We use an embedded IE (6 currently) browser control in our application and we print via that control giving it a custom print template. One thing lacking (we couldn't find anyway) was a way to tell the control which printer to print to. It just prints to the default printer. We reverted to saving the current default printer, changing the default printer to the printer we wanted, print, then change it back (hopefully without crashing in between). Is there such functionality exposed from IE7 so we can tell it to print to a particular printer without resorting to such a kludge? Again, we looked but couldn't find anything.
derekb: Why didn't she rip up the application? Or write void on it? Atleast then she could go back and say 'I didn't sign anything, prove it'
That wouldn't stop these kinds of people. They'd just take the original, fill out a new one with the information she filled in and submit the nice new application. Instead you need to take it with you and dispose of it properly (shredder).
So how are the claims in the patent any different than the windows shell/program manager that MS has been using since windows started (yes I know ms didn't invent this, but shows this sort of thing has been in use long before 1994)? Icons = Hyperlinks Click/double click an icon, launch an application. The only difference is the container: windows shell/program manager vs web browser.
And for that matter, fork? Basically the same thing. fork a process from another process. It's all the same thing.
With CG, it is usually so obvious that the CG character isn't really there. The other actor (who is in reality is looking at a blue screen) stares intently at where the eyes are supposed to be, but you can just tell he isn't seeing the creature standing there. You can tell because the character does not react to the subtle nuance of the CG character. When the CG creature wags a huge, spiked tail, or shifts its weight suddenly, the other actor does not react to these movements.
That's more a problem of bad acting and directing. If these "actors" need some sort of feedback to do their job correctly that's not the CGs fault.
How about the simple fact that Spider-Man was on more screens? Another thing is, at least here in Dallas, there are 2 DLP screens, and everybody wanted to see the movie digitally. These 2 screens repeatedly sell out a day in advance but the screens showing the film version are not selling out. I waited a day to see the movie digitally instead of opting for the film version. But I think that explaination is just a bit to simple for Mr. Katz.
In essence they (Disney again) are claiming that EVERYBODY that owns a ReplayTV device is using it for illegal activities. Guilty until proven innocent. This sounds like something that should require a search warrant. You can't just invade people's privacy like this. Cops need a search warrant to invade the privacy of a murderers or rapists home. I guess the real criminals have all the rights (after all, they're the ones that make the laws, so of course they'll protect themselves).
If I were a software engineer for SonicBlue and ordered to write this software, I'd either quit, or write a backdoor (ie a way to NOT have your choices tracked) and tell my friends and family about it.
How can they tell if you click the commercial skip button that you're really skipping a commercial? I guess it's more for the "sending what you recorded to another box" feature. What if you're forwarding it to your box in the bedroom where you don't have cable? I see no problem with that. It's like taking a VHS tape from one room to another.
Imagine buying 10 CDs at cdnow and finding seven of them have warnings on the label. So you send them back. Then you open the other three, to find that two of them have warnings inside the shrinkwrapped package. Even the imaginary more liberal return policies are unlikely to help you now.
Well why not? These are "copy protected" cds aren't they? There shouldn't be a problem with returning open items then.
CD burners, floppy drives, VCRs cassette tapes, photo copiers, etc. have substancial non-infringing uses. Nintendo will argue that this product does not.
Sure it does. Just like making a backup copy of your tapes, CDs, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
We use an embedded IE (6 currently) browser control in our application and we print via that control giving it a custom print template.
One thing lacking (we couldn't find anyway) was a way to tell the control which printer to print to. It just prints to the default printer.
We reverted to saving the current default printer, changing the default printer to the printer we wanted, print, then change it back (hopefully without crashing in between).
Is there such functionality exposed from IE7 so we can tell it to print to a particular printer without resorting to such a kludge? Again, we looked but couldn't find anything.
Thanks
derekb: Why didn't she rip up the application? Or write void on it? Atleast then she could go back and say 'I didn't sign anything, prove it'
That wouldn't stop these kinds of people. They'd just take the original, fill out a new one with the information she filled in and submit the nice new application.
Instead you need to take it with you and dispose of it properly (shredder).
So how are the claims in the patent any different than the windows shell/program manager that MS has been using since windows started (yes I know ms didn't invent this, but shows this sort of thing has been in use long before 1994)?
Icons = Hyperlinks
Click/double click an icon, launch an application.
The only difference is the container: windows shell/program manager vs web browser.
And for that matter, fork? Basically the same thing. fork a process from another process. It's all the same thing.
Ooo, now it's only 1-click. Big friggin deal.
That's more a problem of bad acting and directing. If these "actors" need some sort of feedback to do their job correctly that's not the CGs fault.
If you feel that everyone else's privacy needs to be violated to guarantee your safety on a plane, then don't fly.
If you feel your privacy is more important than everybody else's safety on public transportation, then don't fly.
Get a car. Hm, need a license. That takes away your privacy. Govt knows you're bound to drive somewhere.
Got 2 legs?
How about the simple fact that Spider-Man was on more screens?
Another thing is, at least here in Dallas, there are 2 DLP screens, and everybody wanted to see the movie digitally. These 2 screens repeatedly sell out a day in advance but the screens showing the film version are not selling out. I waited a day to see the movie digitally instead of opting for the film version.
But I think that explaination is just a bit to simple for Mr. Katz.
In essence they (Disney again) are claiming that EVERYBODY that owns a ReplayTV device is using it for illegal activities. Guilty until proven innocent.
This sounds like something that should require a search warrant.
You can't just invade people's privacy like this. Cops need a search warrant to invade the privacy of a murderers or rapists home. I guess the real criminals have all the rights (after all, they're the ones that make the laws, so of course they'll protect themselves).
If I were a software engineer for SonicBlue and ordered to write this software, I'd either quit, or write a backdoor (ie a way to NOT have your choices tracked) and tell my friends and family about it.
How can they tell if you click the commercial skip button that you're really skipping a commercial?
I guess it's more for the "sending what you recorded to another box" feature. What if you're forwarding it to your box in the bedroom where you don't have cable? I see no problem with that. It's like taking a VHS tape from one room to another.
Well why not? These are "copy protected" cds aren't they? There shouldn't be a problem with returning open items then.
I was thinking Judas Priest's "Some Heads Are Gonna Roll" would be a better anthem. :-)