Flamebait? Obviously some oversensitive mods. I don't really care if they have.us or not. Perhaps 'required' was too strong a word, but it wouldn't be unreasonable for companies that only serve US customers to have.us domains.
You forgot the father who left a number of weapons accessible to his screwed-up kid.
Yes, I know they were locked up, but obviously not well enough. The father should be held responsible for failing to secure the weapons, and perhaps for just being a sucky parent.
Unless specifically stated in the court's decision, you can't make that statement; it's for a court to decide.
Well, since it is currently illegal to copy copyrighted MP3's, the court would have to specifially rule that such activity was now legal, which they did not. MP3's are significantly diffent from image thumbnails; mainly because only audiophiles are concerned with the difference. Thumbnails don't eliminate the purpose of the original
Interpretation is obviously open to debate. I could say you're not interpreting it correctly either, but instead, I default to only the stated text, because inferences are for the courts to make.
It's not my interpretation; it's the way courts in this country have traditionaly interpreted these things. The point is that people who try to turn this into 'MP3s are free!' are just fooling themselves, finding what they want to find.
Some people would argue that MP3s are subpar-quality examples of what you can purchase and obtain in high-quality; in effect, thumbnails of audio. Whether you wish to believe that's valid or not, neither of us can say it is or isn't. It's for a court to decide. I just posit the question.
If you made such a poor quality mp3 that it is only useful for making sure you're thinking of the right song, but no one could stand to listen to it as music (like old badly scratched records) I'd suspect that would be fair use, however using a short clip of the song accomplishes the same thing with less headache. The courts are not in the habit of giving things away.
I'm not deciding that, I'm making an observation. You're busy looking for loopholes and technicalities that aren't there. The people who suggest making thumbnails that are 99% of the original are doing the same thing. It becomes fair use when it is degraded enough that it cannot take the place of the original.
I can't believe that's modded 4, Insightful. He didn't even say anything interesting.
If you get the cheapo K-Mart version of something, don't be surprised if it breaks after a few months, doesn't work quite like you expected, or turns out to be missing some nice feature. If you want a high quality product that lasts, you pay a little more up front.
It sounds like you're using the same fallacy as the people who think video games lead to killing sprees. Perhaps those states have the strictest laws in response to their high crime rates, or perhaps hundreds of other factors have come together to cause both.
I foresee many items being 'accidently' exposed to high voltages, microwaves, and speaker magnets (not sure if a magnet would hurt these tags). I also see a rise in tinfoil sales, though this may be subject to similar laws.
Our other option is to find a way to hurt ourselves on these tags, and then we can sue these companies to death.
The court did not legalize copying MP3's. Not even low quality ones The important factors in reduction are that it has a purpose (such as indexing) that is different than the original, and so does not compete with the market for the original. If you think this ruling says you can get something for free, you're not interpreting it correctly. It protects fair use, not free use.
Indeed, most of the profits from cd's go to the record companies. Small artists want to get people to listen to their music, bigger artists make most of their money touring. File sharing makes the middlemen useless, but they're trying desparately to hold on.
I'd like to see a service where users can still host files but payments are made to the artists when a song is downloaded. Without the cost of manufacturing and distributing the cds, and with most of the serving done by users, I'd think songs could be offered for as little as $0.25
Yes, there are things that don't accomodate everyone. Suck it up. This is just another symptom of the unfortunate belief in america that you can sue someone anytime anything bad happens, because obviously no one has any responsibility to take care of themselves.
Discrimination is when you actively attempt to impede a particular group of people, not when something happens to be incovenient for one of the 6 billion factorial combinations of people on the planet. Unless you want to make an argument that sighted people are engaged in some conspiracy against the blind which involves the occasional reading of text in an image, go back home and find something else to get upset about.
It seems the simplest solution has been ignored: If you can't see, and you need to read one of those images, call a friend that can see. Simple, free, problem solved. It's not like you encounter one that often.
Certainly you can *ask* for special accomodations, and in most cases they are reasonable and will be provided. Sometimes it just doesn't work. Sometimes you just miss out.
Mod down all you want if you can't handle a non-PC point of view. People need to get realistic about how far we will bend over to accomodate small groups of people.
Sell your color-blind problem somewhere else; i might as well start suing people for putting things far away since I'm near-sighted. But then the farsighted people would sue.
On a related note, whether or not something can be turned off is also determined by the browser. He can't create audio pop-ups that can't be turned off as long as there are people making browsers who don't like popups. Even if they included some cookie in a popup that you needed to see the rest of the site, a browser could be made to process the cookie without displaying the popup.
These advertising companies seem to think the problem is that their ads just aren't big enough. I guess they just can't believe that people really don't want 18" cocks that shoot 600% more up to 13 feet and can smash through brick walls, or whatever other equally bogus crap they're selling.
If you're an advertiser, I'll give you a hint: it's not that we couldn't see your ad, the problem is that your products sucks. If your product was any good, even a simple link would draw customers.
Given your comments about genetic noise, why would you say women make better fighter pilots? I doubt there are enough female fighter pilots for a representative study to be done. Asserting that either sex is better at something needs more than anecdotal evidence.
Scientists have obviously been watching Star Trek for more than entertainment. The original series aired in the late 60's, and had handheld communicators (cell phones), data cartridges (computer tapes/disks), PADD's (PDAs), and other allusions to modern technology that I can't think of right now.
At least one company is developing a phaser, and we've seen articles on/. before about scientists transporting atoms (we've still got 300 years to catch up with star trek here)
Research suggesting that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light may mean that faster-than-light travel is a possibility.
Though I don't have any examples off the top of me head, it's not a big leap to think that the same thing happens with books, so I'd say fiction can inspire and influence real science.
Indeed. And this looks like a good time to start figuring out how the giant nuclear chain-reaction that defines our existence works. We've seen a few patterns, but not even a guess as to the cause.
This sounds like a good time to start selling stocking caps with a wire-mesh lining. And I know just how to advertise them. It'll be more effective than getting a call at 6am offering to sell you a telezapper.
Slashdot Mirror
Flamebait? Obviously some oversensitive mods. I don't really care if they have .us or not. Perhaps 'required' was too strong a word, but it wouldn't be unreasonable for companies that only serve US customers to have .us domains.
perhaps these sites should be required to have domain names ending in .us?
Yes, I know they were locked up, but obviously not well enough. The father should be held responsible for failing to secure the weapons, and perhaps for just being a sucky parent.
Unless specifically stated in the court's decision, you can't make that statement; it's for a court to decide.
Well, since it is currently illegal to copy copyrighted MP3's, the court would have to specifially rule that such activity was now legal, which they did not. MP3's are significantly diffent from image thumbnails; mainly because only audiophiles are concerned with the difference. Thumbnails don't eliminate the purpose of the original
Interpretation is obviously open to debate. I could say you're not interpreting it correctly either, but instead, I default to only the stated text, because inferences are for the courts to make.
It's not my interpretation; it's the way courts in this country have traditionaly interpreted these things. The point is that people who try to turn this into 'MP3s are free!' are just fooling themselves, finding what they want to find.
Some people would argue that MP3s are subpar-quality examples of what you can purchase and obtain in high-quality; in effect, thumbnails of audio. Whether you wish to believe that's valid or not, neither of us can say it is or isn't. It's for a court to decide. I just posit the question.
If you made such a poor quality mp3 that it is only useful for making sure you're thinking of the right song, but no one could stand to listen to it as music (like old badly scratched records) I'd suspect that would be fair use, however using a short clip of the song accomplishes the same thing with less headache. The courts are not in the habit of giving things away.
I'm not deciding that, I'm making an observation. You're busy looking for loopholes and technicalities that aren't there. The people who suggest making thumbnails that are 99% of the original are doing the same thing. It becomes fair use when it is degraded enough that it cannot take the place of the original.
If you get the cheapo K-Mart version of something, don't be surprised if it breaks after a few months, doesn't work quite like you expected, or turns out to be missing some nice feature. If you want a high quality product that lasts, you pay a little more up front.
It sounds like you're using the same fallacy as the people who think video games lead to killing sprees. Perhaps those states have the strictest laws in response to their high crime rates, or perhaps hundreds of other factors have come together to cause both.
They're too busy with their 'people don't kill people; video games kill people' nonsense. When you say it like that it really does sound absurd.
Our other option is to find a way to hurt ourselves on these tags, and then we can sue these companies to death.
The court did not legalize copying MP3's. Not even low quality ones The important factors in reduction are that it has a purpose (such as indexing) that is different than the original, and so does not compete with the market for the original. If you think this ruling says you can get something for free, you're not interpreting it correctly. It protects fair use, not free use.
I'd like to see a service where users can still host files but payments are made to the artists when a song is downloaded. Without the cost of manufacturing and distributing the cds, and with most of the serving done by users, I'd think songs could be offered for as little as $0.25
Ok, I have to ask: Frosty piss?
Yes, there are things that don't accomodate everyone. Suck it up. This is just another symptom of the unfortunate belief in america that you can sue someone anytime anything bad happens, because obviously no one has any responsibility to take care of themselves. Discrimination is when you actively attempt to impede a particular group of people, not when something happens to be incovenient for one of the 6 billion factorial combinations of people on the planet. Unless you want to make an argument that sighted people are engaged in some conspiracy against the blind which involves the occasional reading of text in an image, go back home and find something else to get upset about. It seems the simplest solution has been ignored: If you can't see, and you need to read one of those images, call a friend that can see. Simple, free, problem solved. It's not like you encounter one that often. Certainly you can *ask* for special accomodations, and in most cases they are reasonable and will be provided. Sometimes it just doesn't work. Sometimes you just miss out. Mod down all you want if you can't handle a non-PC point of view. People need to get realistic about how far we will bend over to accomodate small groups of people. Sell your color-blind problem somewhere else; i might as well start suing people for putting things far away since I'm near-sighted. But then the farsighted people would sue.
On a related note, whether or not something can be turned off is also determined by the browser. He can't create audio pop-ups that can't be turned off as long as there are people making browsers who don't like popups. Even if they included some cookie in a popup that you needed to see the rest of the site, a browser could be made to process the cookie without displaying the popup.
If you're an advertiser, I'll give you a hint: it's not that we couldn't see your ad, the problem is that your products sucks. If your product was any good, even a simple link would draw customers.
Didn't this happen like 2 years ago? Or did another church get a star wars boner?
Given your comments about genetic noise, why would you say women make better fighter pilots? I doubt there are enough female fighter pilots for a representative study to be done. Asserting that either sex is better at something needs more than anecdotal evidence.
This is not the coolest thing Intel could've done, but at least this patent is actually for something new.
If it weren't for Taco actually linking back to the first four posts, I'd have my doubts about this being intentional.
At least one company is developing a phaser, and we've seen articles on /. before about scientists transporting atoms (we've still got 300 years to catch up with star trek here)
Research suggesting that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light may mean that faster-than-light travel is a possibility.
Though I don't have any examples off the top of me head, it's not a big leap to think that the same thing happens with books, so I'd say fiction can inspire and influence real science.
In Microsoft Russia, computer controls YOU
That really sucks the fun out of childhood. It's bad enough that they've replaced all the cool playground equipment with lame tupperware.
ouch. You could've at least modded that (Score: 1,funny) :)
Indeed. And this looks like a good time to start figuring out how the giant nuclear chain-reaction that defines our existence works. We've seen a few patterns, but not even a guess as to the cause.
Not to worry. I've got a patent on milk, so I think we can force them to cut a deal.
This sounds like a good time to start selling stocking caps with a wire-mesh lining. And I know just how to advertise them. It'll be more effective than getting a call at 6am offering to sell you a telezapper.