The way I see it, this will be science that doesn't get covered by the mainstream media-- and more accurate, to boot.
Quit saying the SciFi channel is adequate. They ****ing have John Edward's Crossing Over on it. What's sad is people believe that cold-reading trickery. TechTV is nice, also, but is it raw science discussion? Certainly not.
I want to see raw, unfiltered science discussion, not the new "cool hot topic" like string theory.
Also, part of the scientific process is peer review. This should certainly help, don't you think?
It's too hard to find good science nowadays. Hell, PBS sells stupid creationism B.S. with their science stuff...
While this cyberslack has its downside-porn, credit-card fraud and insincere bids on eBay-it was considered a small price to pay for free speech and friction-free business models.
Objective reporting? So much for the "liberal" media... including porn in a list of fraud and dishonesty just doesn't seem like integrity to me.
This looks stupid. If you need dialup (who does nowadays?), get dialup worth your money-- that is, NOT costing $10 (which will be what this costs after March).
I don't see what's so special about "Netscape" dial-up.
Seriously, though... you do need to take into consideration small things like this. Would YOU like to be thrown into a loop because of the current limitations of technology?
Iris and fingerprints are probably more reliable. I was, however, referring to just the face portion.
I don't really have any problem with scanning eyes or fingerprints, although I wonder how a severe-burn victim with no eyes and no hands would deal with this...;)
We can't automate the process entirely because of the few who might get screwed over for whatever reason. We still need human intepretation for special cases.
It would be quite embarrassing for, say, a burn victim to have to take a picture of themselves like that.
Although it might be necessary. Still, what if someone was in the healing process or getting their face repaired, which may take multiple operations over a period of time? As I understand it, getting your body/face repaired after a severe accident can take quite a while, I don't think it happens overnight with a single surgery. Although I might be wrong.
How will this effect movie stars and other famous people such as Michael Jackson? People who alter their faces like I change my socks will obviously be having problems.
On a more serious note, how does this effect people who are the result of severe burns, car accidents, plastic surgergy, radioactive mutations, aging, etc? Obviously if someone's face is altered they will have some problems.
In one case, something is lost, in another, something is copied. The difference is the original from the copy is still intact. It's still different, whether you want to say it or not.
And I'm not saying it's necessarily different morally or not. I'm not taking a position.
Yes, I know putting them together would be copyright infringment. However, if someone does not share the complete work and only shares a portion of the file they would be safe from the RIAA's gaping mouth of doom.
Just imagine -
Britney Spheres Sample X/12, where X is the sample number, or whatever is necessary.
In the case of the chocolate bar, you are STEALING an individual, unique chocolate bar-- taking something composed of matter from someone else. If you wish to compare this to music file sharing, it would be like taking a chocolate bar and allowing other people to magically copy the chocolate for themselves while you still keep the original bar.
Again, it's copyright infringement, which is not the same as theft (both by definition and by the law).
File sharing is not theft. Theft is when property is stolen (i.e., someone takes your desk or music CD).
File sharing differs because you are not stealing something unique, you are copying. If I made a desk design and "copyrighted" it, and someone copied my design, it would not be theft, either, it would be copyright infringment.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see it, this will be science that doesn't get covered by the mainstream media-- and more accurate, to boot.
Quit saying the SciFi channel is adequate. They ****ing have John Edward's Crossing Over on it. What's sad is people believe that cold-reading trickery. TechTV is nice, also, but is it raw science discussion? Certainly not.
I want to see raw, unfiltered science discussion, not the new "cool hot topic" like string theory.
Also, part of the scientific process is peer review. This should certainly help, don't you think?
It's too hard to find good science nowadays. Hell, PBS sells stupid creationism B.S. with their science stuff...
...the microsoft regime change... :)
While this cyberslack has its downside-porn, credit-card fraud and insincere bids on eBay-it was considered a small price to pay for free speech and friction-free business models.
Objective reporting? So much for the "liberal" media... including porn in a list of fraud and dishonesty just doesn't seem like integrity to me.
This looks stupid. If you need dialup (who does nowadays?), get dialup worth your money-- that is, NOT costing $10 (which will be what this costs after March).
I don't see what's so special about "Netscape" dial-up.
What if your head and hands gets hacked off?
;)
Seriously, though... you do need to take into consideration small things like this. Would YOU like to be thrown into a loop because of the current limitations of technology?
Iris and fingerprints are probably more reliable. I was, however, referring to just the face portion.
I don't really have any problem with scanning eyes or fingerprints, although I wonder how a severe-burn victim with no eyes and no hands would deal with this...
We can't automate the process entirely because of the few who might get screwed over for whatever reason. We still need human intepretation for special cases.
It would be quite embarrassing for, say, a burn victim to have to take a picture of themselves like that.
Although it might be necessary. Still, what if someone was in the healing process or getting their face repaired, which may take multiple operations over a period of time? As I understand it, getting your body/face repaired after a severe accident can take quite a while, I don't think it happens overnight with a single surgery. Although I might be wrong.
How will this effect movie stars and other famous people such as Michael Jackson? People who alter their faces like I change my socks will obviously be having problems.
On a more serious note, how does this effect people who are the result of severe burns, car accidents, plastic surgergy, radioactive mutations, aging, etc? Obviously if someone's face is altered they will have some problems.
ONLY 300ms on 56k?
When I had 56k, I usually had 800ms.
Everyone's excuse for dying in CS is because of latency. "OMG PING TIMES!!!". I frankly don't think anything will change.
...a DDoS attack over this looking like a scence out of Hitchcock's The Birds...
Why would you? Your existing solution of Windows Crap is working just fine.
:)
Windows, "work just fine"? Give me a break.
Seriously, though, the media's sensationalism is what makes this double-standard happen: it's okay if it's in a movie, but in a video game? NO WAY!
Darl McBride, stumbling drunk (as usual) around SCO's headquarters, accidently tripped over the server's power cord.
SCO's technicians are busy working to fix the problem.
Main can be void if you don't want it to return anything.
/w return 0;" in the first place?
In the case of the hello world function, there is nothing to return, so why make it "int main()
Yes, I know that there are no operator after the cout.
void main()
{
cout "Hello world!";
}
In one case, something is lost, in another, something is copied. The difference is the original from the copy is still intact. It's still different, whether you want to say it or not.
And I'm not saying it's necessarily different morally or not. I'm not taking a position.
Yes, I know putting them together would be copyright infringment. However, if someone does not share the complete work and only shares a portion of the file they would be safe from the RIAA's gaping mouth of doom.
Just imagine -
Britney Spheres Sample X/12, where X is the sample number, or whatever is necessary.
Um, no.
In the case of the chocolate bar, you are STEALING an individual, unique chocolate bar-- taking something composed of matter from someone else. If you wish to compare this to music file sharing, it would be like taking a chocolate bar and allowing other people to magically copy the chocolate for themselves while you still keep the original bar.
Again, it's copyright infringement, which is not the same as theft (both by definition and by the law).
How long a "sample size" could a person share legally? That is, only a portion of the music-- like a quote out of a book, for example.
Just imagine, people share fragments of songs and then cut them together for private use-- although annoying, would that work?
File sharing is not theft. Theft is when property is stolen (i.e., someone takes your desk or music CD).
File sharing differs because you are not stealing something unique, you are copying. If I made a desk design and "copyrighted" it, and someone copied my design, it would not be theft, either, it would be copyright infringment.
The two are different.
Yes, AudioGalaxy was the best MP3 program around.
I didn't use it for anything covered by the RIAA, as well. I don't listen to crap.
Don't be silly. This is America. If you don't have money you don't have justice, 'tis fact.
If you are wronged by a big corporation you're going to need big bucks to right that wrong, big bucks (and time!) most Americans simply don't have.
The RIAA knows it, and every other company in the country knows it. Money is power.
"Dude, you're getting... "
Uhm.
Uh...
Hmm... pell... nell... tell... no, no...
Well, crap. Anyone else wanna take a shot at this?
How do you know they are "unlawful" combatants if they don't have a trial?