Printing press. Once it was invented, writing become both more lucrative and more vulnerable to copying. That's also about when copyright protection began.
Need to do a little better than "DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!" and "You wouldn't copy a car, right?" It's also nice to not accuse someone who just bought or rented a DVD of being a potential thief as soon as they pop it in.
Wow... that's like a Who's Who of suck. And Russia's still in with the suck. I guess Kuwait's not very appreciative of the USA saving them from Saddam in the 1990s, huh?
It may actually just be setting their "hidden" file attribute. I've seen that one. Kill that process if possible, roll back with System Restore, then run "attrib -h c:\users/s" (or "c:\documents and settings"). You might have to actually "-s" also for it to allow you to -h; I don't remember.
It requires probable cause to frisk someone. Even when you're under arrest, I'd still call you "law abiding" unless it leads to a conviction. I'll bet that with this technology, due to the convenience its use will require only "reasonable suspicion" as in a "terry stop". On top of that, unless the device has some kind of GPS and remote logging so that its use can be recorded, cops won't even bother with having reasonable suspicion.
That wasn't his argument at all, and not only is your attack fallacious, it is based on a total misinterpretation of the post. I believe you should attempt to improve your learning comprehension skills before attempting to comment here again.
Slavery was not unconstitutional until the passage of the 13th amendment. The "narrow interpretation" of the SCOTUS's duties is because, in fact, they are narrow. The Constitutional is the law of the land. Having any branch of the government assume powers for itself is authoritarian. The fact is that when the Constitution was created, the sentiment of a large portion (and perhaps even the majority) of society was that slavery was acceptable. If you want a bunch of wise elders (or "wise latinas") making laws for the rest of us, a democracy (or republic) is not the kind of government you're looking for.
No, the distinction is, if you used a work that was considered to be in the public domain last year, but this year it was decided that it was not, you cannot be charged with unlawful use for having used it last year.
Bicycle and foot-based traveling causes light pollution, too, unless you have infravision or the moon's visible... and in the latter case, no one will be able to see much anyway.
I don't see enough in the article to say, but this couldn't actually replace a modern window until it had multiple panes filled with inert gas and some kind of low-e coating. Also, making the crystals go opaque will darken the room, but as I understand it this idea was tested with cars and they block the light but not much heat when compared to shades or blinds.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 1
There were hand-held 8mm film cameras, but none with sound. That being said, there were portable tape recorders, but reel-to-reel was rather large and the compact cassette was new and rare.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 1
Well, there were certainly portable tape recorders and 8mm cameras back then, but no sound-on-film cameras for home use.
If further proof were needed that copyright law was out of control in the U.S.
Yeah... actually, this doesn't really add anything to the argument. Who decides what public speeches are supposed to be in the public domain? How about concerts that may or may not have social or political impact? The actual content of Dr. King's speech shouldn't have any bearing on the law. If it had been recorded by a representative of the US government, then by law it is in the public domain. Otherwise, it's the protected work of an artist. It has nothing to do with the real problems of copyright, such as the excessive length of protection.
When was the last time you copied a file to a floppy disk and got "filena~1.txt"-ed? FAT32 supports long file names. If file formats still have three character extensions, it may be because we don't need or want to type NewMovie.windowsmedia.
Here's one, how do you tell the difference between avatar.m4v and avatar.m4v and which one is the crappy action adaption of a cartoon and which one was the crappy cartoon masking as an action flick?
Maybe "Avatar-Last Airbender.m4v"? I don't understand the question. Are you using Windows 95?
Slashdot Mirror
I actually remember people having the DECSS key for DVDs in their SIGs before TEH EVIL 120 CHARACTER LIMIT.
Printing press. Once it was invented, writing become both more lucrative and more vulnerable to copying. That's also about when copyright protection began.
Need to do a little better than "DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!" and "You wouldn't copy a car, right?" It's also nice to not accuse someone who just bought or rented a DVD of being a potential thief as soon as they pop it in.
Wow... that's like a Who's Who of suck. And Russia's still in with the suck. I guess Kuwait's not very appreciative of the USA saving them from Saddam in the 1990s, huh?
I'm glad you aren't a physician.
It may actually just be setting their "hidden" file attribute. I've seen that one. Kill that process if possible, roll back with System Restore, then run "attrib -h c:\users /s" (or "c:\documents and settings"). You might have to actually "-s" also for it to allow you to -h; I don't remember.
Well, if you could see it, it wouldn't be concealed then, would it?
It requires probable cause to frisk someone. Even when you're under arrest, I'd still call you "law abiding" unless it leads to a conviction. I'll bet that with this technology, due to the convenience its use will require only "reasonable suspicion" as in a "terry stop". On top of that, unless the device has some kind of GPS and remote logging so that its use can be recorded, cops won't even bother with having reasonable suspicion.
Indeed. Scanning for knives from 80 feet (unless the circus is in town) is useful. For guns, you might as well be close.
All I know is that Paula Deen might be interested in this weight loss plan. BUTTER!
Sorry, but I don't accept these kinds of summary claims.
That wasn't his argument at all, and not only is your attack fallacious, it is based on a total misinterpretation of the post. I believe you should attempt to improve your learning comprehension skills before attempting to comment here again.
Slavery was not unconstitutional until the passage of the 13th amendment. The "narrow interpretation" of the SCOTUS's duties is because, in fact, they are narrow. The Constitutional is the law of the land. Having any branch of the government assume powers for itself is authoritarian. The fact is that when the Constitution was created, the sentiment of a large portion (and perhaps even the majority) of society was that slavery was acceptable. If you want a bunch of wise elders (or "wise latinas") making laws for the rest of us, a democracy (or republic) is not the kind of government you're looking for.
No, the distinction is, if you used a work that was considered to be in the public domain last year, but this year it was decided that it was not, you cannot be charged with unlawful use for having used it last year.
Bicycle and foot-based traveling causes light pollution, too, unless you have infravision or the moon's visible... and in the latter case, no one will be able to see much anyway.
Should have put a camera on it.
I don't see enough in the article to say, but this couldn't actually replace a modern window until it had multiple panes filled with inert gas and some kind of low-e coating. Also, making the crystals go opaque will darken the room, but as I understand it this idea was tested with cars and they block the light but not much heat when compared to shades or blinds.
There were hand-held 8mm film cameras, but none with sound. That being said, there were portable tape recorders, but reel-to-reel was rather large and the compact cassette was new and rare.
Well, there were certainly portable tape recorders and 8mm cameras back then, but no sound-on-film cameras for home use.
Yeah... actually, this doesn't really add anything to the argument. Who decides what public speeches are supposed to be in the public domain? How about concerts that may or may not have social or political impact? The actual content of Dr. King's speech shouldn't have any bearing on the law. If it had been recorded by a representative of the US government, then by law it is in the public domain. Otherwise, it's the protected work of an artist. It has nothing to do with the real problems of copyright, such as the excessive length of protection.
Maybe "Avatar-Last Airbender.m4v"? I don't understand the question. Are you using Windows 95?
Is this Microsoft's fault?
Why? Is Nome's football team better?
Right. So I could just get one of the non-organic Hanover premium lines and have food that tastes as good.
I would love to hear the details on this.