Let me guess, this will end up like every other "blame the media" lawsuit whether it is against a rock band, a movie or in keeping with the times, a video game: thrown own of court by an eye-rolling judge or found laughable by an eye-rolling jury.
Parents: give it up, this tactic has never worked because it is damn near impossible to show causality for mass media that is digested by millions.
Yes, someone has to blame for your kid killing himself/someone else...but expand your definition of someone to include "that's life" and you'll might feel better about things. Millions of kids (many of which listen to, watch or play the thing you are blaming) do not end up this way. The few kids that do fall into a statistical expectation...either due to problems with their upbringing, their peers, their parents or their gray matter. Welcome to the world we live in.
Maybe what they "got" was that jamming in front of a great crowd was far better than making a lot of money...
Let's see: In 1994 they made $52.4 million in tour revenue. In 1993 they made $45.6 million in tour revenue. In 1993 they made $34.7 million in tour revenue.
I think you're missing the point. Back in the days when a 50MHz increase was a big deal, the percentage increase was much greater, hence the perceived worth of upgrading was much better -- who wouldn't want a machine that was 50% or 100% faster? Now that processors speeds are so high (comparatively), a 200MHz increase just doesn't seem worth an upgrade.
Anybody else feel like you just want to start over, with only good people involved, and remake the internet? None of this patent crap, none of this copyright bullshit, just pure standards that are actual standards. Uncompromised and pure. No restrictions on data, short of the physical line speeds.
Do away with the physical line speeds too and you've got Internet2...at least until it goes public one day.
It was overwhelming passed by both houses in 1987, but vetoed by Reagan. Even Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms voted for it.
It was passed by the House again in 1989, but Bush Sr. threatened a veto, so it didn't get to the Senate for a vote.
Rush is trying to make it seem that it is only back to silence him and conservatives (ergo "Hush Rush") but bipartisan support for the Fairness Doctrine has been around from before Rush was a big force in broadcasting.
No, Gore would have lost a statewide recount of votes. He would have only won if they had counted voteless ballots as Gore votes.
Actually, the study found that Gore would have won a statewide recount of votes if undervotes (or as you call them "votelss ballots") and overvotes had been counted, not just undervotes. In fact, just counting the undervotes would have favored Bush in the statewide count. The key for Gore was overvotes.
And that's the delicious irony of the whole thing: The Bush camp was arguing that "every vote" in the state should be counted -- and it turns out that would have led to Gore win. Meanwhile, the Gore camp was arguing that the "undervotes" in only selected counties be counted -- and it turns out that would have led to a Bush win.
Thankfully, the actual results went through.
If the study proves anything, it's that there were no "actual" results. But believe what you want to beleive if that makes you feel better.;-)
The quote from a CNN interview: "I took the iniatative in creating the Internet". Those are his words. Check into this, and stop lying about what Gore said.
Look up invent in a dictionary or thesaurus: it means the same thing as create.
No need to go to your "howler" site: I'm sure it is one of those that defends Gore by trying to deflect attention from his actual claim.
If you think Al Gore really believed he either 1) physically or technically invented the Internet; or 2) thought he could "get away" with claiming such an absurd thing
Then IMHO you're not too bright -- come on, use your head. Clearly Gore was referring to spearheading the legislation which created the public Internet.
Did he puff his role up? Probably.
Did he mean to say he actually invented/created the Internet? Nah, that's just what you read on one of those sites that attacks Gore by trying to distort his actual claim.
What the "fairness doctrine" actually means is that if anyone disagrees with anything said on the radio, they can call in and demand to be put on the air to refute what they disagree with. The station manager will have to put them on and give them time to speak their mind.
This is an exagerration. What the "fairness doctrine" actually means is that opposing points of view (in response to an editorial comment broadcast on air) shall receive an "equal opportunity" to rebuttal, i.e. an equal amount of time to refute the editorial. Just imagine if someone said on the air, "SCO owns UNIX" and everyone on slashdot called up and demanded to be put on the air to refute the point. It would take days.
No, the callers could be aired for as much time as it takes to say "SCO owns UNIX."
The "fairness doctrine" may or may not be "fair" but let's not pretend it will kill controversial speech. Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had to open the phones (or invite guest) to rebut him -- wouldn't that make it much more interesting than (as you put it) "vanilla talk"?
You can still watch this today if you're making the trip to Disney World in Florida. Fantasmic is shown every night at Disney-MGM Studios and yes, they use the "projection on water" technique a lot...very cool stuff. By turning off the stage lights they maximize the brightness of the display -- I was pretty impressed with the image quality.
FYI, although the public doesn't care anymore, Rep. Bob Barr (R.-Ga.) asked for an official investigation into this matter which reported the following:
GSA: "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy"
GAO: "There was no [White House]record kept of any cords being cut or any damage to computers or copiers-- in general there was no proof of anything matching the allegations"
So unless Ari Fleischer ran out to the computer store and bought "W" keys to fix the problem himself, there was never any proof that this was anything more than a rumor.
So, anyone with $700 to blow might could think up some random tech just to prevent Microsoft from using it, if they wanted too.
The tricky part is: coming up with random tech for which the patent office will actually grant you patent.
Contrary to what some people seem to think, it's not easy to be granted a patent, especially given the strict standards for submitting the documents. That's the reason people $10K for a patent attorney -- doing it yourself for $700 may be possible, but if you don't want to lose your rights, it's worth finding someone who knows what they're doing.
Could I say that I invented Model-View-Controller and patent that ?
Sure. Hire a patent attorney, spend the $10K and go ahead and file a patent on Model-View-Controller. In about two years, if you are granted the patent, then the answer to your question will be "yes."
But if you kill the layers, you're stuck with whatever you've composited. Let's not go back to the early days of Photoshop where complex image composition was impossible!
You're missing a fine point: "Windows" may be a "common word" but it also describes a generic UI element, hence "Windows" is a descriptive term. Descriptive terms cannot be trademarked, so Microsoft may have a problem here (unless they can defend that the term "Windows" has become synonymous with their product).
"Apple" is a also a "common word" but it is not descriptive. "Apple" does not refer to anything in the computer realm, hence it is actually a very strong trademark (if "Apple" made apple products, then they'd be in the same situation as Microsoft -- but that's a poor hypothetical because a company that made apple products could never secure the trademark "Apple").
Apple is no danger of losing their trademark in the field of computers. Their ability to use their trademark in the Music industry is what is being challenged (somewhat rightfully IMHO) here.
Yes, right you are -- $150K per work -- thanks for the correction.
Also, interesting to note in the code that the court may reduce to $200, "in a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright."
I wonder how many of these users will argue that they didn't know that their collections were being shared? (still, $200 or more times 1000+ is still a lot of dough).
Given that Judge Lee's opinion is still not written, I don't think he "clearly is speaking" about anything that can be construed as legal precedent at this time.
But when it's available, I'm sure you and I will both RTFO (FUCKING OPINION if you are too slow...blah blah blah).
Slashdot Mirror
totally out of proportion to the actual damage done (e.g. the McDonalds coffee lawsuit)
Ah, this myth again...this was not a frivolous lawsuit. Perhaps you should check out the facts.
Let me guess, this will end up like every other "blame the media" lawsuit whether it is against a rock band, a movie or in keeping with the times, a video game: thrown own of court by an eye-rolling judge or found laughable by an eye-rolling jury.
Parents: give it up, this tactic has never worked because it is damn near impossible to show causality for mass media that is digested by millions.
Yes, someone has to blame for your kid killing himself/someone else...but expand your definition of someone to include "that's life" and you'll might feel better about things. Millions of kids (many of which listen to, watch or play the thing you are blaming) do not end up this way. The few kids that do fall into a statistical expectation...either due to problems with their upbringing, their peers, their parents or their gray matter. Welcome to the world we live in.
Maybe what they "got" was that jamming in front of a great crowd was far better than making a lot of money...
;-)
Let's see:
In 1994 they made $52.4 million in tour revenue.
In 1993 they made $45.6 million in tour revenue.
In 1993 they made $34.7 million in tour revenue.
Yeah, they never made a lot of money...
I think you're missing the point. Back in the days when a 50MHz increase was a big deal, the percentage increase was much greater, hence the perceived worth of upgrading was much better -- who wouldn't want a machine that was 50% or 100% faster? Now that processors speeds are so high (comparatively), a 200MHz increase just doesn't seem worth an upgrade.
Anybody else feel like you just want to start over, with only good people involved, and remake the internet? None of this patent crap, none of this copyright bullshit, just pure standards that are actual standards. Uncompromised and pure. No restrictions on data, short of the physical line speeds.
Do away with the physical line speeds too and you've got Internet2...at least until it goes public one day.
If you read the FAIR article in the link I provided you'll see an argument to why it won't "Hush Rush" or NPR.
I guess we'll just have to see.
The "Fairness" Doctrine (AKA Hush Rush) is back.
The Fairness Doctrine has been back for a while.
It was overwhelming passed by both houses in 1987, but vetoed by Reagan. Even Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms voted for it.
It was passed by the House again in 1989, but Bush Sr. threatened a veto, so it didn't get to the Senate for a vote.
Rush is trying to make it seem that it is only back to silence him and conservatives (ergo "Hush Rush") but bipartisan support for the Fairness Doctrine has been around from before Rush was a big force in broadcasting.
Get the whole story here.
Even better information can be found here.
No, Gore would have lost a statewide recount of votes. He would have only won if they had counted voteless ballots as Gore votes.
;-)
Actually, the study found that Gore would have won a statewide recount of votes if undervotes (or as you call them "votelss ballots") and overvotes had been counted, not just undervotes. In fact, just counting the undervotes would have favored Bush in the statewide count. The key for Gore was overvotes.
And that's the delicious irony of the whole thing: The Bush camp was arguing that "every vote" in the state should be counted -- and it turns out that would have led to Gore win. Meanwhile, the Gore camp was arguing that the "undervotes" in only selected counties be counted -- and it turns out that would have led to a Bush win.
Thankfully, the actual results went through.
If the study proves anything, it's that there were no "actual" results. But believe what you want to beleive if that makes you feel better.
It is what Gore told me.
The quote from a CNN interview: "I took the iniatative in creating the Internet". Those are his words. Check into this, and stop lying about what Gore said.
Look up invent in a dictionary or thesaurus: it means the same thing as create.
No need to go to your "howler" site: I'm sure it is one of those that defends Gore by trying to deflect attention from his actual claim.
If you think Al Gore really believed he either
1) physically or technically invented the Internet; or
2) thought he could "get away" with claiming such an absurd thing
Then IMHO you're not too bright -- come on, use your head. Clearly Gore was referring to spearheading the legislation which created the public Internet.
Did he puff his role up? Probably.
Did he mean to say he actually invented/created the Internet? Nah, that's just what you read on one of those sites that attacks Gore by trying to distort his actual claim.
What the "fairness doctrine" actually means is that if anyone disagrees with anything said on the radio, they can call in and demand to be put on the air to refute what they disagree with. The station manager will have to put them on and give them time to speak their mind.
This is an exagerration. What the "fairness doctrine" actually means is that opposing points of view (in response to an editorial comment broadcast on air) shall receive an "equal opportunity" to rebuttal, i.e. an equal amount of time to refute the editorial.
Just imagine if someone said on the air, "SCO owns UNIX" and everyone on slashdot called up and demanded to be put on the air to refute the point. It would take days.
No, the callers could be aired for as much time as it takes to say "SCO owns UNIX."
The "fairness doctrine" may or may not be "fair" but let's not pretend it will kill controversial speech. Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had to open the phones (or invite guest) to rebut him -- wouldn't that make it much more interesting than (as you put it) "vanilla talk"?
You can still watch this today if you're making the trip to Disney World in Florida. Fantasmic is shown every night at Disney-MGM Studios and yes, they use the "projection on water" technique a lot...very cool stuff. By turning off the stage lights they maximize the brightness of the display -- I was pretty impressed with the image quality.
Don't forget the extra tach on the dash, a 10 inch exhaust pipe and unpainted bolted-on super wing (you'll need the downdraft with all the extra HP).
pull a "Clinton-exit-manuever"
FYI, although the public doesn't care anymore, Rep. Bob Barr (R.-Ga.) asked for an official investigation into this matter which reported the following:
GSA: "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy"
GAO: "There was no [White House]record kept of any cords being cut or any damage to computers or copiers-- in general there was no proof of anything matching the allegations"
So unless Ari Fleischer ran out to the computer store and bought "W" keys to fix the problem himself, there was never any proof that this was anything more than a rumor.
nowhere in any advertisement is it referred to as the Apple Music Store
Does this count as an advertisement?
"And now with the Apple Music Store, reliably downloading CD-quality songs has never been easier."
I thought so too, but a google search of site:apple.com "apple music store" brings up examples like the following from this apple web page:
And now with the Apple Music Store, reliably downloading CD-quality songs has never been easier.
Apple Computer's legal team is likely freaking out about that one.
So, anyone with $700 to blow might could think up some random tech just to prevent Microsoft from using it, if they wanted too.
The tricky part is: coming up with random tech for which the patent office will actually grant you patent.
Contrary to what some people seem to think, it's not easy to be granted a patent, especially given the strict standards for submitting the documents. That's the reason people $10K for a patent attorney -- doing it yourself for $700 may be possible, but if you don't want to lose your rights, it's worth finding someone who knows what they're doing.
Isn't there some stipulation that you lose your patent if you don't defend it?
That's trademarks you're thinking of, not patents.
How could the lawyers lose this case!
The patent was filed on October 23, 1995, that's how.
How the hell is "plugin technology" patentable?
You'll find the answer here.
Could I say that I invented Model-View-Controller and patent that ?
Sure. Hire a patent attorney, spend the $10K and go ahead and file a patent on Model-View-Controller. In about two years, if you are granted the patent, then the answer to your question will be "yes."
But if you kill the layers, you're stuck with whatever you've composited. Let's not go back to the early days of Photoshop where complex image composition was impossible!
You're missing a fine point: "Windows" may be a "common word" but it also describes a generic UI element, hence "Windows" is a descriptive term. Descriptive terms cannot be trademarked, so Microsoft may have a problem here (unless they can defend that the term "Windows" has become synonymous with their product).
"Apple" is a also a "common word" but it is not descriptive. "Apple" does not refer to anything in the computer realm, hence it is actually a very strong trademark (if "Apple" made apple products, then they'd be in the same situation as Microsoft -- but that's a poor hypothetical because a company that made apple products could never secure the trademark "Apple").
Apple is no danger of losing their trademark in the field of computers. Their ability to use their trademark in the Music industry is what is being challenged (somewhat rightfully IMHO) here.
Yes, right you are -- $150K per work -- thanks for the correction.
Also, interesting to note in the code that the court may reduce to $200, "in a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright."
I wonder how many of these users will argue that they didn't know that their collections were being shared? (still, $200 or more times 1000+ is still a lot of dough).
Given that Judge Lee's opinion is still not written, I don't think he "clearly is speaking" about anything that can be construed as legal precedent at this time.
But when it's available, I'm sure you and I will both RTFO (FUCKING OPINION if you are too slow...blah blah blah).
The key to this case was the consent.
Bill and Jerry