Canon actually does not make Mac drivers for all of their equipment. However, it's typically only the very cheapest models where this is the case (I've often wondered if the WIN-only models were rebadged).
I wouldn't trust NeoOffice to seamlessly handle a giant shared/published spreadsheet with lots of custom macros for dozens of users across a multi-office corporate WAN. OTOH, I'd trust it without hesitation to do anything a k-12 teacher or student would need to do with it.
"Throttling based on content type is called packet shaping, and it's been done in the US and elsewhere for many years. Nothing about the net neutrality legislation would affect that, and anyone who says otherwise is confused or trying to deliberately mislead."
It's a lot harder to fill thousand upon thousands of seats at a big venue like that without a big-label marketing machine buying you exposure. "Arena Rock" didn't exist before the labels perfected getting millions of people to all listen to the same music.
"Refresh our memories here - when is the last time any bureaucracy funded project has outpaced the private sector?"
Just about every time the project has primarily served poor or sparsely populated communities. The Market would never have chosen rural electrification, phone service, transportation infrastructure, or postal delivery; despite the fact that all those things were huge drivers of economic growth in the long run. No business was willing to pay the large up-front costs unless forced and/or subsidized by the government.
Market-forces optimize some problems brilliantly, but often their priorities are only tangentially aligned with the with the public good. Niether a command economy nor a libertarian/lazzies-faire approach serve the greatest good for the most people. A ballanced approach does.
Our patent system has lost it's way. The only people it currently serves are lawyers and companies with enourmous portfolios. The patent arms-race exemplified by TFA (or drug companies patenting genes that already exist in nature) has nothing to do with rewarding inventors or encouraging progress. They're just pieces on a scoreboard between big companies who are more interested in maintaining their current business models' viability than progress of innovation.
Real innovations are disruptive to established players.
The key difference is that Merk, Phizer, et al would all be able to sell the drug. There would be competition rather than monopoly rents in drug pricing. The money may need to come from taxes, but the people will get that back on the back end by paying less for drugs.
Sure, the R&D bill needs to be paid. Right now, a ton of it is going into researching new lifestyle medicines that can be marketed via tv adds to affluent aging baby-boomers. That's where the big money is, not curing diseases.
Academics are less inclined to pour $100M into researching a new arthritis medication simply because their old (though highly effective) one has gone out of patent.
"I was fairly suprised to see broadcom had donated so much code, since I have had quite a few problems with getting their hardware working on linux in the past."
That's the reason they've been contributing so much, to make those problems go away.
What about make-up? Is a performance a lesser achievement because makeup was used to make a character's face look older, rather than relying solely on body language and vocal cues?
There are so many emotional cues on a person's voice and face, that I'm inclined to think that if they composited a tear onto a poor actor's face, it would still be a poor performance. A bad actor faking tears with glycerin in an eye-dropper isn't any better than a bad actor getting a digital tear.
OTOH, if a great actor has all the other pieces in place, but simply didn't muster a whole tear-drop in what was an otherwise outstanding performance, I don't see how adding a bit more water in post is any different from making effective use of make-up or lighting.
I imagine it's rather grueling in film where one might do a dozen takes of a scene to get all the angles and what-not. Could anyone get just-the-right-tear each time? What if the take with the best delivery and chemistry didn't have a well formed tear-drop, but the shot from two takes earlier did? Would it be more authentic for the director/editor to cut the two takes together or to composite the tear digitally?
We already have films in which significant portions of dialog are re-dubbed in post. The authenticity of those performances aren't questioned. I don't see how this is qualitatively different from that.
Now, I will agree, that this is a factor that those who make nominations and cast votes for such awards should take into account in their deliberations. This is one of the reasons someone needs a certain number of professional credits under the belt before being allowed to vote for the more prestigious awards like the SAG awards or the Oscars. A veteran of the craft should (in theory, anyway) be able to differentiate a bravura performance from mere artifice. If the nominees peers chose to give more weight to a performance that was captured and packaged in a lower tech, more "true to life" manner, over a performance that has been more "produced;" it is certainly within their purview to do so.
I don't think doing the dance is in and of itself infringing, any more than if I sit here at my keyboard and sing aloud a copyrighted song would be. People dancing it at a party or whatever is probably what passes for "fair use" of a dance.
OTOH, if I publicly perform the dance in a recital setting, or have characters dance it in my movie or TV show, it certainly would infringe upon the choreographer's rights. The latter case seems to be primarily what he's after (as I can't really imagine a dance company having an Electric Slide recital).
Slashdot Mirror
Binoculars? No way man! I kick it old school Jimmy Stewart style with an Exakta VX and a Kilfit 400mm lens.
Canon actually does not make Mac drivers for all of their equipment. However, it's typically only the very cheapest models where this is the case (I've often wondered if the WIN-only models were rebadged).
Say what you will about National Socialism, at least it's an ethos.
They like to consider those features "off-limits."
This just screams Transmetropolitan. The Hole was YouTube crossed with Freenet.
(Just don't tell Linus, it'd be awkward.)
I wouldn't trust NeoOffice to seamlessly handle a giant shared/published spreadsheet with lots of custom macros for dozens of users across a multi-office corporate WAN. OTOH, I'd trust it without hesitation to do anything a k-12 teacher or student would need to do with it.
I'm guessing he's better at English than you are at whatever language he speaks natively.
Dude, the first rule about dll hook tutorial is to not talk about dll hook tutorial.
There are others like it, but this one is mine.
The Apple II was still available for 9 years after the Macintosh was introduced.
"Throttling based on content type is called packet shaping, and it's been done in the US and elsewhere for many years. Nothing about the net neutrality legislation would affect that, and anyone who says otherwise is confused or trying to deliberately mislead."
Or, in fairness, have themselves been misled.
It's a lot harder to fill thousand upon thousands of seats at a big venue like that without a big-label marketing machine buying you exposure. "Arena Rock" didn't exist before the labels perfected getting millions of people to all listen to the same music.
"Refresh our memories here - when is the last time any bureaucracy funded project has outpaced the private sector?"
Just about every time the project has primarily served poor or sparsely populated communities. The Market would never have chosen rural electrification, phone service, transportation infrastructure, or postal delivery; despite the fact that all those things were huge drivers of economic growth in the long run. No business was willing to pay the large up-front costs unless forced and/or subsidized by the government.
Market-forces optimize some problems brilliantly, but often their priorities are only tangentially aligned with the with the public good. Niether a command economy nor a libertarian/lazzies-faire approach serve the greatest good for the most people. A ballanced approach does.
Our patent system has lost it's way. The only people it currently serves are lawyers and companies with enourmous portfolios. The patent arms-race exemplified by TFA (or drug companies patenting genes that already exist in nature) has nothing to do with rewarding inventors or encouraging progress. They're just pieces on a scoreboard between big companies who are more interested in maintaining their current business models' viability than progress of innovation.
Real innovations are disruptive to established players.
Sure, the R&D bill needs to be paid. Right now, a ton of it is going into researching new lifestyle medicines that can be marketed via tv adds to affluent aging baby-boomers. That's where the big money is, not curing diseases. Academics are less inclined to pour $100M into researching a new arthritis medication simply because their old (though highly effective) one has gone out of patent.
Captain America!
Settlement of legal disputes, including some cross-licensing of IP, and IE is blessed as the default browser in Mac OS installs.
That's the reason they've been contributing so much, to make those problems go away.
MS is boosting Postgre because they don't want people buying Oracle or IBM's database offerings.
There are so many emotional cues on a person's voice and face, that I'm inclined to think that if they composited a tear onto a poor actor's face, it would still be a poor performance. A bad actor faking tears with glycerin in an eye-dropper isn't any better than a bad actor getting a digital tear.
OTOH, if a great actor has all the other pieces in place, but simply didn't muster a whole tear-drop in what was an otherwise outstanding performance, I don't see how adding a bit more water in post is any different from making effective use of make-up or lighting.
I imagine it's rather grueling in film where one might do a dozen takes of a scene to get all the angles and what-not. Could anyone get just-the-right-tear each time? What if the take with the best delivery and chemistry didn't have a well formed tear-drop, but the shot from two takes earlier did? Would it be more authentic for the director/editor to cut the two takes together or to composite the tear digitally?
We already have films in which significant portions of dialog are re-dubbed in post. The authenticity of those performances aren't questioned. I don't see how this is qualitatively different from that.
Now, I will agree, that this is a factor that those who make nominations and cast votes for such awards should take into account in their deliberations. This is one of the reasons someone needs a certain number of professional credits under the belt before being allowed to vote for the more prestigious awards like the SAG awards or the Oscars. A veteran of the craft should (in theory, anyway) be able to differentiate a bravura performance from mere artifice. If the nominees peers chose to give more weight to a performance that was captured and packaged in a lower tech, more "true to life" manner, over a performance that has been more "produced;" it is certainly within their purview to do so.
You mean Q-Megs and Q-Gigs, right?
The Automatic © era dawned in '89. That raises the question as to weather or not he initially registered. I don't know if there was a time-limit to register or something, or if a creator could indeed register a work long after the fact. I imagine his lawyer knows the answers to those questions. OTOH © is not like (TM) in that it has to be asserted to remain valid. If he does indeed hold those rights, their enforcement is largely at his discretion.
I don't think doing the dance is in and of itself infringing, any more than if I sit here at my keyboard and sing aloud a copyrighted song would be. People dancing it at a party or whatever is probably what passes for "fair use" of a dance. OTOH, if I publicly perform the dance in a recital setting, or have characters dance it in my movie or TV show, it certainly would infringe upon the choreographer's rights. The latter case seems to be primarily what he's after (as I can't really imagine a dance company having an Electric Slide recital).
No, but it would likely limit his claims to actual damages (i.e. unpaid fees from TV shows and so forth) rather than punitive damages.
They probably could've gotten a trademark to fly.