It doesnt look like it will compete with Photoshop though at this stage.
Nor is it meant to. As you yourself said, it's geared towards professional photographers, not graphics artists. A professional photographer, in all likelyhood, is going to do little more to their photos than crop, color correct, and perhaps apply some filters. Now, the graphics artist they give it to to compose that magazine cover, on the other hand, will of course use photoshop...
You're probably right. I was using the terms copyright/trademark interchangably, but they are legally different. But you can't just go willy-nilly using a trademarked phrase either, that's the point of trademarking it in the first place, isn't it? I guarantee you if I write a piece of software, put "Designed for Windows" on the packaging, but didn't use the logo, I'd still get sued. So how would this be any different? I'm not saying it's right, mind you...
Using a logo is completely different to using a name. Saying "Made for iPod" is simply a statement of fact, you can't trademark the use of the entire english language.
No, but you can trademark a phrase. At least, in the US you can. Unless it is an existing common phrase.
I'm not sure about the US, but here in Australia its not uncommon to see advertisements comparing two named products. Both names are trademarked but a comparison (providing its legitimate) is perfectly legal as its simply a statement of fact.
I agree, it should be (and is?) perfectly legal here too. But, most advertisements here in the US explictly avoid doing so for fear of being sued if the product vendor doesn't like the way their brand was portrayed. Legal or not, there's a lot of "law-by-intimidation" here.
In a perfect world wikipedia would work, but people aren't perfect, and people have agendas...
Yes, but wouldn't the same thing apply to traditional encycolpedias? Or any information outlet for that matter? The big difference in my mind is that those traditional media typically have fewer people involved, and therefore fewer agendas...
Since when does saying "Made for iPod" mean that you have to pay dues to Apple? If I make an aftermarket product for a particular car I don't have to pay a license to the original manufacturer. In fact in the automobile industry you can even make OEM spec replacement parts without having to pay a license. The phrase "Made for iPod" and it's associated logo are unique to Apple and copyrighted. If you want to use that specific phrase and logo, you need to pay. You're perfectly able to use "Works with iPod", or some variant thereof without. No different than the "Designed for Windows" logo compliance MS uses, etc...
While they haven't said it's legal to bittorrent TV shows, they haven't said it's illegal
They don't have to. The vast majority of TV shows are covered by copyright (a). If I may be permitted to quote wikipedia (b):
Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by government for a limited time to regulate the use of a particular form, way or manner in which an idea or information is expressed.
It seems pretty clear that bittorrenting a show could be considered "expressing information" (c). I also think it's pretty clear that the networks don't want you to bittorrent shows (d). So, in summary: a + b + c + d = illegal.
I live in a rural area and could never justify the cost of cable or a dish
Einstien
Ever heard of bittorrent?
Einstien
Ever head of morals? Maybe this guy doesn't want to download illegally, but isn't willing to pay $50/mo for satellite, but would pay $16/mo for 2 shows a week that are really good.
Pay attention to the URL. It's been babelfish'd from German... Though it would be nice if the summary warned you about that. It threw me for a loop at first too.
For instance, my Audigy sound card can play DVD audio, but will shut off digital out when doing so. My stereo system is hooked up to that digital out, but Creative says I shouldn't be listening to it there.
Unfortunately, they aren't/weren't alone in that most stand-alone DVD Audio and SACD players would do the same thing. Until recently, that is. There are more and more players/receivers that will do digital audio out on such discs, but usually only in pairs from the same manufacturer.
Microsoft has developed a cheap, disposable pre-recorded DVD disc that consumers can play only once.
I think what they meant to say was: Microsoft has developed a cheap, disposable pre-recorded DVD disc that consumers can copy only once.:-)
Re:Linus has limited engineering future vision
on
Linus Says No to 'Specs'
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Software development is still an art, and may always be one.
The problem I see is "people like you" ensure that software development will remain an art. I agree with the parent that software engineering should be based on more repeatable solid foundations, like most other engineering disciplines are. That's not to say there isn't room for artistry in it, however. Take building design, for example. Most structural engineering is based on tried and true formulas and known design patterns that work. However, each architect injects a little bit of their own artistry into a building design. Some, such as Frank Lloyd Wright, are clearly more artistic than others, but even still their work is based on the tried and true. Software engineering, on the other hand, is still far too ad-hoc.
NeoOffice/J is very very very very very slow. It looks good, but damn it is slow. It doesn't require X, but it does require the bloody Godawful JVM. Which is slow. And start reaaally slowly. Don't even try to run it on a G3.
I hadn't noticed on my PowerBookG4 w/2GB RAM...:-)
By the way, what's up with Slashdot? While the new look is kinda cool, why does it take several page reloads to display correctly in Firefox. I mean, you would think that they would made sure that the new design worked with Firefox.
You're not using 1.5b1 are you? I noticed enough rendering problems with 1.5b1 that I went back to 1.0.x. It seems to look fine to me...
Allow me to commend you on the work you've done with NeoOffice. I absolutely love it. I use it only my personal PowerBook and my work one too. Despite the fact that some might complain it doesn't LOOK like a Mac app, it's much better than the standard OS X distro which requires X11 and work very well. Maybe someday OpenOffice (in general) will get better support for native look and feel. Isn't that what OOo 2.0's use of Java is all about? Or am I mistaken on that one?
Re:The build system of OpenOffice is fantastic.
on
OpenOffice 1.1.5 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Search for NeoOffice/J. A much better port for OS X. Of course, it's not 1.1.5, but it works great, no X server required.
Nice work guys... It starts up much faster on OS X than the previous version, and it FINALLY maximizes properly on mac. It also now knows how to set itself as the default browser on OS X! The "little" things go a long way.
Mod parent informative, not funny! I agree, this is little more than hinged wings, and (in the demo at least) doesn't seem to give much difference in the way of shortened wingspan... Even the F-4 fighter had hinged wings to allow it to be neatly parked in an aircraft carrier. Though it didn't hinge in flight.
Uh, how about IBM? They continue, and do doubt will continue, to use PPC in a lot of *their* hardware. And they're big supporters of Linux... No doubt you could get a Linux on PPC setup from them!
Just because this guy has been ordered to pay a $7m fine doesn't mean he *CAN* pay it. Sure, they'll garnish his accounts, sell his house, etc., but that won't come anywhere close. Since MS knows they'll never actually see the money anyway, sure let's give it all away to worthy causes. Good PR, but they'll never see the full amount.
If the author's point was to show how Google can be used to invade privacy, I'm not sure why Google would throw a hissy fit.
There are many ways to invade one's privacy, but that doesn't make it OK. Any self-respecting reporter should know better than to publish that kind of information. He could have simply described how easy it was to obtain such information, and left it as an exercise for the reader to see for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Nor is it meant to. As you yourself said, it's geared towards professional photographers, not graphics artists. A professional photographer, in all likelyhood, is going to do little more to their photos than crop, color correct, and perhaps apply some filters. Now, the graphics artist they give it to to compose that magazine cover, on the other hand, will of course use photoshop...
Agreed. Sounds reasonable. Though we see how good of a job they do here at Slashdot. :-)
You're probably right. I was using the terms copyright/trademark interchangably, but they are legally different. But you can't just go willy-nilly using a trademarked phrase either, that's the point of trademarking it in the first place, isn't it? I guarantee you if I write a piece of software, put "Designed for Windows" on the packaging, but didn't use the logo, I'd still get sued. So how would this be any different? I'm not saying it's right, mind you...
No, but you can trademark a phrase. At least, in the US you can. Unless it is an existing common phrase.
I agree, it should be (and is?) perfectly legal here too. But, most advertisements here in the US explictly avoid doing so for fear of being sued if the product vendor doesn't like the way their brand was portrayed. Legal or not, there's a lot of "law-by-intimidation" here.
Yes, but wouldn't the same thing apply to traditional encycolpedias? Or any information outlet for that matter? The big difference in my mind is that those traditional media typically have fewer people involved, and therefore fewer agendas...
Since when does saying "Made for iPod" mean that you have to pay dues to Apple? If I make an aftermarket product for a particular car I don't have to pay a license to the original manufacturer. In fact in the automobile industry you can even make OEM spec replacement parts without having to pay a license. The phrase "Made for iPod" and it's associated logo are unique to Apple and copyrighted. If you want to use that specific phrase and logo, you need to pay. You're perfectly able to use "Works with iPod", or some variant thereof without. No different than the "Designed for Windows" logo compliance MS uses, etc...
Pay attention to the URL. It's been babelfish'd from German... Though it would be nice if the summary warned you about that. It threw me for a loop at first too.
I hadn't noticed on my PowerBookG4 w/2GB RAM... :-)
You're not using 1.5b1 are you? I noticed enough rendering problems with 1.5b1 that I went back to 1.0.x. It seems to look fine to me...
Allow me to commend you on the work you've done with NeoOffice. I absolutely love it. I use it only my personal PowerBook and my work one too. Despite the fact that some might complain it doesn't LOOK like a Mac app, it's much better than the standard OS X distro which requires X11 and work very well. Maybe someday OpenOffice (in general) will get better support for native look and feel. Isn't that what OOo 2.0's use of Java is all about? Or am I mistaken on that one?
Search for NeoOffice/J. A much better port for OS X. Of course, it's not 1.1.5, but it works great, no X server required.
Perhaps some people are more interested in a proper, functional browser over a "real Mac application"...
Nice work guys... It starts up much faster on OS X than the previous version, and it FINALLY maximizes properly on mac. It also now knows how to set itself as the default browser on OS X! The "little" things go a long way.
Mod parent informative, not funny! I agree, this is little more than hinged wings, and (in the demo at least) doesn't seem to give much difference in the way of shortened wingspan... Even the F-4 fighter had hinged wings to allow it to be neatly parked in an aircraft carrier. Though it didn't hinge in flight.
Uh, how about IBM? They continue, and do doubt will continue, to use PPC in a lot of *their* hardware. And they're big supporters of Linux... No doubt you could get a Linux on PPC setup from them!
Ah, but they did. Take a closer look at that laptop in that slide. Doesn't that look an awful lot like the default blue "swoosh" background of OS X?
Did anyone notice that the laptop picture on p.2 of the article has what looks like the blue "swooshes" of Mac OS X on its screen?
Um. Wow. I wonder how much THAT cost them...
Just because this guy has been ordered to pay a $7m fine doesn't mean he *CAN* pay it. Sure, they'll garnish his accounts, sell his house, etc., but that won't come anywhere close. Since MS knows they'll never actually see the money anyway, sure let's give it all away to worthy causes. Good PR, but they'll never see the full amount.
There are many ways to invade one's privacy, but that doesn't make it OK. Any self-respecting reporter should know better than to publish that kind of information. He could have simply described how easy it was to obtain such information, and left it as an exercise for the reader to see for themselves.