how many pounds some fat prick lost..... we use metric buddy, NFI what a pound is.
A pound is the traditional currency of England.
Despite the fake American accents, Jared is actually a Brit, and he's actually bragging about how much money he spent to eat healthy shit instead of fried scrod and chips every day.
jollygreengiantlikes: Where does this illogical line of 'reasoning' stop.
Are you disagreeing with what the judge had to say? Are you calling her decision an "illogical line of 'reasoning' ", or are you accusing her of running silly with the DMCA?
Personally, I find that she was reasoning clearly, and that she has drawn at least one line limiting the use of the DMCA.
Either I'm missing something, or you didn't...um...RTFA, as you slashdotters like so much to say.
channeled via Jace of Fuse!
But when you really dig into what makes music, uhm, musical, you'll notice there are human biorhythm connections. Some things work really well, some things don't work at all.
You make music - erm, the "production of sound extensions upon and heterodyning with natural human biological rhythms" - sound patentable.
Seriously, I agree with you that "Some of it is really going to stink, but some of it just might be really good. And that's why I'm so much for this idea."
I've downloaded a bit of music (that was legally offered for free by its creators), played it for a while, then discarded most of it as unworkable for my sensibilities. Because of the few good objects I've kept, I consider this a worthwhile use of bandwidth, and had there been a convenient mechanism for me to send fifty cents each to the creator and to the distributor, I would have.
This is virtually the consumer model with which I grew up: you listened to stuff on the radio, and when something appealed to you, you went our and bought that song - having only to accept whatever (usually unsavory) piece of crap was on the other side of the 45 single.
but sometimes the backside had something that really kicked - not by the marketer's choice - and that was a lovely bonus.
What worries me is that too many people won't understand the "customer weeding" process and walk right back into the RIAA's arms.
There's a graphical trick an electronic screen can do called "scrolling". A single piece of equipment can show data in a series, not just one predetermined thing. One LCD screen, 640x400 pixels, can display 100s of candidates in succession- and in huge fonts (if the voter wishes).
I'm imagining a candidate who depends on the senior vote losing because his name gets pushed to the top of the unnoticed third page when large fonts are selected.
Re:How to make a TV programme (dummies edition)...
on
Blakes Seven To Return
·
· Score: 1
If you have the rights you can find the money, a script and a cast.
What if you have all of the above, but you're just so full of shit that you have no chance of completing your production?
If someone has a religious or other dumbass objection to donating organs, then how is it fair for them to be able to receive them while other people who are willing to contribute to the system die on waiting lists?
just to put a hole in your bubble of preconceptions:
for religious, ethical and humanistic reasons, I will not accept an organ donation. However, because I also believe than my flesh is not my property, I have signed a donor card.
I may believe that it is wrong to accept another's organs, but I do not impose that faith on others.
So, since I will allow the use of organs from my dead flesh, but will not accept another's organs to save my life; will you, under your system, allow another to claim the credit I have earned but will never use?
OS X's close and minimize (and zoom) buttons are all separated by several pixels, so you're much less likely to hit one when you mean to hit another. Windows, on the other hand, has no separation between the buttons, so if you miss the maximize button by one pixel, you close the window.
Consequently, I have accidently closed windows in Windows numerous times (even though I use Windows rarely), while I have essentially never done so in OS X (which I use all the time).
The solutions to this problem are technical and behavioral.
technical: Like much else in MS Windows, the size of the window control buttons is configurable. If you keep missing the button, make it bigger!
behavioral: What you've described suggests symptoms of edge-striking - a dead zone between buttons is only useful if a user "just misses" the edge of a button. Disciplining yourself to center-strike may solve all you troubles.
(This is not an argument pro the Ms Windows interface, it's just an attempt to help you deal with the problems you encounter when you are forced to use that interface.)
------ I say, make 'em 10 years renewable up to 50
Even better is the suggestion that anything out of print becomes public domain. ------
"out of print" for how long? If the term is short, tell how you avoid this business model (for publishers):
1. Acquire a work. 2. Publish a limited quantity. 3. Stop the presses. 4. Wait for the work to go "out of print" 5. At that moment, but before anybody else can set it to type, crank out as many as you can sell, with no obligation to pay anything to the author.
-----
Copyright holders shouldn't be able to use their copyright to make something inaccessible to the rest of us. -----
But "out of print" is much more subject to abuse by copyright holders than "10 years renewable up to 50". Let's assume the copyright holder wants to prevent distribution of his work. His "business model" would be:
1. Set up a dummy publisher. 2. Print one copy just often enough to keep the work from becoming "out of print" 3. Arrange for the private sale and destruction of the work.
"Of course we are dissappointed with the judge's decision to dismiss the preliminary injunction, but it was not unexpected. We knew this was a case of a highly technical nature and that educating the court with only the short filings allowed would be very difficult."
Try saying those words (essentially: "we expect to lose this case, your honor, because we think you're too stupid to understand the issues involved") directly to the judge's face and see how long you last in that courtroom.
Slashdot Mirror
A pound is the traditional currency of England.
Despite the fake American accents, Jared is actually a Brit, and he's actually bragging about how much money he spent to eat healthy shit instead of fried scrod and chips every day.
Are you disagreeing with what the judge had to say? Are you calling her decision an "illogical line of 'reasoning' ", or are you accusing her of running silly with the DMCA?
Personally, I find that she was reasoning clearly, and that she has drawn at least one line limiting the use of the DMCA.
Either I'm missing something, or you didn't...um...RTFA, as you slashdotters like so much to say.
You make music - erm, the "production of sound extensions upon and heterodyning with natural human biological rhythms" - sound patentable.
Seriously, I agree with you that "Some of it is really going to stink, but some of it just might be really good. And that's why I'm so much for this idea."
I've downloaded a bit of music (that was legally offered for free by its creators), played it for a while, then discarded most of it as unworkable for my sensibilities. Because of the few good objects I've kept, I consider this a worthwhile use of bandwidth, and had there been a convenient mechanism for me to send fifty cents each to the creator and to the distributor, I would have.
This is virtually the consumer model with which I grew up: you listened to stuff on the radio, and when something appealed to you, you went our and bought that song - having only to accept whatever (usually unsavory) piece of crap was on the other side of the 45 single.
but sometimes the backside had something that really kicked - not by the marketer's choice - and that was a lovely bonus.
What worries me is that too many people won't understand the "customer weeding" process and walk right back into the RIAA's arms.
What if you have all of the above, but you're just so full of shit that you have no chance of completing your production?
may I refer you to
http://www.hotweird.com/jodorowsky/dunestory.htmljust to put a hole in your bubble of preconceptions:
for religious, ethical and humanistic reasons, I will not accept an organ donation. However, because I also believe than my flesh is not my property, I have signed a donor card.
I may believe that it is wrong to accept another's organs, but I do not impose that faith on others.
So, since I will allow the use of organs from my dead flesh, but will not accept another's organs to save my life; will you, under your system, allow another to claim the credit I have earned but will never use?
The solutions to this problem are technical and behavioral.
technical: Like much else in MS Windows, the size of the window control buttons is configurable. If you keep missing the button, make it bigger!
behavioral: What you've described suggests symptoms of edge-striking - a dead zone between buttons is only useful if a user "just misses" the edge of a button. Disciplining yourself to center-strike may solve all you troubles.
(This is not an argument pro the Ms Windows interface, it's just an attempt to help you deal with the problems you encounter when you are forced to use that interface.)
"out of print" for how long? If the term is short, tell how you avoid this business model (for publishers):
1. Acquire a work.
2. Publish a limited quantity.
3. Stop the presses.
4. Wait for the work to go "out of print"
5. At that moment, but before anybody else can set it to type, crank out as many as you can sell, with no obligation to pay anything to the author.
But "out of print" is much more subject to abuse by copyright holders than "10 years renewable up to 50". Let's assume the copyright holder wants to prevent distribution of his work. His "business model" would be:
1. Set up a dummy publisher.
2. Print one copy just often enough to keep the work from becoming "out of print"
3. Arrange for the private sale and destruction of the work.
"Of course we are dissappointed with the judge's decision to dismiss the preliminary injunction, but it was not unexpected. We knew this was a case of a highly technical nature and that educating the court with only the short filings allowed would be very difficult."
Try saying those words (essentially: "we expect to lose this case, your honor, because we think you're too stupid to understand the issues involved") directly to the judge's face and see how long you last in that courtroom.