What the hell would be the fun of that? They weren't doing this because they needed a faster system, they did it because they wanted to see if they could. The actual speed of the system has nothing to do with it.
They can both be telling the truth - Nike could have printed out the crypt-pw source and papier-mache'd it to the monitor ("Look ma, can't see it, it's secure!"). They may have *used* it, but in using it they did not necessarily use it *correctly*.
Another rumor is that Jar Jar is a big fucking mistake, and should be excised immediately from all past and future scripts.
There are only a couple of characters in the later movies that could be Jar Jar: both worked for Jabba - one would be that annoying little rat that laughed at everything, and the other would be the fat, blue, synthesizer player in the band. Neither added much to the movie, overall. Deja vu.
Guess I won't be seeing all of the second one either. (Never thought I'd ever get up and walk out of a Star Wars movie, but it happened.)
No, I think the contrived story, irritating characters, and poor casting will exclude them from the Oscars. They won't even have to bring out the 'digital media' argument.
So Maxwell Technologies would have to give up their domain maxwell.com if Maxwell Optical Industries challenged it? Not at all. They both have valid 'Maxwell' trademarks, just in different markets.
So who gets maxwell.com? Whoever got to it first, that's who, and to fuckall with latecomers.
A trademark is not an exclusive right to be the sole user of the word or name in every conceivable form in every market and in every corner of the world. It allows exclusive right to use the name for a product or range of products in a specific category, and that's all.
Apparently there was an outbreak of highly virulent stupidity among the moderators at the time. I expect some of them are still suffering from said malady.
Not at all. He released Perl as a whole under the GPL, and separately as a whole under the Artistic. For Perl to fit this problem it would have to have been released, for example, with *half* of it under GPL and the other half under Artistic - but each half needs the other to make the functional set known as Perl.
The way Perl is licensed has nothing to do with this situation.
Yes, current Apple mice have only one button. Very good observation. Too bad it has nothing to do with *this* mouse, which has *no* buttons. Thus the joke about *rubbing* the mouse. And it would be pretty damn pointless to only have one touch-sensitive area on the thing.
And it's very obvious that you didn't get *my* point at all.
Read carefully: If they're going to claim they're in the right because they OWN THE SONGS AND REQUIRE THAT PEOPLE OBTAIN PERMISSION TO COPY THEM, (and they HAVE DONE THAT, their lost income is NOT THEIR ONLY COMPLAINT HERE) then they need to stop being so cavalier when talking about the copying that they've done in the past without permission.
They've shown that they don't respect other musicians' copyrights. That makes it very hard to respect theirs, and very hard to take them seriously when they start whining about people not having their permission to copy their songs.
But for some odd reason Metallica didn't pay for their copy of that album.
Quality be damned. If they're going to bust a hissy about ownership and permission, they can't excuse their own actions by trying to claim that the copy was a shitty tape and therefore it was ok to illegally copy it and not pay the rightful owner of the music.
Metallica needs to get a little bit less hypocritical - people might start listening to what they're saying.
So those companies should just spend billions of dollars on that research without any possibility of getting a return on their investment?
Donate your car to charity. Be the first to give it up. What's that you say? No way? Why not? You didn't mind suggesting that an R&D lab fork over their entire VC funding and years of effort for 'The Human Fund', why the sudden reluctance to part with something as minor as a car? Oh, that's right, you don't wanna do it cos it's *your* car... but it's not your research, not your discoveries, so it's ok to give those away. Right?
Altruism usually isn't - it's always easier to pledge 'the other guy's' resources...
Next time just link to the damn site, and leave all the disingenuous referral crap by the wayside. We're not here to make you money, especially if you try to slip it in unnoticed.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell would be the fun of that? They weren't doing this because they needed a faster system, they did it because they wanted to see if they could. The actual speed of the system has nothing to do with it.
They can both be telling the truth - Nike could have printed out the crypt-pw source and papier-mache'd it to the monitor ("Look ma, can't see it, it's secure!"). They may have *used* it, but in using it they did not necessarily use it *correctly*.
Yes I did, because I don't torture myself by watching movies that suck...
Another rumor is that Jar Jar is a big fucking mistake, and should be excised immediately from all past and future scripts.
There are only a couple of characters in the later movies that could be Jar Jar: both worked for Jabba - one would be that annoying little rat that laughed at everything, and the other would be the fat, blue, synthesizer player in the band. Neither added much to the movie, overall. Deja vu.
Guess I won't be seeing all of the second one either. (Never thought I'd ever get up and walk out of a Star Wars movie, but it happened.)
No, I think the contrived story, irritating characters, and poor casting will exclude them from the Oscars. They won't even have to bring out the 'digital media' argument.
So Maxwell Technologies would have to give up their domain maxwell.com if Maxwell Optical Industries challenged it? Not at all. They both have valid 'Maxwell' trademarks, just in different markets.
So who gets maxwell.com? Whoever got to it first, that's who, and to fuckall with latecomers.
A trademark is not an exclusive right to be the sole user of the word or name in every conceivable form in every market and in every corner of the world. It allows exclusive right to use the name for a product or range of products in a specific category, and that's all.
Heh, is that the real abbreviation for across-the-pond AOL? Sounds like a cat with a hairball.
Apparently there was an outbreak of highly virulent stupidity among the moderators at the time. I expect some of them are still suffering from said malady.
Given that it's called 'Inferno', not 'Infernal'. If they had called it 'Godfucker' then yeah, there might have been a response...
Fleecy Moss? Sheesh... and I thought Moon Unit Zappa was the dumbest name I'd ever heard.
Type your resume like that. Go on, don't worry about a few misspelled words, they'll figure it out. Right?
And then see how fast you *don't* get hired.
Guess you didn't see the 'for example' bit then. Try reading the post again.
Not at all. He released Perl as a whole under the GPL, and separately as a whole under the Artistic. For Perl to fit this problem it would have to have been released, for example, with *half* of it under GPL and the other half under Artistic - but each half needs the other to make the functional set known as Perl.
The way Perl is licensed has nothing to do with this situation.
She says it costs a lot of money to pay the radio stations to play music, but I thought the *radio stations* paid to play. What gives?
[insert ad here]
Highly redundant, and a deadly toxin in either case...
And the sad thing is, this article will likely be banned in Australia because of that typoo. =)
Can't have that evil satanic stuff, nope nope nope!
Well, that was.. a pretty entertaining flame, actually :)
Yes, current Apple mice have only one button. Very good observation. Too bad it has nothing to do with *this* mouse, which has *no* buttons. Thus the joke about *rubbing* the mouse. And it would be pretty damn pointless to only have one touch-sensitive area on the thing.
Imagine trying to tell a clueless type to left-rub or right-rub his mouse. Ewww.
And then there's this, from the article: "It's not just another wireless, optical mouse. It's done by Apple, so it's impressive."
You can hear the asskissing from here. Disgusting.
And it's very obvious that you didn't get *my* point at all.
Read carefully:
If they're going to claim they're in the right because they OWN THE SONGS AND REQUIRE THAT PEOPLE OBTAIN PERMISSION TO COPY THEM, (and they HAVE DONE THAT, their lost income is NOT THEIR ONLY COMPLAINT HERE) then they need to stop being so cavalier when talking about the copying that they've done in the past without permission.
They've shown that they don't respect other musicians' copyrights. That makes it very hard to respect theirs, and very hard to take them seriously when they start whining about people not having their permission to copy their songs.
But for some odd reason Metallica didn't pay for their copy of that album.
Quality be damned. If they're going to bust a hissy about ownership and permission, they can't excuse their own actions by trying to claim that the copy was a shitty tape and therefore it was ok to illegally copy it and not pay the rightful owner of the music.
Metallica needs to get a little bit less hypocritical - people might start listening to what they're saying.
So those companies should just spend billions of dollars on that research without any possibility of getting a return on their investment?
Donate your car to charity. Be the first to give it up. What's that you say? No way? Why not? You didn't mind suggesting that an R&D lab fork over their entire VC funding and years of effort for 'The Human Fund', why the sudden reluctance to part with something as minor as a car? Oh, that's right, you don't wanna do it cos it's *your* car... but it's not your research, not your discoveries, so it's ok to give those away. Right?
Altruism usually isn't - it's always easier to pledge 'the other guy's' resources...
half.com, no referral bullshit
InterPlanetary Corporation =)