No, west-coast farmed Atlantic salmon is a cheap substitute that is sometimes dyed red to disguise it as wild pacific salmon.
Fortunately, Atlantic salmon exists outside of fish-farms and is a perfectly good fish in its own right.
[Update: No one said anything about CS3 being "not supported" on Snow Leopard. The plan, however, is not to take resources away from other efforts (e.g. porting Photoshop to Cocoa) in order to modify 2.5-year-old software in response to changes Apple makes in the OS foundation.]
And also things like:
I'd frankly be shocked if people at Adobe & Apple really hadn't tested CS3 on 10.6. I *think* it's just some corporate conservatism at work here, and Adobe doesn't want to over-promise anything.
Does anyone know of an ISP that is actually blocking a competitor's site?
TFA cites Telus, a Canadian telco/ISP which blocked a site set up by its own striking workers.
Furthermore, the argument is not just that this is happening, but that we need to prevent it from happening.
People on the highways without drivers licenses is not "annoying." It is deadly.
Being annoying is a protected right in most western countries. Killing people not so much.
There are a few differences you have neglected to mention.
Although you describe people as generally favouring their party over specific candidates, in a british-style system the reason that you can't always tell what party someone belongs to is because they don't necessarily belong to a party. They just vote for whichever one they like. In any case, I don't think being able to tell what party people like is such a great thing: it prevents people from disliking each other because of partisan politics, in lets people feel comfortable changing their viewpoints without being labeled a flip-flopper, and for regular people who aren't deeply involved, it doesn't seem to matter.
In general, if you talk to someone a lot, it's not so hard to figure out their general political views.
The other big difference is that there are more than two parties with significant voices. That's the big one. You talk about "bipartisan" initiatives, but that word doesn't mean anything with more than two parties. Yes, politicians in british-style parliaments sometimes agree on things or appear publicly to support things that aren't run exclusively by their own party. Shocking. Nobody makes a big deal out of it, really, unless they seem to be compromising their principles or supporting something which is deemed undesirable.
It is also quite possible for minority governments, in which no single party has absolute power, to appear in such a system. Canada is operating under one such goverment presently. In these cases two or more parties usually end up working together for a time, trying to construct legislation which they can agree on. A vote of no confidence doesn't have to take place unless representatives are truly unhappy with the conduct of the government - and the fact that being seen as the cause of an unnecessary election seems to be undesirable to politicians, they have an incentive to cooperate with one another.
"The problem is that you can copyright a dance (any damned dance) in the first place. I'm going to go copyright 20 different punches, kicks and acrobatic moves then get paid by every single kung-fu movie producer in the world."
No. You can't copyright something, magically, that you didn't come up with. You can't copyright a punch or kick that someone else has already used. You could perhaps copyright a sequence of 20 different punches, kicks and acrobatic moves as you seem to suggest, but unless your sequence takes on another layer of signification in the popular consciousness, no kung-fu movie producer will use it. This is perfectly reasonable. The Electric Slide is desirable to people because of the value it as a whole has gained historically, not because it's a fundamentally basic mode of movement.
Yes, you can copyright a dance, as with any other mode of expression.
Seriously: there are problems with this guy's strategy, including uncertainties of the copyright, whether it's applicable at all, whether fair use comes into it, and of course the onerous requirements of the DMCA. But people's ability to claim a copyright on their own creative work is not the problem here. His being a bully is.
It should be noted that not everything on ZeD is of this contract. Most nights, they have hired a band to play a couple of songs. They buy rights for films from all over the world (Revolution OS, for example). They have been known to commission content, or buy existing content from users of the site as well.
But, given the fact that they are broadcasting it, and need to be sure that they have the rights, a license like this is necessary. If you don't like it, don't submit your work, or only submit some of your work. Note that it is non-exclusive, so it's not like you are losing any rights yourself in the process.
XHTML 1.0/1.1 is pointing in this direction, and in many cases it is already preferable to use container objects (I usually use divs) with css-set backgrounds rather than images. It makes the page deal with multiple stylesheets much more effectively, for instance - and so I regularly do so, at least in the layout portions (as opposed to the content portions) of my pages.
This "new way" is great. Hopefully the src can be altered with css in some way - but even if I still use background-image:, it will still be more evenly implemented on my pages.
This is not necessarily true. The first generation of so-called copy-controlled or copy-protected discs were not compliant with the spec, but most newer ones are. Now they merely use a data track (as well as the audio ones) and a special driver that windows computers automatically load.
1 - Yes, you can rip to generic AAC from a variety of apps. These files can be passed around and used almost as easily as mp3s, the only limit being software/hardware that doesn't support it (for example, most non-ipod mp3 players.) However, it'll play in winamp and the like. If you buy a song off of itunes, you'll only play it in itunes or on the ipod (unless you break the encryption).
2 - AIFF is a standard, uncompressed audio format. It is essentially the same as WAV with different headers. It is commonly used in audio production facilities (ie. recording studios). You can play it with practially any software. When you put a CD in a mac, the computer sees the contents as AIFF files, much as a windows machine will see it as WAV.
3 - The following formats are lossless, but compressed. They all achieve more-or-less 50% of the original (WAV or AIFF) filesize: FLAC; SHN (shorten); and Apple Lossless. iTunes and the ipod only support apple lossless, but it is easy to transfer your files from one format to another, because there is no quality loss.
This a fact that most people (even most Americans, sadly) do not seem to understand, and why much of the various "human rights" laws and such by various other "governing" bodies, like the EU and UN, are fundamentally flawed: The United State's Constitutional Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, instead it seekes to limit our government from violating rights we intrinsically have because we are (supposedly, though eroding every day, it seems) "free men" - the rights we were "born with". That isn't to say our Constitution is "etched in stone" - it can and does change with time.
There is more to it than this.
The US constitution/bill of rights were written with an entirely different philosophy than those elsewhere in the world. They were designed not to protect people from other people in general, but from their own government. These documents have since become such an integral part of the USA's national identity that they are seen as inherently superior. Why then, do other economically powerful ("devloped") nations able to live in what is generally considered to be acceptable levels of freedom without an overriding fear of their own leaders being central to their national consciousnesses? In canada, for example, we have had laws on the books more or less since the patriation of the constitution in the early eighties that prohibit hate speech. The difference is that instead of preventing people from being unfairly victimized by the government (which is included in the same documents, for the most part), people are protected from being victimized by anyone. Has their been a "slippery slope" effect where the government encroaches on our freedom because of this? No (although a minority holds that the official inclusion of sexual orientation in this is such encroachment, this has been "read into" the charter of rights by judges for years regardless). In fact, these protections are viewed - much like the bill of rights in the US - as the central principles of what it is to be Canadian.
It is also interesting to note something else about the US system. Despite the fact that the main purpose of the constitution is to prevent tyranny, acts like the DMCA and especially the PATRIOT act, coupled with the administration's carefully cultivated culture of fear and perpetual war, result in the US government being arguably closer to tyranny in many ways than any other part of the affluent world. Why is this?
I think the US government is - in a strange way - attempting to defend itself from its own constitution. The people in power have so much to lose.
If you aren't in the habit of leaving your macs running 24/7, you can use macjanitor to run these tasks from a nice, friendly GUI.
Re:The flagship...
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have never seen 4-siders with "traditional" single-side labeling, but many of them (particularly older ones) did have a somewhat confusing system. Instead of the sides of the die being labeled, the edges were. So you didn't have to pick the die up, but look at the number that was next to the base of all of the visible sides. More recently, I've seen ones where the points are labeled becoming more common. It seems a much easier method for newbies to understand, as they get to look at the top, like any other die.
Steve is building an army of mind-controlled minions set to overthrow the alien beings who have taken over Western Civilization and are currently raising us for food.
Wait, this is a bad thing? This means that not only will we get nice computers, but we won't be eaten by the alien beings (although I'm surprised that you don't correctly identify these as lizards).
There is a problem with this argument. Current trends suggest to me (at least) that it is these "safe bets" that are underperforming. Why? Because major labels are losing money, and minors are not. I think it is because people who care about interesting music are more likely to buy it, go to shows, etc. Sure, the minors don't expect to sell as many, but at least they are meeting their targets.
The government didn't lose anything. CRIA, a large industry association/lobbying group were the losers in this particular instance. And now they want the government to change the laws - and it seems that the government is amenable to this.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you haven't really looked
No, west-coast farmed Atlantic salmon is a cheap substitute that is sometimes dyed red to disguise it as wild pacific salmon. Fortunately, Atlantic salmon exists outside of fish-farms and is a perfectly good fish in its own right.
[Update: No one said anything about CS3 being "not supported" on Snow Leopard. The plan, however, is not to take resources away from other efforts (e.g. porting Photoshop to Cocoa) in order to modify 2.5-year-old software in response to changes Apple makes in the OS foundation.]
And also things like:
I'd frankly be shocked if people at Adobe & Apple really hadn't tested CS3 on 10.6. I *think* it's just some corporate conservatism at work here, and Adobe doesn't want to over-promise anything.
So all in all: No Big Deal
Does anyone know of an ISP that is actually blocking a competitor's site?
TFA cites Telus, a Canadian telco/ISP which blocked a site set up by its own striking workers. Furthermore, the argument is not just that this is happening, but that we need to prevent it from happening.
I don't want my house, garden, neighborhood and face plastered all over the web for everyone to gawk at. You don't want it. Nobody wants it.
I kinda want it.
Buy a bicycle. It will take you less than half an hour. Heck, you might be able to walk that far in two hours if you are fit.
At a website that doesn't take forevers to load some kind of flash that I closed before it even finished. http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/
I guess you don't know many leftists, then.
People on the highways without drivers licenses is not "annoying." It is deadly. Being annoying is a protected right in most western countries. Killing people not so much.
There are a few differences you have neglected to mention.
Although you describe people as generally favouring their party over specific candidates, in a british-style system the reason that you can't always tell what party someone belongs to is because they don't necessarily belong to a party. They just vote for whichever one they like. In any case, I don't think being able to tell what party people like is such a great thing: it prevents people from disliking each other because of partisan politics, in lets people feel comfortable changing their viewpoints without being labeled a flip-flopper, and for regular people who aren't deeply involved, it doesn't seem to matter.
In general, if you talk to someone a lot, it's not so hard to figure out their general political views.
The other big difference is that there are more than two parties with significant voices. That's the big one. You talk about "bipartisan" initiatives, but that word doesn't mean anything with more than two parties. Yes, politicians in british-style parliaments sometimes agree on things or appear publicly to support things that aren't run exclusively by their own party. Shocking. Nobody makes a big deal out of it, really, unless they seem to be compromising their principles or supporting something which is deemed undesirable.
It is also quite possible for minority governments, in which no single party has absolute power, to appear in such a system. Canada is operating under one such goverment presently. In these cases two or more parties usually end up working together for a time, trying to construct legislation which they can agree on. A vote of no confidence doesn't have to take place unless representatives are truly unhappy with the conduct of the government - and the fact that being seen as the cause of an unnecessary election seems to be undesirable to politicians, they have an incentive to cooperate with one another.
"The problem is that you can copyright a dance (any damned dance) in the first place. I'm going to go copyright 20 different punches, kicks and acrobatic moves then get paid by every single kung-fu movie producer in the world."
No. You can't copyright something, magically, that you didn't come up with. You can't copyright a punch or kick that someone else has already used. You could perhaps copyright a sequence of 20 different punches, kicks and acrobatic moves as you seem to suggest, but unless your sequence takes on another layer of signification in the popular consciousness, no kung-fu movie producer will use it. This is perfectly reasonable. The Electric Slide is desirable to people because of the value it as a whole has gained historically, not because it's a fundamentally basic mode of movement.
Yes, you can copyright a dance, as with any other mode of expression.
Seriously: there are problems with this guy's strategy, including uncertainties of the copyright, whether it's applicable at all, whether fair use comes into it, and of course the onerous requirements of the DMCA. But people's ability to claim a copyright on their own creative work is not the problem here. His being a bully is.
I haven't seen a quicktime nag box in a long time - possibly years - at least not on OS X.
Are you sure this still happens?
I don't think I've ever met someone who kept their laptop under their desk.
I would guess that they are not working on forwarding and POP downloading because it's already been implemented.
Perhaps occasional issues similar to this is why electronics (ipods included) come with limited warranties. Just maybe.
It should be noted that not everything on ZeD is of this contract. Most nights, they have hired a band to play a couple of songs. They buy rights for films from all over the world (Revolution OS, for example). They have been known to commission content, or buy existing content from users of the site as well.
But, given the fact that they are broadcasting it, and need to be sure that they have the rights, a license like this is necessary. If you don't like it, don't submit your work, or only submit some of your work. Note that it is non-exclusive, so it's not like you are losing any rights yourself in the process.
XHTML 1.0/1.1 is pointing in this direction, and in many cases it is already preferable to use container objects (I usually use divs) with css-set backgrounds rather than images. It makes the page deal with multiple stylesheets much more effectively, for instance - and so I regularly do so, at least in the layout portions (as opposed to the content portions) of my pages. This "new way" is great. Hopefully the src can be altered with css in some way - but even if I still use background-image:, it will still be more evenly implemented on my pages.
This is not necessarily true. The first generation of so-called copy-controlled or copy-protected discs were not compliant with the spec, but most newer ones are. Now they merely use a data track (as well as the audio ones) and a special driver that windows computers automatically load.
1 - Yes, you can rip to generic AAC from a variety of apps. These files can be passed around and used almost as easily as mp3s, the only limit being software/hardware that doesn't support it (for example, most non-ipod mp3 players.) However, it'll play in winamp and the like.
If you buy a song off of itunes, you'll only play it in itunes or on the ipod (unless you break the encryption).
2 - AIFF is a standard, uncompressed audio format. It is essentially the same as WAV with different headers. It is commonly used in audio production facilities (ie. recording studios). You can play it with practially any software.
When you put a CD in a mac, the computer sees the contents as AIFF files, much as a windows machine will see it as WAV.
3 - The following formats are lossless, but compressed. They all achieve more-or-less 50% of the original (WAV or AIFF) filesize:
FLAC; SHN (shorten); and Apple Lossless. iTunes and the ipod only support apple lossless, but it is easy to transfer your files from one format to another, because there is no quality loss.
This a fact that most people (even most Americans, sadly) do not seem to understand, and why much of the various "human rights" laws and such by various other "governing" bodies, like the EU and UN, are fundamentally flawed:
The United State's Constitutional Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, instead it seekes to limit our government from violating rights we intrinsically have because we are (supposedly, though eroding every day, it seems) "free men" - the rights we were "born with". That isn't to say our Constitution is "etched in stone" - it can and does change with time.
There is more to it than this.
The US constitution/bill of rights were written with an entirely different philosophy than those elsewhere in the world. They were designed not to protect people from other people in general, but from their own government. These documents have since become such an integral part of the USA's national identity that they are seen as inherently superior.
Why then, do other economically powerful ("devloped") nations able to live in what is generally considered to be acceptable levels of freedom without an overriding fear of their own leaders being central to their national consciousnesses?
In canada, for example, we have had laws on the books more or less since the patriation of the constitution in the early eighties that prohibit hate speech. The difference is that instead of preventing people from being unfairly victimized by the government (which is included in the same documents, for the most part), people are protected from being victimized by anyone. Has their been a "slippery slope" effect where the government encroaches on our freedom because of this? No (although a minority holds that the official inclusion of sexual orientation in this is such encroachment, this has been "read into" the charter of rights by judges for years regardless). In fact, these protections are viewed - much like the bill of rights in the US - as the central principles of what it is to be Canadian.
It is also interesting to note something else about the US system. Despite the fact that the main purpose of the constitution is to prevent tyranny, acts like the DMCA and especially the PATRIOT act, coupled with the administration's carefully cultivated culture of fear and perpetual war, result in the US government being arguably closer to tyranny in many ways than any other part of the affluent world. Why is this?
I think the US government is - in a strange way - attempting to defend itself from its own constitution. The people in power have so much to lose.
If you aren't in the habit of leaving your macs running 24/7, you can use macjanitor to run these tasks from a nice, friendly GUI.
I have never seen 4-siders with "traditional" single-side labeling, but many of them (particularly older ones) did have a somewhat confusing system. Instead of the sides of the die being labeled, the edges were. So you didn't have to pick the die up, but look at the number that was next to the base of all of the visible sides.
More recently, I've seen ones where the points are labeled becoming more common. It seems a much easier method for newbies to understand, as they get to look at the top, like any other die.
Steve is building an army of mind-controlled minions set to overthrow the alien beings who have taken over Western Civilization and are currently raising us for food.
Wait, this is a bad thing? This means that not only will we get nice computers, but we won't be eaten by the alien beings (although I'm surprised that you don't correctly identify these as lizards).
There is a problem with this argument. Current trends suggest to me (at least) that it is these "safe bets" that are underperforming. Why? Because major labels are losing money, and minors are not. I think it is because people who care about interesting music are more likely to buy it, go to shows, etc. Sure, the minors don't expect to sell as many, but at least they are meeting their targets.
The government didn't lose anything. CRIA, a large industry association/lobbying group were the losers in this particular instance. And now they want the government to change the laws - and it seems that the government is amenable to this.