It's more than just an issue of colors rendering differently on different platforms.
In some cases, Netscape displays indexed colors differently in a GIF than when specified in HTML as a bgcolor.
I've run into situtations where a GIF that has a specific RGB value is inserted into a table cell (or body tag) with the bgcolor attribute set to the matching hex value, and there is a distinct shift at the image's edge. And this is when the machine (PC or Mac) is set at 8-, 16-, or 24-bit color.
I've never seen it happen on IE, though.
The workaround is to use transparency in the GIF, but that's not always practical. Sometimes you have to reslice the image & rebuild the table.
Writing down someone else's findings is reproduction, not creation.
If you mail yourself copyrighted material (music recording, words on paper, or whatever), you're proving when it was created, providing you don't open the envelope. The postmark shows the date you mailed it, and since you couldn't mail it before you created it, you must have created it before the date on the postmark. That way, if you have to go to court to defend your copyright, you have a document from the Federal Government that shows when you authored the work, presumably before somebody ripped you off.
I should have said "Furthermore, his comparison with Einstein's not having sued to protect the copyrights on his scientific papers does nothing to support his case. Einstein would have had just as much right to use the courts to protect his copyrights as any other author. "
Amazon also keeps records of items sent as gifts. If you had them ship a book directly to somebody esle, they have a record of the recipient's reading habits, too.
So, now an insurance company can find out my Uncle Willie has been reading up on tesitcular cancer's early warning signs.
Qimron's copyright is only for the 40% he inferred. That's a no-brainer, isn't it?
An excerpt from the article:
Judge Yaakov Tirkel, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, agreed that Qimron could not claim copyright on the scroll fragments, nor on those fragments that were pieced together by physical resemblance.
However, the deduction of the 40 percent of the text that was missing emerged from Qimron's "creative depths," Tirkel said, and the scholar was therefore was entitled to the copyright.
Therefore, Hausner's assertion that the scrolls are 'part of the scientific knowledge' is moot, because the scrolls are not covered under the copyright. Furthermore, his comparison with Einstein's not having copyrighted his theories does nothing to support his case. Einstein would have had just as much right to copyright his papers as any other author. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he should have, and I'm glad he didn't, but what reasonable person would argue that he didn't have the right to do so?
Oh, while I'm ranting, what does 3000 B.C. have to do with anything?
The Dead Sea Scrolls are believed to have been written around the time of Jesus, not 3000 years before his birth.
A devastating loss would not only serve as a catalyst in the development of filesharing technologies like Gnutella & Freenet, but it would wake people up to what will happen to the Net if they just stand by & watch.
I'm behind Napster all the way, but it's like my man Thomas Jefferson said, "The Tree of Liberty is fertilized by the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."
jail and a fine of $500,000 for reading someone else's textbook.
No,no,no!
Come on michael, you know damn well the DMCA has nothing to do with reading someone else's textbook!
It will make it illegal to duplicate the DVD, but that doesn't prevent someone from sharing it anymore than it prevents you from playing Quake at a friend's house!
This an interesting story on its own merit, for many reasons, and does not need your sensationalism to get people's attention!
From the finding: Defendants, on the other hand, are adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located.
At what point did Judge Kaplan determine this to be the case?
Did the plaintiff make this claim?
Do you feel this ruling will have any residual effects on the Open Source Community?
Do you think the Napster case hurt (or helped) your defense?
Adobe is not disputing Macromedia's use of tabs. Their claim is built around the fact that the pallettes can be separated & rearranged by grabbing the tabs. Does anybody know of a prior use of this?
Main Entry: loosen
Pronunciation: 'lü-s&n
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): loosened; loosening/'lüs-ni[ng], 'lü-s&n-i[ng]/
Date: 14th century transitive senses 1: to release from restraint 2: to make looser 3: to relieve (the bowels) of constipation 4: to cause or permit to become less strict -- often used with up intransitive senses: to become loose or looser.
and if you broke into my house to get them, it still qualifies as fair use?
You're missing the point. Nobody's saying Apple doesn't have the right to sue the people who 'stole' the pics.
This incident parallels the Pam-Tommy tapes. In the end, the judge said that even though the tapes were stolen in the first place, their original owners could do nothing to stop them from being published.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more than just an issue of colors rendering differently on different platforms.
In some cases, Netscape displays indexed colors differently in a GIF than when specified in HTML as a bgcolor.
I've run into situtations where a GIF that has a specific RGB value is inserted into a table cell (or body tag) with the bgcolor attribute set to the matching hex value, and there is a distinct shift at the image's edge. And this is when the machine (PC or Mac) is set at 8-, 16-, or 24-bit color.
I've never seen it happen on IE, though.
The workaround is to use transparency in the GIF, but that's not always practical. Sometimes you have to reslice the image & rebuild the table.
It's been my experience that the client is pretty understanding when it comes to the issue of color.
The bane of my existence is screen resolution.
Client: Make sure the logo is two inches from the left side of the screen.
Me: Okay, whose screen?
Invariably, the site gets optimized for the somebody's mother's PC, which has a 19" monitor set at 640 x 480.
From the horse's mouth: The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work.
The operative word there is created.
Writing down someone else's findings is reproduction, not creation.
If you mail yourself copyrighted material (music recording, words on paper, or whatever), you're proving when it was created, providing you don't open the envelope. The postmark shows the date you mailed it, and since you couldn't mail it before you created it, you must have created it before the date on the postmark. That way, if you have to go to court to defend your copyright, you have a document from the Federal Government that shows when you authored the work, presumably before somebody ripped you off.
Sounds sketchy, but it's cheaper than a lawyer.
You're right.
I should have said "Furthermore, his comparison with Einstein's not having sued to protect the copyrights on his scientific papers does nothing to support his case. Einstein would have had just as much right to use the courts to protect his copyrights as any other author. "
Amazon also keeps records of items sent as gifts. If you had them ship a book directly to somebody esle, they have a record of the recipient's reading habits, too.
So, now an insurance company can find out my Uncle Willie has been reading up on tesitcular cancer's early warning signs.
Bummer.
Thanks.
Qimron's copyright is only for the 40% he inferred. That's a no-brainer, isn't it?
An excerpt from the article:
Judge Yaakov Tirkel, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, agreed that Qimron could not claim copyright on the scroll fragments, nor on those fragments that were pieced together by physical resemblance.
However, the deduction of the 40 percent of the text that was missing emerged from Qimron's "creative depths," Tirkel said, and the scholar was therefore was entitled to the copyright.
Therefore, Hausner's assertion that the scrolls are 'part of the scientific knowledge' is moot, because the scrolls are not covered under the copyright. Furthermore, his comparison with Einstein's not having copyrighted his theories does nothing to support his case. Einstein would have had just as much right to copyright his papers as any other author. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he should have, and I'm glad he didn't, but what reasonable person would argue that he didn't have the right to do so?
Oh, while I'm ranting, what does 3000 B.C. have to do with anything?
The Dead Sea Scrolls are believed to have been written around the time of Jesus, not 3000 years before his birth.
Could I have a source for the Giuliani comment? Thanks.
I bet you thought this was going to be a flame, didn't you?
If your employees are forbidden from sending email that is not encrypted, then you can't monitor their email.
There are a ton of other reasons a policy like this makes sense; indemnifying yourself from such lawsuits is just a convenient side effect.
That's not a bad thing, though.
A devastating loss would not only serve as a catalyst in the development of filesharing technologies like Gnutella & Freenet, but it would wake people up to what will happen to the Net if they just stand by & watch.
I'm behind Napster all the way, but it's like my man Thomas Jefferson said, "The Tree of Liberty is fertilized by the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."
now nobody can read my spam.
jail and a fine of $500,000 for reading someone else's textbook.
No,no,no!
Come on michael, you know damn well the DMCA has nothing to do with reading someone else's textbook!
It will make it illegal to duplicate the DVD, but that doesn't prevent someone from sharing it anymore than it prevents you from playing Quake at a friend's house!
This an interesting story on its own merit, for many reasons, and does not need your sensationalism to get people's attention!
Two optical mice with 7-10 buttons each - one for each hand - used in conjunction with an eye-tracking system & a reliable voice recognition program.
because they're afraid.
Getting busted for possession isn't nearly as bad as it is for distribution.
After seeing their commercial, I assumed GlobalPC was selling refurbished Macs.
From the finding:
Defendants, on the other hand, are adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located.
At what point did Judge Kaplan determine this to be the case?
Did the plaintiff make this claim?
Do you feel this ruling will have any residual effects on the Open Source Community?
Do you think the Napster case hurt (or helped) your defense?
Adobe is not disputing Macromedia's use of tabs. Their claim is built around the fact that the pallettes can be separated & rearranged by grabbing the tabs. Does anybody know of a prior use of this?
Yeah, I thought it was a hoax too, but now I'm not so sure.
Here is an interview with some guy from Xtrem.
Main Entry: loosen /'lüs-ni[ng], 'lü-s&n-i[ng]/ : to release from restraint : to make looser : to relieve (the bowels) of constipation : to cause or permit to become less strict -- often used with up : to become loose or looser.
Pronunciation: 'lü-s&n
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): loosened; loosening
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1
2
3
4
intransitive senses
Duh.
I submitted this article about this machine earlier, but it was promptly swatted down.
Is there anybody out there doing something similar with Intel-based machines?
I understand that.
/. users have high karma?
What I don't get is why there is a need to cap karma. Why does CmdrTaco care if
A bit nasty (I liked being in the 100+ club, dammit, and with no karma whoring!) but probably necessary.
Why?
Who cares if somebody has high karma?
Am I missing something?
and if you broke into my house to get them, it still qualifies as fair use?
You're missing the point. Nobody's saying Apple doesn't have the right to sue the people who 'stole' the pics.
This incident parallels the Pam-Tommy tapes. In the end, the judge said that even though the tapes were stolen in the first place, their original owners could do nothing to stop them from being published.
What does this have to do with censorship?
This article should be in Privacy.
How better to get them to really think about the how a computer works?