Actually, the title came from the fact that the main robot character, played by Robin Williams, 'lived' for 200 years.
No, that was the excuse for the title. The reason for the title was, as the grandparent suggested, that it was written for a bicentennial story collection.
I know what you mean. Some torrents max out my connection with no problem, others don't, and the number of seeds and peers seems to have no connection to the success rate. It obviously has more to do with whether I get a reliable connection to one or two fast peers.
A couple of other things I've noticed with BT. One is that if I have a second torrent running, it often won't get any remote connections, suggesting that the first torrent is taking all my available ports.
Another is that sometimes the tracker will identify my real IP address, and other times I will show as the IP address of my ISP's proxy server.
[i]You may not think so, but the creators of content have always had rights to said content which should be observed. [/i] Not really. The only natural rights they have are to release the work into the commons, or keep it to themselves. They have for a relatively short time had artificial rights in an attempt to create a middle ground, but recent abuses have demonstrated that it's time those were removed.
On a side note, there was a low-bidget version of "The Core." It had a different title, and they didn't have to go all the way down. But it was SO similar it was funny.
"Deep Core," which was actually released three years earlier, and although it's a lot cheaper, the plot and setting are marginally more believable. The only explanation for "The Core" is that someone saw that and decided that it would have worked if only it had been higher budget and more spectacular. They were wrong.
If people stop receiving spam, and therefore the morons among us stop giving money to spammers by buying their crap, and thus remove all semblances of profits obtained through spamming, there won't really be much incentive to spam anymore, will there?
Right, because we all know that people with a no-longer-relevant business model are quite happy to give it up and move on to something else.
Quite the opposite. We need to hurry up and get Sterling into the Euro. Then the dollar will go through the floor, the American economy will collapse, and maybe the EU will stop modelling its laws on what's 'obviously' working so well for the USA.
They say that the patent plans have been shelved indefinately. Who is right?
They are talking about a different proposal, for having a single patent 'territory' covering the whole EU, rather than patents within individuual countries. The directive on what is patentable will still have to be implemented by the individual countries, even if the EU-wide patent never happens.
but at this point, if he wanted to, our fraudster could transfer 2000 dollars to the seller of 'laptop'
How, exactly? The seller never gave him any real financial details - one of the biggest giveaways that the site was fake was that it had nowhere to enter them - so the scammer has nowhere to transfer it to.
There's a good chance that he also has nowhere to transfer it from; as a dealer in stolen goods and quite possibly an illegal immigrant, I would imagine the only bank accounts he ever deals with are stolen from other people.
The PDF is out of date. Unfortunately, after reading through 74 pages of the original thread - just past the point where the UK goons had confirmed that the P-P-Powerbook had been delivered - SA decided it wasn't going to let me read the remaining seven pages without being registered.
How magnanimous of them. Why the British should be allowed to say anything else about any country is beyond me.
It isn't another country, it has never been another country. There is a basic misapprehension that the British went in and annexed the provinces from Eire, but there was no such thing as Eire at the time.
The most ridiculous part to me of lens-flare is that originally, it was to be avoided at all costs since it interfered with the suspension of disbelief (ie. it reminds the viewer that they're viewing something seen by a camera, not them), but somehow it got absorbed into the grammar of cinema as being cool. Videogames, not actually using a lens in the rendering process, were immune to the effect, but labored hard in efforts to reproduce it.
I think either JMS or Ron Thornton is to blame for that one. IIRC the lens-flare plugin used in B5 was developed specifically on the request of one or both of them, and in my opinion it ruined some of the best CGI sequences in the series, as well as setting a very bad precedent.
The point of putting biometric data on the card [i]should[/i] be that there [i]is[/i] no central database. The issuing authority confirms your identity, generates a card with your biometric information (but not any other information), and the biometrics prove that you are entitled to carry the card without revealing who you are.
This is how it should work. This is not, of course, how they intend it to work.
the company should have known within a few years of its adoption that it may infringe their patent.
The original company did, and waived any claim over JPEG (not to the patent, just that they would not claim for its use in JPEG). But there's no legal mechanism for writing such conditions into the patent, so when Forgent bought the company and obtained the patent, they were not bound by the wishes of the original company. It's almost the same as with copyright - the copyright holder can put any conditions he likes on the work, including 'I retain the copyright but do what you like with it', but unless he actually states that he is releasing it to the public domain, someone who later obtains the copyright can change those conditions.
Not necessarily true. The Doctrine of Laches relies on demonstrating negligence on the part of the patent holder, and is unlikely to be held against a new owner.
But all of the patent holders have waved their rights with regard to the JPEG 2000 standard.
The original holder of this patent waived their rights. Didn't stop the new owners from asserting them, though, and the same thing could easily happen again. The problem is that you can't really waive patent rights, just choose not to enforce them.
Because it wasn't their patent in the past. They bought the company that owned it; the original company wanted to leave the standard alone and not enforce the patent. The current owners don't have the same opinion and there's nothing in the transfer of patents that forces them to respect the original owners' wishes.
Just to give you a counter-example, my main address started getting 30+ spams a day from the time it was created, whereas my address as webmaster of a small website, which is a clear mailto: link on the page, gets about one a month. If you're on a residential ISP against whom the spammers run a dictionary attack, then publishing the email is irrelevant.
FWIW, OSRM is PJs employer.
So, if she's being scammed, it's been happening for quite a while.. I have the feeling this is something she talked the company into.
No, OSRM basically sprang into existence and then headhunted PJ and Bruce with the promise that they wouldn't actually have to do too much and could carry on doing their open-source work. It is a scam, and PJ and Bruce are just names on paper to give it a veneer of legitimacy.
Anyone here know what's the name for this "what with" construct? Is it from another language (if it appears in German, maybe)? What is its correct usage?
It is fairly common in spoken UK English, but I haven't seen it written very often. Every example I can think of could be replaced with 'considering' (and would be, if I was writing formally).
Y'know, I'm thinking maybe that isn't what they meant. Isn't overbroad legislation wonderful?:-)
Maybe it's exactly what they meant. If whiny broadcasters were lobbying me all the time about such a trivial thing, I think I'd take a lot of satisfaction in passing a law which 'accidentally' made it illegal to watch their product:-)
For example Viagra, made by Pfizer, if they penalized Pfizer for spam and not controlling the methods of their advertising, I'm sure many companies would think twice about their methods to deliver content.
Actually, it should be Pfizer going after them, since any Viagra advertised by spammers (if it even contains the drug at all) will be an unlicenced rip-off.
Which just goes to show - even spammers who leave themselves open to prosecution under what most of us agree are overly-restrictive IP laws, still don't get punised.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that was the excuse for the title. The reason for the title was, as the grandparent suggested, that it was written for a bicentennial story collection.
We're not talking here about articles from old paper editions. We're talking about articles that they have already published online.
A couple of other things I've noticed with BT. One is that if I have a second torrent running, it often won't get any remote connections, suggesting that the first torrent is taking all my available ports.
Another is that sometimes the tracker will identify my real IP address, and other times I will show as the IP address of my ISP's proxy server.
[i]You may not think so, but the creators of content have always had rights to said content which should be observed. [/i] Not really. The only natural rights they have are to release the work into the commons, or keep it to themselves. They have for a relatively short time had artificial rights in an attempt to create a middle ground, but recent abuses have demonstrated that it's time those were removed.
"Deep Core," which was actually released three years earlier, and although it's a lot cheaper, the plot and setting are marginally more believable. The only explanation for "The Core" is that someone saw that and decided that it would have worked if only it had been higher budget and more spectacular. They were wrong.
Right, because we all know that people with a no-longer-relevant business model are quite happy to give it up and move on to something else.
Quite the opposite. We need to hurry up and get Sterling into the Euro. Then the dollar will go through the floor, the American economy will collapse, and maybe the EU will stop modelling its laws on what's 'obviously' working so well for the USA.
They are talking about a different proposal, for having a single patent 'territory' covering the whole EU, rather than patents within individuual countries. The directive on what is patentable will still have to be implemented by the individual countries, even if the EU-wide patent never happens.
I believe it's a default theme on the software (geeklog?) that's used for both sites.
How, exactly? The seller never gave him any real financial details - one of the biggest giveaways that the site was fake was that it had nowhere to enter them - so the scammer has nowhere to transfer it to.
There's a good chance that he also has nowhere to transfer it from; as a dealer in stolen goods and quite possibly an illegal immigrant, I would imagine the only bank accounts he ever deals with are stolen from other people.
The PDF is out of date. Unfortunately, after reading through 74 pages of the original thread - just past the point where the UK goons had confirmed that the P-P-Powerbook had been delivered - SA decided it wasn't going to let me read the remaining seven pages without being registered.
It isn't another country, it has never been another country. There is a basic misapprehension that the British went in and annexed the provinces from Eire, but there was no such thing as Eire at the time.
I think either JMS or Ron Thornton is to blame for that one. IIRC the lens-flare plugin used in B5 was developed specifically on the request of one or both of them, and in my opinion it ruined some of the best CGI sequences in the series, as well as setting a very bad precedent.
Did it again. This is what I get for posting on VB/UBB forums and here in the same session.
The point of putting biometric data on the card [i]should[/i] be that there [i]is[/i] no central database. The issuing authority confirms your identity, generates a card with your biometric information (but not any other information), and the biometrics prove that you are entitled to carry the card without revealing who you are. This is how it should work. This is not, of course, how they intend it to work.
The original company did, and waived any claim over JPEG (not to the patent, just that they would not claim for its use in JPEG). But there's no legal mechanism for writing such conditions into the patent, so when Forgent bought the company and obtained the patent, they were not bound by the wishes of the original company. It's almost the same as with copyright - the copyright holder can put any conditions he likes on the work, including 'I retain the copyright but do what you like with it', but unless he actually states that he is releasing it to the public domain, someone who later obtains the copyright can change those conditions.
Not necessarily true. The Doctrine of Laches relies on demonstrating negligence on the part of the patent holder, and is unlikely to be held against a new owner.
But all of the patent holders have waved their rights with regard to the JPEG 2000 standard. The original holder of this patent waived their rights. Didn't stop the new owners from asserting them, though, and the same thing could easily happen again. The problem is that you can't really waive patent rights, just choose not to enforce them.
Because it wasn't their patent in the past. They bought the company that owned it; the original company wanted to leave the standard alone and not enforce the patent. The current owners don't have the same opinion and there's nothing in the transfer of patents that forces them to respect the original owners' wishes.
Just to give you a counter-example, my main address started getting 30+ spams a day from the time it was created, whereas my address as webmaster of a small website, which is a clear mailto: link on the page, gets about one a month. If you're on a residential ISP against whom the spammers run a dictionary attack, then publishing the email is irrelevant.
FWIW, OSRM is PJs employer. So, if she's being scammed, it's been happening for quite a while.. I have the feeling this is something she talked the company into. No, OSRM basically sprang into existence and then headhunted PJ and Bruce with the promise that they wouldn't actually have to do too much and could carry on doing their open-source work. It is a scam, and PJ and Bruce are just names on paper to give it a veneer of legitimacy.
I think you should have given that one to google.
It is fairly common in spoken UK English, but I haven't seen it written very often. Every example I can think of could be replaced with 'considering' (and would be, if I was writing formally).
Maybe it's exactly what they meant. If whiny broadcasters were lobbying me all the time about such a trivial thing, I think I'd take a lot of satisfaction in passing a law which 'accidentally' made it illegal to watch their product :-)
Actually, it should be Pfizer going after them, since any Viagra advertised by spammers (if it even contains the drug at all) will be an unlicenced rip-off.
Which just goes to show - even spammers who leave themselves open to prosecution under what most of us agree are overly-restrictive IP laws, still don't get punised.