"Hah! That shows how well you built legos! Mine were often thrown against walls and lived! Of course, they were ugly sons of bitches"
Many of mine were intricate machines with motors and rubber-bands and the Technics kits. Sure, you can build an indestructable brick, but even with legos, I was programming:) I was often making machines that did things, or working gearboxes, etc.
"I just have one small complaint. There is not an easy way to duplex (or print in book format - whatever you want to call it). You have to figure out whether to print the odd pages or even pages reversed, and figure out which to reverse."
That's not a printer-specific complaint. Wouldn't you need to figure that out for any printer?
"Lexmark printers have NOTHING in common with LEGO."
I figured I might get a response from that. My implicatino was thus: Remember what happened to your lego creations when they fell maybe 6 inches? Shatter. That's how lexmarks feel to me.
"what is everyone's fascination with inkjet... give me more expensive but quality laser anyday."
Quite true. If you don't print more photos and colorful deals than text, you would be MUCH better off with a laser brinter.
At work, several of our employees have their own Samsung ML-1210. They've really been great. Not a single problem, toner lasts a long time. Got em for around $150 cuz they were being discontinued. If their replacement, the 1430 is like the 1210, go for it. And yes, after these days of crappy lego $30 Lexmarks, a $170 printer may not look familiar any more. But it's really worth it. No more zzzt-zzzt-zzzt-zzzt over and over again to print a page. It's whirrrrr and it's done. 15 pages a minute, too. Kicks your lexmark's ass. Cleaner, higher contrast, won't smudge of it gets a drop of water on it. It's better all around.
Actually, I caught it. I just wanted an excuse to post the workings of an insanely depricated, yet heartwarming, programming command. Man, those were the days...
This makes perfect sense to me. I was thinking about it the other day. When people walk out of the theaters after viewing a great movie, they want to buy it on DVD. For most movies, this isn't possible, and the people have to wait. But if the movie they just saw was a sequel, and its predecessor is available for purchase, the people will run out and buy it. So, to release a DVD weeks before its sequel comes out is marketing genius. It hypes the upcoming sequel and itself, and if the sequel is great in the theaters, the first will sell great for the home.
Those of you who remember the warez scenes of the BBS's of yore will remember that sometimes a board was taken down in YOUR AREA CODE. Within actual driving miles of where you lived. How long did it take for elite sections to open back up? 6 months? 3? one? They always did. They always will. Same today.
>If they use robots.txt, no NYT articles will >come up in Google. > >Not true - read the link.. Google has a >mechanism that will allow your site to be >indexed, but not cached.
You're missing my point. They want their links to be shown when you search for text that their articles contain. They just want you to have to login when you click that link.
If I search for "McDonalds," NYT wants their article about McDonalds to show up in the google hits. But when you click that link, they want you to get a login screen.
"It's entirely upto the NYT whether to let Google's robots to index their site, isn't it?"
I personally think the NYTimes wants Google to continue to cache their stories.
If they use robots.txt, no NYT articles will come up in Google. However, if they *do* succeed in these talks, I presume the articles will still come up, but uncached, and linking to a signup/login screen. It makes pretty good business sense.
I, too, find that message rather suspect. If message_die is an undefined function, then clearly it was placed in the code by a sabateur. A cracker? Or was it the webmaster himself, falling on his slashdot-induced sword?
I find that when someone grees with a debater, they call it a good discussion. When they disagree with a debater, they call it an argument. I'd try not to be so transparent next time. Also, 3rd person plural is condescending and another clue that my position in the discussion bothers you. 2 points for Mr. Transparent:)
> Well, since it is currently illegal to copy copyrighted MP3's[...]
It's not currently illegal to copy copyrighted MP3s. It's fair use. If all I did was make an MP3 of a disc I owned, for my portable MP3 player, a court would never convict me.
> It's not my interpretation; it's the way courts in this country have traditionaly interpreted these things.
That's your interpretation of how the court has interpreted things. How is that not your interpretation again?
> If you made such a poor quality mp3 that it is only useful for making sure you're thinking of the right song, but no one could stand to listen to it as music (like old badly scratched records) I'd suspect that would be fair use
Thank you. But you're just restating my point. But I explicitly asked how low a bitrate you'd need to use before it became fair use, not whether or not you could.
> The courts are not in the habit of giving things away.
Whether the courts are giving things away or not isn't their concern. They merely inteperet laws. Judges don't come up with a decision based on "am I giving something away or not?"
> I'm not deciding that, I'm making an observation.
But it's not your interpretation, right? I love symantics.
And when I declare myself "postal" and start shooting everybody, it's because of the USPS. People, take responsibility for your kids. What happens to them is only YOUR honor or fault.
>"Unless specifically stated in the court's decision, you can't make that statement; it's for a court to decide."
>"What are you smoking?"
The poster stated that a court decision on picture thumbnails explicitly excluded MP3s. He said "The court did not legalize copying MP3's," which is a contentless statement. I never said it did. I said it "might have." And there's a big difference. He's saying it did not, whereas I know that whether it did or did not is something only a court can decide.
I posed a point of discussion based on the case, whereas he tried to make a definitive, apparently irreputable statement derived from the case, which, as I said, is something only courts can do.
"Then fucken take it to court, and don't posit the idiot question on/."
Aside from there being no such word as fucken, can I point out the idiocy of that sentence? Slashdot is a discussion site. We're not here to be judges or juries. We even have an acronym, IANAL, which expicitly states that we cannot make legal decisions. We are here to discuss. If you have a problem with people telling you that you're not a judge, which is the only thing I can think of that upset you, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe slashdot isn't the right site for you. If you want to hang around, you're going to have to change a couple things. Stop saying the court decided this or that, when it didn't, as in this case where it didn't mention MP3s but you said it did. Or stop getting upset when people call you on your mistakes and logic fallacies. Discuss them, but don't make statements like "Then fucken take it to court, and don't posit the idiot question on/." because that really doesn't do a whole lot for your discussion.
If you want to discuss, go ahead. If you want to continue to tell me to stop discussing and positing ideas, go ahead. Just don't be surprised at the possible karmic consequences and/or my followups, assuming I deem the next response worthy of debate. And anyhow, if you continue along this track, I doubt I will.
Unless specifically stated in the court's decision, you can't make that statement; it's for a court to decide.
If you think this ruling says you can get something for free, you're not interpreting it correctly.
Interpretation is obviously open to debate. I could say you're not interpreting it correctly either, but instead, I default to only the stated text, because inferences are for the courts to make.
It protects fair use, not free use.
Some people would argue that MP3s are subpar-quality examples of what you can purchase and obtain in high-quality; in effect, thumbnails of audio. Whether you wish to believe that's valid or not, neither of us can say it is or isn't. It's for a court to decide. I just posit the question.
Augh. Another learning moment brought to me by Slashdot and HowStuffWorks.com.
BUT, it does say 'It is possible to measure radiation pressure [...]. To make it work you have to use a much better vacuum, [space works] suspend the vanes from fine fibers and coat the vanes with an inert glass to prevent out-gassing. When you succeed the vanes are deflected [by photons, against the white] as predicted by Maxwell. The experiment is very difficult but was first done successfully in 1901 by Pyotr Lebedev and also by Eenest Nichols and Gordon Hull.'
So my point remains, even if my explanation of the radiometer was faulty. You can generate force against white with photons in a vacuum.
A thumbnail is a reduced-resolution replication of an entire copyrighted piece of work, and has just been called a legal representation of what one can obtain if one purchases the full-resolution version. How much reduction must take place for this to be legal?
I don't see how MP3s don't fall under this same definition. The only question is what is the max resolution/bitrate of MP3s before they're no longer audio thumbnails?
Most of us geeks have seen the little science fair deals that spin when light is shone upon them. To describe: an assembly with spires coming out horizontally at 90-degrees is placed upon a pin to reduce friction. At the ends of each spire is a panel parallel to the spire but flat on the vertical. One side of each panel is black, the other is white. When light (or other EM waves) shines on the white side, it generates repulsion, because white reflects all visible light. When it shines on the black, nothing happens, because black absorbs all visible light.
The result? You can get this assembly to rotate on the pin quite quickly using just photons as the thrust. In an environment with no gravity and no atmospheric viscocity, I don't see why a solar sail wouldn't work. I've got one on my room at home. It works fine.
Names are NOT a modern art demonstration! Please don't name your kid after the sound a retard makes when he sees "pretty lady!" or any other made up meaningless sound. Names should mean something and not just sound "cool."
dARllll...........
or "retarded."
Other hypothesi: Middle brother of 3, Carl, Darl, and Earl; parents really love alphabetic order. Mother currently pregnant with Farl.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hah! That shows how well you built legos! Mine were often thrown against walls and lived! Of course, they were ugly sons of bitches"
:) I was often making machines that did things, or working gearboxes, etc.
Many of mine were intricate machines with motors and rubber-bands and the Technics kits. Sure, you can build an indestructable brick, but even with legos, I was programming
"I just have one small complaint. There is not an easy way to duplex (or print in book format - whatever you want to call it). You have to figure out whether to print the odd pages or even pages reversed, and figure out which to reverse."
That's not a printer-specific complaint. Wouldn't you need to figure that out for any printer?
"My implicatino was thus: "
And, in a bizarre coincidence, it was also my implication.
"Lexmark printers have NOTHING in common with LEGO."
I figured I might get a response from that. My implicatino was thus: Remember what happened to your lego creations when they fell maybe 6 inches? Shatter. That's how lexmarks feel to me.
CRAP. That 1430 link is here.
"what is everyone's fascination with inkjet... give me more expensive but quality laser anyday."
Quite true. If you don't print more photos and colorful deals than text, you would be MUCH better off with a laser brinter.
At work, several of our employees have their own Samsung ML-1210. They've really been great. Not a single problem, toner lasts a long time. Got em for around $150 cuz they were being discontinued. If their replacement, the 1430 is like the 1210, go for it. And yes, after these days of crappy lego $30 Lexmarks, a $170 printer may not look familiar any more. But it's really worth it. No more zzzt-zzzt-zzzt-zzzt over and over again to print a page. It's whirrrrr and it's done. 15 pages a minute, too. Kicks your lexmark's ass. Cleaner, higher contrast, won't smudge of it gets a drop of water on it. It's better all around.
Think about it.
Actually, I caught it. I just wanted an excuse to post the workings of an insanely depricated, yet heartwarming, programming command. Man, those were the days...
TROFF is not TROUGH.
It's TROFF!
This makes perfect sense to me. I was thinking about it the other day. When people walk out of the theaters after viewing a great movie, they want to buy it on DVD. For most movies, this isn't possible, and the people have to wait. But if the movie they just saw was a sequel, and its predecessor is available for purchase, the people will run out and buy it. So, to release a DVD weeks before its sequel comes out is marketing genius. It hypes the upcoming sequel and itself, and if the sequel is great in the theaters, the first will sell great for the home.
Those of you who remember the warez scenes of the BBS's of yore will remember that sometimes a board was taken down in YOUR AREA CODE. Within actual driving miles of where you lived. How long did it take for elite sections to open back up? 6 months? 3? one? They always did. They always will. Same today.
AyeRoxor [8i3]
>If they use robots.txt, no NYT articles will
>come up in Google.
>
>Not true - read the link.. Google has a
>mechanism that will allow your site to be
>indexed, but not cached.
You're missing my point. They want their links to be shown when you search for text that their articles contain. They just want you to have to login when you click that link.
If I search for "McDonalds," NYT wants their article about McDonalds to show up in the google hits. But when you click that link, they want you to get a login screen.
"It's entirely upto the NYT whether to let Google's robots to index their site, isn't it?"
I personally think the NYTimes wants Google to continue to cache their stories.
If they use robots.txt, no NYT articles will come up in Google. However, if they *do* succeed in these talks, I presume the articles will still come up, but uncached, and linking to a signup/login screen. It makes pretty good business sense.
I, too, find that message rather suspect. If message_die is an undefined function, then clearly it was placed in the code by a sabateur. A cracker? Or was it the webmaster himself, falling on his slashdot-induced sword?
Or is it a message from the future?
Man, I can't wait for T4.
> Well aren't we Mr. Argumentative?
:)
I find that when someone grees with a debater, they call it a good discussion. When they disagree with a debater, they call it an argument. I'd try not to be so transparent next time. Also, 3rd person plural is condescending and another clue that my position in the discussion bothers you. 2 points for Mr. Transparent
> Well, since it is currently illegal to copy copyrighted MP3's[...]
It's not currently illegal to copy copyrighted MP3s. It's fair use. If all I did was make an MP3 of a disc I owned, for my portable MP3 player, a court would never convict me.
> It's not my interpretation; it's the way courts in this country have traditionaly interpreted these things.
That's your interpretation of how the court has interpreted things. How is that not your interpretation again?
> If you made such a poor quality mp3 that it is only useful for making sure you're thinking of the right song, but no one could stand to listen to it as music (like old badly scratched records) I'd suspect that would be fair use
Thank you. But you're just restating my point. But I explicitly asked how low a bitrate you'd need to use before it became fair use, not whether or not you could.
> The courts are not in the habit of giving things away.
Whether the courts are giving things away or not isn't their concern. They merely inteperet laws. Judges don't come up with a decision based on "am I giving something away or not?"
> I'm not deciding that, I'm making an observation.
But it's not your interpretation, right? I love symantics.
And when I declare myself "postal" and start shooting everybody, it's because of the USPS. People, take responsibility for your kids. What happens to them is only YOUR honor or fault.
"it was supposed to be manuscript, not typed!?"
:)
I dont understand the question. I see a question mark, but I don't know what you're asking. Please explain
"wearing ... a soul patch goatee"
WTF is a soul patch? And why put a goatee on it? Really, the face-pubes on this guy just scream square trying to be hip.
>"Unless specifically stated in the court's decision, you can't make that statement; it's for a court to decide."
/."
/." because that really doesn't do a whole lot for your discussion.
>"What are you smoking?"
The poster stated that a court decision on picture thumbnails explicitly excluded MP3s. He said "The court did not legalize copying MP3's," which is a contentless statement. I never said it did. I said it "might have." And there's a big difference. He's saying it did not, whereas I know that whether it did or did not is something only a court can decide.
I posed a point of discussion based on the case, whereas he tried to make a definitive, apparently irreputable statement derived from the case, which, as I said, is something only courts can do.
"Then fucken take it to court, and don't posit the idiot question on
Aside from there being no such word as fucken, can I point out the idiocy of that sentence? Slashdot is a discussion site. We're not here to be judges or juries. We even have an acronym, IANAL, which expicitly states that we cannot make legal decisions. We are here to discuss. If you have a problem with people telling you that you're not a judge, which is the only thing I can think of that upset you, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe slashdot isn't the right site for you. If you want to hang around, you're going to have to change a couple things. Stop saying the court decided this or that, when it didn't, as in this case where it didn't mention MP3s but you said it did. Or stop getting upset when people call you on your mistakes and logic fallacies. Discuss them, but don't make statements like "Then fucken take it to court, and don't posit the idiot question on
If you want to discuss, go ahead. If you want to continue to tell me to stop discussing and positing ideas, go ahead. Just don't be surprised at the possible karmic consequences and/or my followups, assuming I deem the next response worthy of debate. And anyhow, if you continue along this track, I doubt I will.
Unless specifically stated in the court's decision, you can't make that statement; it's for a court to decide.
Interpretation is obviously open to debate. I could say you're not interpreting it correctly either, but instead, I default to only the stated text, because inferences are for the courts to make.
Some people would argue that MP3s are subpar-quality examples of what you can purchase and obtain in high-quality; in effect, thumbnails of audio. Whether you wish to believe that's valid or not, neither of us can say it is or isn't. It's for a court to decide. I just posit the question.
Augh. Another learning moment brought to me by Slashdot and HowStuffWorks.com.
BUT, it does say 'It is possible to measure radiation pressure [...]. To make it work you have to use a much better vacuum, [space works] suspend the vanes from fine fibers and coat the vanes with an inert glass to prevent out-gassing. When you succeed the vanes are deflected [by photons, against the white] as predicted by Maxwell. The experiment is very difficult but was first done successfully in 1901 by Pyotr Lebedev and also by Eenest Nichols and Gordon Hull.'
So my point remains, even if my explanation of the radiometer was faulty. You can generate force against white with photons in a vacuum.
A thumbnail is a reduced-resolution replication of an entire copyrighted piece of work, and has just been called a legal representation of what one can obtain if one purchases the full-resolution version. How much reduction must take place for this to be legal?
I don't see how MP3s don't fall under this same definition. The only question is what is the max resolution/bitrate of MP3s before they're no longer audio thumbnails?
Most of us geeks have seen the little science fair deals that spin when light is shone upon them. To describe: an assembly with spires coming out horizontally at 90-degrees is placed upon a pin to reduce friction. At the ends of each spire is a panel parallel to the spire but flat on the vertical. One side of each panel is black, the other is white. When light (or other EM waves) shines on the white side, it generates repulsion, because white reflects all visible light. When it shines on the black, nothing happens, because black absorbs all visible light.
The result? You can get this assembly to rotate on the pin quite quickly using just photons as the thrust. In an environment with no gravity and no atmospheric viscocity, I don't see why a solar sail wouldn't work. I've got one on my room at home. It works fine.
Buy one
Names are NOT a modern art demonstration! Please don't name your kid after the sound a retard makes when he sees "pretty lady!" or any other made up meaningless sound. Names should mean something and not just sound "cool."
dARllll...........
or "retarded."
Other hypothesi: Middle brother of 3, Carl, Darl, and Earl; parents really love alphabetic order. Mother currently pregnant with Farl.
Would you, could you in a box?
Would you, could you with a fox?
That's disgusting.
"My God, how can some idiot that doesn't know that the US Postal Service is refered to as the USPS get modded up as funny???"
Click the dictionary link, you tard.