“Editor: A person employed on a newspaper whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see that the chaff is printed.” - Elbert Hubbard
It's probably safe to assume that seeing as Romeo spent the wedding night with Juliet (who was fully expecting to lose her virginity that night), they did have sex.
In any case, we know that Juliet's mother had sex before her 14th birthday, because at one point she tells Juliet (something to the effect of): at your age I was already married and a mother.
Publish all your contents under a license that says "you are not allowed to read/view/listen to this for purposes of reviewing or censorship", then sue their ass off when they do censor it. That would put the DMCA to good use, for once.
The trick with these calculations is is that they're on average. Yes, during the day the plant will probably not be able to supply them all. But you should look at it this way: The plant generates x terajoules per year, and 9000 homes use x terajoules per year. In reality, sometimes the plant will only feed 1000 homes, sometimes it'll feed 18000 homes.
Counting only the average is a recipe for disaster. You have to build your plant to deal with the maximum, not the average. Or you have to come up with a way to store massive amounts of electricity.
Hell yes, leave the computer on overnight. If your employer is requiring you to switch it off at night and on in the morning, then it's obviously part of your job and you can demand to get paid for it.
And if they have automatic shutdown, why in hell don't they have automatic boot up? Modern hardware has been able to do that for decades.
with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SourceForge.
I really doubt that has any legal force. As far as I know, intellectual property (in this case, copyright) is brought into existence by the creative act of a human being. If it's not creative enough (for example, if it can be recreated independently), then it's not subject to copyright. And if it's automatically generated, then it's not copyrighted either.
And even if it was, the owner of the copyright should be the generating machine itself, of course, not its owner.:-)
No, it just means that it is now time to stir up people's fear of "international terrorism" so whichever government let this bit of news out can squeeze through yet another draconian security measure. Or maybe it's just that some election is coming up and one of the candidates needs a little help?
1b or less humans would be ideal. Unfortunately that's impossible to accomplish without genocide or some massive abridgment of human rights, neither of which I would like to see. People aren't going to slow their reproductive habits voluntarily. It's even worse than you think, because our capitalist economy is no more than a giant pyramidal scheme based on the growth of the population. If people somehow manage to slow down their reproductive habits, we'll get an economic collapse that will make 1929 look like a golden age.
A guy with a backpack bomb on, would likely only be able to carry about a 0.1kt bomb and detonating it at ground level would cause less damage than the Oklahoma City bombing.. I think you're off by a few orders of magnitude. The Oklahoma guy had maybe 1 ton of explosives in his truck. That's 0.001kt, and it wasn't TNT, so it gave even less "bang" than a 0.001kt bomb.
I expect a 0.1kt would level off at least a few blocks in every direction.
Religion is nothing more than man's interpretation of spirituality. Religion is much more than that. Religion is man's interpretation of spirituality on the one hand. On the other hand, religion is also an organization that pervades society and works very much like a mafia or a cult.
>Seriously, the problem here isn't just the prosecution - the fact that he lost his job because he was charged for a crime he was later found innocent of gets me almost as riled up.
Indeed, this story shows that employer loyalty is at an all-time low.
I don't think they do. As far as I know trademark law, owning a TM doesn't mean you can control all uses of the TM. It only means other people cannot use the TM to describe anything else than your product. In particular, they can't put your name on their product. But anyone is still free to refer to your product by its name (i.e. your trademark). Hence printing a picture of your car is OK, as long as you didn't slap a Ford logo on some other brand of car.
IMHO this is a clear case of the lawyers sending an intimidation letter just because they think they can get away with it. The fact that it isn't the best interest of Ford is a good indication that they are lawyering for the sake of lawyering.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, not even in my dreams.
The patent system is like communism: in theory it is a good thing, but in practice it is so totally broken that it will soon collapse, destroying a large part of the economy in the process.
The GPL and other forms of free software are not socialism. It is programmers deciding to give away their work for free.
You don't get it. If you give away to other people then it is socialism (i.e. Bad). If you take away from other people then it is capitalism (i.e. Good). Got it? Now you understand why Free software is socialism, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Leslie Lambert??? Is this some kind of joke?
“Editor: A person employed on a newspaper whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see that the chaff is printed.”
- Elbert Hubbard
So, it is a duplicate of a story about a duplicate of a village?
Yeah. Next on Slashdot: "Slashdot pirates itself!"
It's probably safe to assume that seeing as Romeo spent the wedding night with Juliet (who was fully expecting to lose her virginity that night), they did have sex.
In any case, we know that Juliet's mother had sex before her 14th birthday, because at one point she tells Juliet (something to the effect of): at your age I was already married and a mother.
Publish all your contents under a license that says "you are not allowed to read/view/listen to this for purposes of reviewing or censorship", then sue their ass off when they do censor it. That would put the DMCA to good use, for once.
The trick with these calculations is is that they're on average. Yes, during the day the plant will probably not be able to supply them all. But you should look at it this way: The plant generates x terajoules per year, and 9000 homes use x terajoules per year. In reality, sometimes the plant will only feed 1000 homes, sometimes it'll feed 18000 homes.
Counting only the average is a recipe for disaster. You have to build your plant to deal with the maximum, not the average. Or you have to come up with a way to store massive amounts of electricity.
Fun is learning â" fun games are those which are easy to learn, but hard to master, with a long and smooth learning curve.
That's true, and it's why Go is the most fun of all games.
If that's "war, sweetheart" that can we dispense with the Geneva Conventions altogether?
Isn't that what we are doing already?
[quote]
by reading body temperature, heart rate and respiration
[/quote]
So now you can get locked up in Guantanamo for 10 years without a trial because you had the flu when you tried to board a plane?
Are they really calling a US flag "actual content"?
Hell yes, leave the computer on overnight. If your employer is requiring you to switch it off at night and on in the morning, then it's obviously part of your job and you can demand to get paid for it.
And if they have automatic shutdown, why in hell don't they have automatic boot up? Modern hardware has been able to do that for decades.
This isn't capitalism; it's extortion.
And what is the difference, exactly?
with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SourceForge.
I really doubt that has any legal force. As far as I know, intellectual property (in this case, copyright) is brought into existence by the creative act of a human being. If it's not creative enough (for example, if it can be recreated independently), then it's not subject to copyright. And if it's automatically generated, then it's not copyrighted either.
And even if it was, the owner of the copyright should be the generating machine itself, of course, not its owner. :-)
P.S. The <quote> tags really ARE broken.
We have no senior management with any history of commercial software development
That reminds me of Arianespace. It took the crash of a 150M$ rocket to make them change that.
/. is famed for the quality of the discussion
That should have been modded funny, not insightful...
I expect a 0.1kt would level off at least a few blocks in every direction.
Indeed, this story shows that employer loyalty is at an all-time low.
I don't think they do. As far as I know trademark law, owning a TM doesn't mean you can control all uses of the TM. It only means other people cannot use the TM to describe anything else than your product. In particular, they can't put your name on their product. But anyone is still free to refer to your product by its name (i.e. your trademark). Hence printing a picture of your car is OK, as long as you didn't slap a Ford logo on some other brand of car.
IMHO this is a clear case of the lawyers sending an intimidation letter just because they think they can get away with it. The fact that it isn't the best interest of Ford is a good indication that they are lawyering for the sake of lawyering.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, not even in my dreams.
What about sex? Are the current censorship laws unconstitutional?
I say, let them "regulate" violence, but in exchange they have to stop censoring sex. It would make a lot more sense this way.
This is one of many signs that the patent system is decadent, and will soon collapse under its own weight.
Or at any rate, I hope it will, because it clearly doesn't fulfill its stated goal any more.
It had better be hearsay, because coming from someone who has sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, it is nothing less than treason.
The patent system is like communism: in theory it is a good thing, but in practice it is so totally broken that it will soon collapse, destroying a large part of the economy in the process.
You don't get it. If you give away to other people then it is socialism (i.e. Bad). If you take away from other people then it is capitalism (i.e. Good). Got it? Now you understand why Free software is socialism, right?