yes, because the cells would eventually oxidize beyond repair and if they still wouldn't die, no new cells would grow. We'd all end up looking like the zombie ghouls from fallout 3
all the proof they had was the files they allegedly downloaded from the defendants computer. Seeing as how they had the authorization to copy those files from the rights holder, how did infringement even take place?
That's an interesting point. They could try to prove that each instance cost them several thousand dollars. That is completely unprovable considering they only way to know is to have a log of downloads from the defendants computer. The RIAA cannot have that legally. In fact, there is no way to ever prove actual damages.
The real question is, how can any thinking person think a music download which has a value of 79 could ever be worth more than that? Even if the defendant uploaded the song to 1000 people, that's only $790. That is almost never going to be the truth. Of course, they cannot actually know any of that until they look at log files. If they don't have log files which state how many times a particular song was uploaded, what can they really prove. Anything they think they can prove will be pure speculation. The fact is, the only infringement they claim to have proof for is the songs they uploaded to themselves, which isn't really infringement since they own the copyright and have legal right to copy said songs. When you really think about what proof they have of actual infringement, I can't help but wonder how any judge coherent enough to speak could find in favor of the RIAA.
Because someone at Microsoft feels the need to answer every existing web service with one of their own, they will ultimately fail.
This strategy is ludicrous and speaks volumes about the corporate mentality at the software giant. This "we must have our hand on the top of every arena" mentality will be their downfall. They are spreading too thin and have lost sight of their purpose. When you try to compete with everyone, you compete with no one.
first, if you doubt evolution by natural selection, you're delusional. You should be barred from holding public office and affecting society in any way.
second, doubting evolution by natural selection is the same as doubting gravity or photosynthesis. they're all theories. Our proof of their validity comes from our observation of them.
still doubt evolution by natural selection? iguanas taste like chickens. proof positive.
if the photographer's goal was to create as close to facsimile as possible, then it's not a creative art work or derivative work.
It's documentation. It's an authorized copy of the original. Since the original is in the public domain, there is no copyright. Unless under UK law, it's legal for someone to claim ownership of a work they didn't create.
If the original work is public domain, the copy is public domain. If they claim otherwise, try to register copyrights on public domain works in the UK. When you're told you can't copyright something in the public domain, cite this instance.
first is the nintendo generation. They rely on gameplay simply because their systems can't support bleeding edge graphics.
The other camp is the one that can have both.
It's more than just about gameplay.
One example: Mirror's edge.
The real version has great graphics and amazing gameplay. The 2d platform version has fun gameplay and stylized kitschy graphics.
Both are fun. Only the real version is what the designer intended. Anything else is a watered down version to run on inferior hardware.
The whole argument is just moot anyway. Yes, you can have both.
That's not what the question is though. The question is a business one. It demands you ask what the largest return will be. What platform has the greatest audience/customer base? Then develop for that platform. Graphics are important. Gameplay is important. These days, one without the other won't do well.
you should start your day with light exercise after you've eaten breakfast. you should also take a good isotonic vitamin supplement with B-complex. breakfast should be a whole complex carb like oatmeal. you should eat this within 30 minutes of waking up. eat a mid-morning snack like an apple. lunch should be 2 parts vegetables to 1 part meat and one part healthy complex carb like a whole sweet potato. mid-afternoon snack should be vegetables or healthy whole fruit. dinner should be light with more vegetables than meat or carbs.
try to wean yourself off caffeine over a week. with this type of diet, you shouldn't need caffeine. I don't mean diet as in starving yourself, I mean diet as in what you eat every day.
You should also really pay attention to your body more. Mind your body while you're eating and listen to it. When you feel satisfied, NOT FULL, satisfied, stop eating.
A lot of us feel tired and crappy because we're not eating the right types of food or too little or too much.
Within a few weeks, your digestive system should start working better for you and you'll feel more energy. If you continue to choose better at meal and snack times, you will automagically lose weight until your body finds equilibrium. But the benefits aren't weight loss or your figure. The benefits are health and energy.
The less processed your food is, the better. That means it should be fresh or frozen, not boxed or canned. As a rule, try to avoid the aisles in a supermarket, try to stick to the outer ring. When you eat like this every day, you are going to be truly amazed at the level of energy you start to have. The trick is eating meals and snacks. Your metabolism will speed up and you will start using the energy in your food instead of storing it. As a rule, avoid simple carbs, high sugar foods, and anything with corn syrup.
Fruits are the exception. Bananas are the perfect accompaniment to breakfast, and apples with the skin are the perfect snack because they take more energy to digest than they contain.
How do they rectify the fact that downloaders aren't infringing copyrights?
Only the uploaders are infringing anything.
And, if they want to claim that seeding torrents is copyright infringement, they should ask whether the information obtained from an identifiable infringer actually constitutes a copyrighted 'work'. The laws are written well enough to stop the average defense lawyer in his tracks. The over-zealous prosecutor doesn't see the truth of the matter though.
What constitutes infringement? The courts have been carefully stepping over this issue like it was dog shit. If they set precedent for what infringement is, then the RIAA and MPAA will really be hard pressed to stop downloaders.
Does having 'works' available mean infringement? Does actually transmitting 'works' constitute infringement?
Semantics are everything here. And you really can't say anyone is violating the spirit or the letter of the law. The law is part of the bill of rights in the constitution. It clearly wants to prevent counterfeiting and ip theft. It wants to protect attribution and fair use. I must claim that downloading is fair use.
I argue that these media conglomerates must choose between having a copyrightable 'work', a product, or a license to view 'materials'.
They say that downloading movies and music is illegal, I counter that it is simply fair use. I am reviewing those materials.
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
-- U.S. CODE TITLE 17,107
I'm reviewing those materials for criticism and comment. It's fair use.
Don't most modern governments have something in their constitutions or charters which prohibit making laws with the sole purpose being just to prosecute someone?
Isn't that what Swedish parliament did? Didn't they specifically pass a law to prosecute TPB?
Slashdot Mirror
for the lay person, you can still get the same brightness for less energy consumed though poindexter!
yes, because the cells would eventually oxidize beyond repair and if they still wouldn't die, no new cells would grow. We'd all end up looking like the zombie ghouls from fallout 3
Ok so what you're telling me is, the most important event in the history of the human race was taped over?
How convenient. I want to see recent telescope pictures of the moon showing the rovers and the flag.
can they even prove that infringement took place?
all the proof they had was the files they allegedly downloaded from the defendants computer. Seeing as how they had the authorization to copy those files from the rights holder, how did infringement even take place?
I was using the app on my G1 when it was still called grand central.
It's an excellent app. Now you can place calls direct with GV.
The SMS portion is useless since I use the googletalk app.
The voicemail is great. I just wish they included GV configuration in the app and the ringshare service.
Every article I see about this always uses the scary language. "ILLEGAL FILE SHARING" This is quite frankly disturbing to me.
I can't help but think of Darth Sidious telling Knute Gunray, "I will make it legal!"
Except in our case, the evildoers who sit in our houses of legislation will make it illegal!
It currently is not.
That's an interesting point. They could try to prove that each instance cost them several thousand dollars. That is completely unprovable considering they only way to know is to have a log of downloads from the defendants computer. The RIAA cannot have that legally. In fact, there is no way to ever prove actual damages.
The real question is, how can any thinking person think a music download which has a value of 79 could ever be worth more than that? Even if the defendant uploaded the song to 1000 people, that's only $790. That is almost never going to be the truth. Of course, they cannot actually know any of that until they look at log files. If they don't have log files which state how many times a particular song was uploaded, what can they really prove. Anything they think they can prove will be pure speculation. The fact is, the only infringement they claim to have proof for is the songs they uploaded to themselves, which isn't really infringement since they own the copyright and have legal right to copy said songs. When you really think about what proof they have of actual infringement, I can't help but wonder how any judge coherent enough to speak could find in favor of the RIAA.
Because someone at Microsoft feels the need to answer every existing web service with one of their own, they will ultimately fail.
This strategy is ludicrous and speaks volumes about the corporate mentality at the software giant. This "we must have our hand on the top of every arena" mentality will be their downfall. They are spreading too thin and have lost sight of their purpose. When you try to compete with everyone, you compete with no one.
actually, dipshit, every architect, engineer, and builder you ask would tell you even today, it would take more than 30 years to complete a pyramid.
There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that the egyptians built the pyramids with help from extra terrestrials. Duh!
wouldn't they be common today?
surely technology has skyrocketed since then.
does anyone really remember what 'state of the art' was in 1969?
everything was overly heavy and large and bulky. The IC had just been mass produced 6 years earlier.
In fact, every major advancement we achieved in any form of technology for the two decades after was due to the moon missions.
I'm just wondering why we haven't gone back? No money? No interest?
Not possible?
another point.
proof of evolution comes from understanding.
belief of creation comes from lack of understanding. You call it faith, I call it ignorance.
true faith comes from believing something you know can't be proven.
first, if you doubt evolution by natural selection, you're delusional. You should be barred from holding public office and affecting society in any way.
second, doubting evolution by natural selection is the same as doubting gravity or photosynthesis. they're all theories. Our proof of their validity comes from our observation of them.
still doubt evolution by natural selection? iguanas taste like chickens. proof positive.
if the photographer's goal was to create as close to facsimile as possible, then it's not a creative art work or derivative work.
It's documentation. It's an authorized copy of the original. Since the original is in the public domain, there is no copyright. Unless under UK law, it's legal for someone to claim ownership of a work they didn't create.
If the original work is public domain, the copy is public domain. If they claim otherwise, try to register copyrights on public domain works in the UK. When you're told you can't copyright something in the public domain, cite this instance.
I really am hooked on my logitech g9.
It's got an ass-load of buttons, on-the-fly sensitivity, and it's weight adjustable.
You can buy different grips to get a good hand-feel.
Yes, it's meant for gaming, but it's very functional. Though it's corded.
It's not cheap enough to try out though. It requires acclimation since it is a radically different design from any other mouse.
It's like a street rod. dropped and chopped.
first, games are protected by the first amendment.
second, games are not meant strictly for kids.
Legislators, realize this please. Games don't mean kids.
my service had a huge interruption for about 3 days. I had to switch to a third-party DNS server to be able to even use my service.
Any word from comcast about this? nope.
first is the nintendo generation. They rely on gameplay simply because their systems can't support bleeding edge graphics.
The other camp is the one that can have both.
It's more than just about gameplay.
One example: Mirror's edge.
The real version has great graphics and amazing gameplay.
The 2d platform version has fun gameplay and stylized kitschy graphics.
Both are fun. Only the real version is what the designer intended. Anything else is a watered down version to run on inferior hardware.
The whole argument is just moot anyway. Yes, you can have both.
That's not what the question is though. The question is a business one. It demands you ask what the largest return will be. What platform has the greatest audience/customer base? Then develop for that platform. Graphics are important. Gameplay is important. These days, one without the other won't do well.
agreed. I don't think a judge should be able to gag a civil proceeding unless that judge can show cause it will affect the outcome drastically.
Nesson is a Harvard law professor, I think he knows a thing or two about law the judge should learn.
It would have been a laughingstock.
T-Mobile's 3G is like Swiss cheese here in Miami.
And when it does work, it's usually less than a megabit.
http://www.tiger.com.tw/product/5220-K.html
they're monopolies also.
you should start your day with light exercise after you've eaten breakfast. you should also take a good isotonic vitamin supplement with B-complex.
breakfast should be a whole complex carb like oatmeal. you should eat this within 30 minutes of waking up.
eat a mid-morning snack like an apple.
lunch should be 2 parts vegetables to 1 part meat and one part healthy complex carb like a whole sweet potato.
mid-afternoon snack should be vegetables or healthy whole fruit.
dinner should be light with more vegetables than meat or carbs.
try to wean yourself off caffeine over a week. with this type of diet, you shouldn't need caffeine. I don't mean diet as in starving yourself, I mean diet as in what you eat every day.
You should also really pay attention to your body more. Mind your body while you're eating and listen to it. When you feel satisfied, NOT FULL, satisfied, stop eating.
A lot of us feel tired and crappy because we're not eating the right types of food or too little or too much.
Within a few weeks, your digestive system should start working better for you and you'll feel more energy. If you continue to choose better at meal and snack times, you will automagically lose weight until your body finds equilibrium. But the benefits aren't weight loss or your figure. The benefits are health and energy.
The less processed your food is, the better. That means it should be fresh or frozen, not boxed or canned. As a rule, try to avoid the aisles in a supermarket, try to stick to the outer ring. When you eat like this every day, you are going to be truly amazed at the level of energy you start to have. The trick is eating meals and snacks. Your metabolism will speed up and you will start using the energy in your food instead of storing it. As a rule, avoid simple carbs, high sugar foods, and anything with corn syrup.
Fruits are the exception. Bananas are the perfect accompaniment to breakfast, and apples with the skin are the perfect snack because they take more energy to digest than they contain.
What are the throughput limits for the service?
There's always a catch with comcast.
right, I understand that much.
How do they rectify the fact that downloaders aren't infringing copyrights?
Only the uploaders are infringing anything.
And, if they want to claim that seeding torrents is copyright infringement, they should ask whether the information obtained from an identifiable infringer actually constitutes a copyrighted 'work'. The laws are written well enough to stop the average defense lawyer in his tracks. The over-zealous prosecutor doesn't see the truth of the matter though.
What constitutes infringement? The courts have been carefully stepping over this issue like it was dog shit. If they set precedent for what infringement is, then the RIAA and MPAA will really be hard pressed to stop downloaders.
Does having 'works' available mean infringement? Does actually transmitting 'works' constitute infringement?
Semantics are everything here. And you really can't say anyone is violating the spirit or the letter of the law. The law is part of the bill of rights in the constitution. It clearly wants to prevent counterfeiting and ip theft. It wants to protect attribution and fair use. I must claim that downloading is fair use.
I argue that these media conglomerates must choose between having a copyrightable 'work', a product, or a license to view 'materials'.
They say that downloading movies and music is illegal, I counter that it is simply fair use. I am reviewing those materials.
-- U.S. CODE TITLE 17,107
I'm reviewing those materials for criticism and comment. It's fair use.
Don't most modern governments have something in their constitutions or charters which prohibit making laws with the sole purpose being just to prosecute someone?
Isn't that what Swedish parliament did? Didn't they specifically pass a law to prosecute TPB?
If not, then the whole process is a sham.