Look, the *majority* of people use "cow" to mean either. It's the accepted non-technical use of the word.
People piss and moan on slashdot when a cracker is called a hacker by the media. It's no different. Yes, they're fucking nerds, just like you.
Just because people use the name cow interchangeably doesn't make it correct. Yes, that's exactly what it makes it. Language is defined by use, not by some smelly dictionary writer.
The only ones I can remember are that a US president was told (during the cold war) that scenarios predicted 300 million american death *at best* in a *winned* nuclear war against Russia. That'd be a neat trick.
United States -- Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
stop trying to apply common sense to copyright, it doesn't work like that.
Once something is "fixed", it is automatically copyrighted. If the copyright owner finds another work that is sufficiently similar to his own and he decided to sue, then it doesn't matter how the material got from the original to the copy.. about the only way you can show it wasn't copied was to prove that it was created before the copyright owner's work was, or find some third work that was created before the copyright owner's work and show that you had copied from that. And unless that third work is in the public domain or under a permissive license, you're just opening yourself up to another lawsuit.
This form of argument: are you saying X, if so you're dead wrong [continue with long diatribe] is the kind of shit politicians do. If you were speaking to the guy in person he would have cut you off after the pause for the comma because he didn't say that and he is not saying that. You're putting words in his mouth.
Furthermore, OF COURSE you can have one law for students and another for companies. No, you can't. You can have one law for non-commercial use and another for commercial use, but if the student is selling their notes then they're exactly the same, under the protection of the law, as a company.
The law is the law dude, equal protection under it and all that.
You can't have one law for students and another for companies.
Copyright law is stupid, end of story.
Oh, and don't call me names, child.
Helping your fellow students and asking for compensation for the work you did and they couldn't be bothered to do is immoral? Man, what a fucked up world you live in.
Every in the team can see everyone else's cards. Everyone in the team can count up to 52. It's not exactly hard to see who is going to need to hit and who isn't.. so the team can come up with the least suspicious way to hold back or take the necessary number of cards.
You also know which hand the 52nd card is going to fall in, so the team bets big on that hand.
In my local casino they used to shuffle cards in a way that showed the bottom card.. then one day they started turning over the deck with the cut card. Until I read this book I really just thought it was a flourish.. I see now that they were trying to hide the bottom card by covering it with the cut card instead of the dealer's hand. When I think back, I can remember a few times when the dealer accidentally showed the bottom card and had to reshuffle the deck.. I never knew why.
Now, of course, they have continuous automatic shuffling machines.. and even regular card counting doesn't work.
If you know the 52nd card is a 10, you just have to hit or stand on the appropriate hand to get it to land on the dealer's hand.. 3rd card being a 10 will bust most dealer hands.. if he has to draw:)
There's still "counting" involved.. it's just counting up to 52.
Yes, you need a team to take every seat on the table. And you communicate either by hand signals or by code words.
As for the ace placement, maybe I got that bit wrong..
That's great, but if I wanted to read that argument I'd go to the library. I wanted to hear your argument. You said you thought people had a right to control how their work is distributed and that no-one has a right to profit from someone else's work without compensation. This is contrary to what you just said. If copyrights expire then they don't have a "right", they have a temporary granted monopoly. If things fall into the public domain then others can profit from the work without compensating the creator. So which is it?
Slashdot Mirror
Get over yourself nazi.
You're an idiot.
You know that bulls are cows, right?
I ask because I once knew an American who didn't know that lambs were sheep.
The Invasion with Nicole Kidman does that ending justice.
Simplify the game play.
Make a very big world.
Dude who has shown he is good with math, does some math, news at 11.
Well, to be fair, it makes as much sense as having enough weapons to destroy the Earth 56 times. :)
United States -- Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
vision != reality.
Even if NASA wasn't a bureaucratic mess and got the funding it needed, all we'd have is "science" on Mars.
Does it really make sense to drag yourself out of a gravity well only to throw yourself into another?
Remember, NASA and the vast majority of the space community are still stuck in the von Braun vision: station, shuttle, Moon, Mars.
stop trying to apply common sense to copyright, it doesn't work like that.
Once something is "fixed", it is automatically copyrighted. If the copyright owner finds another work that is sufficiently similar to his own and he decided to sue, then it doesn't matter how the material got from the original to the copy.. about the only way you can show it wasn't copied was to prove that it was created before the copyright owner's work was, or find some third work that was created before the copyright owner's work and show that you had copied from that. And unless that third work is in the public domain or under a permissive license, you're just opening yourself up to another lawsuit.
This form of argument: are you saying X, if so you're dead wrong [continue with long diatribe] is the kind of shit politicians do. If you were speaking to the guy in person he would have cut you off after the pause for the comma because he didn't say that and he is not saying that. You're putting words in his mouth.
What's so hard about that?
The law is the law dude, equal protection under it and all that. You can't have one law for students and another for companies. Copyright law is stupid, end of story. Oh, and don't call me names, child.
Copyright is ridiculous.
Helping your fellow students and asking for compensation for the work you did and they couldn't be bothered to do is immoral? Man, what a fucked up world you live in.
Every in the team can see everyone else's cards. Everyone in the team can count up to 52. It's not exactly hard to see who is going to need to hit and who isn't.. so the team can come up with the least suspicious way to hold back or take the necessary number of cards. You also know which hand the 52nd card is going to fall in, so the team bets big on that hand. In my local casino they used to shuffle cards in a way that showed the bottom card.. then one day they started turning over the deck with the cut card. Until I read this book I really just thought it was a flourish.. I see now that they were trying to hide the bottom card by covering it with the cut card instead of the dealer's hand. When I think back, I can remember a few times when the dealer accidentally showed the bottom card and had to reshuffle the deck.. I never knew why. Now, of course, they have continuous automatic shuffling machines.. and even regular card counting doesn't work.
If you know the 52nd card is a 10, you just have to hit or stand on the appropriate hand to get it to land on the dealer's hand.. 3rd card being a 10 will bust most dealer hands.. if he has to draw :)
There's still "counting" involved.. it's just counting up to 52.
Yes, you need a team to take every seat on the table. And you communicate either by hand signals or by code words. As for the ace placement, maybe I got that bit wrong..
If there ever was a product that is justified to use "if you buy our product, attractive women will sleep with you" then it is alcohol.
Attributing that book to Neal Stephenson is like attributing Back To The Future to Steven Spielberg.
I know the law in Australia asshole, I live here. Can you say the same?
That's great, but if I wanted to read that argument I'd go to the library. I wanted to hear your argument. You said you thought people had a right to control how their work is distributed and that no-one has a right to profit from someone else's work without compensation. This is contrary to what you just said. If copyrights expire then they don't have a "right", they have a temporary granted monopoly. If things fall into the public domain then others can profit from the work without compensating the creator. So which is it?