I'm not going to rely on these sites for a background check. If someone's not on there it doesn't mean they didn't do anything. It just means they paid to have them removed.
What would be the technical issue of setting up a more flexible social network? Multiple social networks which supply feeds to each other. Shouldn't be too hard from a technical PoV. Marketing seems to be the big blockage.
Average payout per ticket is prize_fund/(ticket_price*tickets_sold). If the prize fund is larger than ticket_price*tickets_sold then on average everyone will gain. Sounds that these people have just worked out a way to make sure that they have a decent coverage so they eliminate the risk.
In this case, buy 39 thousand $2 tickets. Statistically one of them will win win the match 5 prize making you $19507. 48 will match 4 numbers winning you $800 each ($38400). and 823 will win you $26 for 3 numbers ($21407). This comes to $79314 winnings already from a stake of $78000. You then get a load of free games next week for matching 2 numbers, many of which will win $5. The problem is there's a non-trivial risk that none of those 39000 tickets will match 5 numbers (there's also a reasonable chance that 2 might match) so you need to increase your coverage. Presumably there's an amount you can buy so that you can be sure that a known number will match 5 whatever six numbers come up, but on average, all players make a profit.
This came up on Slashdot years ago. Someone said they sent a letter pointing out that the BSA has no standing.
The BSA is certainly not a legal authority. It's a trade association. In most countries they don't have a right to "fine" you (but presumably they k now this and will call it a "fee")
As a trade association, it's a separate entity from the companies that licensed the software. As such it has no standing to sue. You company has never licensed software from the BSA, agreed to audits from the BSA, or agreed to pay the BSA for any of these costs.
The gist of it was you can tell the BSA to take a hike and demand to speak to the organisations directly regarding alleged infringement.
Re:Who cares about TVs? Give me HUXGA instead
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
Weren't those a factor of size rather than resolution though? I mean a higher resolution does lend itself to a bigger monitor but 22" should be enough This is the first one I found that had stats. Just under 30kg and 46cm deep. Depth is an issue but most desks will support my weight and I'm probably pretty close to 90kg
Re:Who cares about TVs? Give me HUXGA instead
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
I agree. It's disappointing that there are so few monitors with higher res than 1920x1080.
If we'd stuck with CRT we'd find at least 2048x1536 a common resolution by now. They certainly were available at the tail-end of the CRT era and dirt cheap now. I'm actually almost tempted to get one.
1.85:1 aspect ratio was introduced before television became common. 2:40:1 has been around for way longer than wide screen TV. Differentiation from TV is a minor factor in screen sizes.
Besides, cinemas aren't competing with TV any more. DVDs are. They use the same display device so compatibility is desirable.
My point was simply that saying the film sucked adds nothing to the discussion.
Of course some people didn't enjoy it. This doesn't mean that George Lucas wasn't "considered an incredible up-and-coming young director", which is what i infer from your statement that Lucas was "always a total fail".
So uhm... you didn't like it. Erm... okay... thanks for sharing. I like rocky road ice cream.
I was wondering that myself. Presumably the article is written by someone without a good understanding of how the law works and there are some relevant aspects he's missed.
The writeup suggests that Lucas just bought a load of armour from a supplier. No contract to indicate this was a work for hire. The artist designed and manfuactured the armour and then sold it. They were just sold as props. I seem to agree with the supreme court here.
What I don't see is why Lucas has rights for those first 15 years. If I use any other commercial product in a movie do I have full rights for 15 years to explit it? If I have my hero drive a Ferarri does this mean I can refuse to allow Ferarri to make their own cars for 15 years?
Also it's a bit rich for the spokeswoman to say "We believe the imaginative characters, props, costumes, and other visual assets that go into making a film deserve protection in Britain." I didn't see anything in the article about the artist getting royalties for the millions of stormtrooper figures sold.
But that's something of a subjective opinion. The majority of critics considered it a fantastic film. Your opinion, although perfctly valid, doesn't really count for much in this respect.
From the article it sounds like the plan was to use a standard engine as a generator. Not sure if that's a huge advantage to be honest.
Of course other possibilities are fuel cells, or developing some form of wireless energy transfer (but I suspect the FAA would have issues over this solution and it would require a lot of infrastructure)
But we're not really the customers. The customers are the companies with websites who want to be visited on the internet and they have to do what Google demands.
Well, there are parallel tasks that really don't lend themselves to the type of parallelism on GPUs. Tasks that have a lot of conditional paths and have non-predictable number of operations per thread are at least easier to implement on a CPU.
Something like Ray-tracing, for example, you can't tell at the start how many reflections there are going to be or how many polygon hit tests there are. nVidia did make a decent stab at this but it was somewhat limited compared with a CPU version.
Yup. Just like Galileo needed to do an experiment to prove that heavy objects fall faster than light objects when millions of people already knew this was the case.
Millions of people are often wrong. And even if they're not there are no figures for how significant the effect is.
He was making money because people visited his website (their intentions are irrelevant to me).
I presume it was advertising. But he was using material he knew was illegal in order to bring visitors. Hardly sounds like he's exactly an innocent victim here. Perhaps what he did is just about within the law but that depends on the specifics of how the law is written and interpreted. The point is, he's far from an innocent here. He was knowingly profiting as a fairly direct result of copyright infringement and assumed that some clever pedantic arguing would get him off the hook.
What tools?
In this case an embedded video player. Sure it's a fairly simple piece of software since it's just an embedded video player but I don't see how the complexity makes substantial difference.
Why does providing tools even matter (in your opinion)?
It means he's actively taking part in the infringing activities.
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't be worth enforcing it.
As far as I'm aware the only remedy would be a civil suit for damages. I seriously doubt they'd be able to sue for more than the cost of a CD.
I'm not going to rely on these sites for a background check. If someone's not on there it doesn't mean they didn't do anything. It just means they paid to have them removed.
So why pay to remove myself?
What would be the technical issue of setting up a more flexible social network? Multiple social networks which supply feeds to each other. Shouldn't be too hard from a technical PoV. Marketing seems to be the big blockage.
Average payout per ticket is prize_fund/(ticket_price*tickets_sold). If the prize fund is larger than ticket_price*tickets_sold then on average everyone will gain. Sounds that these people have just worked out a way to make sure that they have a decent coverage so they eliminate the risk.
In this case, buy 39 thousand $2 tickets. Statistically one of them will win win the match 5 prize making you $19507. 48 will match 4 numbers winning you $800 each ($38400). and 823 will win you $26 for 3 numbers ($21407). This comes to $79314 winnings already from a stake of $78000. You then get a load of free games next week for matching 2 numbers, many of which will win $5. The problem is there's a non-trivial risk that none of those 39000 tickets will match 5 numbers (there's also a reasonable chance that 2 might match) so you need to increase your coverage. Presumably there's an amount you can buy so that you can be sure that a known number will match 5 whatever six numbers come up, but on average, all players make a profit.
I should have paid more money for something that's bigger, heavier and has worse battery life?
As the other two replies have pointed out, I can press F11. It seems more convenient.
I have 600 pixels vertical resolution. I need all the screen real-estate I can get!
Am slightly concerned about the menu bar though. Don't use it a lot but I d occasionally. Where is it?
This came up on Slashdot years ago. Someone said they sent a letter pointing out that the BSA has no standing.
The BSA is certainly not a legal authority. It's a trade association. In most countries they don't have a right to "fine" you (but presumably they k now this and will call it a "fee")
As a trade association, it's a separate entity from the companies that licensed the software. As such it has no standing to sue. You company has never licensed software from the BSA, agreed to audits from the BSA, or agreed to pay the BSA for any of these costs.
The gist of it was you can tell the BSA to take a hike and demand to speak to the organisations directly regarding alleged infringement.
Weren't those a factor of size rather than resolution though? I mean a higher resolution does lend itself to a bigger monitor but 22" should be enough This is the first one I found that had stats. Just under 30kg and 46cm deep. Depth is an issue but most desks will support my weight and I'm probably pretty close to 90kg
I agree. It's disappointing that there are so few monitors with higher res than 1920x1080.
If we'd stuck with CRT we'd find at least 2048x1536 a common resolution by now. They certainly were available at the tail-end of the CRT era and dirt cheap now. I'm actually almost tempted to get one.
1.85:1 aspect ratio was introduced before television became common. 2:40:1 has been around for way longer than wide screen TV. Differentiation from TV is a minor factor in screen sizes.
Besides, cinemas aren't competing with TV any more. DVDs are. They use the same display device so compatibility is desirable.
Really? I'm sure I hear of several departments talking about iPads. Or is this just a specific list of suppliers for desktop computers?
Twitter has a slight female bias so just guess "female" every time for 55% hit rate.
My point was simply that saying the film sucked adds nothing to the discussion.
Of course some people didn't enjoy it. This doesn't mean that George Lucas wasn't "considered an incredible up-and-coming young director", which is what i infer from your statement that Lucas was "always a total fail".
So uhm... you didn't like it. Erm... okay... thanks for sharing. I like rocky road ice cream.
Given your views on the matter, why did you feel that anyone else would be remotely concerned with your opinion of how much Ameerican Grafitti sucked?
I was wondering that myself. Presumably the article is written by someone without a good understanding of how the law works and there are some relevant aspects he's missed.
The writeup suggests that Lucas just bought a load of armour from a supplier. No contract to indicate this was a work for hire. The artist designed and manfuactured the armour and then sold it. They were just sold as props. I seem to agree with the supreme court here.
What I don't see is why Lucas has rights for those first 15 years. If I use any other commercial product in a movie do I have full rights for 15 years to explit it? If I have my hero drive a Ferarri does this mean I can refuse to allow Ferarri to make their own cars for 15 years?
Also it's a bit rich for the spokeswoman to say "We believe the imaginative characters, props, costumes, and other visual assets that go into making a film deserve protection in Britain." I didn't see anything in the article about the artist getting royalties for the millions of stormtrooper figures sold.
But that's something of a subjective opinion. The majority of critics considered it a fantastic film. Your opinion, although perfctly valid, doesn't really count for much in this respect.
From the article it sounds like the plan was to use a standard engine as a generator. Not sure if that's a huge advantage to be honest.
Of course other possibilities are fuel cells, or developing some form of wireless energy transfer (but I suspect the FAA would have issues over this solution and it would require a lot of infrastructure)
And have market penetration fall from 72% to 27%. Hardly a trivial change as a result of changing suppliers is it?
But we're not really the customers. The customers are the companies with websites who want to be visited on the internet and they have to do what Google demands.
Buying goods for a dollar a time and selling them for $1.42 is not a shitty business model. It only becomes so if Apple demands that 42 cents profit.
So yes, it's Apple's fault that you ahve a shitty business model.
Well, there are parallel tasks that really don't lend themselves to the type of parallelism on GPUs. Tasks that have a lot of conditional paths and have non-predictable number of operations per thread are at least easier to implement on a CPU.
Something like Ray-tracing, for example, you can't tell at the start how many reflections there are going to be or how many polygon hit tests there are. nVidia did make a decent stab at this but it was somewhat limited compared with a CPU version.
Yup. Just like Galileo needed to do an experiment to prove that heavy objects fall faster than light objects when millions of people already knew this was the case.
Millions of people are often wrong. And even if they're not there are no figures for how significant the effect is.
Maximum speed of these on the route is about 155mph. (250 km/h). But yes, these are the "slow" ones. The fast "G" trains travel at 300km/h.
He was making money because people visited his website (their intentions are irrelevant to me).
I presume it was advertising. But he was using material he knew was illegal in order to bring visitors. Hardly sounds like he's exactly an innocent victim here. Perhaps what he did is just about within the law but that depends on the specifics of how the law is written and interpreted. The point is, he's far from an innocent here. He was knowingly profiting as a fairly direct result of copyright infringement and assumed that some clever pedantic arguing would get him off the hook. What tools?
In this case an embedded video player. Sure it's a fairly simple piece of software since it's just an embedded video player but I don't see how the complexity makes substantial difference.
Why does providing tools even matter (in your opinion)?
It means he's actively taking part in the infringing activities.