Are you multiboxing, playing 5 or 10 World of Warcraft accounts at the same time? My new quad-core flies with five instances of WOW running. My AMD dual-core was faster, but could only handle three sessions at a time before starting to get choppy.
Yes it is bad that an ISP charges by bandwidth. They justify it by saying that 5% use 50% of the network.. but the other 95% of users aren't even using the internet- 95% of americans only use it for checking yahoo webmail once every 2 weeks and automatic windows updates. The 5% of us shouldn't be penalized- we're the reason jacked-up American broadband has to cost $50 a month, and it makes absolutely no sense to penalize us for that when Americans are already paying the premium! They should be exploring new plans to offer broadband at $5/month for that 95% of people and the same old $50/month for high bandwidth users.
Maybe they shouldn't be paying $50 per month, but I think the real value of theirs should be lower and yours higher. Let's say it's $50 per month average, which is what they are charging now. Let's ignore the fact that there are static costs to hooking a customer up and maintaining their account, connection, email and customer service. Let's take 20 people, one of which is using 50% of the bandwidth and the other 19 are using the other 50%. They are paying $1,000 total, so the 1 top user would pay $500 per month and the other 19 would be charged $26.32 per month. Now let's say only 50% of their costs are for bandwidth. Now the 1 high-bandwidth user is paying $275 per month and the other 19 are paying $38.16. That seems reasonable.
As long as there is competition in the marketplace I don't see an issue. I'm much happier with my 5 megabit DSL than I ever was with cable. After I replaced my crappy Actiontec DSL modem with a Cisco my connection has been rock-solid and I always get full bandwidth. If they go ahead with this pricing, can you switch to a different service provider? If enough people do that then they will get the message. If 95% of the people aren't affected and don't care then maybe you were getting a much better deal than you should have been.
If you had bought $225,483.87 worth of SCO stock at $20 per share (11274 shares) you could now sell it at $0.062 per share to pay for your $699 license fee for a single processor... Or you could have shorted 36 shares back then and actually made enough money to pay the fee.
If $0.09 cents is 13%, then the wholesale price of a song is around $0.69. So Apple gets $0.30 off the top of a $0.99 download. That sounds about right, they do develop the software, have to maintain a data center with support staff, and pay for the bandwidth. The "Songwriters" supposedly get $0.09, but the article says that is split with the "publishers". What does that mean? The RIAA are the record labels that want it cut to 8% or $0.055 per song, the Digital Music Association (DiMA) wants it cut to 1/2 of that, or $0.0275. Remember, the actual songwriter gets just 1/2 of that since it's split with the "publisher", so they would get only $0.01375, or about 1.4 cents per song download. And here is what DiMA says:
"Fundamentally, this fragile marketplace is showing signs of promise, but it cannot be saddled with additional, excessive costs," DiMA wrote. "The board should be careful not to impose a royalty that kills the proverbial goose and deprives songwriters and publishers of their golden egg.
I would hardly call 1.4 cents out of a 99 cent download a 'Golden Egg' or attempt to say that the tiny amount of money that actually goes to people that create (what the U.S. constitution says copyright is intended to encourage) is what will cause the digital download marketplace to collapse. Where does the other $0.60 go from above? We have Apple getting $0.30 and the Songwriters sharing $0.09 with the "Publishers". Who are these entities and where is the other $0.60?
Apple - distributor? can't be publisher as the $0.09 is shared with the publisher 50/50
Who is the publisher? Can someone give me an example of a 'publisher' that would share the $0.09 royalty 50/50 with a songwriter? Is that the big 'Sony', 'BMG', and other companies that are conglomerates that have music 'catalogs' that they manage?
No mention is made of performers... If Brittney Spears sings a song written by someone else, does she get any money or just the songwriter?
RIAA - These are the record labels collectively, right? How do they relate to publishers? Do they get a piece of the pie? They are the ones holding legal title to the copyrights, correct? They appear to be arguing for the reduction in rates along with a different group, the DiMA. Would Apple be in the DiMA?
I fail to see how the RIAA can call $0.09 excessive when they are making $0.60 themselves. What are they even doing? There are no production costs. Is it marketing? Maybe we just need less marketing... If they're using digital download profits to fund their lawsuits then they should just stop suing people. Lay off the lawyers getting $500 an hour man...
Each item that could store two bits can now store twice as many bits of data. Before you had one item that had two states: (0, 1) Now you have one item that has four states (0, 1, 2, 3). With two states, you would need two items to make four possibilities: (00, 01, 10, 11). So you get the same amount of information with 1/2 the number of storage items, hence double the capacity. Using your example, you would need four bits to store the same possiblities as two items with four states: (0000, 0001, 0010, 0011, 0100, 0101, 0110, 0111, 1000, 1001, 1010, 1011, 1100, 1101, 1110, 1111).
Any input device that requires you to continually keep your hands elevated will never work. Not to mention, constant movement. The reason a mouse and keyboard is so effective is because you can use them both all day long with little to no effort.
Is that why no one plays real golf? What do you think people will be doing with this, or are doing with the Wii now? All games don't require constant manipulation of input controls, especially 'party games' like the Wii Sports and Wii Play collections. Playing a shooter? Keep the remote by your side while you run around between fights. Certainly golf games wouldn't require you to keep your hands elevated at all times. Playing 'Force Unleashed' and swinging your lightsaber accurately? Priceless...
Anyway, a little exercise does the body good. If someone just uses a mouse and keyboard all day then I imagine their atrophied muscles would have a hard time initially with this new control on the games that did require a lot of action. One bout of Wii Boxing is enough to wear me out now. If someone uses this new controller all the time then it would get less difficult for them the more they used it as they got used to using those muscles.
Even the other comment on this was modded 'funny'. I don't think people realize how much he is affecting this race.
Romney - 51%
Paul - 14%
McCain - 13%
Huckabee - 8%
Thompson - 8%
Giuliani - 4%
Hunter - 0%
What does FOX news show? The 'top 3' candidates: "Romney 51%, McCain 13%, Huckabee 8%" Paul got nearly twice the votes of Huckabee yet he doesn't even appear. Almost no mention is made of this anywhere. He is not allowed in debates even though he had more support than several other candidates that were invited. This is a case of the media making the news people. I can actually see why they might have the three people listed that had won other states, but even then I think a special note should have been made of Paul's strong showing.
What the republicans should be worrying about is Obama getting the democratic nomination while they should be praying for Hilary to get the nomination. I wouldn't vote for Hilary in a million years. There are only two candidates for real change in the race after Edwards dropped out, Ron Paul and Barack Obama. I expect Paul supporters to flock to Obama if he gets the nomination. Hilary is business as usual. Go to Obama's web site and read about the issues. Heck, go to all the candidate's sites and do the same. Obama is the one that actually thinks about the issues. He opposed the war when that was unpopular. The things Hilary says in her speeches now with 'hindsight' (I didn't know Bush would do this, etc) are exactly what Obama said in his speech against the war before he voted 'No'. Hilary will get advice and money from the same lobbyist groups that the republicans will. Obama and Paul let their intelligence and their conscience guide their decisions. If Obama gets the nomination and either Romney or McCain get the republican nomination then Paul supporters and many others that think of themselves as republican will flock to Obama and we will have a democrat in the whitehouse in '09'. If Hilary gets the democratic nomination then I will be throwing my vote away on some third party candidate just to help show that reform is needed in the election process to make them viable (more people would vote third party if the process wasn't setup so they were throwing their vote away).
He told New Scientist magazine: "It is an interesting attempt to actually think of what a real signature for a wormhole would be, but it is more hypothetical than observational. Without any idea of what phantom matter is and its possible interactions with light, it is not clear one can provide a general argument."
You are thinking it's degraded from 44khz WAV files, and that's true. However since MP3s are actually being sold now through online music stores, you would have to argue that these are degraded compared to the actual product being sold. Look at your DVD analogy. You say you couldn't upload an 8gb ISO of a DVD, but isn't that 'degraded' from the original masters or even the HD-DVD version? Certainly if you bought a 256kbit MP3 from Amazon and shared it you wouldn't consider that 'degraded' since it is exactly what you purchased, right?
Oh, yeah. What did Commodore have at this time? The PET? I heard rumors it had games.
Now, contemporaneous with the C64 in the Apple stable was the IIGS. Amazing, but still basically trailing edge. Like the absolute technological pinnacle in steam locomotives at the time that the diesel-electric was becoming the mainstream rail propulsion system. The C64 and the Amiga pwn'd the IIGS in almost every meaningful way. (Yes, I know what I'm talking about. I have all three.)
Commodore 64: Introduced August 1982, Discontinued April 1994
Apple IIgs: Introduced September 1986, Discontinued December 1992.
If by "contemporaneous" you mean 4 years after the fact, then the Commodore 64 was "contemporaneous" with the Apple II as well. It was also sold with a disk drive for less than the IIGS and you could connect it to your TV instead of buying a computer monitor.
The only difference between a GPL violation and infringement of copyright on a commercial movie is that people on Slashdot see the former as evil and disgusting and the latter as heroic. Both are the exact same violation of law.
You have to look at the motiviations. The difference is that the large corporations who weep about infringement on their movie copyrights are out there to make money. They purposefully withhold access to their movies unless they are paid money for them. They lobby for the creation of all kinds of rules and develop technologies harmful to innovation in a misguided attempt to get all the money they can. I still can't get my TV to work correctly with the CABLECARD my cable company gave me. I'd have an HD TiVo right now if there wasn't that hindrance. I only pay for songs from Amazon and not iTunes because I know I'll be able to do what I want with them, which is legal anyway but which DRM prevents me from doing.
By contrast, the motivations behind the people that created the GPL are explained on their website: "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software." People get upset about GPL violations not because they are losing money, but because companies are taking their code and incorporating it into their own products where they restrict the use of it. I think if most contributors of GPL software had their way then all software would be 'free'. I have over 50 computer games that I've paid for. I almost never purchase a game without first finding out if there's a 'crack' for it. I don't want to have to find the DVD each time I want to play the game, I want to click on an icon and play in seconds. Some of the most successful games of all time were a success in large part to the developers allowing the public to modify the game. I once had a CD with a thousand user-created maps for DOOM. Look at the Quakes and Unreal games, and at RTS games like C&C and the Warcraft series. I think World of Warcraft has been a success in no small part due to the extensibility of its interface.
So actually the difference is that people getting upset about GPL violations are getting upset because the people violating the GPL are acting like the Movie studios in restricting the freedom of information. There's no inconsistency in these two beliefs and if you think there is then I don't think you understand the GPL.
Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was less circumspect. PETA does not have a position on Romney's candidacy per se, but Newkirk called the incident "a lesson in cruelty that was... wrong for [his children] to witness...Thinking of the wind, the weather, the speed, the vulnerability, the isolation on the roof, it is commonsense that any dog who's under extreme stress might show that stress by losing control of his bowels: that alone should have been sufficient indication that the dog was, basically, being tortured."
I just had a bowel movement a while ago, is that sufficient indication that I was being tortured? No, I had to go to the bathroom you fucking retard! When I was a kid and up into college we would ride around in the backs of pickup trucks all the time. I would ride on the tractor with my grandpa. That's not torture or cruelty. Hell I loved it. Penn & Teller's 'Bullshit' episode on PETA is funny...
I can't believe the false logic used. First off he only counts his ISP costs for getting a message, but he counts both sending and receiving a message for SMS. You can immediately cut the number in half because if you're receiving a message over your internet connection then someone else must be sending it and paying their own ISP fees.
Next he incredibly doubles the number yet again because he claims people only use 1/2 the available 160 characters in a text message. The major problem here is that his original number is based on the full available bandwidth of his internet connection. That's 500 gigabytes per month. With 2.6 million seconds per month that is 193k per second or about 1.54 megabits. Used every second of every day for a whole 30 days. If you use that much bandwidth you are getting a killer deal.
So let's say he wants to send a text message using his ISP to another computer. First you need a protocol, you don't just pump 80 bytes out your internet connection and hope those bytes end up where you want them to go. That's IP where you give the message an address. Next you need to verify that tour message is getting through to a destination. That's TCP/IP. Each of these is 20 bytes, so that's 40 bytes of overhead even if you're sending just a single character. Wait though, the TCP protocol sends and receives packets simply to establish a connection (your phone must find the service and use radio bandwidth for that also), so there's mroe wasted bytes. Now you must use the SMTP protocol on top of that to send the message to the server so that it can be guaranteed delivery. Then the recipient needs to use some protocol (POP3/IMAP) to retrieve the message. So not only is he forgetting to count data off his internet connection, he doesn't count the free data that gets send with an SMS such as the source and destination numbers.
My point is that the article is moronic. Text messaging isn't for transferring large amounts of data. There is limited bandwidth in the radio spectrum for providers to operate. A lot happens behind the scenes to make sure your message is delivered. Not only that, but each message has to be tracked by billing software so the customer can be charged.
Perhaps the most glaring error in this indefeasible article is that he lies about the cost. He claims it's 20 cents per sms at AT&T. Check out their plans yourself. You can get unlimited messaging for $20 per month. 1500 messages for $15 means one cent per message.
I'd like to propose a scenario... Some kid uses their internet connection for email only and texts 5,000 messages a month (not unheard of). Then for $20 he got 5,000 messages so that was $0.004 (less than 1/2 a penny) per message. Now he pays $50 a month for his internet connection where he gets 1,000 emails a month. That's $0.05 per email. Now the internet connection costs more than 10 times as much as sms.
Does anyone have a link to a page showing where the asteroid will be in the sky and at what time? Hopefully the clouds will clear here and I can get a glimpse of it through my telescope. I think 10x50 binoculars can only get you to magnitude 9, but I think my 8" dob can get me to 12th magnitude...
I was wondering the same thing. Why wouldn't they put something so simple in the main article? So if the donor had O negative blood also, the liver would not have been rejected and she wouldn't have had to take drugs? I was under the impression that blood type wasn't the only thing that made a host's immune system attack a transplanted organ, but I could be wrong. If that isn't the only cause then you'd still be left with the new immune system attacking the host's other organs for the same reason...
Sure, the design for the actual piece might be copyrighted by the artist, but any pictures of the work are copyrighted by the photographer.
While it is true that the copyright on the photograph belongs to the photographer, it is a derivative work in as far as it contains the sculpture. There are pitfalls to taking photographs of copyrighted works. I know it seems odd, but it's not black and white. For instance I think we can agree that taking a photograph of a print of another's photograph and selling it would be copyright infringement, certainly if it was taken close enough so that the original photograph is all that is visible. I think buildings and statues displayed permanently in public are legally OK to photograph almost everywhere, but traveling sculptural exhibits may not be. It all seems like a rather arbitrary way to restrict the public's rights, but that's our copyright system for you.
Only a small minority of Christians are fundamentalists who take everything in the Bible literally, and most of them seem to live in the US.
It wasn't an unreasonable thing to say in 1580, when much of what passed for "science" was silly balderdash that made some of the things religios believed look like the last word in rationalism.
Those are really my points. I wasn't speaking out against religion, just responding to the parent's argument that "When religion doesn't get it right, people abandon it completely." Obviously religion has changed over the centuries when it has gotten things wrong or even just as attitudes change in society.
The default should be to render according to standards. That is the only thing that makes any sense. Microsoft's idea is that most pages are designed for IE6 and therefore would not look right if the default was to adhere to standards in IE8. The onus should be on the site creator though. Pages by default should be written to the standards. If they are specifically written to be viewed with IE6 quirks, then they should have the meta-tag saying "This page designed for IE6". Would it be that difficult for a user to have a checkbox for switching modes in IE8 themselves?
Religion reveals the truth of divine revelation. Which means that it is true by axiom, not proof. If the "revealed truth" isn't actually true, then it isn't of divine origin. Which does much to explain why religious institutions are very conservative when it comes to accepting new ideas.
You cannot be talking about organized religion then. The only religious people then would be ones that have had divine revelations and the only religion would be based on those personal revelations. I haven't seen any burning bushes lately, have you? If you go off of divine revelations made to other people, then you have to look at their accounts, which means the bible for the most part, or people saying that God talks to them (i.e. David Koresh, Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and Oral Robers, who had a "divine revelation" that God wanted people to send him $8 million or God would smite him).
When religion doesn't get it right, people abandon it completely.
When Martin Luther thought that the Catholic church had it wrong, he changed Christianity completely. He believed that the only true word was the bible, which is ironic because it was the Catholic church that chose the four stories to make up the new testament out of the sixteen or so there were. When attitudes changed, even the Lutheran church denounced his hateful writings about Jews. If you look at the old testament then the Jews are the chosen people of God, how could you even denigrate them without raising God's ire? At least he broke away from the polytheism of the Catholic church with it's three main "gods" (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and the fourteen holy helpers. If you're Catholic and wish a safe trip, you pray to the God of Travelling, "Saint" Christopher. There's also their goddess Mary, who Pope John Paul II credited with guiding the bullet that hit him so that it would not kill him (I wonder why she wouldn't make it miss altogether?)
When religion doesn't get it right, people abandon it completely. When science doesn't get it right, they say, "well, that's just part of the process..."
The difference is that science gives you a way to tell if something is true. Religious has someone telling you something or reading a 2,000 year old book written by people that are long dead and that contradicts itself in many places and says to assume that it is all true and go from there. If you go by that, then the Earth is 6,000 years old. We can count tree rings back to 13,000 years (rings from generations can be aligned by changes in size and gaps for instance). We know that light has a speed limit and that the theories of General and Special relativity fit all observable data (GPS wouldn't work if it didn't account for differing gravity at 22,000 miles up and the gravity of the Sun has been shown to warp the path of light from distant stars). You can prove the speed of light yourself by observing IO and Jupiter or by shining a laser on a mirror astronauts placed on the moon and seeing that it takes 2.5 seconds to get back. We also can calculate that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light-years away. That means that the light we're seeing now left the galaxy 2.5 million years ago. Ergo the universe must be older than 6,000 years and anyone that truly believes that is simply incapable of understanding basic scientific concepts. Religion has therefore changed instead of being abandoned, as recent popes' concessions that evolution is not incompatible with religion and Pope Gregory XIII in 1580 saying that the earth was created in 5199 BCE. So religion must change in light of newly discovered facts to avoid having its followers choose between leaving or looking like an idiot.
This is a trademark vs copyright issue. The question asked is a red herring. The actual question is "Does Ford have the right to block one from selling, for a profit, an image that includes their trademark?"
The answer is "Yes, they do have that right. They have to protect their trademark or they lose it."
This is a misconception. They do have the right to protect their trademark and they say the logo of the group is too similar to their trademark. Trademark is not however a right equivalent to copyright. The purpose of a trademark is to distinguish the products of an individual or business from others. It does not grant a copyright interest in pictures taken of the products, even if they include the trademark on them. These are the products of the company that bear the trademark, it is not confusing in the least. Read this odd case about the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame which trademarked their building design and the photographer that sold a poster of the building. The appeals court specifically noted this:
It is well established that "[t]here is no such thing as property in a trademark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed." United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97 (1918).
When we view the photograph in Gentile's poster, we do not readily recognize the design of the Museum's building as an indicator of source or sponsorship. What we see, rather, is a photograph of an accessible, well-known, public landmark. Stated somewhat differently, in Gentile's poster, the Museum's building strikes us not as a separate and distinct mark on the good, but, rather, as the good itself.
So the trademark is protected only so far as it is used as an indicator of the source or sponsorship of the product. It is completely legal to take photographs of trademarked goods and to sell them. Andy Warhol's paintings anyone?
Thus without reading the complaint itself and the reasons Ford has we are left with only two conclusions. 1) they are completely brainlessly trying to infringe on the rights of the motor club 2) there is something more to the case of the mark of the club that is used to identify the source of the calendar is too similar to Ford's own mark. In the first case the summary is correct and Ford is wrong. In the second case the summary is misleading and Ford might be right.
The article said they would melt a bit of ice, there was no mention of drilling through 10km of ice. I guess they just want to examine surface ice for fossils.
The video is actually pretty cool. Actually they are using a torpedo-shaped thing with a nuclear heater to melt through the ice. Since it is more dense than water, it will naturally sink as the ice melts. It looks like it plays out a thin wire to communicate with the surface, which is ok if it melts in the water as the torpedo passes. When it gets near the point where the water melts (detected by sensors?), it drops an anchor into the ice. When it busts through, it plays out some more wire to hang from, drops the nuclear-heated head and releases a submersible to search for life.
Slashdot Mirror
ROFL! I can't believe I used up my Mod points...
Are you multiboxing, playing 5 or 10 World of Warcraft accounts at the same time? My new quad-core flies with five instances of WOW running. My AMD dual-core was faster, but could only handle three sessions at a time before starting to get choppy.
Maybe they shouldn't be paying $50 per month, but I think the real value of theirs should be lower and yours higher. Let's say it's $50 per month average, which is what they are charging now. Let's ignore the fact that there are static costs to hooking a customer up and maintaining their account, connection, email and customer service. Let's take 20 people, one of which is using 50% of the bandwidth and the other 19 are using the other 50%. They are paying $1,000 total, so the 1 top user would pay $500 per month and the other 19 would be charged $26.32 per month. Now let's say only 50% of their costs are for bandwidth. Now the 1 high-bandwidth user is paying $275 per month and the other 19 are paying $38.16. That seems reasonable.
As long as there is competition in the marketplace I don't see an issue. I'm much happier with my 5 megabit DSL than I ever was with cable. After I replaced my crappy Actiontec DSL modem with a Cisco my connection has been rock-solid and I always get full bandwidth. If they go ahead with this pricing, can you switch to a different service provider? If enough people do that then they will get the message. If 95% of the people aren't affected and don't care then maybe you were getting a much better deal than you should have been.
If you had bought $225,483.87 worth of SCO stock at $20 per share (11274 shares) you could now sell it at $0.062 per share to pay for your $699 license fee for a single processor... Or you could have shorted 36 shares back then and actually made enough money to pay the fee.
If $0.09 cents is 13%, then the wholesale price of a song is around $0.69. So Apple gets $0.30 off the top of a $0.99 download. That sounds about right, they do develop the software, have to maintain a data center with support staff, and pay for the bandwidth. The "Songwriters" supposedly get $0.09, but the article says that is split with the "publishers". What does that mean? The RIAA are the record labels that want it cut to 8% or $0.055 per song, the Digital Music Association (DiMA) wants it cut to 1/2 of that, or $0.0275. Remember, the actual songwriter gets just 1/2 of that since it's split with the "publisher", so they would get only $0.01375, or about 1.4 cents per song download. And here is what DiMA says:
I would hardly call 1.4 cents out of a 99 cent download a 'Golden Egg' or attempt to say that the tiny amount of money that actually goes to people that create (what the U.S. constitution says copyright is intended to encourage) is what will cause the digital download marketplace to collapse. Where does the other $0.60 go from above? We have Apple getting $0.30 and the Songwriters sharing $0.09 with the "Publishers". Who are these entities and where is the other $0.60?
I fail to see how the RIAA can call $0.09 excessive when they are making $0.60 themselves. What are they even doing? There are no production costs. Is it marketing? Maybe we just need less marketing... If they're using digital download profits to fund their lawsuits then they should just stop suing people. Lay off the lawyers getting $500 an hour man...
Each item that could store two bits can now store twice as many bits of data. Before you had one item that had two states: (0, 1) Now you have one item that has four states (0, 1, 2, 3). With two states, you would need two items to make four possibilities: (00, 01, 10, 11). So you get the same amount of information with 1/2 the number of storage items, hence double the capacity. Using your example, you would need four bits to store the same possiblities as two items with four states: (0000, 0001, 0010, 0011, 0100, 0101, 0110, 0111, 1000, 1001, 1010, 1011, 1100, 1101, 1110, 1111).
Is that why no one plays real golf? What do you think people will be doing with this, or are doing with the Wii now? All games don't require constant manipulation of input controls, especially 'party games' like the Wii Sports and Wii Play collections. Playing a shooter? Keep the remote by your side while you run around between fights. Certainly golf games wouldn't require you to keep your hands elevated at all times. Playing 'Force Unleashed' and swinging your lightsaber accurately? Priceless...
Anyway, a little exercise does the body good. If someone just uses a mouse and keyboard all day then I imagine their atrophied muscles would have a hard time initially with this new control on the games that did require a lot of action. One bout of Wii Boxing is enough to wear me out now. If someone uses this new controller all the time then it would get less difficult for them the more they used it as they got used to using those muscles.
Even the other comment on this was modded 'funny'. I don't think people realize how much he is affecting this race.
What does FOX news show? The 'top 3' candidates: "Romney 51%, McCain 13%, Huckabee 8%" Paul got nearly twice the votes of Huckabee yet he doesn't even appear. Almost no mention is made of this anywhere. He is not allowed in debates even though he had more support than several other candidates that were invited. This is a case of the media making the news people. I can actually see why they might have the three people listed that had won other states, but even then I think a special note should have been made of Paul's strong showing.
What the republicans should be worrying about is Obama getting the democratic nomination while they should be praying for Hilary to get the nomination. I wouldn't vote for Hilary in a million years. There are only two candidates for real change in the race after Edwards dropped out, Ron Paul and Barack Obama. I expect Paul supporters to flock to Obama if he gets the nomination. Hilary is business as usual. Go to Obama's web site and read about the issues. Heck, go to all the candidate's sites and do the same. Obama is the one that actually thinks about the issues. He opposed the war when that was unpopular. The things Hilary says in her speeches now with 'hindsight' (I didn't know Bush would do this, etc) are exactly what Obama said in his speech against the war before he voted 'No'. Hilary will get advice and money from the same lobbyist groups that the republicans will. Obama and Paul let their intelligence and their conscience guide their decisions. If Obama gets the nomination and either Romney or McCain get the republican nomination then Paul supporters and many others that think of themselves as republican will flock to Obama and we will have a democrat in the whitehouse in '09'. If Hilary gets the democratic nomination then I will be throwing my vote away on some third party candidate just to help show that reform is needed in the election process to make them viable (more people would vote third party if the process wasn't setup so they were throwing their vote away).
Nothing to see here...
You are thinking it's degraded from 44khz WAV files, and that's true. However since MP3s are actually being sold now through online music stores, you would have to argue that these are degraded compared to the actual product being sold. Look at your DVD analogy. You say you couldn't upload an 8gb ISO of a DVD, but isn't that 'degraded' from the original masters or even the HD-DVD version? Certainly if you bought a 256kbit MP3 from Amazon and shared it you wouldn't consider that 'degraded' since it is exactly what you purchased, right?
Commodore 64: Introduced August 1982, Discontinued April 1994
Apple IIgs: Introduced September 1986, Discontinued December 1992.
If by "contemporaneous" you mean 4 years after the fact, then the Commodore 64 was "contemporaneous" with the Apple II as well. It was also sold with a disk drive for less than the IIGS and you could connect it to your TV instead of buying a computer monitor.
You have to look at the motiviations. The difference is that the large corporations who weep about infringement on their movie copyrights are out there to make money. They purposefully withhold access to their movies unless they are paid money for them. They lobby for the creation of all kinds of rules and develop technologies harmful to innovation in a misguided attempt to get all the money they can. I still can't get my TV to work correctly with the CABLECARD my cable company gave me. I'd have an HD TiVo right now if there wasn't that hindrance. I only pay for songs from Amazon and not iTunes because I know I'll be able to do what I want with them, which is legal anyway but which DRM prevents me from doing.
By contrast, the motivations behind the people that created the GPL are explained on their website: "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software." People get upset about GPL violations not because they are losing money, but because companies are taking their code and incorporating it into their own products where they restrict the use of it. I think if most contributors of GPL software had their way then all software would be 'free'. I have over 50 computer games that I've paid for. I almost never purchase a game without first finding out if there's a 'crack' for it. I don't want to have to find the DVD each time I want to play the game, I want to click on an icon and play in seconds. Some of the most successful games of all time were a success in large part to the developers allowing the public to modify the game. I once had a CD with a thousand user-created maps for DOOM. Look at the Quakes and Unreal games, and at RTS games like C&C and the Warcraft series. I think World of Warcraft has been a success in no small part due to the extensibility of its interface.
So actually the difference is that people getting upset about GPL violations are getting upset because the people violating the GPL are acting like the Movie studios in restricting the freedom of information. There's no inconsistency in these two beliefs and if you think there is then I don't think you understand the GPL.
I just had a bowel movement a while ago, is that sufficient indication that I was being tortured? No, I had to go to the bathroom you fucking retard! When I was a kid and up into college we would ride around in the backs of pickup trucks all the time. I would ride on the tractor with my grandpa. That's not torture or cruelty. Hell I loved it. Penn & Teller's 'Bullshit' episode on PETA is funny...
Everyone Knows that child molesters and terrorists use Microsoft products, duh!
I can't believe the false logic used. First off he only counts his ISP costs for getting a message, but he counts both sending and receiving a message for SMS. You can immediately cut the number in half because if you're receiving a message over your internet connection then someone else must be sending it and paying their own ISP fees.
Next he incredibly doubles the number yet again because he claims people only use 1/2 the available 160 characters in a text message. The major problem here is that his original number is based on the full available bandwidth of his internet connection. That's 500 gigabytes per month. With 2.6 million seconds per month that is 193k per second or about 1.54 megabits. Used every second of every day for a whole 30 days. If you use that much bandwidth you are getting a killer deal.
So let's say he wants to send a text message using his ISP to another computer. First you need a protocol, you don't just pump 80 bytes out your internet connection and hope those bytes end up where you want them to go. That's IP where you give the message an address. Next you need to verify that tour message is getting through to a destination. That's TCP/IP. Each of these is 20 bytes, so that's 40 bytes of overhead even if you're sending just a single character. Wait though, the TCP protocol sends and receives packets simply to establish a connection (your phone must find the service and use radio bandwidth for that also), so there's mroe wasted bytes. Now you must use the SMTP protocol on top of that to send the message to the server so that it can be guaranteed delivery. Then the recipient needs to use some protocol (POP3/IMAP) to retrieve the message. So not only is he forgetting to count data off his internet connection, he doesn't count the free data that gets send with an SMS such as the source and destination numbers.
My point is that the article is moronic. Text messaging isn't for transferring large amounts of data. There is limited bandwidth in the radio spectrum for providers to operate. A lot happens behind the scenes to make sure your message is delivered. Not only that, but each message has to be tracked by billing software so the customer can be charged.
Perhaps the most glaring error in this indefeasible article is that he lies about the cost. He claims it's 20 cents per sms at AT&T. Check out their plans yourself. You can get unlimited messaging for $20 per month. 1500 messages for $15 means one cent per message.
I'd like to propose a scenario... Some kid uses their internet connection for email only and texts 5,000 messages a month (not unheard of). Then for $20 he got 5,000 messages so that was $0.004 (less than 1/2 a penny) per message. Now he pays $50 a month for his internet connection where he gets 1,000 emails a month. That's $0.05 per email. Now the internet connection costs more than 10 times as much as sms.
Does anyone have a link to a page showing where the asteroid will be in the sky and at what time? Hopefully the clouds will clear here and I can get a glimpse of it through my telescope. I think 10x50 binoculars can only get you to magnitude 9, but I think my 8" dob can get me to 12th magnitude...
I was wondering the same thing. Why wouldn't they put something so simple in the main article? So if the donor had O negative blood also, the liver would not have been rejected and she wouldn't have had to take drugs? I was under the impression that blood type wasn't the only thing that made a host's immune system attack a transplanted organ, but I could be wrong. If that isn't the only cause then you'd still be left with the new immune system attacking the host's other organs for the same reason...
While it is true that the copyright on the photograph belongs to the photographer, it is a derivative work in as far as it contains the sculpture. There are pitfalls to taking photographs of copyrighted works. I know it seems odd, but it's not black and white. For instance I think we can agree that taking a photograph of a print of another's photograph and selling it would be copyright infringement, certainly if it was taken close enough so that the original photograph is all that is visible. I think buildings and statues displayed permanently in public are legally OK to photograph almost everywhere, but traveling sculptural exhibits may not be. It all seems like a rather arbitrary way to restrict the public's rights, but that's our copyright system for you.
LOL, I wonder what the trademark looked like :)
Those are really my points. I wasn't speaking out against religion, just responding to the parent's argument that "When religion doesn't get it right, people abandon it completely." Obviously religion has changed over the centuries when it has gotten things wrong or even just as attitudes change in society.
The default should be to render according to standards. That is the only thing that makes any sense. Microsoft's idea is that most pages are designed for IE6 and therefore would not look right if the default was to adhere to standards in IE8. The onus should be on the site creator though. Pages by default should be written to the standards. If they are specifically written to be viewed with IE6 quirks, then they should have the meta-tag saying "This page designed for IE6". Would it be that difficult for a user to have a checkbox for switching modes in IE8 themselves?
You cannot be talking about organized religion then. The only religious people then would be ones that have had divine revelations and the only religion would be based on those personal revelations. I haven't seen any burning bushes lately, have you? If you go off of divine revelations made to other people, then you have to look at their accounts, which means the bible for the most part, or people saying that God talks to them (i.e. David Koresh, Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and Oral Robers, who had a "divine revelation" that God wanted people to send him $8 million or God would smite him).
When Martin Luther thought that the Catholic church had it wrong, he changed Christianity completely. He believed that the only true word was the bible, which is ironic because it was the Catholic church that chose the four stories to make up the new testament out of the sixteen or so there were. When attitudes changed, even the Lutheran church denounced his hateful writings about Jews. If you look at the old testament then the Jews are the chosen people of God, how could you even denigrate them without raising God's ire? At least he broke away from the polytheism of the Catholic church with it's three main "gods" (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and the fourteen holy helpers. If you're Catholic and wish a safe trip, you pray to the God of Travelling, "Saint" Christopher. There's also their goddess Mary, who Pope John Paul II credited with guiding the bullet that hit him so that it would not kill him (I wonder why she wouldn't make it miss altogether?)
The difference is that science gives you a way to tell if something is true. Religious has someone telling you something or reading a 2,000 year old book written by people that are long dead and that contradicts itself in many places and says to assume that it is all true and go from there. If you go by that, then the Earth is 6,000 years old. We can count tree rings back to 13,000 years (rings from generations can be aligned by changes in size and gaps for instance). We know that light has a speed limit and that the theories of General and Special relativity fit all observable data (GPS wouldn't work if it didn't account for differing gravity at 22,000 miles up and the gravity of the Sun has been shown to warp the path of light from distant stars). You can prove the speed of light yourself by observing IO and Jupiter or by shining a laser on a mirror astronauts placed on the moon and seeing that it takes 2.5 seconds to get back. We also can calculate that the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light-years away. That means that the light we're seeing now left the galaxy 2.5 million years ago. Ergo the universe must be older than 6,000 years and anyone that truly believes that is simply incapable of understanding basic scientific concepts. Religion has therefore changed instead of being abandoned, as recent popes' concessions that evolution is not incompatible with religion and Pope Gregory XIII in 1580 saying that the earth was created in 5199 BCE. So religion must change in light of newly discovered facts to avoid having its followers choose between leaving or looking like an idiot.
This is a misconception. They do have the right to protect their trademark and they say the logo of the group is too similar to their trademark. Trademark is not however a right equivalent to copyright. The purpose of a trademark is to distinguish the products of an individual or business from others. It does not grant a copyright interest in pictures taken of the products, even if they include the trademark on them. These are the products of the company that bear the trademark, it is not confusing in the least. Read this odd case about the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame which trademarked their building design and the photographer that sold a poster of the building. The appeals court specifically noted this:
So the trademark is protected only so far as it is used as an indicator of the source or sponsorship of the product. It is completely legal to take photographs of trademarked goods and to sell them. Andy Warhol's paintings anyone?Thus without reading the complaint itself and the reasons Ford has we are left with only two conclusions. 1) they are completely brainlessly trying to infringe on the rights of the motor club 2) there is something more to the case of the mark of the club that is used to identify the source of the calendar is too similar to Ford's own mark. In the first case the summary is correct and Ford is wrong. In the second case the summary is misleading and Ford might be right.
Actually, lawyers aren't under oath and aren't giving testimony themselves, so they couldn't be committing perjury.
The video is actually pretty cool. Actually they are using a torpedo-shaped thing with a nuclear heater to melt through the ice. Since it is more dense than water, it will naturally sink as the ice melts. It looks like it plays out a thin wire to communicate with the surface, which is ok if it melts in the water as the torpedo passes. When it gets near the point where the water melts (detected by sensors?), it drops an anchor into the ice. When it busts through, it plays out some more wire to hang from, drops the nuclear-heated head and releases a submersible to search for life.