Specifically, the second one down, where it says "Attributes are name-value pairs that describe your item" and gives examples like "Author: Ernest Hemmingway and Area: 400 Square km".
Does this remind anybody of the Resource Description Framework? Maybe they're trying to start creating the Semantic Web, perhaps? Long talked about, but not, thus far, actually done? Maybe using something clever like OWL to search it and otherwise organize this metadata of all sorts of submitted things?
However, if I understand correctly, the Seal of the President of the United States of America is protected as a trademark, not as a copyrighted work.
According to the Trademark Act (15 USC 1052(b)), it would seem that it cannot be part of a trademark.
"..Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof."
The bolded part seems to be the important bit here. You can't trademark the flag, or the coat of arms, or any other insignia. The Presidential Seal certainly falls into that category.
So whatever they're claiming its protected as, trademark ain't it. As a matter of fact, the only grounds they have would be 18 USC 713, really.
The Seal of the President, Senate, Vice-President,etc are NOT the property of the people of the USA they are the property of the government of the USA and there is a major difference between thoses two.
Yes, you are correct. However, the difference swings the other way than you think it does.
All works produced by the United States Government fall into the Public Domain. Period. See Section 105 of the Copyright Act.
The Seal of the President is a Public Domain work. This is a simple fact. So you're correct that it's not the property of the people. It's nobody's property. Nobody owns it. That's what Public Domain means.
So why do we let them flag burners get away with it then?
The answer is that it's protected speech, as is political satire. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution trumps everything in that "US Code" you have there.
As to whether the Onion's work can be considered protected or not, well, that's really up to the courts to decide. But my point is that "it's the law" doesn't mean shit, really. Laws can be wrong too.
Why do people keep pointing out section 713? Most of those laws are unenforcable in many cases.
Look at section 700 for example. It explicitly bans flag burning. So why all the debate over flag burning?
Because that law is unconstitutional in many cases. Flag burning as protected speech, for example. The law prohibiting the use of the seal is also unconstitutional in those same cases.
Now, admittedly, it's a matter of interpretation as to whether what the Onion does is protected speech (a good case can be made though), but my point is that just because it's in the US code isn't the end-all be-all of the argument. Yes, we get it, it's against the law. So are a lot of things that we do every day. The law is not absolute.
320 MB? Where in hell did you see that? The.NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package Beta 2 weighs in at 22 MB. Still hefty, I grant you, but certainly not 300+ megs.
Now, for a command line, I grant you, that's heavy. But a) It's still beta and b) It's the framework for all.NET 2.0 apps. The framework is this big collection of shared libraries used by all.NET apps whether they are C++, C#, yadda yadda yadda... You get the gist. No worse than getting Java, really. MSH is just implemented using.NET, basically. The 1.1 framework stuff is built into XP's Service Pack 1 and later, and I'm sure that the 2.0 framework will be built into Vista.
When I was a kid, I did this using CoffeeMate. Later, when I got older, I just rigged up some tubing and did it using propane. Much simpler, although you do have to be careful about what valves you use.
Q: What is the time taken by a card to switch to another wireless network? A: This number varies across cards. It also varies across networks, and across ad hoc and infrastructure networks. In our experience, switching delays vary from 100 ms to 600 ms across commercial cards. Over special Native WiFi cards, this delay was a few tens of ms. Ideally, as has been pointed out by recent research in solid state circuits, and the values that have been used in our SSCH paper, this switching delay should be of the order of 100 micro seconds.
Say, I wanted to play Age of Empires with another person who was behind a NAT because he was sharing his internet connection with his family and I was sharing my connection with three over of my own computers. We would both have to go online and look up what ports AOE uses and then set our routers to foward request to the specific computer running AOE. Its not that hard to do, but for the average End User it can be way to complex if you don't know anything about your own router. UPnP helps but like I said its not perfect.
Age Of Empires is one of Microsoft's games, and being such, it uses the DirectPlay stuffs. This directly supports UPnP aware hardware, so if you have any modern NAT router that supports UPnP properly, it "just works".
Admittedly, older NAT routers had fairly crappy UPnP implementations and were buggy and such (even with up-to-date firmware). Since upgrading mine to a more recent model NAT router, all the problems I had with UPnP went away, as if magically, and it works great. Sticking with well known brands probably helps too.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that the problem with UPnP isn't in the software or the protocol, it's mainly in crappy implementations on the routers.
Email is an unguaranteed delivery mechanism. It should never be used for truly urgent communication.
Therefore I do what I've always done: Check my email when I damn well feel like it. Turn off the message notifier, turn off the ability for an email to reach your phone or page you or anything of that sort. You'll check your email when you get around to it and not before then.
Really, if you don't want to be interrupted, make yourself less available.
This behavior trains those around you to not treat email as a good mechanism for urgent communications as well. After a few times of people coming to you because you haven't responded to the email they sent 10 minutes before, they'll stop sending you emails that require your immediate attention. They'll call you on the phone instead. In fact, they'll gradually stop attempting to email anybody for anything truly urgent. Eventually. It takes time for some people to get in the habit of this.
If you really want to get your attention span back, then stop using email notifier programs, but also stop using IM software. Of any kind. IM is about the most intrusive thing that can exist, since it jumps to the foreground and harshly interrupts your work at the whim of anybody else in the world, more or less. If somebody really wants your attention, they can pick up the phone and dial 10 digits instead. It's faster, and for anybody out of college, the slightly extra price (in some cases) shouldn't really be a factor. If they're not willing to spend their "minutes" or whatever to call me, well, then it's not urgent enough to interrupt me.
One person will always flip the cup from up to down. The other prisoners will only flip the cup from down to up. If it's not in the state they want on entering, they leave it be.
There's two main problems here: 1. You don't know the initial state of the cup. 2. You don't know what the king has been screwing with.
These are actually the same problem, in that the state of the cup might have been tampered with and you have to route around it.
In the simplest problem (uncertain initial state only), you could have each prisoner only flip the cup from down to up twice only. This means that after it has been flipped 2(n-1)-1 times, the original prisoner knows that everybody has been in the room. He just keeps a count of how many times he's had to flip it himself.
With the king being an ass about it, they have to count for his weird ass states too. In order to do that, the prisoners must each flip the cup from down to up an additional k times, to overcome the king's fucking with them.
-So one prisoner flips up to down and keeps a count. -The other n-1 prisoners each flip the cup from down to up k+2 times (k times for the king, one time to account for the initial uncertainty, once for themselves). -When the counter prisoner gets a count of (k+2)(n-1)-1, he knows everybody has been in the room at least once.
Which is more likely--that the universe conspires through strange twists of fate to thwart every attempt to change the past, no matter how minor, or the universe simply does not permit (practical) time travel?
You speak of fate as if it's a concious thinking entity conspiring specifically to thwart you. It just ain't so.
It's a really simple logical process here... If you change the past, then the change you introduce becomes part of your own past. Therefore you didn't change anything at all.
Look at the double slit experiment. When you don't know which of the two slits the photons pass through, an interference pattern is created (even though only one photon is in the box at a time). When you put a detection device on one of the slits, the interference pattern is destroyed. It's not destroyed because you changed the movement of the photon, the photon was moving randomly anyway, introducing another random factor won't make any difference. The interference pattern disappeared because you collapsed the waveform. It's quantum, baby.:)
When you know the past, then you are powerless to change it, for much the same reason. Even if you could travel there, your knowledge of the facts of the matter prevents you from changing anything. The waveform has already collapsed. Being part of the waveform doesn't change that fact.
As for chaffing. I don't think this machine was meant to analyze the atmosphere of the entire airport. You just swab the bag and run it through the machine.
So when some guy spreads a lot of explosive dust all over the lobby, and you set your bag down and pick up some of that dust, then the machine will detect it and suddenly you've got a rubber gloved finger poking your ass?
But FLT warp drive and wormholes definitely definitely DEFINITELY break Relativity by involving time travel.
Warp drive, certainly. Wormholes, not so much. It depends on how you look at it there. A wormhole is possible in the relativity equations. There's several ways to do it, it's just that they all take way more energy than probably actually exists.
Seriously, what happens when some contrary/curious bastard goes back in time and kills his grandfather?
There's several possible answers to this one.
One is that time travel into the past isn't possible beyond the point at which you build the time travel device. While that precludes you from killing your own grandfather, it doesn't preclude your grandson from killing you. So it's not a particularly useful answer, but one to keep in mind.
This can be gotten around by considering that building, say, a door where you can step through time effectively links those two time periods and makes them one, eliminating the effects that the period in-between has one and the other one. That is, any "change" I make to the past must necessarily be reflected in the future. Therefore changing the state condition. If world-state A in the future causes a person from there to go back to world-state B in the past and create a change that eliminates the possibility of world-state A from ever existing in the first place (by, say, killing his own grandfather), then there's an inherent instability there. World-state A cancels itself out, and therefore cannot possibly exist. From a quantum viewpoint, the act of creating the time-travelling door collapses the probability waveform.
Think about if we could only see the future... What we see would be the only way the future can possibly be, because if we saw something that caused us to (successfully) take actions to change that something, we couldn't see it in the first place. That world-state being seen eliminates itself, so we can't possibly see it.
Or from another perspective, there is only one timeline, the idea that we can change it (free-will) is an illusion caused by not knowing the future. If you knew the future, then it would be unchangable. The old prophet paradox.
wouldn't it be easier to set it at (say) 5% for everyone which goes to a central pot and is then distributed to the individual states
Yeah. And wouldn't it be easier if all those countries in Europe stopped with these individual governments and taxes and laws and such and just formed one big collective union with the same laws and languages across the entire continent?;-)
Whenever US mainstream media writes about piracy they use the word "illegal" over and over again. For example, the link in TFS, SFGate writes "illegal release". Same thing with NYTimes, Washington Post etc... "illegal filesharing" this and "illegal piracy" that. Whenever a new release group is shut down the media use these words along with "stolen", "illicit" (you get the idea).
Why? I live in Sweden. Our mainstream media sure talk about piracy alot, but I have never seen them talk about "illegal" trading etc, even if it is against the law. I have never seen the word "stolen" in the context of piracy either, in Swedish newspapers. Is this something normal for US papers? Do they write about "illegal murder", "illegal robbery" etc too? Or is this just sligtly modified PR?
Because, you see, we bring our children up using phrases like "sharing is good" and "trading is the backbone of capitalism and democracy" and things of that nature. In order to emphasize that these people aren't doing the right kind of sharing and trading, we add that whole "illegal" thing in front of it.
Yes, the "stolen" thing is pure marketing. It's a sure sign that the RIAA or MPAA paid somebody at the news agency to have their articles run as if they were news.
To take it further, DRM is just like the "War on Drugs". It's about people taking away rights from others using methods that should be illegal, and which are totally ineffective!
My god, man! A perfect analogy on slashdot?!? The world is coming to an end!
The definition is largely meaningless anyway. No science hinges on what a planet is. It's a waste of time even to argue about it.
Tell those bitches to stop with the silly arguments and get back to the telescopes. When they have a valid scientific reason to differentiate a planet from a hunk of rock that just happens to orbit the sun, then we can start arguing about definitions with some kind of actual reason for it.
Shouldn't Google ask me for permission before copying my content?
Hell no! They don't NEED your permission to copy your content. Anybody can copy your content for any damn reason they please.
They only need your permission to redistribute it in ways that don't fall under fair use.
Copyright is predicated on the idea that nobody actually owns artistic creations like paintings or books or what have you. You can own the painting, but not the image displayed by that painting. You can own a book, but not the sequence of words in that book.
In order to encourage creation of new works of art, we, the people, grant a limited monopoly to the creator of such things. Admittedly, the time frame for that monopoly has been extended many times by corrupt politicans, but it has still only been EXTENDED, not made into actual property.
"Intellectual property" is a misnomer, because it's not "property" in any real sense of the word. Nobody can own a story. Nobody can own words. Somebody can have some limited amount of control over some of them for some period of time though. That's the way it works here.
For one person, paying $5-10 to see a flick isn't a big deal. It's a tad painful to fork over another $10 for a popcorn and soda, but it's not extremely bothersome.
For a family, two adults, say two children, you're looking at $30 in tickets, probably another $40-50 on popcorn and soda and such (inflated movie house prices). Suddenly a night at the movies for a family costs nearly $100 (considering gas prices).
Or they can rent a movie for $3-4 and watch it at home, on probably a better sound system and better picture quality, without having to deal with sticky floors and screaming infants (other people's, at least) and a bunch of bastards talking on their cell phones.
Is it any surprise that movie attendance number for families have dropped sharply?
It's not about the single ticket price. It's about the total cost of viewing. It's just way too high and out of reach for the average family these days.
That little turtle moving all over the scren to make what were essentially spirograph pictures? Back then that was state of the art shit, boy.
Made learning programming reasonably simple too, since you learned to think in terms of the algorithim. Also taught trig, since you had to deal with angles all the freakin time. But it worked, by gum!:D
Upon reading it again, it appears that he was talking about the link from the "black box" (that records your sensor data) to the data bus. It has nothing to do with the airbag or OnStar.
That "black box" is what allows your airbag to fire at the right times and not fire at other times. Without the data recorder, the airbag system doesn't work correctly. In other words, the data recorder is a side effect, not the actual intended operation of the "black box". Basically it's continually monitoring all these variables in a loop and when it gets signals from the impact sensors, it examines that data to determine whether to fire the airbag or not. This is why airbags don't fire in low speed collisions and so on. The reason it's a "data recorder" is because it looks at the last few milliseconds of data leading up to the impact to figure out things like stopping speed and g-forces and all that jazz. And then, after it fires the airbag, it locks up and stops doing anything. Its job is done. And the last few milliseconds before the wreck are still in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at some of these screenshots: http://www.seweso.com.nyud.net:8090/blog/
Specifically, the second one down, where it says "Attributes are name-value pairs that describe your item" and gives examples like "Author: Ernest Hemmingway and Area: 400 Square km".
Does this remind anybody of the Resource Description Framework? Maybe they're trying to start creating the Semantic Web, perhaps? Long talked about, but not, thus far, actually done? Maybe using something clever like OWL to search it and otherwise organize this metadata of all sorts of submitted things?
Just a theory, of course.
However, if I understand correctly, the Seal of the President of the United States of America is protected as a trademark, not as a copyrighted work.
According to the Trademark Act (15 USC 1052(b)), it would seem that it cannot be part of a trademark.
"..Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof."
The bolded part seems to be the important bit here. You can't trademark the flag, or the coat of arms, or any other insignia. The Presidential Seal certainly falls into that category.
So whatever they're claiming its protected as, trademark ain't it. As a matter of fact, the only grounds they have would be 18 USC 713, really.
The Seal of the President, Senate, Vice-President,etc are NOT the property of the people of the USA they are the property of the government of the USA and there is a major difference between thoses two.
Yes, you are correct. However, the difference swings the other way than you think it does.
All works produced by the United States Government fall into the Public Domain. Period. See Section 105 of the Copyright Act.
The Seal of the President is a Public Domain work. This is a simple fact. So you're correct that it's not the property of the people. It's nobody's property. Nobody owns it. That's what Public Domain means.
It's illegal to burn or otherwise desecrate a flag too, did you know that?
/ parts/i/chapters/33/sections/section_700.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18
So why do we let them flag burners get away with it then?
The answer is that it's protected speech, as is political satire. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution trumps everything in that "US Code" you have there.
As to whether the Onion's work can be considered protected or not, well, that's really up to the courts to decide. But my point is that "it's the law" doesn't mean shit, really. Laws can be wrong too.
Says who? Says this:
Why do people keep pointing out section 713? Most of those laws are unenforcable in many cases.
Look at section 700 for example. It explicitly bans flag burning. So why all the debate over flag burning?
Because that law is unconstitutional in many cases. Flag burning as protected speech, for example. The law prohibiting the use of the seal is also unconstitutional in those same cases.
Now, admittedly, it's a matter of interpretation as to whether what the Onion does is protected speech (a good case can be made though), but my point is that just because it's in the US code isn't the end-all be-all of the argument. Yes, we get it, it's against the law. So are a lot of things that we do every day. The law is not absolute.
320 MB? Where in hell did you see that? The .NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package Beta 2 weighs in at 22 MB. Still hefty, I grant you, but certainly not 300+ megs.
a milyid=7ABD8C8F-287E-4C7E-9A4A-A4ECFF40FC8E&displa ylang=en
.NET 2.0 apps. The framework is this big collection of shared libraries used by all .NET apps whether they are C++, C#, yadda yadda yadda... You get the gist. No worse than getting Java, really. MSH is just implemented using .NET, basically. The 1.1 framework stuff is built into XP's Service Pack 1 and later, and I'm sure that the 2.0 framework will be built into Vista.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?f
Now, for a command line, I grant you, that's heavy. But a) It's still beta and b) It's the framework for all
When I was a kid, I did this using CoffeeMate. Later, when I got older, I just rigged up some tubing and did it using propane. Much simpler, although you do have to be careful about what valves you use.
I'm curious how efficient this process is, as there's bound to be some switching latency
t ualwifi/faq.htm
They actually talk about that on the page.
From: http://research.microsoft.com/netres/projects/vir
Q: What is the time taken by a card to switch to another wireless network?
A: This number varies across cards. It also varies across networks, and across ad hoc and infrastructure networks. In our experience, switching delays vary from 100 ms to 600 ms across commercial cards. Over special Native WiFi cards, this delay was a few tens of ms. Ideally, as has been pointed out by recent research in solid state circuits, and the values that have been used in our SSCH paper, this switching delay should be of the order of 100 micro seconds.
Or rather, it should have. I so wanted to kill whoever wrote the ending.
I love that game. The beginning is truly awesome. The middle levels are just incredible. Up until the very end, it's a great game.
Then it becomes totally suck, like they ran out of time and just threw together the ending from some old Doom levels they had lying around.
Seriously, incredible game until the very end. And frankly, if any game trained me to be a sniper, by god it's FarCry.
"Quick, hit the estop!"
Most places call that the "Big Red Button", although the Jargon file appears to prefer the term "Big Red Switch".
Say, I wanted to play Age of Empires with another person who was behind a NAT because he was sharing his internet connection with his family and I was sharing my connection with three over of my own computers. We would both have to go online and look up what ports AOE uses and then set our routers to foward request to the specific computer running AOE. Its not that hard to do, but for the average End User it can be way to complex if you don't know anything about your own router. UPnP helps but like I said its not perfect.
Age Of Empires is one of Microsoft's games, and being such, it uses the DirectPlay stuffs. This directly supports UPnP aware hardware, so if you have any modern NAT router that supports UPnP properly, it "just works".
Admittedly, older NAT routers had fairly crappy UPnP implementations and were buggy and such (even with up-to-date firmware). Since upgrading mine to a more recent model NAT router, all the problems I had with UPnP went away, as if magically, and it works great. Sticking with well known brands probably helps too.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that the problem with UPnP isn't in the software or the protocol, it's mainly in crappy implementations on the routers.
Email is an unguaranteed delivery mechanism. It should never be used for truly urgent communication.
Therefore I do what I've always done: Check my email when I damn well feel like it. Turn off the message notifier, turn off the ability for an email to reach your phone or page you or anything of that sort. You'll check your email when you get around to it and not before then.
Really, if you don't want to be interrupted, make yourself less available.
This behavior trains those around you to not treat email as a good mechanism for urgent communications as well. After a few times of people coming to you because you haven't responded to the email they sent 10 minutes before, they'll stop sending you emails that require your immediate attention. They'll call you on the phone instead. In fact, they'll gradually stop attempting to email anybody for anything truly urgent. Eventually. It takes time for some people to get in the habit of this.
If you really want to get your attention span back, then stop using email notifier programs, but also stop using IM software. Of any kind. IM is about the most intrusive thing that can exist, since it jumps to the foreground and harshly interrupts your work at the whim of anybody else in the world, more or less. If somebody really wants your attention, they can pick up the phone and dial 10 digits instead. It's faster, and for anybody out of college, the slightly extra price (in some cases) shouldn't really be a factor. If they're not willing to spend their "minutes" or whatever to call me, well, then it's not urgent enough to interrupt me.
One person will always flip the cup from up to down. The other prisoners will only flip the cup from down to up. If it's not in the state they want on entering, they leave it be.
There's two main problems here:
1. You don't know the initial state of the cup.
2. You don't know what the king has been screwing with.
These are actually the same problem, in that the state of the cup might have been tampered with and you have to route around it.
In the simplest problem (uncertain initial state only), you could have each prisoner only flip the cup from down to up twice only. This means that after it has been flipped 2(n-1)-1 times, the original prisoner knows that everybody has been in the room. He just keeps a count of how many times he's had to flip it himself.
With the king being an ass about it, they have to count for his weird ass states too. In order to do that, the prisoners must each flip the cup from down to up an additional k times, to overcome the king's fucking with them.
-So one prisoner flips up to down and keeps a count.
-The other n-1 prisoners each flip the cup from down to up k+2 times (k times for the king, one time to account for the initial uncertainty, once for themselves).
-When the counter prisoner gets a count of (k+2)(n-1)-1, he knows everybody has been in the room at least once.
Which is more likely--that the universe conspires through strange twists of fate to thwart every attempt to change the past, no matter how minor, or the universe simply does not permit (practical) time travel?
:)
You speak of fate as if it's a concious thinking entity conspiring specifically to thwart you. It just ain't so.
It's a really simple logical process here... If you change the past, then the change you introduce becomes part of your own past. Therefore you didn't change anything at all.
Look at the double slit experiment. When you don't know which of the two slits the photons pass through, an interference pattern is created (even though only one photon is in the box at a time). When you put a detection device on one of the slits, the interference pattern is destroyed. It's not destroyed because you changed the movement of the photon, the photon was moving randomly anyway, introducing another random factor won't make any difference. The interference pattern disappeared because you collapsed the waveform. It's quantum, baby.
When you know the past, then you are powerless to change it, for much the same reason. Even if you could travel there, your knowledge of the facts of the matter prevents you from changing anything. The waveform has already collapsed. Being part of the waveform doesn't change that fact.
As for chaffing. I don't think this machine was meant to analyze the atmosphere of the entire airport. You just swab the bag and run it through the machine.
So when some guy spreads a lot of explosive dust all over the lobby, and you set your bag down and pick up some of that dust, then the machine will detect it and suddenly you've got a rubber gloved finger poking your ass?
But FLT warp drive and wormholes definitely definitely DEFINITELY break Relativity by involving time travel.
Warp drive, certainly. Wormholes, not so much. It depends on how you look at it there. A wormhole is possible in the relativity equations. There's several ways to do it, it's just that they all take way more energy than probably actually exists.
Seriously, what happens when some contrary/curious bastard goes back in time and kills his grandfather?
There's several possible answers to this one.
One is that time travel into the past isn't possible beyond the point at which you build the time travel device. While that precludes you from killing your own grandfather, it doesn't preclude your grandson from killing you. So it's not a particularly useful answer, but one to keep in mind.
This can be gotten around by considering that building, say, a door where you can step through time effectively links those two time periods and makes them one, eliminating the effects that the period in-between has one and the other one. That is, any "change" I make to the past must necessarily be reflected in the future. Therefore changing the state condition. If world-state A in the future causes a person from there to go back to world-state B in the past and create a change that eliminates the possibility of world-state A from ever existing in the first place (by, say, killing his own grandfather), then there's an inherent instability there. World-state A cancels itself out, and therefore cannot possibly exist. From a quantum viewpoint, the act of creating the time-travelling door collapses the probability waveform.
Think about if we could only see the future... What we see would be the only way the future can possibly be, because if we saw something that caused us to (successfully) take actions to change that something, we couldn't see it in the first place. That world-state being seen eliminates itself, so we can't possibly see it.
Or from another perspective, there is only one timeline, the idea that we can change it (free-will) is an illusion caused by not knowing the future. If you knew the future, then it would be unchangable. The old prophet paradox.
wouldn't it be easier to set it at (say) 5% for everyone which goes to a central pot and is then distributed to the individual states
;-)
Yeah. And wouldn't it be easier if all those countries in Europe stopped with these individual governments and taxes and laws and such and just formed one big collective union with the same laws and languages across the entire continent?
Whenever US mainstream media writes about piracy they use the word "illegal" over and over again. For example, the link in TFS, SFGate writes "illegal release". Same thing with NYTimes, Washington Post etc... "illegal filesharing" this and "illegal piracy" that. Whenever a new release group is shut down the media use these words along with "stolen", "illicit" (you get the idea).
Why? I live in Sweden. Our mainstream media sure talk about piracy alot, but I have never seen them talk about "illegal" trading etc, even if it is against the law. I have never seen the word "stolen" in the context of piracy either, in Swedish newspapers. Is this something normal for US papers? Do they write about "illegal murder", "illegal robbery" etc too? Or is this just sligtly modified PR?
Because, you see, we bring our children up using phrases like "sharing is good" and "trading is the backbone of capitalism and democracy" and things of that nature. In order to emphasize that these people aren't doing the right kind of sharing and trading, we add that whole "illegal" thing in front of it.
Yes, the "stolen" thing is pure marketing. It's a sure sign that the RIAA or MPAA paid somebody at the news agency to have their articles run as if they were news.
To take it further, DRM is just like the "War on Drugs". It's about people taking away rights from others using methods that should be illegal, and which are totally ineffective!
My god, man! A perfect analogy on slashdot?!? The world is coming to an end!
The definition is largely meaningless anyway. No science hinges on what a planet is. It's a waste of time even to argue about it.
Tell those bitches to stop with the silly arguments and get back to the telescopes. When they have a valid scientific reason to differentiate a planet from a hunk of rock that just happens to orbit the sun, then we can start arguing about definitions with some kind of actual reason for it.
Shouldn't Google ask me for permission before copying my content?
Hell no! They don't NEED your permission to copy your content. Anybody can copy your content for any damn reason they please.
They only need your permission to redistribute it in ways that don't fall under fair use.
Copyright is predicated on the idea that nobody actually owns artistic creations like paintings or books or what have you. You can own the painting, but not the image displayed by that painting. You can own a book, but not the sequence of words in that book.
In order to encourage creation of new works of art, we, the people, grant a limited monopoly to the creator of such things. Admittedly, the time frame for that monopoly has been extended many times by corrupt politicans, but it has still only been EXTENDED, not made into actual property.
"Intellectual property" is a misnomer, because it's not "property" in any real sense of the word. Nobody can own a story. Nobody can own words. Somebody can have some limited amount of control over some of them for some period of time though. That's the way it works here.
For one person, paying $5-10 to see a flick isn't a big deal. It's a tad painful to fork over another $10 for a popcorn and soda, but it's not extremely bothersome.
For a family, two adults, say two children, you're looking at $30 in tickets, probably another $40-50 on popcorn and soda and such (inflated movie house prices). Suddenly a night at the movies for a family costs nearly $100 (considering gas prices).
Or they can rent a movie for $3-4 and watch it at home, on probably a better sound system and better picture quality, without having to deal with sticky floors and screaming infants (other people's, at least) and a bunch of bastards talking on their cell phones.
Is it any surprise that movie attendance number for families have dropped sharply?
It's not about the single ticket price. It's about the total cost of viewing. It's just way too high and out of reach for the average family these days.
We used LOGO on an Apple IIe and we liked it!
:D
That little turtle moving all over the scren to make what were essentially spirograph pictures? Back then that was state of the art shit, boy.
Made learning programming reasonably simple too, since you learned to think in terms of the algorithim. Also taught trig, since you had to deal with angles all the freakin time. But it worked, by gum!
Upon reading it again, it appears that he was talking about the link from the "black box" (that records your sensor data) to the data bus. It has nothing to do with the airbag or OnStar.
That "black box" is what allows your airbag to fire at the right times and not fire at other times. Without the data recorder, the airbag system doesn't work correctly. In other words, the data recorder is a side effect, not the actual intended operation of the "black box". Basically it's continually monitoring all these variables in a loop and when it gets signals from the impact sensors, it examines that data to determine whether to fire the airbag or not. This is why airbags don't fire in low speed collisions and so on. The reason it's a "data recorder" is because it looks at the last few milliseconds of data leading up to the impact to figure out things like stopping speed and g-forces and all that jazz. And then, after it fires the airbag, it locks up and stops doing anything. Its job is done. And the last few milliseconds before the wreck are still in it.
Everybody knows that Storage is measured in powers of ten while solid-state memory is measured in powers of two.
Just because hard drive manufacturers lie is no reason to abuse the language like that.