On the plus side however, the major corporations will eventually patent different forms of cancer, and they'll have to cure anyone who isn't authorised to have it.
The best part is, I was blocked from that site. I was blocked from downloading kazaa lite. Not because I run ad-blocking software. But because I have advertising sites blocked out in my hosts file. The host file that comes with kazaa lite.
Technically speaking, if you install kazza lite correctly, you get blocked from their webpage.
In the near future sony will announce that whenever you want to play music, armed guards will arrive at your home to enable the music. They will then watch you and make sure you don't allow any other human on the planet to hear it(they'll be wearing earplugs, just to be safe). When you are done listening to the music, the guards will disable the playing devices, and have you sign a series of non-disclosure aggrements. Then they will leave and send you a bill for the music. Happy Listening!
PS: You don't even want to know what you'll have to do to see a movie. (remember the norse god Odin?)
In the past scientists have been able to create rudimentary forms of life when subjected to the environment they would have been in "when life started". Amino acids combined with great heat and electricity were able to form living structures. Nothing that advanced though, I doubt they were able to reproduce or evolve in any way.
Hey it's not like they tell you they're not going to give you money, and EVERY distributor does this. Movie makers usually only get payment for their work. They don't get the profits from it because of the studios. Sure, a few celebrities do, but hey, if they're not celebrities, you can be pretty sure they won't see much money back.
This is the most common practice in the film industry. My family works in the film industry. The distribution companies never return "profits", as a few people have already noted, all of their costs for distribution are determines by themselves. They choose their own salaries, the cost of making the prints, the internal costs of advertising, etc... It's very common for filmmakers to get ripped off in this manner. It's happened to my father several times.
Stan lee is very lucky he has an avenue of complaint, as this happens with most every feature film. Hopefully this will be some kind of a wake-up call to filmmakers.
I remember playing this game at software etc when I was young. (before that sofware etc was turned into the software section of a barnes and noble)
It started in front of a bridge, and everytime I tried to cross the bridge, a tentacle came up and killed my character. I never got farther than that, no matter what I did, the tentacle killed me.
I had a friend who could play through the whole game.
No, the article clearly stated that rather than working out of the frequency range, the sound would be embedded as "noise" that the brain would filter out.
You could simply create a device that transmits the same sound signals but the data would be nothing but garbage. Kinda like radio wave jamming. The phones would probably have some sort of error control and would probably block out too damaged a signal.
Ok, on the bad side, the music had more "noise" in it. On the good side... Um, there is no other good side, now your cellphone has more reasons to spam you.
No, the article specifically states it doesn't work with signals out of the hearing range because most audio equipment can't produce those sounds. From what I read it's more like image watermarking, minor imperfections in the sound that actually carry data.
I remember seeing a television show about this kind of logic used to animate some scenes from "The lion king". Apparently no one was able to animate a stampede of several thousand zebras by hand.
It might be because some anti-abortion sites feature photographs of aborted fetuses as well as encourage terrorist acts against some places that perform abortions. I don't like abortion, but I think that many people who would agree with me get a bit violent about that. I've heard about websites giving out home addresses of doctors who perform abortions, people have used information in that context to personally assault these doctors. This could be why the sites were banned.
Slashdot Mirror
On the plus side however, the major corporations will eventually patent different forms of cancer, and they'll have to cure anyone who isn't authorised to have it.
The best part is, I was blocked from that site. I was blocked from downloading kazaa lite. Not because I run ad-blocking software. But because I have advertising sites blocked out in my hosts file. The host file that comes with kazaa lite.
Technically speaking, if you install kazza lite correctly, you get blocked from their webpage.
In the near future sony will announce that whenever you want to play music, armed guards will arrive at your home to enable the music. They will then watch you and make sure you don't allow any other human on the planet to hear it(they'll be wearing earplugs, just to be safe). When you are done listening to the music, the guards will disable the playing devices, and have you sign a series of non-disclosure aggrements. Then they will leave and send you a bill for the music. Happy Listening!
PS: You don't even want to know what you'll have to do to see a movie. (remember the norse god Odin?)
In the past scientists have been able to create rudimentary forms of life when subjected to the environment they would have been in "when life started". Amino acids combined with great heat and electricity were able to form living structures. Nothing that advanced though, I doubt they were able to reproduce or evolve in any way.
Hey it's not like they tell you they're not going to give you money, and EVERY distributor does this. Movie makers usually only get payment for their work. They don't get the profits from it because of the studios. Sure, a few celebrities do, but hey, if they're not celebrities, you can be pretty sure they won't see much money back.
Are you talking about this guy?: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/13/023320 0&mode=nested&tid=133
Hmm, some of their jackets have magnetic clips on them. If I'm carrying all my tech gear around I generally avoid magnets.
This is the most common practice in the film industry. My family works in the film industry. The distribution companies never return "profits", as a few people have already noted, all of their costs for distribution are determines by themselves. They choose their own salaries, the cost of making the prints, the internal costs of advertising, etc... It's very common for filmmakers to get ripped off in this manner. It's happened to my father several times.
Stan lee is very lucky he has an avenue of complaint, as this happens with most every feature film. Hopefully this will be some kind of a wake-up call to filmmakers.
technology vs. fun
This is slashdot, there is no difference.
I remember playing this game at software etc when I was young. (before that sofware etc was turned into the software section of a barnes and noble)
It started in front of a bridge, and everytime I tried to cross the bridge, a tentacle came up and killed my character. I never got farther than that, no matter what I did, the tentacle killed me.
I had a friend who could play through the whole game.
But I always got killed on the damn bridge.
Stupid game.
Ooooooh, open source filesharing program...
Gnutella anyone?
Might these security features include paying per zip file or something?
Yeah, we would end up with the most sarcastic dictionary in the world.
Google cache: moontruth admits to hoax:
4 J: www.moontruth.com/full.htm+moontruth&hl=en&ie=UTF- 8
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:HVkhVWaxix
No, the internet is more "embedding crap in advertising"
No, the article clearly stated that rather than working out of the frequency range, the sound would be embedded as "noise" that the brain would filter out.
You could simply create a device that transmits the same sound signals but the data would be nothing but garbage. Kinda like radio wave jamming. The phones would probably have some sort of error control and would probably block out too damaged a signal.
Ok, on the bad side, the music had more "noise" in it. On the good side... Um, there is no other good side, now your cellphone has more reasons to spam you.
No, the article specifically states it doesn't work with signals out of the hearing range because most audio equipment can't produce those sounds. From what I read it's more like image watermarking, minor imperfections in the sound that actually carry data.
I think it's because it's incrimentally more complicated.
I remember seeing a television show about this kind of logic used to animate some scenes from "The lion king". Apparently no one was able to animate a stampede of several thousand zebras by hand.
Ah, bush has already answered that by declaring that he won't use e-mail early in his administration.
50? All video is about 30 fps, while film is 24. You only get to see 50 fps on a computer or something.
You could have said just "post office" though. Then it would have been both correct and understandable.
It might be because some anti-abortion sites feature photographs of aborted fetuses as well as encourage terrorist acts against some places that perform abortions. I don't like abortion, but I think that many people who would agree with me get a bit violent about that. I've heard about websites giving out home addresses of doctors who perform abortions, people have used information in that context to personally assault these doctors. This could be why the sites were banned.
I can't say for sure though.