Yes, if you could find an explanation for why severe solar storms would cause a very fine layer of iridium at the K-T boundary. [Ok, I know it was a joke: THE END IS NEAR and all that, but what can I say, I'm a born pedant.]
Thanks for the response. I'm not sure what objection you're answering here, I'm afraid. This does not provide any basis for the idea that a DRMed copy is not published. "Available to the public" does not imply "open."
Nor does this seem to provide any basis for the idea that publication is *necessary* for copyright (my understanding, which may be incorrect, for IANAL, is that this particular feature is one of the features of the Berne convention, and that Canada is a signatory). Is there some language earlier in the code that indicates that "publication" is a necessary prerequisite of copyright protection?
"Shedule" (rather than "skedule") is actually a later development in English; this is a case in which the US pronunciation is more conservative than the British one.
Sorry, I'm not that much of a geek. To me, Warp is always "a number approximating 7 * the priority the writers want to impart" for TOS and "10 - the inverse of the priority the writers want to impart" for the other series; with priorities being capable of reaching >1.0 for TOS and always being 1.0 for the other series. The story lines suggest Warp 1 = 1 c. The technical manuals, unless they are based upon the show bible, are non-canonical.
there's a well-known story on this issue, don't remember the title or author, though there is I think a later-Outer Limits version of it, in which a matter transporter "erases" the original as the copy is assembled. Something goes wrong, and the original is never erased; so the crew of the transport device (saurian aliens; the transportee is human) decide they still have to kill the transportee at the origin.
If a book is only accessible to those who buy it from a store, is it published? Yes. Restrictions on use do not negate the reality of publication.
"publication" is not a requirement of copyright - not even a requirement of copyright registration. One can submit copyright registrations on unpublished works.
As was pointed out we are already living about twice as long as we did 500 years ago
The average life expectancy might be double, but the extremes haven't changed all that much. Socrates died in his early 70s, and Sophocles (probably) in his 90s. That was 2400+ years ago (Socrates died in 399 bc, Sophocles in 405 bc). And those are reasonably reliable dates, they're not like Old Testament dates - we can track Sophocles, with huge gaping holes, from 468 to 405 bc, and Socrates from 423 bc (when he was already middle-aged at least) to 399 bc. I could list others, but the fact is, that while quite rare, people did live to their 80s, 90s, and 100s long before modern medicine. It's just that the average person didn't. That's what medicine has given us.
Do you even remember your response? You said (assuming you're the same anonymous coward) You can in turn make back some of the money you've spent. Care to back that up?
Charging a subscription price for a game per month, or per play, or what have you is one thing. But charging for a token within that game which has at most a fractional effect on gameplay is a different thing. It's like selling a pet rock without the rock or the box.
If I spend some fraction of a *real* dollar on virtual sneakers, my virtual avatar will virtually run virtually faster? Sounds to me like There Inc. has 1. invented a new way of getting people to pay for advertising - one suspects that the real-world products won't have much if any effect on one's real-world running speed (unless you're an Olympic-class runner, in which case one hopes you'll already know which shoes are best for your job), but the appearance in the virtual world of an increase in speed will "contaminate" the There user's attitude toward the real-world product - and 2. [they have] given themselves a license to print money. After all, the only thing they're selling is a certain configuration of electrons with a remarkably limited use.
IANAL Boies, not Boise. And if SCO were to fire them for incompetence, and then lose the case, SCO might try suing the law firm for malpractice (don't know if it would work, of course...). No, if Boies & company aren't putting their #1 team in front, it's probably because they don't expect it to get in front of a judge any time soon.
Funny, on my G5 10.2.7>10.2.8>10.3, the only thing that broke was StuffIt, of all things - not QuickTime, not any of the other third party utilities. A quick redownload and reinstall fixed that.
The VPC being released "before the end of the year" is the PC version. If you go to the website for the Mac version, they still aren't saying anything about when it will be released. No love for G5 yet.
Part of the point was that avoiding events that you know will happen in the future is impossible. Kind of like that whole "Oedipus, you will kill your father and marry your mother" thing, you know? Or having a annoying, frustrating, aggravating, dangerous, lovable but ultimately homeworld-throughout-the-multiverse-destroying teenage daughter by the only surviving opposite-sex member of your species in your universe of the multiverse.
In this case the reviewer is David Pogue, who, in addition to be the columnist for "State of the Art" (http://www.davidpogue.com/emailcolumn.html), is a very popular Mac-oriented (but not exclusively Mac-oriented) tech writer, creator and prinicple author of Pogue Press / Missing Manuals (a sub-imprint, or "brand", of O'Reilly and Associates, THE prestige publisher in the computer industry), and author of a good chunk of the Missing Manuals themselves. So this isn't just another "mass media" tech article.
It's ~$129 every year for Mac, or ~$199 every 2 years for Windows (if you're using the Pro version, which is closest in functionality to OS X). Supposedly MS is going to go a bit longer this time before upgrading Windows, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "super service pack" everyone is talking about for next year is called "Windows XP Second Edition" and comes with at least a $100 upgrade price tag.
The original Netscape version's codename was "Mozilla," probably for "Mosaic-killa" or "Mosaic-zilla" (monster-sized, monster-powered Mosaic). Netscape was the productized version of Mosaic because UIUC wouldn't let Andreesen and co. use "Mosaic" as the name of their productized browser.
I believe that the word "Mozilla" appears in the user-agent string of most browsers because they are highlighting the fact that they are "Mozilla"-compatible: meaning Netscape 2 compatible. Certainly IE incorporates some of the early Mosaic code.
If OSX was "100% virus free", why would they have Virex, which has updates once a month?
Mostly to kill Windows viruses that will affect Windows users if you mistakenly forward an infected email to one, or you if you're using a version of Office that can run VB viruses. There are some rare UNIX-based viruses, and probably, every once in a while, a genuine OS X virus, but I'd be surprised if the number of viruses that can do any harm on an OS X system without any MS products installed is more than 20.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, if you could find an explanation for why severe solar storms would cause a very fine layer of iridium at the K-T boundary. [Ok, I know it was a joke: THE END IS NEAR and all that, but what can I say, I'm a born pedant.]
It's too diaphanous to cause physical collision problems.
Thanks for the response. I'm not sure what objection you're answering here, I'm afraid. This does not provide any basis for the idea that a DRMed copy is not published. "Available to the public" does not imply "open."
Nor does this seem to provide any basis for the idea that publication is *necessary* for copyright (my understanding, which may be incorrect, for IANAL, is that this particular feature is one of the features of the Berne convention, and that Canada is a signatory). Is there some language earlier in the code that indicates that "publication" is a necessary prerequisite of copyright protection?
"Shedule" (rather than "skedule") is actually a later development in English; this is a case in which the US pronunciation is more conservative than the British one.
Sorry, I'm not that much of a geek. To me, Warp is always "a number approximating 7 * the priority the writers want to impart" for TOS and "10 - the inverse of the priority the writers want to impart" for the other series; with priorities being capable of reaching >1.0 for TOS and always being 1.0 for the other series. The story lines suggest Warp 1 = 1 c. The technical manuals, unless they are based upon the show bible, are non-canonical.
there's a well-known story on this issue, don't remember the title or author, though there is I think a later-Outer Limits version of it, in which a matter transporter "erases" the original as the copy is assembled. Something goes wrong, and the original is never erased; so the crew of the transport device (saurian aliens; the transportee is human) decide they still have to kill the transportee at the origin.
Mach 1 at sea level is 0.0000001135 c. Warp 1 is conventionally assumed to be c.
You really are going to have to learn the difference between metaphor and precise description some day.
PS: IANAL.
If a book is only accessible to those who buy it from a store, is it published? Yes. Restrictions on use do not negate the reality of publication.
"publication" is not a requirement of copyright - not even a requirement of copyright registration. One can submit copyright registrations on unpublished works.
As was pointed out we are already living about twice as long as we did 500 years ago
The average life expectancy might be double, but the extremes haven't changed all that much. Socrates died in his early 70s, and Sophocles (probably) in his 90s. That was 2400+ years ago (Socrates died in 399 bc, Sophocles in 405 bc). And those are reasonably reliable dates, they're not like Old Testament dates - we can track Sophocles, with huge gaping holes, from 468 to 405 bc, and Socrates from 423 bc (when he was already middle-aged at least) to 399 bc. I could list others, but the fact is, that while quite rare, people did live to their 80s, 90s, and 100s long before modern medicine. It's just that the average person didn't. That's what medicine has given us.
Plus, losing the gonads does NOT necessarily mean the end of a satisfying sex life.
Guess you haven't read Voltaire's Candide, eh?
Do you even remember your original argument?
Do you even remember your response? You said (assuming you're the same anonymous coward) You can in turn make back some of the money you've spent. Care to back that up?
Charging a subscription price for a game per month, or per play, or what have you is one thing. But charging for a token within that game which has at most a fractional effect on gameplay is a different thing. It's like selling a pet rock without the rock or the box.
Bugzilla does, after all, have RFE as a "bug" type.
So, if I don't like my sneakers, I can sell them back and get a refund in real money? I'd be pretty shocked if that were the case.
If I spend some fraction of a *real* dollar on virtual sneakers, my virtual avatar will virtually run virtually faster? Sounds to me like There Inc. has 1. invented a new way of getting people to pay for advertising - one suspects that the real-world products won't have much if any effect on one's real-world running speed (unless you're an Olympic-class runner, in which case one hopes you'll already know which shoes are best for your job), but the appearance in the virtual world of an increase in speed will "contaminate" the There user's attitude toward the real-world product - and 2. [they have] given themselves a license to print money. After all, the only thing they're selling is a certain configuration of electrons with a remarkably limited use.
IANAL Boies, not Boise. And if SCO were to fire them for incompetence, and then lose the case, SCO might try suing the law firm for malpractice (don't know if it would work, of course ...). No, if Boies & company aren't putting their #1 team in front, it's probably because they don't expect it to get in front of a judge any time soon.
Funny, on my G5 10.2.7>10.2.8>10.3, the only thing that broke was StuffIt, of all things - not QuickTime, not any of the other third party utilities. A quick redownload and reinstall fixed that.
The VPC being released "before the end of the year" is the PC version. If you go to the website for the Mac version, they still aren't saying anything about when it will be released. No love for G5 yet.
Authors usually get 12% on the standard contract.
Part of the point was that avoiding events that you know will happen in the future is impossible. Kind of like that whole "Oedipus, you will kill your father and marry your mother" thing, you know? Or having a annoying, frustrating, aggravating, dangerous, lovable but ultimately homeworld-throughout-the-multiverse-destroying teenage daughter by the only surviving opposite-sex member of your species in your universe of the multiverse.
In this case the reviewer is David Pogue, who, in addition to be the columnist for "State of the Art" (http://www.davidpogue.com/emailcolumn.html), is a very popular Mac-oriented (but not exclusively Mac-oriented) tech writer, creator and prinicple author of Pogue Press / Missing Manuals (a sub-imprint, or "brand", of O'Reilly and Associates, THE prestige publisher in the computer industry), and author of a good chunk of the Missing Manuals themselves. So this isn't just another "mass media" tech article.
It's ~$129 every year for Mac, or ~$199 every 2 years for Windows (if you're using the Pro version, which is closest in functionality to OS X). Supposedly MS is going to go a bit longer this time before upgrading Windows, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "super service pack" everyone is talking about for next year is called "Windows XP Second Edition" and comes with at least a $100 upgrade price tag.
The original Netscape version's codename was "Mozilla," probably for "Mosaic-killa" or "Mosaic-zilla" (monster-sized, monster-powered Mosaic). Netscape was the productized version of Mosaic because UIUC wouldn't let Andreesen and co. use "Mosaic" as the name of their productized browser.
I believe that the word "Mozilla" appears in the user-agent string of most browsers because they are highlighting the fact that they are "Mozilla"-compatible: meaning Netscape 2 compatible. Certainly IE incorporates some of the early Mosaic code.
If OSX was "100% virus free", why would they have Virex, which has updates once a month?
Mostly to kill Windows viruses that will affect Windows users if you mistakenly forward an infected email to one, or you if you're using a version of Office that can run VB viruses. There are some rare UNIX-based viruses, and probably, every once in a while, a genuine OS X virus, but I'd be surprised if the number of viruses that can do any harm on an OS X system without any MS products installed is more than 20.