the Superbowl has a simple yet fatal weakness when it comes to the common human nipple.
Only if it's a nipple attached to a female.
Fat men painted up in team colors has never caused any outrage or issues. Quite frankly, I'd rather see Janet Jackson's nipple than the hairy fat guys at some of the games.
This should be interesting to see blow up in their faces.
The logo was chosen for the Saints because it had long been associated with New Orleans, not the other way around. I can really see a court giving them a pretty big smack down -- especially since they're also asserting control of "Who Dat" as a trademark when it belongs to someone else.
If you read the entire post by google, you'll notice they are suggesting only the first 3 octects of the IP address are transmitted. Now while this could theoretically be used to censor regions of users, it could not be used to expose you (since it isn't the complete IP address)
No, but given that only an additional 255 (or is it 254?) users besides you can be coming from that range, it's not like over time someone can't correlate this to you.
I'm not convinced this doesn't have privacy implications, or that we're not better off with our requesting DNS being the one who is shown. I don't necessarily want web sites to know where I'm coming from.
I don't know would be more annoying - finding out its faked or seeing conspiracy theorists reject it as evidence.
Well, until someone can refute the Lunar Laser Ranging data (and do it using actual science instead of wacky conspiracy logic), I'm still putting my money on the landing being real.
If you could fake the lunar laser ranging stuff... well, you'd have made it to the moon, actually. And, you'd have installed retroreflectors exactly where they are supposed to be.
What with the known speed of light and all of the other physics involved in this, I consider that to be fairly irrefutable. Of course, that doesn't mean someone out there isn't going to try -- but it does mean they don't understand the physics they're trying to refute.
No, you missed the point where a large media company has something and the government is never going to take it away from them.
The government is far more likely to seize your physical property than the IP of a company like CBS. They simply would be unwilling to do this -- and the lobbyists for these companies would be crawling all through government to stop it.
Two different standards, unfortunately. Large corporations have way more clout with the government than Joe Average whose land might get sold to a developer to build a shopping center.
However, my cynicism about such companies makes me think they're going to act like a bunch of greedy bastards with eye only for the bottom line.
My point was merely that capitalism doesn't require you to play nice, and companies often don't. Especially when we're talking about companies who thrive on producing copyrighted audio and video.
Capitalism, by definition, implies that they create wealth through the act of leveraging something.
No, Capitalism, by definition does not require morality, as the market will always find a correct solution -- at least, in the hardcore view of it the market is infallible. If they give this stuff away, they're (in their minds) losing an asset.
Companies have a duty to shareholders to maximize value, not to do the right thing. Some companies try, but many of them don't. Media companies do what serves their interests and are completely self-serving.
Very often the things that capitalists 'leverage' is the willingness to do whatever it takes to make a buck, and find a competitive advantage over people. Someone is always willing to screw everyone else over to make money -- the world is full of examples of this.
Destroying something with no intent to profit on it would most certainly fail to meet that definition.
Giving away something for free so that you deprive yourself of the opportunity to make money off it would violate the principles of capitalism. Allowing a resource to be destroyed rather than allow someone else to give it away for free and out of your control, unfortunately would not.
Given the track record of corporate greed, I'm going to go on the side of faceless corporation steered by greedy bastards with MBAs anda highly vested interest in preservation of what they call their "intellectual property". Make no doubt about it... to them, this represents IP and they're not going to give it into the public domain unless they have no other option.
If you are laboring under the belief that capitalism operates under some kind of implicit morality, you're sadly mistaken. Business as it operates is the most Darwinian and stark of situations.
Perhaps the federal government could appropriate the masters via eminent domain and make them available through the Library of Congress.
No, the lobbyists will explain to the people in government that if they can't copyright it and make money off it, nobody gets it because it's their property after all and they can do what they want with it. It's not like they have a legal obligation to preservation of history and culture.
What is the point of buying copyright laws if you can't be sure to be able to release something in the public domain under new copyright, and then sell it on DVD and license it to Coca Cola or Starbucks?
If they let someone pay for the digitization and then release it into the public domain, how would they make money off that? CBS is a corporation, this is an asset. It sucks, but I'm hardly surprised by this.
Yeah that's what I thought it was for, I seem to remember hearing that part of the reason its hard to quit is because in addition to the nicotine there's also the habit and comfort of actually hold a cigarette.
Same idea, not electronic. No mist to pretend like it's smoke, but you do get the nicotine when you inhale from it. It lets you work through the addiction by at least getting the nicotine without all of the other stuff. It's a pretty close analog to the electronic ones, but without a battery.
And, yes, the habit part of the equation is a huge aspect to quitting smoking.
There actually aren't any "X... on a computer!" patents because patents don't work that way.
I don't want to disagree too strongly, because I try not to read patents.
But, I've definitely seen patents cited here on Slashdot which essentially take something we've all been doing for a long time (like, decades or more), and essentially saying "a computer system for performing <routine task>".
The essentials of the task are unchanged (and wouldn't be patentable) but it's on a computer system. I'm not entirely convinced that some of those modifiers aren't being used to apply for additional patents.
I'm sure there's probably some valid medical reason for doing this -- I just have no idea of what it is. I don't want to be awake when the heart-rate monitor goes to a flat tone. Well, I guess you'd no longer be awake at that point, so it's moot.;-)
Back when Bluetooth first came out, we used to play the game "Wireless Headset or Missed His Meds", where we'd watch someone walk down the street talking to himself and try to figure out if he was using a headset or just talking to himself.
There's was actually a fairly brilliant ad here in Canada for Rogers -- a cable and cell phone company.
They show this little old lady with a walker going down the road, apparently talking to herself, and saying all sorts of strange things and getting the corresponding strange looks. (For example, as she passes by the mailman she's saying "Oh, you look pretty in that dress".)
At the end of the commercial they flip around to show a different view than we've seen of her, and she's wearing a blue-tooth headset and talking to her grand daughter.
A damned funny commercial, and definitely ties into the "Wireless Headset or Missed His Meds" you referenced. I've only recently stopped assuming people are slightly mad when I see them talking to themselves -- unless, I'm right downtown that is. Then you need some other visual clues to try to sort out if you need to cross the street or not.:-P
Slashdot Mirror
Only if it's a nipple attached to a female.
Fat men painted up in team colors has never caused any outrage or issues. Quite frankly, I'd rather see Janet Jackson's nipple than the hairy fat guys at some of the games.
Cheers
Dude, I'm available now. Research this important can't wait!!
Cheers
This should be interesting to see blow up in their faces.
The logo was chosen for the Saints because it had long been associated with New Orleans, not the other way around. I can really see a court giving them a pretty big smack down -- especially since they're also asserting control of "Who Dat" as a trademark when it belongs to someone else.
No, but given that only an additional 255 (or is it 254?) users besides you can be coming from that range, it's not like over time someone can't correlate this to you.
I'm not convinced this doesn't have privacy implications, or that we're not better off with our requesting DNS being the one who is shown. I don't necessarily want web sites to know where I'm coming from.
Cheers
Well, until someone can refute the Lunar Laser Ranging data (and do it using actual science instead of wacky conspiracy logic), I'm still putting my money on the landing being real.
If you could fake the lunar laser ranging stuff ... well, you'd have made it to the moon, actually. And, you'd have installed retroreflectors exactly where they are supposed to be.
What with the known speed of light and all of the other physics involved in this, I consider that to be fairly irrefutable. Of course, that doesn't mean someone out there isn't going to try -- but it does mean they don't understand the physics they're trying to refute.
Cheers
No, you missed the point where a large media company has something and the government is never going to take it away from them.
The government is far more likely to seize your physical property than the IP of a company like CBS. They simply would be unwilling to do this -- and the lobbyists for these companies would be crawling all through government to stop it.
Two different standards, unfortunately. Large corporations have way more clout with the government than Joe Average whose land might get sold to a developer to build a shopping center.
Oh, I actually agree with everything you say.
However, my cynicism about such companies makes me think they're going to act like a bunch of greedy bastards with eye only for the bottom line.
My point was merely that capitalism doesn't require you to play nice, and companies often don't. Especially when we're talking about companies who thrive on producing copyrighted audio and video.
Cheers
No, Capitalism, by definition does not require morality, as the market will always find a correct solution -- at least, in the hardcore view of it the market is infallible. If they give this stuff away, they're (in their minds) losing an asset.
Companies have a duty to shareholders to maximize value, not to do the right thing. Some companies try, but many of them don't. Media companies do what serves their interests and are completely self-serving.
Very often the things that capitalists 'leverage' is the willingness to do whatever it takes to make a buck, and find a competitive advantage over people. Someone is always willing to screw everyone else over to make money -- the world is full of examples of this.
Giving away something for free so that you deprive yourself of the opportunity to make money off it would violate the principles of capitalism. Allowing a resource to be destroyed rather than allow someone else to give it away for free and out of your control, unfortunately would not.
Given the track record of corporate greed, I'm going to go on the side of faceless corporation steered by greedy bastards with MBAs anda highly vested interest in preservation of what they call their "intellectual property". Make no doubt about it ... to them, this represents IP and they're not going to give it into the public domain unless they have no other option.
If you are laboring under the belief that capitalism operates under some kind of implicit morality, you're sadly mistaken. Business as it operates is the most Darwinian and stark of situations.
Cheers
I'm pretty sure this behaviour can be referred to as an act of capitalism.
No, the lobbyists will explain to the people in government that if they can't copyright it and make money off it, nobody gets it because it's their property after all and they can do what they want with it. It's not like they have a legal obligation to preservation of history and culture.
What is the point of buying copyright laws if you can't be sure to be able to release something in the public domain under new copyright, and then sell it on DVD and license it to Coca Cola or Starbucks?
If they let someone pay for the digitization and then release it into the public domain, how would they make money off that? CBS is a corporation, this is an asset. It sucks, but I'm hardly surprised by this.
Cheers
That can backfire on you if you're not careful. ;-)
Cheers
Well, then smite him then. That's supposed to be within your purview, isn't it? :-P
Cheers
On Slashdot, the answer to an "or" question is almost always yes. ;-)
Cheers
I don't know if these are marketed in the US.
Same idea, not electronic. No mist to pretend like it's smoke, but you do get the nicotine when you inhale from it. It lets you work through the addiction by at least getting the nicotine without all of the other stuff. It's a pretty close analog to the electronic ones, but without a battery.
And, yes, the habit part of the equation is a huge aspect to quitting smoking.
Cheers
In the case of a ukulele, stop playing. The rattling will stop. ;-)
(I kid, I kid to any of you rabid ukulele fans out there.)
Cheers
It's called Slashdot. :-P
Cheers
*laugh* Don't know, it's been my standard sign-off on electronic forums for almost a decade. Just a fairly standard salutation, I guess.
A combination of "so long" and "have a nice day", and it keeps the tone polite, which on Slashdot is often lacking. :-P
Cheers
You'd want to be awake while someone slices open your chest and cracks your ribs apart?
You're either really brave, or a liar. ;-)
I think my squealing would be rather distracting to the medical staff. :-P
Cheers
As would likely 95% + of the populace I'm betting.
Cheers
Oh, I can foresee a whole new category of Darwin awards being handed out for that one. :-P
Cheers
I don't want to disagree too strongly, because I try not to read patents.
But, I've definitely seen patents cited here on Slashdot which essentially take something we've all been doing for a long time (like, decades or more), and essentially saying "a computer system for performing <routine task>".
The essentials of the task are unchanged (and wouldn't be patentable) but it's on a computer system. I'm not entirely convinced that some of those modifiers aren't being used to apply for additional patents.
Cheers
My thoughts exactly.
I'm sure there's probably some valid medical reason for doing this -- I just have no idea of what it is. I don't want to be awake when the heart-rate monitor goes to a flat tone. Well, I guess you'd no longer be awake at that point, so it's moot. ;-)
Cheers
There's was actually a fairly brilliant ad here in Canada for Rogers -- a cable and cell phone company.
They show this little old lady with a walker going down the road, apparently talking to herself, and saying all sorts of strange things and getting the corresponding strange looks. (For example, as she passes by the mailman she's saying "Oh, you look pretty in that dress".)
At the end of the commercial they flip around to show a different view than we've seen of her, and she's wearing a blue-tooth headset and talking to her grand daughter.
A damned funny commercial, and definitely ties into the "Wireless Headset or Missed His Meds" you referenced. I've only recently stopped assuming people are slightly mad when I see them talking to themselves -- unless, I'm right downtown that is. Then you need some other visual clues to try to sort out if you need to cross the street or not. :-P
Cheers
Dark natter? WTF?
To quote the Myth Busters ... "there's poo everywhere".
Seriously, ewww. :-P
Cheers