Even without that, anyone familiar with Usenet understands what a package of access to all binary groups, long retention of binaries, high-speed servers and encryption is for. No one uses Usenet for "your own artistic creations, from your latest political rant, or pictures of your goldfish". And despite the grandparent's sniffing about how anyone who doesn't use a special Usenet provider would be just as happy living in a police state, no real user is paying extra for super-encryption for posts to his unending Kirk-vs-Picard flamewar.
Again, I have no idea if any of that is meaningful legally, just that they're clearly targeting the warez market.
You're missing the point. (And the Ars Technica article mentions the point and then proceeds to ignore it.)
The issue is that Usenet.com blatantly (from a common-sense point of view, whether it's legally meaningful I have no idea) markets themselves as a way to illegally obtain copyrighted content. As someone put it yesterday, if the phone companies ran commercials advertising "Telephones -- the best way to plan your terrorist activities!" that would cut into their ability to claim common carrier status as a defense. Same thing for Safe Harbor.
Incidentally, didn't we have a story a few months ago complaining that the MPAA and RIAA weren't suing usenet providers, and how that proved some conspiracy theory? If that faction is relieved at this new development, I haven't seen them mention it.
Intresting case BUT stop pretending that the RIAA is stupid enough to sue USENET...
In fairness, the freaking from the tag is "from the not-the-same-as-suing-usenet dept." Maybe kdawson could use blink tags.
I have no idea if usenet.com can be considered guilty under current laws, they do have the files in question on their servers and charge people money to download them, so they are directly profitting from these files.
I think the argument being made is that they advertise copyright violation as a key reason to use their service, not just that they happen to have some warez on their servers.
Usenet.com isn't Usenet.* It's a Usenet access provider that markets itself pretty transparently (although not transparently enough to be illegal, I'd guess) as a warez service.
* Translation for all you "my hello.c is so 1337!" dweebs: Usenet.com != Usenet
As far as I can see, Maskin isn't against IP, only patents.
He's not against patents either, just against certain application of patents. To the degree that you believe that receiving this prize confers total authority, the anti-patent people certainly aren't coming out ahead on this one.
I liked their use of that highly technical term: "too squiggly".
But the thing here is that there is no science behind using these signals to interpret what one is thinking even with the invocation of Bayesian networks.
It sounds like they were using this method to optimize the complexity of interfaces depending on the user's level of "confusion". (E.g., when the user is in a state of panic, the graph wizard in Excel could offer three or four styles of graph, instead of 12. One of the Linux makers with Microsoft patent licensing could adapt it to look at such a user and decide "Y'know, you probably don't need the GIMP...") I doubt they've tried anything as ambitious as knowing what the user is thinking.
If you've mastered them before, you should be able to pick up the high school math (algebra, geometry, trig) pretty readily on your own from a test prep book. (That's how you learned them once, right?) It may not be perfect, but since you apparently need to apply these skills, you should know what you can and can't gloss over.
Calculus is tougher, and the community college might be the best bet.
I just had the nausea and diarrhea, along with chills. None of the really freaky symptoms like they talk about here, or the long term recurrences. Like I said, it was a very mild case. The restaurant owner followed the OP's logic and slightly poisoned 20 people instead of badly harming one or two.
I completely concur. He quoted prices that were correct when he wrote them and were changed while (or after) the issue was in press. I don't see where he did anything inappropriate at all.
It's been known to Europeans for hundreds of years, and presumably to natives for much longer. (I had a very mild case in Belize a few years ago, from a barracuda.)
Incidentally, for those wondering why the synthesis of this is newsworthy, check out the structures of this and similar marine toxins. The synthesis of palytoxin, at the bottom, supposedly sent a number of grad students and postdocs to the hospital, as its intermediates are also insanely toxic.
But now that Free Open Source Software is being commercialized by hardware vendors such as Dell, System76, EmperorLinux, Zareason.com, and TechCollective.com, acquiring computers powered by FOSS is straightforward.
Don't forget the teaching-mental-patients-to-install-Ubuntu-on-old-computers-and-that's-much-more-important-than-saving-the-gorillas guy!
As for why the edits weren't to the BBFC's liking, the board stated that the 'reduction in visual detail in some of the execution kills' was still not enough to bring the title in line with an 18 rating.
Frankly, if they're reducing visual detail "in some of the execution kills", I'm not buying the game anyway! Certainly not when I can instead go the mall and watch iPod users' pants catch on fire.
Just because they own the IP and made the first few games, does not mean that they have to make all the games in perpituity.
Sure, but the MTV link is speculating about what would happen if they gave up the IP, which was reasonable speculation but isn't what happened. It seemed odd to bring it up *after* the details of the Bungie deal came out.
In fairness, Google hasn't been convicted yet (even by Slashbot standards of "convicted"), just had their previously accepted request for dismissal overturned.
You might want to look to the stories here on "Single Mother With Lupus Defeats RIAA!!!" to see how to spin dismissal rulings.
This is really great of them (even the podcasts they used to have were terrific) but they really need to get a fashion consultant to work on some of those professors...
Clicking around randomly, I had to laugh at the attendance for Chemistry 3B, lecture 21. Yeah, that's about par for the course for Orgo that late in the term.
They don't hem and haw at all. The announcement explains very clearly, although apparently not clearly enough for "whurley", the submitter and the editor, that this is not open source and why they chose not to make it open source.
The Microsoft announcement says specifically and repeatedly that this is not "open source" and explains why they chose not to use such a license. They seem to understand the term a lot better than "whurley" does.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I have no idea if any of that is meaningful legally, just that they're clearly targeting the warez market.
The issue is that Usenet.com blatantly (from a common-sense point of view, whether it's legally meaningful I have no idea) markets themselves as a way to illegally obtain copyrighted content. As someone put it yesterday, if the phone companies ran commercials advertising "Telephones -- the best way to plan your terrorist activities!" that would cut into their ability to claim common carrier status as a defense. Same thing for Safe Harbor.
Incidentally, didn't we have a story a few months ago complaining that the MPAA and RIAA weren't suing usenet providers, and how that proved some conspiracy theory? If that faction is relieved at this new development, I haven't seen them mention it.
In fairness, the freaking from the tag is "from the not-the-same-as-suing-usenet dept." Maybe kdawson could use blink tags.
I have no idea if usenet.com can be considered guilty under current laws, they do have the files in question on their servers and charge people money to download them, so they are directly profitting from these files.
I think the argument being made is that they advertise copyright violation as a key reason to use their service, not just that they happen to have some warez on their servers.
Usenet.com isn't Usenet.* It's a Usenet access provider that markets itself pretty transparently (although not transparently enough to be illegal, I'd guess) as a warez service.
* Translation for all you "my hello.c is so 1337!" dweebs: Usenet.com != Usenet
He's not against patents either, just against certain application of patents. To the degree that you believe that receiving this prize confers total authority, the anti-patent people certainly aren't coming out ahead on this one.
Ummm, that's an example I made up. If you're going to get so angry over it, at least blame me, not Microsoft.
But the thing here is that there is no science behind using these signals to interpret what one is thinking even with the invocation of Bayesian networks.
It sounds like they were using this method to optimize the complexity of interfaces depending on the user's level of "confusion". (E.g., when the user is in a state of panic, the graph wizard in Excel could offer three or four styles of graph, instead of 12. One of the Linux makers with Microsoft patent licensing could adapt it to look at such a user and decide "Y'know, you probably don't need the GIMP...") I doubt they've tried anything as ambitious as knowing what the user is thinking.
Calculus is tougher, and the community college might be the best bet.
I just had the nausea and diarrhea, along with chills. None of the really freaky symptoms like they talk about here, or the long term recurrences. Like I said, it was a very mild case. The restaurant owner followed the OP's logic and slightly poisoned 20 people instead of badly harming one or two.
I completely concur. He quoted prices that were correct when he wrote them and were changed while (or after) the issue was in press. I don't see where he did anything inappropriate at all.
Incidentally, for those wondering why the synthesis of this is newsworthy, check out the structures of this and similar marine toxins. The synthesis of palytoxin, at the bottom, supposedly sent a number of grad students and postdocs to the hospital, as its intermediates are also insanely toxic.
I can't say I'm looking forward to Mom's arrival in #gentoo...
Don't forget the teaching-mental-patients-to-install-Ubuntu-on-old-computers-and-that's-much-more-important-than-saving-the-gorillas guy!
I think you've got a definite Ask Slashdot there. Probably 400 comments, with Godwin's Law hit within the first ten.
RMS's mob of Free Software Advocates are now burning down your house for that slight. Also, you should say "GNU/Linux".
Then came back here figuring the same comment had already been made, but people seem to have jumped on references to the 80's band instead.
And now you find yourself in 82. The disco hot spots hold no charm for you.
I'm not knocking them, I'm just surprised it was linked here *after* it ceased to have value.
As long as you have the Q and the U, wouldn't "quatloo" be a more appropriate name?
Sure, but the MTV link is speculating about what would happen if they gave up the IP, which was reasonable speculation but isn't what happened. It seemed odd to bring it up *after* the details of the Bungie deal came out.
Isn't that kind of a moot point, since they *are* going to be continuing the Halo series?
You might want to look to the stories here on "Single Mother With Lupus Defeats RIAA!!!" to see how to spin dismissal rulings.
Clicking around randomly, I had to laugh at the attendance for Chemistry 3B, lecture 21. Yeah, that's about par for the course for Orgo that late in the term.
They don't hem and haw at all. The announcement explains very clearly, although apparently not clearly enough for "whurley", the submitter and the editor, that this is not open source and why they chose not to make it open source.
The Microsoft announcement says specifically and repeatedly that this is not "open source" and explains why they chose not to use such a license. They seem to understand the term a lot better than "whurley" does.