No. Anything that isn't government property is private property. In a public space you are free to do "things deemed reasonable" such as "reasonable speech". In private property that is open to the public, such as a store or a mall, you are not free. The freedom you have is "you may enter without permission" but you have no freedom with regards to anything else. For example, an Apple Store can forbid political speech, they can forbid soliciting, they can forbid skateboards and rollerskates, they can enforce a dress code (no shirt no shoes no service), and they can forbid photography.
In fact, this very distinction is what bothers people so much about the privatization of parks. See, a city gets tired of paying for maintaining a city, so they sell it to a conservancy group. This lets the city enforce control that would be illegal otherwise. See, in a public space you can't just go escort all of the people under 18 out. But if it's private property, you can evict anybody you want! Keep those damn hobos and teens out of the parks, nice and legal. And you can arrest people for possessing a camera, too, damn phototerrorists. Best of all, you can forbid outside food so they have to go through the local food vendors! Even better, in a privatized town square you can censor the speech all you want. If somebody is complaining about the city, you can arrest them for trespassing.
Look, you clearly read the summary. That's quite frowned upon here! You are supposed to read the headling, see "predictive policing" and conclude that they are running people's profiles (bonus points if you assume the profiles are attained by warrantless wiretaps) through a computer and then arresting them because Ziggy says there's an 87.2% chance that they are going to rob the liquor store tomorrow. This is Slashdot, don't you know?
Yes, in the same way that grocery stores started doing predictive staffing, and then quickly moved on to predictive charging "Sorry, but our models show you were supposed to have bought more milk today, so we're going to go ahead and bill you for it". I like the way you didn't even read the summary, though. Good work maintaining the Slashdot tradition.
It is perfectly legal to start your own toilet cleaner brand called Coca Cola if Coca Cola is not registered under the toilet cleaners category and your trademark logo does not 'resemble' theirs.
No, it's not. In addition to there not already being a company using that mark in the same market, you also can't use a unique mark. This includes the name, not just the logo. You can't make Coca Cola cleaner, you can't make Kodak coffee, you can't make Microsoft paper towel (whatever they do in an entirely different country notwithstanding, they have 4 golden arched McBurgers restaurants and all KINDS of other knockoffs too, that doesn't make it fine in the USA). It's something called "Trademark Dilution" and it's also protected by law. It's especially easy to get if your trademark isn't a real word, like Kodak or Coca-Cola. But even for real words you can get dilution protection. The key is that your mark is so prevalent that the average person thinks if your product when they hear the name. If a mark is unique, this is pretty easy. And so if you start a window cleaning service called "Microsoft Windows" then you will be in deep shit regardless of whether they have registered the mark as a window cleaning service. Dilution law also does not require any chance of confusion. So even if you can argue (and you should be able to) that nobody would think that Microsoft Windows the window cleaner is affiliated with the software company, you're still on the hook for trademark dilution.
After Future Shop in Canada got bought up, they've dumped their non-monster cables and stuff. "Oh, you want an HDMI to go with that TV? That'll be $80. Do you want a fucking $400 god damn power bar? It cleans the power gremlins out of your filthy filthy wall socket. Without the filter the gremlins will take a hammer to the inside of your TV, and eat all your bags of chips. It also somehow makes the sound one hundred times crisper because resonance waves from your dirty power account for a huge portion of the signal noise from home amplifiers and receivers. It also has a display to show the current voltage, so you know just how dirty your power was before we made it sparkling fresh!"
Read the fucking report. An analysis of the binary code revealed 60% similarity. So about 60% of the binary was completely identical. Most of the evaluation functions which are unique to Fruit (AKA not done in other algorithms) were mostly identical, usually with only some constants changed. These are functions that not only are unique in their purpose to those in Fruit, but which have the exact same binary code, the same local variables, declared in the same order. That much duplication is absolutely beyond the pale. In earlier versions of Rybka, they found that obsolete functions from the Crafty codebase were in there. So, you are claiming that not only did he magically duplicate most of the functions, he even had the same useless functions just sitting there not being called. And the exact same unit tests for those unused functions. So, there is a long history of blatant copy and pasting, some of it even completely mindless (copying unused functions). Additionally, he was offered the chance to be on the panel and offer his own input without having to release his sourcecode. He refused to respond whatsoever in his own defense.
Stalking is a degree defined by law. The fourth amendment specifies only that the search must not be unreasonable. This is defined as whether or not it is reasonable to expect privacy, not as whether or not the cost of the search is a reasonable one. And so the "finite resource" argument only enters into it as the question "If you expect you will be private by virtue of nobody having the spare time to follow you, is that expectation reasonable?"
Anemones are flowers. You might think it's being pedantic, but lions, horses, and cucumbers would all like to remind you that the "sea" part of the name is quite important;)
There are quite a few differences, actually. First and foremost, to restrict any speech, the government must be able to show the court that the speech in question would "surely result in immediate, direct, and irreparable damage to the nation and its people". The accepted argument is that grossly obscene pornography causes harm to the viewer and also to the moral fabric of the nation. Once you have established this, it's easier to also say that since children are not adults, that the threshold for "obscenity" might be lower, and therefore that things not considered obscene to sell to an adult are still obscene to sell to a minor. On the other hand, there is no law restricting violent media for sale to adults, so the government of California was required to pass a much harder test, which they did not. Without showing this, there are no grounds by which the sale can be restricted. The relevant quote is "...California’s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children." That is to say that since "depictions of violence" is not an existing category of speech that is held to be unprotected when it reaches a certain threshold, that the law must pass very strict guidelines. As opposed to a law that took existing "bar" that must be passed, and lowered it when applied to minors instead of adults.
The second difference is basically an appeal to tradition. Pornography has long been restricted. Violent entertainment has not been. Appeal to tradition is not typically a valid argument. But in this case it is. If violent media was so harmful, surely somebody would have done something about it. So since California has long objected to restricting violent movies from sale to minors, they are in a tight spot with regards to videogames. Along the lines of the first, they must not only show that some violent things are clearly and surely harmful to children, they must also show that this harm is specific to videogames, since the law is singling those out. That is, since they are not banning movies or books, they must show that this harm is not caused by movies or books. On the other hand, pornography laws do not single out the medium, so this is again a different argument.
Going back to the first point, though: Pornography is broadly illegal depending on the judge you get. The law bans depictions of sexual activities that have no artistic, literary, or scientific merit. All of those things are entirely up to the judge to decide, and the hokey plot-line used to guide actors from fuck to fuck is not easy to argue as artistic or literary;) Typically most states leave most porn alone, although people can and do get thrown in jail for a long LONG time for making porn that involves pissing. Rape fantasy porn is another one that can get you locked up for 10+ years. But a lot of states will even go after oral and anal sex. In fact, I think about 23 or so states ban oral and anal sex across the board, not just in porn! And if you think that would be unconstitutional, you're dead wrong. The Supreme Court has in fact upheld bans on consensual oral or anal sex, in private, even between a married couple. Prosecutions are rare against straight couples, but happen to gay men from time to time. Usually for being caught in public bathrooms, but at least a few times police have kicked down the door of a suspected homosexual, caught him in the act, and arrested both men. These warrant-less break-ins are upheld because the police argue they received a 911 call and got the wrong street address, and so had a good-faith reason to be there. Texas had its law struck down by the Supreme Court, but only because it discriminated against gays exclusively. Rick Santorum made his name (or at least, he made his mean mean the frothy mix of lube and semen that results from unprotected anal) as the guyl fighting tooth and nail (his words, even) to uphold this law. Other states that
Samsung phones are easy to root, the bootloader is unlocked so they are easy to update with custom updates, and they release all of their source promptly, meaning there are lots of said custom updates out there.
Out of 40 courses taken in my undergrad at the University of Victoria, the following were not CS courses: 2 first year English courses on technical writing, and doing a proper literature search. 2 first year stats courses. That is all. Four out of forty. And both English and Stats are very useful. If only universities had basic literacy as an entrance requirement. I thought they did, actually, with the literacy entrance exam I had to write, and all that. But any time spent working as a marker quickly dispels that myth;) But even then, the tech writing course goes beyond basic paper writing and basic literacy. And, really, everybody should have to take a stats class.
Then again, the submitter is thinking that CS==programming. So probably almost all of a computer science degree is wasted on him. "Wahhh that's all math, quit wasting my time!"
They have to rule according to the law. The law says that a maker of a generic drug MUST use the exact warning label on the brand-name drug. If they add an extra warning, they are in serious trouble with the FDA. If they have a duty to add extra warning to the label, then they have a duty to break the law.
No to number 2. Yes to number 1, but it's not that bad. If you're as close as the "artist's rendition" drawings in the picture, where the gas giant is taking up half of the sky, then yeah, the tidal forces would be millions of times greater than the moons. But that's so absurdly close it doesn't bear thinking. If you take Saturn as a "typical" gas giant, and put a moon 400,000 KM away, then although the tidal forces would still be 10,000 times as great, the size in the sky of Saturn would only be 16 times as great as the Moon. That might cause more frequent eclipses, but they're not going to last much longer. Because at that distance the orbital period of our moon will be 24 hours. A worst-case eclipse would last for 30 minutes, and occur once per day. Depending on the specifics of the orbit, they might occur a whole lot less than that. (We don't get an eclipse every single month). But those tidal forces are still pretty awful. Except that at those forces, the moon would certainly be tidally locked. So although there would be severe stretching because of these forces, the pull would always be in the same direction due to the tidal locking. So there would actually be less severe tides than Earth has.
Maybe many women do want to play games, just not the existing types?
Nope. The main thrust of the second linked article is that women DON'T like games made for girls. They don't like casual shit, they don't like Barbie Pink Princess Party 18, they don't like that shit. Sexist fucks like you are the problem. Sexist assholes looking down on girls and making pink shit for them, saying they are special delicate flowers and so they need things custom made for them. Every woman I know under 40 plays video games, and they play Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Final Fantasy (one even liked 12 and 13!) Half Life, Portal, God of War, Devil May Cry, Assassins' Creed etc. etc. Most of them don't like FPS games, mostly because there's no story, no plot, the game is 2 hours long, and then to go get your ass kicked online by 12 year old boys skipping school. That's why I don't play most of them, either;)
Then if the article is right, there's money to be made.
Didn't read it, did ya. It says that gamers are equally men and women. There isn't money to be made unless the assumption is that women should, by virtue of being female, be playing MORE games than men. It's like saying "50 percent of movie goers are women. Movies are obviously not targeted at women, and that needs to change." Mentally retarded. Ya, women don't like pointless action T+A movies like Fast 5 just like they don't like pointless action T+A video games (Except that every female gamer I know loves God of War, as pointless an action game loaded with needless T+A as you're likely to find). If only there were other movies, like the kind that women are already watching because it's a non-issue? And just to reiterate, TFA is saying that women aren't playing casual games only, that a lot of them don't even like casual games.
Anyways, the University of Illinois runs a games4girls compeition where teams of female university students make games. They don't make Bejeweled but more pink. They usually make sidescrolling platformers, shooters, and RPGs. AKA, just what guys make in amateur game design competitions.
Same with Canada, sort of. Our distances and speeds are in KM, our food is sold by the gram, but we measure ourselves in feet and weight ourselves in pounds. I have no idea how many meters I am. More than 1, less than 2, that's as good as you'll get if I don't have a calculator. Fluids are all in l/ml though, even beer. Sure, you can order a pint, and the glass is a pint glass, but everybody I know just asks for a glass (OK, to be honest, everybody I know just asks for a pitcher). At the liquor store, some cans say 473 ml (American pint, 2 imperial cups), some say 500 (metric pints), some say 568 (Imperial Pint), but they're all pint cans. Whether they are filled to the exact ml amount they claim on the side is something I've never been bothered to test. And I have no idea what a temperature in Fahrenheit feels like, except that over 90 is somewhere between "hot" and "damn hot" and under 60 is "no longer teeshirt weather."
It's number two. The states were suing companies over power plants operated OUTSIDE those states, even though those companies were complying with state and federal laws. The states were arguing that producing CO2 is a "public nuisance" and trying to get them to reduce emissions across the entire country, not just within their own borders. The supreme court ruled that that's the EPA's job, and that if they are not satisfied with the EPA's rules (not yet released) then there are legal channels in place to appeal those rules. They are just still under review and so cannot be appealed until they exist.
You're thinking too black and white. Consider copyright violation as broadly belonging to three classes. The first, perhaps we can call "surprise sharing". That's the pirate bay sort of thing, you download a copy for your own use. Or you take a CD to a friends house and install the game on their machine, plus a no-cd crack. So, some on Slashdot might think that's perfectly OK, and some might say "Well, that's not OK but it's not a serious case of copyright violation". Both of those groups object to the multi-million dollar judgments against these people. The second case we can call actual piracy, the way the word has been used for centuries by authors and playwrights: This is when you are making unauthorized copies/editions and selling them without paying royalties. So that's when you have a guy selling burnt copies of movies and music on the street corner for $10 a pop. That's when you have music labels publishing compilation albums without paying for permission to do so. It's not hypocrisy to consider this case to be worse than the first. In one case, you are "sharing", even though perhaps that's not the right thing to be doing. And certainly P2P is much more large-scale than taking a CD to a friend's house so you might also make a distinction there. But certainly profiting off it is worse than non-profit sharing, even if neither situation is very desirable from the authors point of view? I mentioned three classes. The third is, in my opinion, the worst. This is when instead of writing your own program, you take source code from somebody else's, and you just strip their name off and put your own. Maybe you change it, maybe you don't. Either way, it's not just copyright violation (possibly/probably for profit), it's also plagiarism. GPL violations fall into the last two cases, typically. You have somebody who's selling software that uses the GPL, but they're not following the license, or you have somebody selling software that secretly uses GPL'd software, but they've stripped all the identifications out. I assert that there's no cognitive dissonance involved in saying that either case is worse than sharing games on TPB. Now, if you're saying that torrenting is A-OK but GPL violations are very bad, well, then that's a bit of hypocrisy I'd agree. But I think you'll find that a lot of the "pro" piracy posts are not so much saying "Pirated copies want to be free" as they are "Isn't a million or $200,000 or whatever a bit steep?" Especially when companies who are doing number two or number three aren't even getting fines that big. It's certainly reasonable to say "I don't think the fine should be so large for no-charge piracy" and also say "I think the GPL should be enforced". Especially since they're typically asking for the code to be shared, not for billion dollar fines.
Explain how XMODEM load balances between multiple distribution servers, and explain how it redirects the client's modem line to the appropriate distribution server. Or, did you not read the patent at all, and just assumed this was on the "split file into small pieces" part and not the whole "distributed" thing at all? Because if it's the latter, you're pretty stupid.
He's a moron. He didn't read the patent at all. He just said "Suing BitTorrent? The only thing I know about torrents is they split files into chunks and do an error check on each chunk! XMODEM does that too! So clearly a patent on any part of BitTorrent must be on the only part I know anything about, so the patent MUST apply to XMODEM too!". The patent is about load balancing. BitTorrent load balances because you'll request chunks from peers that aren't busy, as opposed to ones that are saturating their link already. XMODEM doesn't do that at all. (How could it redirect the modem line to a different computer, anyways?)
Actually, the patent requires that the file database be used to store at least one file that is compressed. That's part of claim 1. If you don't meet everything in claim 1, you don't violate the patent. Since BitTorrent is often used to share compressed files, but does not REQUIRE it, then the software itself doesn't violate the patent, ONLY the users who share a compressed file. I don't know if you can argue that since that's an easy piece for the users to add, that it still violates the patent even though it doesn't satisfy all of the claim. That's for a lawyer to answer;)
Not prior art. The patent requires a media server hosting one or more files, and one or more distribution servers set up to mirror those files. The media server, upon receiving a request, directs that request to the distribution server best able to satisfy the request, based on current network throughput. (That is, probably it just sends it to the least busy server.) In a multi-node BBS, what is the media server, and what is the distribution client? Is the phone switch the media server? Because it's the one deciding which computer to connect you to. Or is the computer your modem is talking to the server? Because in that case it doesn't direct you to a free distribution server, it sends you the file directly. Now, if there were multiple network file servers and the BBS servers were load balancing between them, then it MIGHT apply, except that it's not redirecting the client to them, it's redirecting itself to them. So no, even in situations like that the patent does not apply.
To be clear: You need a media file server. That file server must respond to requests for file downloads from users. You need one or more distribution servers. The media server must redirect download requests to a distribution server, and the decision of which one must be based on network throughput. Load balancing web servers meet these requirements. So if they were around prior to 1999, they are prior art. BBSs do not meet these requirements, because, for one, you can't just redirect a modem line to a new server on the fly. And there's no reason to, because modem lines are boolean. You are using all of the line, or you aren't using it at all. You can't load balance that. And besides which, the redirection must be on a file-by-file basis, or on a frame-by-frame basis if the file has been split.
Re:Bitcoin to revolutionise economy
on
Bitcoin Price Crashes
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
OK, lets say there is only a single gold coin in town. That's the only currency in existence. OK so far? So, I have that one coin, and I pay somebody that coin for a new window. The glassier takes that coin, and he goes to the pub and he buys a beer for that one coin. Now the bar pays the bartender with that one coin. Now he takes that coin and he buys a sandwich with that coin. Oops, so far our town as a GDP of 4 coins, but there's only one in existence. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET THAT AN ECONOMY IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME? I know, you should use the broken window fallacy next! Point out that if you hadn't broken my window in that above example that the GDP of my fictional town would have been 0 instead of 4!;)
Slashdot Mirror
No. Anything that isn't government property is private property. In a public space you are free to do "things deemed reasonable" such as "reasonable speech". In private property that is open to the public, such as a store or a mall, you are not free. The freedom you have is "you may enter without permission" but you have no freedom with regards to anything else. For example, an Apple Store can forbid political speech, they can forbid soliciting, they can forbid skateboards and rollerskates, they can enforce a dress code (no shirt no shoes no service), and they can forbid photography.
In fact, this very distinction is what bothers people so much about the privatization of parks. See, a city gets tired of paying for maintaining a city, so they sell it to a conservancy group. This lets the city enforce control that would be illegal otherwise. See, in a public space you can't just go escort all of the people under 18 out. But if it's private property, you can evict anybody you want! Keep those damn hobos and teens out of the parks, nice and legal. And you can arrest people for possessing a camera, too, damn phototerrorists. Best of all, you can forbid outside food so they have to go through the local food vendors! Even better, in a privatized town square you can censor the speech all you want. If somebody is complaining about the city, you can arrest them for trespassing.
Look, you clearly read the summary. That's quite frowned upon here! You are supposed to read the headling, see "predictive policing" and conclude that they are running people's profiles (bonus points if you assume the profiles are attained by warrantless wiretaps) through a computer and then arresting them because Ziggy says there's an 87.2% chance that they are going to rob the liquor store tomorrow. This is Slashdot, don't you know?
Yes, in the same way that grocery stores started doing predictive staffing, and then quickly moved on to predictive charging "Sorry, but our models show you were supposed to have bought more milk today, so we're going to go ahead and bill you for it". I like the way you didn't even read the summary, though. Good work maintaining the Slashdot tradition.
No, it's not. In addition to there not already being a company using that mark in the same market, you also can't use a unique mark. This includes the name, not just the logo. You can't make Coca Cola cleaner, you can't make Kodak coffee, you can't make Microsoft paper towel (whatever they do in an entirely different country notwithstanding, they have 4 golden arched McBurgers restaurants and all KINDS of other knockoffs too, that doesn't make it fine in the USA). It's something called "Trademark Dilution" and it's also protected by law. It's especially easy to get if your trademark isn't a real word, like Kodak or Coca-Cola. But even for real words you can get dilution protection. The key is that your mark is so prevalent that the average person thinks if your product when they hear the name. If a mark is unique, this is pretty easy. And so if you start a window cleaning service called "Microsoft Windows" then you will be in deep shit regardless of whether they have registered the mark as a window cleaning service. Dilution law also does not require any chance of confusion. So even if you can argue (and you should be able to) that nobody would think that Microsoft Windows the window cleaner is affiliated with the software company, you're still on the hook for trademark dilution.
After Future Shop in Canada got bought up, they've dumped their non-monster cables and stuff. "Oh, you want an HDMI to go with that TV? That'll be $80. Do you want a fucking $400 god damn power bar? It cleans the power gremlins out of your filthy filthy wall socket. Without the filter the gremlins will take a hammer to the inside of your TV, and eat all your bags of chips. It also somehow makes the sound one hundred times crisper because resonance waves from your dirty power account for a huge portion of the signal noise from home amplifiers and receivers. It also has a display to show the current voltage, so you know just how dirty your power was before we made it sparkling fresh!"
Read the fucking report. An analysis of the binary code revealed 60% similarity. So about 60% of the binary was completely identical. Most of the evaluation functions which are unique to Fruit (AKA not done in other algorithms) were mostly identical, usually with only some constants changed. These are functions that not only are unique in their purpose to those in Fruit, but which have the exact same binary code, the same local variables, declared in the same order. That much duplication is absolutely beyond the pale. In earlier versions of Rybka, they found that obsolete functions from the Crafty codebase were in there. So, you are claiming that not only did he magically duplicate most of the functions, he even had the same useless functions just sitting there not being called. And the exact same unit tests for those unused functions. So, there is a long history of blatant copy and pasting, some of it even completely mindless (copying unused functions). Additionally, he was offered the chance to be on the panel and offer his own input without having to release his sourcecode. He refused to respond whatsoever in his own defense.
Stalking is a degree defined by law. The fourth amendment specifies only that the search must not be unreasonable. This is defined as whether or not it is reasonable to expect privacy, not as whether or not the cost of the search is a reasonable one. And so the "finite resource" argument only enters into it as the question "If you expect you will be private by virtue of nobody having the spare time to follow you, is that expectation reasonable?"
Anemones are flowers. You might think it's being pedantic, but lions, horses, and cucumbers would all like to remind you that the "sea" part of the name is quite important ;)
There are quite a few differences, actually. First and foremost, to restrict any speech, the government must be able to show the court that the speech in question would "surely result in immediate, direct, and irreparable damage to the nation and its people". The accepted argument is that grossly obscene pornography causes harm to the viewer and also to the moral fabric of the nation. Once you have established this, it's easier to also say that since children are not adults, that the threshold for "obscenity" might be lower, and therefore that things not considered obscene to sell to an adult are still obscene to sell to a minor. On the other hand, there is no law restricting violent media for sale to adults, so the government of California was required to pass a much harder test, which they did not. Without showing this, there are no grounds by which the sale can be restricted. The relevant quote is "...California’s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children." That is to say that since "depictions of violence" is not an existing category of speech that is held to be unprotected when it reaches a certain threshold, that the law must pass very strict guidelines. As opposed to a law that took existing "bar" that must be passed, and lowered it when applied to minors instead of adults.
The second difference is basically an appeal to tradition. Pornography has long been restricted. Violent entertainment has not been. Appeal to tradition is not typically a valid argument. But in this case it is. If violent media was so harmful, surely somebody would have done something about it. So since California has long objected to restricting violent movies from sale to minors, they are in a tight spot with regards to videogames. Along the lines of the first, they must not only show that some violent things are clearly and surely harmful to children, they must also show that this harm is specific to videogames, since the law is singling those out. That is, since they are not banning movies or books, they must show that this harm is not caused by movies or books. On the other hand, pornography laws do not single out the medium, so this is again a different argument.
Going back to the first point, though: Pornography is broadly illegal depending on the judge you get. The law bans depictions of sexual activities that have no artistic, literary, or scientific merit. All of those things are entirely up to the judge to decide, and the hokey plot-line used to guide actors from fuck to fuck is not easy to argue as artistic or literary ;) Typically most states leave most porn alone, although people can and do get thrown in jail for a long LONG time for making porn that involves pissing. Rape fantasy porn is another one that can get you locked up for 10+ years. But a lot of states will even go after oral and anal sex. In fact, I think about 23 or so states ban oral and anal sex across the board, not just in porn! And if you think that would be unconstitutional, you're dead wrong. The Supreme Court has in fact upheld bans on consensual oral or anal sex, in private, even between a married couple. Prosecutions are rare against straight couples, but happen to gay men from time to time. Usually for being caught in public bathrooms, but at least a few times police have kicked down the door of a suspected homosexual, caught him in the act, and arrested both men. These warrant-less break-ins are upheld because the police argue they received a 911 call and got the wrong street address, and so had a good-faith reason to be there. Texas had its law struck down by the Supreme Court, but only because it discriminated against gays exclusively. Rick Santorum made his name (or at least, he made his mean mean the frothy mix of lube and semen that results from unprotected anal) as the guyl fighting tooth and nail (his words, even) to uphold this law. Other states that
Samsung phones are easy to root, the bootloader is unlocked so they are easy to update with custom updates, and they release all of their source promptly, meaning there are lots of said custom updates out there.
Out of 40 courses taken in my undergrad at the University of Victoria, the following were not CS courses: 2 first year English courses on technical writing, and doing a proper literature search. 2 first year stats courses. That is all. Four out of forty. And both English and Stats are very useful. If only universities had basic literacy as an entrance requirement. I thought they did, actually, with the literacy entrance exam I had to write, and all that. But any time spent working as a marker quickly dispels that myth ;) But even then, the tech writing course goes beyond basic paper writing and basic literacy. And, really, everybody should have to take a stats class.
Then again, the submitter is thinking that CS==programming. So probably almost all of a computer science degree is wasted on him. "Wahhh that's all math, quit wasting my time!"
The ESO astronomers are made of silica and alumina dust?
They have to rule according to the law. The law says that a maker of a generic drug MUST use the exact warning label on the brand-name drug. If they add an extra warning, they are in serious trouble with the FDA. If they have a duty to add extra warning to the label, then they have a duty to break the law.
That's because it's stupid.
No to number 2. Yes to number 1, but it's not that bad. If you're as close as the "artist's rendition" drawings in the picture, where the gas giant is taking up half of the sky, then yeah, the tidal forces would be millions of times greater than the moons. But that's so absurdly close it doesn't bear thinking. If you take Saturn as a "typical" gas giant, and put a moon 400,000 KM away, then although the tidal forces would still be 10,000 times as great, the size in the sky of Saturn would only be 16 times as great as the Moon. That might cause more frequent eclipses, but they're not going to last much longer. Because at that distance the orbital period of our moon will be 24 hours. A worst-case eclipse would last for 30 minutes, and occur once per day. Depending on the specifics of the orbit, they might occur a whole lot less than that. (We don't get an eclipse every single month). But those tidal forces are still pretty awful. Except that at those forces, the moon would certainly be tidally locked. So although there would be severe stretching because of these forces, the pull would always be in the same direction due to the tidal locking. So there would actually be less severe tides than Earth has.
Nope. The main thrust of the second linked article is that women DON'T like games made for girls. They don't like casual shit, they don't like Barbie Pink Princess Party 18, they don't like that shit. Sexist fucks like you are the problem. Sexist assholes looking down on girls and making pink shit for them, saying they are special delicate flowers and so they need things custom made for them. Every woman I know under 40 plays video games, and they play Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Final Fantasy (one even liked 12 and 13!) Half Life, Portal, God of War, Devil May Cry, Assassins' Creed etc. etc. Most of them don't like FPS games, mostly because there's no story, no plot, the game is 2 hours long, and then to go get your ass kicked online by 12 year old boys skipping school. That's why I don't play most of them, either ;)
Didn't read it, did ya. It says that gamers are equally men and women. There isn't money to be made unless the assumption is that women should, by virtue of being female, be playing MORE games than men. It's like saying "50 percent of movie goers are women. Movies are obviously not targeted at women, and that needs to change." Mentally retarded. Ya, women don't like pointless action T+A movies like Fast 5 just like they don't like pointless action T+A video games (Except that every female gamer I know loves God of War, as pointless an action game loaded with needless T+A as you're likely to find). If only there were other movies, like the kind that women are already watching because it's a non-issue? And just to reiterate, TFA is saying that women aren't playing casual games only, that a lot of them don't even like casual games.
Anyways, the University of Illinois runs a games4girls compeition where teams of female university students make games. They don't make Bejeweled but more pink. They usually make sidescrolling platformers, shooters, and RPGs. AKA, just what guys make in amateur game design competitions.
Same with Canada, sort of. Our distances and speeds are in KM, our food is sold by the gram, but we measure ourselves in feet and weight ourselves in pounds. I have no idea how many meters I am. More than 1, less than 2, that's as good as you'll get if I don't have a calculator. Fluids are all in l/ml though, even beer. Sure, you can order a pint, and the glass is a pint glass, but everybody I know just asks for a glass (OK, to be honest, everybody I know just asks for a pitcher). At the liquor store, some cans say 473 ml (American pint, 2 imperial cups), some say 500 (metric pints), some say 568 (Imperial Pint), but they're all pint cans. Whether they are filled to the exact ml amount they claim on the side is something I've never been bothered to test. And I have no idea what a temperature in Fahrenheit feels like, except that over 90 is somewhere between "hot" and "damn hot" and under 60 is "no longer teeshirt weather."
One dollar is under the limit for classifying it as "bank robbery." That's why it says "larceny."
It's number two. The states were suing companies over power plants operated OUTSIDE those states, even though those companies were complying with state and federal laws. The states were arguing that producing CO2 is a "public nuisance" and trying to get them to reduce emissions across the entire country, not just within their own borders. The supreme court ruled that that's the EPA's job, and that if they are not satisfied with the EPA's rules (not yet released) then there are legal channels in place to appeal those rules. They are just still under review and so cannot be appealed until they exist.
You're thinking too black and white. Consider copyright violation as broadly belonging to three classes. The first, perhaps we can call "surprise sharing". That's the pirate bay sort of thing, you download a copy for your own use. Or you take a CD to a friends house and install the game on their machine, plus a no-cd crack. So, some on Slashdot might think that's perfectly OK, and some might say "Well, that's not OK but it's not a serious case of copyright violation". Both of those groups object to the multi-million dollar judgments against these people. The second case we can call actual piracy, the way the word has been used for centuries by authors and playwrights: This is when you are making unauthorized copies/editions and selling them without paying royalties. So that's when you have a guy selling burnt copies of movies and music on the street corner for $10 a pop. That's when you have music labels publishing compilation albums without paying for permission to do so. It's not hypocrisy to consider this case to be worse than the first. In one case, you are "sharing", even though perhaps that's not the right thing to be doing. And certainly P2P is much more large-scale than taking a CD to a friend's house so you might also make a distinction there. But certainly profiting off it is worse than non-profit sharing, even if neither situation is very desirable from the authors point of view? I mentioned three classes. The third is, in my opinion, the worst. This is when instead of writing your own program, you take source code from somebody else's, and you just strip their name off and put your own. Maybe you change it, maybe you don't. Either way, it's not just copyright violation (possibly/probably for profit), it's also plagiarism. GPL violations fall into the last two cases, typically. You have somebody who's selling software that uses the GPL, but they're not following the license, or you have somebody selling software that secretly uses GPL'd software, but they've stripped all the identifications out. I assert that there's no cognitive dissonance involved in saying that either case is worse than sharing games on TPB. Now, if you're saying that torrenting is A-OK but GPL violations are very bad, well, then that's a bit of hypocrisy I'd agree. But I think you'll find that a lot of the "pro" piracy posts are not so much saying "Pirated copies want to be free" as they are "Isn't a million or $200,000 or whatever a bit steep?" Especially when companies who are doing number two or number three aren't even getting fines that big. It's certainly reasonable to say "I don't think the fine should be so large for no-charge piracy" and also say "I think the GPL should be enforced". Especially since they're typically asking for the code to be shared, not for billion dollar fines.
Explain how XMODEM load balances between multiple distribution servers, and explain how it redirects the client's modem line to the appropriate distribution server. Or, did you not read the patent at all, and just assumed this was on the "split file into small pieces" part and not the whole "distributed" thing at all? Because if it's the latter, you're pretty stupid.
He's a moron. He didn't read the patent at all. He just said "Suing BitTorrent? The only thing I know about torrents is they split files into chunks and do an error check on each chunk! XMODEM does that too! So clearly a patent on any part of BitTorrent must be on the only part I know anything about, so the patent MUST apply to XMODEM too!". The patent is about load balancing. BitTorrent load balances because you'll request chunks from peers that aren't busy, as opposed to ones that are saturating their link already. XMODEM doesn't do that at all. (How could it redirect the modem line to a different computer, anyways?)
Actually, the patent requires that the file database be used to store at least one file that is compressed. That's part of claim 1. If you don't meet everything in claim 1, you don't violate the patent. Since BitTorrent is often used to share compressed files, but does not REQUIRE it, then the software itself doesn't violate the patent, ONLY the users who share a compressed file. I don't know if you can argue that since that's an easy piece for the users to add, that it still violates the patent even though it doesn't satisfy all of the claim. That's for a lawyer to answer ;)
Not prior art. The patent requires a media server hosting one or more files, and one or more distribution servers set up to mirror those files. The media server, upon receiving a request, directs that request to the distribution server best able to satisfy the request, based on current network throughput. (That is, probably it just sends it to the least busy server.) In a multi-node BBS, what is the media server, and what is the distribution client? Is the phone switch the media server? Because it's the one deciding which computer to connect you to. Or is the computer your modem is talking to the server? Because in that case it doesn't direct you to a free distribution server, it sends you the file directly. Now, if there were multiple network file servers and the BBS servers were load balancing between them, then it MIGHT apply, except that it's not redirecting the client to them, it's redirecting itself to them. So no, even in situations like that the patent does not apply.
To be clear: You need a media file server. That file server must respond to requests for file downloads from users. You need one or more distribution servers. The media server must redirect download requests to a distribution server, and the decision of which one must be based on network throughput. Load balancing web servers meet these requirements. So if they were around prior to 1999, they are prior art. BBSs do not meet these requirements, because, for one, you can't just redirect a modem line to a new server on the fly. And there's no reason to, because modem lines are boolean. You are using all of the line, or you aren't using it at all. You can't load balance that. And besides which, the redirection must be on a file-by-file basis, or on a frame-by-frame basis if the file has been split.
OK, lets say there is only a single gold coin in town. That's the only currency in existence. OK so far? So, I have that one coin, and I pay somebody that coin for a new window. The glassier takes that coin, and he goes to the pub and he buys a beer for that one coin. Now the bar pays the bartender with that one coin. Now he takes that coin and he buys a sandwich with that coin. Oops, so far our town as a GDP of 4 coins, but there's only one in existence. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET THAT AN ECONOMY IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME? I know, you should use the broken window fallacy next! Point out that if you hadn't broken my window in that above example that the GDP of my fictional town would have been 0 instead of 4! ;)