I certainly do! And there are some great easter eggs out there.
Just type random words into the search box in emule and away you go: 95% crap and 5% really worth listening to - and that 5% is a lot more than you get on most radio stations!
I'm trying to work out why so many posters are infatuated with this argument that Apple can't become a record distributor because of a legal wrangle with Apple Records.
Apple have been very smart in the last 7 or 8 years. They've created an identity called "i". Apple wouldn't NEED to use the name Apple to sell records. People buy iPods, not Apples. The iPod mark has enough mindshare to make it a stand-alone name.
All Apple has to do is create a label called iMusic, steer clear of mentioning the name Apple in their communications, and lo and behold: no more IP issues for Apple Records to get angry about.
The GP is certainly right to bitch. Some of us don't have too much time on our hands and we certainly don't want to waste what little we have by Googling FOR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN INTEREST US.
There. I've used up my time-waste allocation for today on this reply.
The article says they want to extend the period BY thirty years, making a total of 50 whole years. This of course gives them thirty-years breathing time in which to think up reasons for extending it to a hundred, then a thousand years.
OK then, let's say for the sake of argument that you want to download some copyrighted Metallica via bit torrent, that the RIAA have already got the police to put the file you want on the Net, and that downloading is a crime.
The definition states:
Government agents have performed entrapment if three things occur:
1) the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2) the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
3) the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
1) It was your idea to download it, not the goverment agent's 2) Nobody said "pssst, you really should download some Metallica, come on, forget the law!" 3) You were definitely ready and willing to go ahead with the download
I don't see how you cold argue against any of those points.
So it's not entrapment or whatever passes for entrapment.
Why would they build a battle robot with a head? To make it look more intimidating?
Why not fit a tail too. Is there any reason a robot should be directional at all?
The idea of armies of battle robots fighting each other all seems a bit burlesque to me. Can you imagine Robots vs Robots in a "take that hill" scenario. Who's going to surrender if there are only robots out there - and surrender what? Their sensors?
(2) Amount and substantiability of the work used. Google could get in trouble here, because even if they only reveal there copy a few words at a time, they copied the whole thing
But they didn't *keep* the whole thing.
From their FAQ:
6) I'm already logged in. Why are you telling me the page is unavailable?
As part of our efforts to protect a book's copyright, a set of pages in every in-copyright book will be unavailable to all users.
(emphasis mine)
In June this year there was a big Techno festival about three kilometres from my house. It lasted all through the night and I didn't get a wink of sleep because of the thudding noise.
Now, if it had that effect on me three kilometres away, what effect did it have on the eardrums of the 10K people actually present?
Hey it was only an example. I'm not going to draw up a profit and loss account for the operation!
But remove the middleshark and I find it hard to see how the majority would fail to gain.
And big names at low prices could give the New World Order the kick start it needs. When wax discs first came out, nobody had phonographs. When CDs first came out, nobody had CD players. you can hardly say the same for people who have the Web.
"How is the Internet going to turn around and destroy them, and when do you think this will happen?"
How about it will happen when this happens:
[Big non-RIAA company with initiative] persuades [selection of popular artists] to forget working with the labels and deal directly with them to distribute their songs over the Internet for a higher cut of the takings.
Fifty cents a tune, twenty five to the artist, twenty five to the distributor. Both get 3 dollars for a 12-song album. Distributor is better off, artist is better off, customer is better off, so who needs labels? Labels are for putting on boxes.
I AM a professional human translator, and believe me, if a machine translation did even a half decent job of producing intelligible, natural text, I would use it to get a jump start and save a lot of time.
But as things stand, I'd spend more time knocking the bad translation into shape than if I translated the whole thing from scratch.
Translators are often asked to copy edit other translators' work (customers tend to call it this "proof reading", presumably to devalue it and get it done on the cheap, but it involves much more than hunting typos). That's fair enough if you want a quality check. But some smart-arse people try sending machine translations for copy editing. And you can bet they get sent straight back!
Without wanting to knock the TU 144, which was still something of an achievement, what you say is by and large right. It's pretty clear the two planes didn't resemble each other so closely - right down to the droop nose - by pure chance.
Boeing's SST on the other hand, apart from being bigger, used (or planned to use) one or two concepts radically different from those of the Concorde, such as variable geometry wings.
How do you expect drug companies to survive when it costs about $1 billion to develop a new drug?
Like they do now, by selling drugs at exorbitant prices?
Yes I know other companies are going to come along and get a free ride if there's no protection. The billion dollar spenders will just have to make sure they cash in quickly and establish their market before the freeriders catch up.
Look at Coca Cola for example. Plenty of products taste very similar if not better. There are hundreds of own-brand colas on the market. But Coca Cola still manage to sell their brand at exorbitant prices.
I tend to agree. Instinctively, "mice" sounds wrong. Mice are little furry creatures that walk into traps.
The problem is it seems to be a unique case. I can't find a precedent. Is there another animal with an irregular plural whose name is also used for an object. Goose? Louse? Ox? Man... ah!
You could argue that we say walkmen rather than walkmans, so perhaps mice is right after all -- but it still sounds wrong!
Slashdot Mirror
Will the dimmer switch now have to be reinvented? How do you modulate the light from a LED?
If the person who needed the drug dies then they'll get bugger all, will they; so what's their precious drug worth then?
One dead person = one lost sale.
Way to go. What a fucking great world we're living in.
"Where else do you see IPTV right now?"
Here for example:
http://www.neuf.fr/offres/43/45/47/50/52.html
OK fine, let the US control it.
Oh by the way the UK invented postage stamps. Can we have control of the world's postal system please?
I certainly do! And there are some great easter eggs out there.
Just type random words into the search box in emule and away you go: 95% crap and 5% really worth listening to - and that 5% is a lot more than you get on most radio stations!
I'm trying to work out why so many posters are infatuated with this argument that Apple can't become a record distributor because of a legal wrangle with Apple Records.
Apple have been very smart in the last 7 or 8 years. They've created an identity called "i". Apple wouldn't NEED to use the name Apple to sell records. People buy iPods, not Apples. The iPod mark has enough mindshare to make it a stand-alone name.
All Apple has to do is create a label called iMusic, steer clear of mentioning the name Apple in their communications, and lo and behold: no more IP issues for Apple Records to get angry about.
The GP is certainly right to bitch. Some of us don't have too much time on our hands and we certainly don't want to waste what little we have by Googling FOR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN INTEREST US.
There. I've used up my time-waste allocation for today on this reply.
You're making a lot of assumptions about me.
Anyway, was that a yes or a no?
So we're suddenly going to see healthy competition where Microsoft are involved?
Which part of "proven abuser of monopolistic power" don't people get? Microsoft has never used quality to gain market share, only leverage.
Does Google really need Microsoft to join the race to keep it pushing forward?
The article says they want to extend the period BY thirty years, making a total of 50 whole years. This of course gives them thirty-years breathing time in which to think up reasons for extending it to a hundred, then a thousand years.
Yes. But countries including Peru usually have multitasking capability.
OK then, let's say for the sake of argument that you want to download some copyrighted Metallica via bit torrent, that the RIAA have already got the police to put the file you want on the Net, and that downloading is a crime.
The definition states:
Government agents have performed entrapment if three things occur:
1) the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2) the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
3) the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
1) It was your idea to download it, not the goverment agent's
2) Nobody said "pssst, you really should download some Metallica, come on, forget the law!"
3) You were definitely ready and willing to go ahead with the download
I don't see how you cold argue against any of those points.
So it's not entrapment or whatever passes for entrapment.
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/SciFi/Blakes7/e pisodes.html
I believe actor Gareth Thomas (Blake himself) went AWOL for (at least) the second series due to Royal Shakesperae Company commitments.
And Jacqueline Pearce as Servelan has to be the horniest Sci-Fi woman in the whole of SF TV and cinema history!
Hey it's no worse than "an Electronic nose that seek out various airborne elements". All your nose are pong to us!
Why would they build a battle robot with a head? To make it look more intimidating?
Why not fit a tail too. Is there any reason a robot should be directional at all?
The idea of armies of battle robots fighting each other all seems a bit burlesque to me. Can you imagine Robots vs Robots in a "take that hill" scenario. Who's going to surrender if there are only robots out there - and surrender what? Their sensors?
To be fair "design blueprints released during a meeting of science-related ministers" doesn't sound very much like a North Korean thing, does it?
(2) Amount and substantiability of the work used. Google could get in trouble here, because even if they only reveal there copy a few words at a time, they copied the whole thing
But they didn't *keep* the whole thing.
From their FAQ:
6) I'm already logged in. Why are you telling me the page is unavailable?
As part of our efforts to protect a book's copyright, a set of pages in every in-copyright book will be unavailable to all users.
(emphasis mine)
In June this year there was a big Techno festival about three kilometres from my house. It lasted all through the night and I didn't get a wink of sleep because of the thudding noise.
Now, if it had that effect on me three kilometres away, what effect did it have on the eardrums of the 10K people actually present?
Hey it was only an example. I'm not going to draw up a profit and loss account for the operation!
But remove the middleshark and I find it hard to see how the majority would fail to gain.
And big names at low prices could give the New World Order the kick start it needs. When wax discs first came out, nobody had phonographs. When CDs first came out, nobody had CD players. you can hardly say the same for people who have the Web.
"How is the Internet going to turn around and destroy them, and when do you think this will happen?"
How about it will happen when this happens:
[Big non-RIAA company with initiative] persuades [selection of popular artists] to forget working with the labels and deal directly with them to distribute their songs over the Internet for a higher cut of the takings.
Fifty cents a tune, twenty five to the artist, twenty five to the distributor. Both get 3 dollars for a 12-song album. Distributor is better off, artist is better off, customer is better off, so who needs labels? Labels are for putting on boxes.
I AM a professional human translator, and believe me, if a machine translation did even a half decent job of producing intelligible, natural text, I would use it to get a jump start and save a lot of time.
But as things stand, I'd spend more time knocking the bad translation into shape than if I translated the whole thing from scratch.
Translators are often asked to copy edit other translators' work (customers tend to call it this "proof reading", presumably to devalue it and get it done on the cheap, but it involves much more than hunting typos). That's fair enough if you want a quality check. But some smart-arse people try sending machine translations for copy editing. And you can bet they get sent straight back!
Without wanting to knock the TU 144, which was still something of an achievement, what you say is by and large right. It's pretty clear the two planes didn't resemble each other so closely - right down to the droop nose - by pure chance.
_ pic2.jpeg
Boeing's SST on the other hand, apart from being bigger, used (or planned to use) one or two concepts radically different from those of the Concorde, such as variable geometry wings.
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/images/sst
I'd have liked to have seen that beauty fly - from the inside as well as the outside!
How do you expect drug companies to survive when it costs about $1 billion to develop a new drug?
Like they do now, by selling drugs at exorbitant prices?
Yes I know other companies are going to come along and get a free ride if there's no protection. The billion dollar spenders will just have to make sure they cash in quickly and establish their market before the freeriders catch up.
Look at Coca Cola for example. Plenty of products taste very similar if not better. There are hundreds of own-brand colas on the market. But Coca Cola still manage to sell their brand at exorbitant prices.
Plenty of words are occasionally seen without being right!
Unix = Unix = Uniplexed Information and Computing System
System takes an S in the plural.
You must understand however that some people prefer to come across as pretentious or just plain confused. For that purpose, "Unixen" is ideal.
I tend to agree. Instinctively, "mice" sounds wrong. Mice are little furry creatures that walk into traps.
... ah!
The problem is it seems to be a unique case. I can't find a precedent. Is there another animal with an irregular plural whose name is also used for an object. Goose? Louse? Ox? Man
You could argue that we say walkmen rather than walkmans, so perhaps mice is right after all -- but it still sounds wrong!