So the real test would be downloading one of the HD movie trailers from iTunes and trying it on the AppleTV product.
You can't play the trailers on an Apple TV because the Apple TV has a playback bitrate limit of 5Mb/s, and the Apple HD trailers are more than 5Mb/s (8 Mb/s, it seems). http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/05/apple-tv-review /
Humans are going to see violence and do violence no matter what. They're going to bang twelve year olds, shoot cops, and drive drunk. And there's nothing anyone can do about it (no matter what you think), so we should accept it, attempt to mitigate any negatives, and move on with our lives.
Many pidgin languages are named some variation of "Pidgin" but they don't have exclusive claim to the title.
For example, Tok Pisin was formerly a pidgin (now it is a creole) which is the combination of "talk" and "pidgin" in Papua New Guinea.
Don't even get me started on how stupid the idea of calling an IM client which is the combination of AIM, ICQ, MSN, &c is. From Wikipedia:
Pidgins have rudimentary grammars and restricted vocabulary
. Compare that with
A creole language, or simply a creole, is stable language that originated from a non-trivial combination of two or more languages, typically with many features that are not inherited from either parent.
Calling it "Pidgin" implies that it is unstable, underdeveloped, serves only the most basic of needs, and that no one uses it comfortably (a pidgin is never a native language). I understand the motivation, but I think it should have been called Creole instead, because Creole is the natural evolution of a Pidgin. It is fleshed out, spoken as a native language, and can be used in any situation.
As a user of gaim and a linguaphile, I just don't like it.
Correct. The only party who may initiate a claim is the "legal or beneficial owner under a copyright," as given in 17 U.S.C. 501(b).
(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright.
Who has legal standings to proceed in civil matters?
Could you narrow that question down a bit? Because the answer to that question is "anyone, depending on the circumstances." You don't have to be a citizen of the US to sue in US court. Hell, you don't even have to be in the US to initiate a suit in US court.
Should we follow *anything* without evidence? I know I don't, ironically, science doesn't allow me to.
First of all, the evidence is that scientists uniformly believe, based on what they allege to be scientific evidence, in evolution COMBINED with the fact that the vast majority of these scientists are trustworthy individuals.
On a related note, since you don't follow anything without evidence, do you use any computer programs at all that you have not reviewed every line of source code and compiled yourself? If you do, you apparently lack the same evidence that you accuse others of believing without.
We all believe in things through faith rather than hard proof, simply because no one has time to verify everything they do with independent research in a field of study they have built singlehandedly from the ground up.
The ignorance to evolution is amazing in this country. It's no surprise at all people haven't embraced it here like they have overseas in Europe.
My girlfriend is from Venezuela, a very Catholic nation. However, no one over there has a problem with evolution, she says, because when taught in school, no teacher is like MAN CAME FROM MONKEYS!!!one!11! Instead, they just teach the process, and the students are never confronted with having to decide if they like the fact that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.
In the US, it just seems that we've always made a religious argument out of the man-monkey combination, and that's what this all comes from. If this wasn't the CENTRAL TENET of evolution as taught in secondary schools in the US, we wouldn't have this problem.
I've always thought that a good argument could be had via mathematics when considering "Daddy, if God exists, why did mommy die when she was 35?" That argument is (granted, a five year old doesn't understand this argument;)
1. God exists forever. 2. Man exists for finite time. 3. Therefore, from God's timeline, to exist for finite time is functionally equivalent to existing for zero time. 4. Therefore, from God's timeline, dying is equivalent to having never been born/conceived/created. 5. Therefore, Mommy dying was no more cruel on God's part than she and I were by deciding not to have another baby.
The straight "fact" that an AI doesn't even have any time spent on the visual identifying of objects on the screen because it has the raw data before you even get it on the screen is enough. Let alone the straight up l33t math skills that a computer can employ to beat you at any targeting matchup. It knows the elevation and windage needed to hit the target because it is part of the program that is in control of that exact data. How do you think that the computer determines if your shot hits a target, it does the exact same math for every one of your shots that it would use to hit you every time.
That's not AI, that's computing just the same as one would not call a computer running Mathematica "AI."
AI in an FPS would be if the computer received a matrix of pixels of what would be on their screen if they were human, and then discerning from the pixels where the enemies were and how they were moving.
A properly coded AI bot would not have access to the location of every player. Think about OOP for a sec: one object would be the map, and another would be the bot. The bot is not the map or server, and does not have a perfect map. It only has exactly what a human would have: an imperfect representation of a map in its memory, with no access to the perfect map the server has.
In an OOP world, the main class running server-side would be Game. Game would have an array of Player classes. Player would be an interface (not a class) implemented by either ComputerPlayer or NoncomputerPlayer. The perfect class Map would be an element of Game, not of ComputerPlayer. If it was an element of ComputerPlayer, it would have to be an element of Player, which means it would be an element of NoncomputerPlayer, and as we all know, humans do not have a perfect map to use.
Of course, games probably aren't designed this way simply because COMPUTER AI COULD NOT WIN EVER if it had to play this way. Hell, computers have a hard enough time picking certain shapes out of static images, and definitely not in real time!
There are quite a few knowledgeable lawyers regarding the internet. I'm sure a good one would merely make this analogy:
Suppose A owns a house with a painting inside near a window. He invites people to walk by his house and view the painting through the window under the license that they credit him for anything they do with the IP of the painting (perhaps A even charges admission); this costs A some money per view, say electricity to keep a lamp turned on and lighting up the painting (this lamp only turns on when someone attempts to view the painting).
Now B has set up some really powerful telescope that is aimed directly at A's window inside his house. B then profits from having people check out A's painting through telescope. This triggers A's lamp and costs A money, of course. B does not credit A, nor does B compensate A.
A replaces the painting with another one.
Question for the court: Did A have a legal right to replace the painting in his own home without informing B (for any reason, even a bad faith reason), especially when B was costing A money AND violating the terms of the license to view which B agreed to when setting up the telescope?
Answer: Of course. Any judge can see that.
How's that analogy, does it work? And I didn't even use a car analogy!
Really though, this is about what you do with what you own and we should not undo a century of sensible policy. Once you buy something you own it and can do what you want, right down to giving it away. Why give up that right?
Funny enough, that argument worked exactly the same way 160 years ago regarding slaves. Not that I'm anti-consumer here, I just thought it was an amazing coicidence how well your argument works for things we as a society view as heinous nowadays.
Dismissed with prejudice is the next best thing to "Not Guilty".
It's better than "not guilty". It carries the same legal effect, except it is saying that the case against you was so weak that the court threw it out before even deciding liable or not (there is no "guilt" in civil cases). Beyond that, it saves you money as you get out of court quicker than if you'd waited around for a jury or judge to decide on liability.
I used to not really get it either. There are a few songs that I enjoyed growing up (yes, I'm down with OPP), but for the most part I just couldn't get into it.
That all changed with the nerdcore scene. Say what you will about it, but now I get hip-hop. The first time I heard "Geek" by mc chris, I got it. "Hassle: The Dorkening" by MC Frontalot and "Alice and Bob" by MC Plus+, not to mention "Meganerd" by ytcracker all speak to me the way very little music on the radio can. I get it when I hear
never get discouraged just let your nerdy flourish cuz were native to this code and the rest are all just tourists
and
Dont fuck with a geek, just cuz he got a gift. You get in my way bitch you get a Vulcan neck pinch.
Hip-hop is just another form of musical expression, and through various subgenres, it has been robust enough to have a literal, direct meaning for someone who had a upper-middle-class upbringing.
Well, I think this post stopped being a hip-hop post and became just an excuse for me to talk about nerdcore:\
I don't know about other universities, but at the University of Texas, we have to pay for our internet access within the dorms. When I was an undergrad, I paid for a certain number of GB/wk. Once over the limit, we were capped at dial-up speeds. Of course LAN activity didn't count against us.
Would it be so difficult if robots.txt becomes opt-in. Meaning the no robots.txt equals no spiders.
Yes.
Say what you will about the quality of "web amateur" writings on the net, but there would be a truckload of information which would never show up online because the person didn't know about robots.txt. Search engines would remain useful when searching for certain material, but when searching for something academic, you'd probably miss out on a large percentage of university professors' websites and instructional materials because of the opt-in policy in place.
Sure, knowledge of this might spread and within a generation everyone would know to add robots.txt, but for an entire generation while everyone learned that, we'd be missing out on a huge portion of the internet (more so than we already are).
Beyond that, with an opt-in policy, we'd only be able to search within those sites which were maintained by people who really, really wanted their content indexed. Lazy, uninformed, or non-caring people would not have their materials indexed, and all internauts (is that not the word the French use for 'netizens' or whatever?) would suffer.
She's with the "pro-spanking, home-schooling, families-first forces."
I was completely with you until you said this. I'm confused as to which of these terms would make her disliked by courts. I guess I can see how her view of "family-first" has been perverted when you read the other elements in your list, but this line was completely irrelevant. I sure hope that a normal person would view family as being very important; furthermore, home-schooling is legal and so is spanking. They're not even close to being illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't even get me started on how stupid the idea of calling an IM client which is the combination of AIM, ICQ, MSN, &c is. From Wikipedia:. Compare that withCalling it "Pidgin" implies that it is unstable, underdeveloped, serves only the most basic of needs, and that no one uses it comfortably (a pidgin is never a native language). I understand the motivation, but I think it should have been called Creole instead, because Creole is the natural evolution of a Pidgin. It is fleshed out, spoken as a native language, and can be used in any situation.
As a user of gaim and a linguaphile, I just don't like it.
I suspect you asked her for $130 bucks so you could get her a copy, right. After all, this was her home computer, not work computer.
On a related note, since you don't follow anything without evidence, do you use any computer programs at all that you have not reviewed every line of source code and compiled yourself? If you do, you apparently lack the same evidence that you accuse others of believing without.
We all believe in things through faith rather than hard proof, simply because no one has time to verify everything they do with independent research in a field of study they have built singlehandedly from the ground up.
In the US, it just seems that we've always made a religious argument out of the man-monkey combination, and that's what this all comes from. If this wasn't the CENTRAL TENET of evolution as taught in secondary schools in the US, we wouldn't have this problem.
I've always thought that a good argument could be had via mathematics when considering "Daddy, if God exists, why did mommy die when she was 35?" That argument is (granted, a five year old doesn't understand this argument ;)
1. God exists forever.
2. Man exists for finite time.
3. Therefore, from God's timeline, to exist for finite time is functionally equivalent to existing for zero time.
4. Therefore, from God's timeline, dying is equivalent to having never been born/conceived/created.
5. Therefore, Mommy dying was no more cruel on God's part than she and I were by deciding not to have another baby.
AI in an FPS would be if the computer received a matrix of pixels of what would be on their screen if they were human, and then discerning from the pixels where the enemies were and how they were moving.
A properly coded AI bot would not have access to the location of every player. Think about OOP for a sec: one object would be the map, and another would be the bot. The bot is not the map or server, and does not have a perfect map. It only has exactly what a human would have: an imperfect representation of a map in its memory, with no access to the perfect map the server has.
In an OOP world, the main class running server-side would be Game. Game would have an array of Player classes. Player would be an interface (not a class) implemented by either ComputerPlayer or NoncomputerPlayer. The perfect class Map would be an element of Game, not of ComputerPlayer. If it was an element of ComputerPlayer, it would have to be an element of Player, which means it would be an element of NoncomputerPlayer, and as we all know, humans do not have a perfect map to use.
Of course, games probably aren't designed this way simply because COMPUTER AI COULD NOT WIN EVER if it had to play this way. Hell, computers have a hard enough time picking certain shapes out of static images, and definitely not in real time!
Better not let those kids near our Slurm factory! "It's highly addictive!"
There are quite a few knowledgeable lawyers regarding the internet. I'm sure a good one would merely make this analogy:
Suppose A owns a house with a painting inside near a window. He invites people to walk by his house and view the painting through the window under the license that they credit him for anything they do with the IP of the painting (perhaps A even charges admission); this costs A some money per view, say electricity to keep a lamp turned on and lighting up the painting (this lamp only turns on when someone attempts to view the painting).
Now B has set up some really powerful telescope that is aimed directly at A's window inside his house. B then profits from having people check out A's painting through telescope. This triggers A's lamp and costs A money, of course. B does not credit A, nor does B compensate A.
A replaces the painting with another one.
Question for the court: Did A have a legal right to replace the painting in his own home without informing B (for any reason, even a bad faith reason), especially when B was costing A money AND violating the terms of the license to view which B agreed to when setting up the telescope?
Answer: Of course. Any judge can see that.
How's that analogy, does it work? And I didn't even use a car analogy!
That all changed with the nerdcore scene. Say what you will about it, but now I get hip-hop. The first time I heard "Geek" by mc chris, I got it. "Hassle: The Dorkening" by MC Frontalot and "Alice and Bob" by MC Plus+, not to mention "Meganerd" by ytcracker all speak to me the way very little music on the radio can. I get it when I hearandHip-hop is just another form of musical expression, and through various subgenres, it has been robust enough to have a literal, direct meaning for someone who had a upper-middle-class upbringing.
Well, I think this post stopped being a hip-hop post and became just an excuse for me to talk about nerdcore
Ï lövë hëävÿ mëtäl!!
I don't know about other universities, but at the University of Texas, we have to pay for our internet access within the dorms. When I was an undergrad, I paid for a certain number of GB/wk. Once over the limit, we were capped at dial-up speeds. Of course LAN activity didn't count against us.
Say what you will about the quality of "web amateur" writings on the net, but there would be a truckload of information which would never show up online because the person didn't know about robots.txt. Search engines would remain useful when searching for certain material, but when searching for something academic, you'd probably miss out on a large percentage of university professors' websites and instructional materials because of the opt-in policy in place.
Sure, knowledge of this might spread and within a generation everyone would know to add robots.txt, but for an entire generation while everyone learned that, we'd be missing out on a huge portion of the internet (more so than we already are).
Beyond that, with an opt-in policy, we'd only be able to search within those sites which were maintained by people who really, really wanted their content indexed. Lazy, uninformed, or non-caring people would not have their materials indexed, and all internauts (is that not the word the French use for 'netizens' or whatever?) would suffer.