem to be genuinely baffled at the "change" they voted for. They thought "change" meant "a pretty new face."
So tell me---what's the real, practical difference between $76/mo. and $0/mo? Will $76/mo. buy you any kind of reasonable food or lodging? Will it give you access to any meaningful services? How is somebody with $0 "much worse off" than somebody with $76?
That's what we call "mechanically separated meat." Leftover meaty sludge pressure washed off the bones after the real meat has been stripped away. That's what they called a "Chicken McNugget" when I was growing up, though they claim that now their McNuggets are made with actual meat.
In fact, I've heard that was Ray Kroc's original stroke of genius: serve consistent, mediocre food almost instantaneously, and deliberately make the place unpleasant and uncomfortable so that patrons didn't stick around too long crowding the restaurant (and thus preventing new patrons from coming in).
Slashdot Mirror
I found my minimum altitude for releasing my chute was approximately 385 feet, but it hurt! (we were advised that the minimum altitude was 500 feet...I had to test this)
So are you still chasing that Darwin Award, or have you given up ;-)
Just like if you were selling your collection of Twilight novels, you couldn't post the full text of each one with your advertisement. What you own is one physical copy. If you want to post pictures of your ceiling, either negotiate with the artist to assign the copyright to you, or get his permission to use the pictures in your advertisements.
The Department of Justice is a federal agency. Federal agencies are agents of the President of the United States. In theory at least, the President is the executive branch. Everybody else is just there to help him carry out his policy because he can't do it all himself. He's the captain of the Article II ship. Their acts are his acts. So it is entirely appropriate to put Obama's name at the top of this article.
Actually, there are two reasons you don't need to get a copyright assignment from the minimum wage guy who paints your house. One is that there is no creative input into painting a room a single, solid color. It is purely functional, therefore no copyright. Two, even if the next Michaelangelo came and painted a Sistine Chapel-esque mural on your ceiling, selling the house (with the mural) would not involve making a copy. So there is no copyright issue. Now, if you wanted to take pictures of your ceiling and sell them, then you'd have a problem.
they have all kinds of Mickey Mouse stuff, including his own show - The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.
Which in the grand Disney tradition, is a complete ripoff of an earlier source---in this case, Dora the Explorer. Pretty much the only high-quality truly original stuff to ever come out of Disney has had the "Pixar" name attached to it.
Wow, that's a nifty link where a guy sanctimoniously draws a bright line between the True Protectors of the Earth(tm) and the "Inactivists," sets up a false dilemma (one and only one of us is right), and then proves his thesis by demonstrating that the "other side" said something that was wrong. But snarky retorts aren't science. I was hoping you'd show me where somebody has proposed an actual controlled experiment where "global warming theory" makes a concrete prediction that somebody can actually test and measure to see if it's correct. Otherwise, it's still just computer models and send Al Gore your money.
there are climate scientists trying to disprove global warming, but they fail,... what does THAT tell you?
That it's not a real, honest-to-goodness, falsifiable scientific theory, but rather just a bunch of "best guesses" based on computer models? But don't worry. Just send all your money to Al Gore and he will personally guarantee that these here carbon dioxide molecules leave you and your family alone. (Alternate metaphor: "The end is near! It is imminent! Send Al Gore your money now to ensure your salvation from the Carbon Beast!")
*SPOILER ALERT* It turns out that Rose isn't dead. The Dalek Emporer just kidnapped her to make her his concubine. Where do you think the "nightmare child" that they mentioned in the End of Time came from? (They call it the "nightmare child" because it's as ugly as a Dalek and as annoying as Rose).
It's not like you're going to be lying there thinking, "Aw man, this really sucks!"
You'd never know you were in a box, would you? It would be just like you were asleep in a box. Not that I'd like to sleep in a box mind you. Not without any air. You'd wake up dead, for a start, and then where would you be---apart from inside a box. That's the bit I don't like, frankly. That's why I don't like thinking about it. Because you'd be helpless, wouldn't you? Stuffed in a box like that, I mean, you'd be in there forever. Even taking into account the fact that you're dead, it's not a very pleasant thought. Especially if you're dead, really. Ask yourself, if I asked you straight off---I'm going to stuff you in this box now. Would you rather be alive or dead? Naturally you'd prefer to be alive. Life in a box is better than no life at all. I expect. You'd have a chance at least. You could lie there thinking, "Well at least I'm not dead. In a minute, somebody is going to bang on this lid and tell me to come out."
But Vulcans never lie!
Sometimes they exaggerate, though.
vi? I use a magnet to physically rearrange the bits on my hard drive
Noob! I hold the ethernet cable on my tongue and decipher the signal with my nerves.
Sure, but only if you reverse the polarity.
"Dynamic clocking" my foot! I won't buy it unless it has a big, red "Turbo" button.
[citation needed].
I think it's funny that everyone on Slashdot is all libertarian about wanting to limit executive power and preserve freedom and check government run amok. But as soon as a federal agency run amok does something that they just coincidentally agree with, all the sudden the judges are bribed because they choose to uphold the rule of law.
In other words, I think it would be wonderful if the FTC sent me a $1 million prize for my outstanding contributions to interstate commerce, but that wouldn't mean it was a good thing for them to do or that they had any authority to do it.
Ahhh but did they say it was to be optimized for speed? Could it be that they are optimizing your machine for replacement? Optimized for reporting marketing data to best buy? Optimized for suck? Optimized to make other peoples PCs look better?
Optimized for profit, obviously.
Did you ever take an introductory CS class? I'm guessing that you wrote some simple program like a bubble sort. Are you saying that everybody's bubble sort program was identical to everybody else's bubble sort program? No, of course not. Bubble sort is a method. A method is patentable if it meets the other (presently ill-defined) requirements. Your little bubblesort.c source file is like the schematic. It is protected by copyright. Nobody is permitted to copy your bubblesort.c without your permission. But that doesn't stop anybody from writing a bubble sort program of their own.
Patents are suppose to be specific so people can add to them and innovate.
The fact that something is patented does not stop you from improving on it, or from patenting your improvements. You don't have to have the right to make and sell something to patent it.
No one has implemented a holographic interface, so I'll patent holographic interface and stifle everyone.
Send me your enabling disclosure, and I will be happy to submit your patent application. I can also help you with licensing
Software patents are more like patenting the idea of a mouse trap rather than a specific apparatus for trapping mouses.
No, both of those are legitimate subject matter for a patent. If you are the first person ever to conceive of the idea of building a trap to catch mice, then you can get a broad patent on mouse traps. If mouse traps are already in the prior art, you can get a patent on your improved mouse trap. Copyright would apply to a diagram or schematic of your mouse trap. A copyright on your schematic would not prevent me from building the trap described by the schematic. It just keeps me from copying the schematic itself. But a patent on your design does keep me from making your mouse trap, regardless of whether or not I actually copy the schematic. Extrapolating out to software is not difficult and is left as an exercise for the reader.
I never said he didn't have policy. In fact, he was quite clear about what his proposed policy was. It's why I didn't vote for him, despite his awesome rhetorical powers. But you and I are not the people he was campaigning to. You and I were already sold one way or another. There was nothing he could do to win my vote short of changing his policy, and there was nothing he could do to lose your vote short of changing his policy. He was campaigning for people in places like Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado---folks who were used to voting Republican but who were tired of all the Republicans' shenanigans. That's where the rhetoric came in. The Republicans had made asses of themselves (take that remark any way you please), and Obama was Different. So they voted for him. But now that he's aggressively doing all the stuff he plainly said he was going to do, suddenly his approval rating is plummeting, like people are surprised at what he's doing. To quote Agent Kay, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
she needs to play by the far too restrictive incumbent protection laws.
McCain-Feingold was crassly unconstitutional. As Scalia said in his scathing (and brilliant) dissent, "it is the first instinct of power to protect power." In a perfect world, all direct contributions to a specific politician would be banned outright as the bribes they are, and PACs would be unregulated, because that's what the First Amendment is all about---the ability to speak out on issues that matter to you. I don't see how a law that makes it illegal to specifically criticize a candidate in the all-important last 30 days before an election is "much-too-loose."
Part of Obama's appeal was that he tried to take the high road.
Sorry, I just threw up a little in my mouth. How exactly did Obama take the "high road"? His whole campaign was straight out of Reagan's (very successful) 1984 playbook. "Change we can believe in" == "It's morning in America." He gave people warm fuzzies, so when they saw his big, charismatic grin, they remembered the warm fuzzies. Rhetoric was not just part of Obama's campaign. Rhetoric was his entire campaign. The guy was elected because he is an outstanding orator. It's not because people knew or particularly cared about his policy plans. In fact, now that he's in office with huge Democratic majorities, people seem to be genuinely baffled at the "change" they voted for. They thought "change" meant "a pretty new face."
So tell me---what's the real, practical difference between $76/mo. and $0/mo? Will $76/mo. buy you any kind of reasonable food or lodging? Will it give you access to any meaningful services? How is somebody with $0 "much worse off" than somebody with $76?
That's what we call "mechanically separated meat." Leftover meaty sludge pressure washed off the bones after the real meat has been stripped away. That's what they called a "Chicken McNugget" when I was growing up, though they claim that now their McNuggets are made with actual meat.
In fact, I've heard that was Ray Kroc's original stroke of genius: serve consistent, mediocre food almost instantaneously, and deliberately make the place unpleasant and uncomfortable so that patrons didn't stick around too long crowding the restaurant (and thus preventing new patrons from coming in).
Yes, I know, [citation needed] and all that.