Wouldn't the movie be kind of flickery, since we'd be getting half the frame rate? Unless 3D movies these days play at double frame rate, which seems unlikely.
What he said. I work remotely for a large University, and it works very well for us. No hassles. Multi-user. Easy to use. App/desktop sharing. Remote control. Not free, but pretty affordable. Did I mention easy to use?
"A public domain work is an orphan. No one is responsible for its life. But everyone exploits its use, until that time cretain when it becomes soiled and haggard, barren of its previous virtues. Who, then, will invest the funds to renovate and nourish its future life, when on one owns it? How does the consumer benefit from that scenario? The answer is, there is no benefit."
I'd love to try Netflix...... but back in 2001, when those X10 cameras started flooding us with popup ads, I swore I'd never support a company that took over my browser. I usually browse with Noscript- but when I don't, I invariably get a popunder for Netflix.
Just because you can get around the popup blocking that every user has turned on doesn't mean you should.
"I would support [a law], however, because I consider myself to be a pretty good law follower and would feel pretty horrible if something happened because of me breaking a law."
Yeah, because something bad happening because you do something you know if fucking stupid would be ok.
What, she'd only feel bad if she killed someone while doing something 'against the law'?
Me too. Well, I have two eyes, but only one works at a time. We'd still have to wear the glasses just to filter out the other eye image, and it's horribly flickery. I think I'll wait for the DVD, thank you very much.
Not only have we been representing web developers for many years, but many of our attorneys worked in the web development field. John W. Dozier, Jr. founded an e-commerce company in 1994 and developed a broad array of web based transaction processing, software GUI, database, and ASP applictions[sic]. So, we know the industry from the inside out.
At the time of the lawsuit, it was impossible for a screen reader user to 'checkout'. You could, with difficulty, put items in a cart, but the 'checkout' button was a hot region on the screen which was not selectable by keyboard. You HAD to use a mouse to click on the checkout button.
Um, it doesn't say 'everyone'. You have to be an able-bodied male, or a female in the national guard. So 17 year old guys can have guns, but 17 year old women who aren't in the National Guard can't?
I don't think it matters if it's the reporter or the editor who ends up biasing the news. The editor (Travis Armstrong) of my local paper (Santa Barbara Newpress) was caught driving the wrong way on a one way street with 3 times the legal alcohol limit. How much coverage do you think that got?
What about when one company owns all the local TV and Radio stations, and Newspapers? And the owner likes a particular candidate or proposition in an upcoming election? Personally, I think the only way to get unbiased coverage is to diversify. Sometimes the most truth can be found in comparing the Washington Post with Foxnews.
The bias can come in what is reported, and what is left out.
The classic example is Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" in which he studies the NT Times' lack of coverage of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor.
I don't see how this is any different than people who claim to adhere to a religion. For one thing, 'lines' codified in religous texts are hazy, at best. If two different people can interpert a rule differently to suit their own needs, then what good is it?
Whether the rules come from a book, or internally, they are there. I actually think someone who develops their rules internally is more likely to follow them, because they mean more. I do think many religous people develop internal rules- which are backed up by their book. And they interpert the book rule to match their internal rule.
Maybe not life and death- but I guarantee it's a lot more important to the unemployed guy who's wondering how he's going to pay the rent this month than it is to the guy who's taking 2 days off work from a high paying job just to stand around in the cold.
Slashdot Mirror
"Tramiel was *so* aggressive with the price and driving competitors out of the market- that C= weren't actually making that much money on them"
In the late 80s I read that Atari never made a cent on their home computer division. It was subsidized by the 2600.
Never happen. He's an atheist.
(Yes, I know about Peter Stark)
Also, some people CAN'T be vaccinated (e.g. genetic disease, allergy, too young), and depend on the protection of 'the herd'.
As pointed out by PZ Myers http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/another_reason_to_avoid_visiti.php // CREATIONIST GROUPIES
The comments in their javascript are kind of funny.In particular,
Wouldn't the movie be kind of flickery, since we'd be getting half the frame rate? Unless 3D movies these days play at double frame rate, which seems unlikely.
What he said. I work remotely for a large University, and it works very well for us. No hassles. Multi-user. Easy to use. App/desktop sharing. Remote control. Not free, but pretty affordable. Did I mention easy to use?
"A public domain work is an orphan. No one is responsible for its life. But everyone exploits its use, until that time cretain when it becomes soiled and haggard, barren of its previous virtues. Who, then, will invest the funds to renovate and nourish its future life, when on one owns it? How does the consumer benefit from that scenario? The answer is, there is no benefit."
-- Jack Valenti
As found in 'Digital Copyright' by Jessica Litman
I dunno, but my mother is still using the K1000 she bought in '79.
I'd love to try Netflix ... ... but back in 2001, when those X10 cameras started flooding us with popup ads, I swore I'd never support a company that took over my browser. I usually browse with Noscript- but when I don't, I invariably get a popunder for Netflix.
Just because you can get around the popup blocking that every user has turned on doesn't mean you should.
She appears to have the web skills to edit her own wikipedia entry.
(That or her new baby is a savant)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10029598-38.html
At first glance one might think the country in question is Russia or Zimbabwe but the truth is, it's a democratic nation
You do realize that Russia is a democracy, right?
"I would support [a law], however, because I consider myself to be a pretty good law follower and would feel pretty horrible if something happened because of me breaking a law."
Yeah, because something bad happening because you do something you know if fucking stupid would be ok.
What, she'd only feel bad if she killed someone while doing something 'against the law'?
Idiot.
Me too. Well, I have two eyes, but only one works at a time. We'd still have to wear the glasses just to filter out the other eye image, and it's horribly flickery. I think I'll wait for the DVD, thank you very much.
1% of adults, not of the general population. Not that it affect your point.
Chuck can have his roundhouse kicks. Bruce Schneier is the /. role model of choice.
http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/921/
We are Lawyers for Web Developers
Not only have we been representing web developers for many years, but many of our attorneys worked in the web development field. John W. Dozier, Jr. founded an e-commerce company in 1994 and developed a broad array of web based transaction processing, software GUI, database, and ASP applictions[sic]. So, we know the industry from the inside out.
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/developers
At the time of the lawsuit, it was impossible for a screen reader user to 'checkout'. You could, with difficulty, put items in a cart, but the 'checkout' button was a hot region on the screen which was not selectable by keyboard. You HAD to use a mouse to click on the checkout button.
Um, it doesn't say 'everyone'. You have to be an able-bodied male, or a female in the national guard. So 17 year old guys can have guns, but 17 year old women who aren't in the National Guard can't?
Of course, this has been used since the beginning of (computer) time in the form of doubly-linked lists.
A doubly linked list just means previous and next pointers. That's traversing one sequence in either direction.
What the patent says is may be traversed in at least two sequences.
Which I remember drawing pictures of in my data structures class in about '86- and it was certainly nothing new.
I don't think it matters if it's the reporter or the editor who ends up biasing the news. The editor (Travis Armstrong) of my local paper (Santa Barbara Newpress) was caught driving the wrong way on a one way street with 3 times the legal alcohol limit. How much coverage do you think that got?
What about when one company owns all the local TV and Radio stations, and Newspapers? And the owner likes a particular candidate or proposition in an upcoming election? Personally, I think the only way to get unbiased coverage is to diversify. Sometimes the most truth can be found in comparing the Washington Post with Foxnews.
I would go so far as to say that the USSR was very much a theocracy. And the deity's name was Lenin.
I for one am not going to get my panties in an uproar over my kids looking for eggs left by a Christian co-opted pagan avatar.
There was a time when I would have, but my priorities have changed.
The bias can come in what is reported, and what is left out.
The classic example is Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" in which he studies the NT Times' lack of coverage of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor.
I don't see how this is any different than people who claim to adhere to a religion. For one thing, 'lines' codified in religous texts are hazy, at best. If two different people can interpert a rule differently to suit their own needs, then what good is it?
Whether the rules come from a book, or internally, they are there. I actually think someone who develops their rules internally is more likely to follow them, because they mean more. I do think many religous people develop internal rules- which are backed up by their book. And they interpert the book rule to match their internal rule.
Maybe not life and death- but I guarantee it's a lot more important to the unemployed guy who's wondering how he's going to pay the rent this month than it is to the guy who's taking 2 days off work from a high paying job just to stand around in the cold.