waiting for the Oracle v. Google trial jury to rule on the same question under U.S. law.
This idea seems rather broken. Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact and courts are supposed to decide matters of law. Whether an API is copyrightable is purely a matter of law, not fact. What the hell's going on here? This decision is the judge's responsibility.
The megahertz wars hadn't started. the IBM PC was faster with a 4 Mhz processor
I'm not so sure about that. Although the 6510 ran at 1.03 MHz, it could access the memory bus on every clock cycle (well, when not pre-empted by the video chip). The IBM-PC 8088 ran at 4.77 MHz, but could only access the memory bus every four clock cycles. I'd say the 64 was competitive with the 8088 and probably faster at some activities.
The law states 'It is unlawful for any person with intent to... harass, annoy or offend, to use any... digital device and use any... profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act...'"
We need MORE patent trolls to beat up on the presidential candidates with completely bogus nonsense to help bring attention to the brokenness of the current system. Set up a WikiTrolls organization to sue every major politician.
USPTO: "Yeah, we approved these totally bogus patents that resulted in billions of dollars of litigation and now we're affirming our own malfeasance. What's your problem?"
The USPTO needs to be sued into the stone age for this fraud.
This is about protecting their brand, trademarks and image.
Not really. It's about obstructing its competitors from bringing their phones to market. Apple figured out a year ago that its competitors have better phones than it does.
Just make your password be a confession to a crime. Then, reveling it would be a confession to a crime, which is self-incrimination by definition. If they were to offer some kind of immunity deal to induce you to reveal the password, you could have made your confession be to the crime of copyright infringement on the file in question.
RIAA: Statutory damages = $150,000, actual damages = $0.50 (lost wholesale price). Amount of punitive damages = $149,999.50, which is 299,999x the actual damages. The constitutional limit on punitive damages 10x actual damages.
If there is any validity to this kind of study, it is merely detecting that people who use IE tend to be late adopters to new technology and that late adopters have many other properties, including low "risk intelligence". I'd also expect them to be outside of the 18-49 demographic.
Blu-ray content can be ripped *exactly* using programs like MakeMKV and all the significant video media is released on Blu-ray these days. There's no need to try to capture this material from HDMI.
It has a 3% yield, which isn't exactly stellar. You can probably get that from a fixed-rate vehicle with no exposure to Microsoft's dwindling relevance.
CO2 outpaces worst-case scenarios yet the heat doesn't show up. Perhaps the computer models were wrong*.
[* actually, computer models give you whatever result you want if you tweak them the right way, so they technically, they gave the 'right' results]
More than repaying costs of defence, the plaintiffs of frivolous lawsuits need to be made to pay punitive damages of 3 to 10 times the costs. This will help these kinds of cases to go away.
They don't even need to "abuse" the system to distort it. Suppose that an economic theory were developed which could almost perfectly predict economic activity. Armed with this fore-knowledge, everybody would invest their money in ways that maximize return for the prediction. But this activity would distort the prediction, making it wrong.
what viable solutions will enable us to survive on this increasingly crowded pale blue dot?
This is only one solution to population control that is 100% successful -- affluence. Only poor people can afford to have kids. Rich people don't need them.
It's not like voluntarily limiting CO2 emissions has any chance of success, at least not in a democracy. We will keep burning fossil fuels until the extraction costs become too great. We might as well invest in a plan that is at least plausible.
Slashdot Mirror
As with DRMed music, the pirates will win because they OFFER A BETTER PRODUCT.
Immigrints are less spoiled than westerners.
This idea seems rather broken. Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact and courts are supposed to decide matters of law. Whether an API is copyrightable is purely a matter of law, not fact. What the hell's going on here? This decision is the judge's responsibility.
I'm not so sure about that. Although the 6510 ran at 1.03 MHz, it could access the memory bus on every clock cycle (well, when not pre-empted by the video chip). The IBM-PC 8088 ran at 4.77 MHz, but could only access the memory bus every four clock cycles. I'd say the 64 was competitive with the 8088 and probably faster at some activities.
They can go fuck themselves!
I think mauve has the most RAM.
We need MORE patent trolls to beat up on the presidential candidates with completely bogus nonsense to help bring attention to the brokenness of the current system. Set up a WikiTrolls organization to sue every major politician.
xkcd recently covered this kind of presumption of current trends continuing forever.
"Demonstrate why cold fusion is impossible."
Just program your friend's computer so it cannot access Google, Facebook, or Wikipedia. Ask him a week later how he likes the SOPA Internet.
USPTO: "Yeah, we approved these totally bogus patents that resulted in billions of dollars of litigation and now we're affirming our own malfeasance. What's your problem?" The USPTO needs to be sued into the stone age for this fraud.
Not really. It's about obstructing its competitors from bringing their phones to market. Apple figured out a year ago that its competitors have better phones than it does.
Just make your password be a confession to a crime. Then, reveling it would be a confession to a crime, which is self-incrimination by definition. If they were to offer some kind of immunity deal to induce you to reveal the password, you could have made your confession be to the crime of copyright infringement on the file in question.
RIAA: Statutory damages = $150,000, actual damages = $0.50 (lost wholesale price). Amount of punitive damages = $149,999.50, which is 299,999x the actual damages. The constitutional limit on punitive damages 10x actual damages.
If there is any validity to this kind of study, it is merely detecting that people who use IE tend to be late adopters to new technology and that late adopters have many other properties, including low "risk intelligence". I'd also expect them to be outside of the 18-49 demographic.
Blu-ray content can be ripped *exactly* using programs like MakeMKV and all the significant video media is released on Blu-ray these days. There's no need to try to capture this material from HDMI.
You're saying that you are surprised that a corporation would want to make money from appeasing both camps?
It has a 3% yield, which isn't exactly stellar. You can probably get that from a fixed-rate vehicle with no exposure to Microsoft's dwindling relevance.
CO2 outpaces worst-case scenarios yet the heat doesn't show up. Perhaps the computer models were wrong*. [* actually, computer models give you whatever result you want if you tweak them the right way, so they technically, they gave the 'right' results]
'Nuff said.
if (false && false) exit_nukes();
More than repaying costs of defence, the plaintiffs of frivolous lawsuits need to be made to pay punitive damages of 3 to 10 times the costs. This will help these kinds of cases to go away.
They don't even need to "abuse" the system to distort it. Suppose that an economic theory were developed which could almost perfectly predict economic activity. Armed with this fore-knowledge, everybody would invest their money in ways that maximize return for the prediction. But this activity would distort the prediction, making it wrong.
This is only one solution to population control that is 100% successful -- affluence. Only poor people can afford to have kids. Rich people don't need them.
It's not like voluntarily limiting CO2 emissions has any chance of success, at least not in a democracy. We will keep burning fossil fuels until the extraction costs become too great. We might as well invest in a plan that is at least plausible.