Carbon nanotubes are usually manufactured by vaporising graphite impregnated with metal particles. The carbon condenses on the metal, forming tubular molecules. There's more information on the process here.
In case I'm not being clear, here's a similar example. I run a web site which has a TOS that states that we have the right to bounce accounts for excessive profanity and various other naughty things. Now, this does not mean that we're running a profanity filter and proactively bouncing anybody who utters the random "fuck." The TOS is in place so that we have a clearly defined right to bounce people who are being obnoxious. If somebody were to send me an e-mail similar to yours -- "I would like to use your site but since you won't let me use profanity I'll go somewhere else instead" -- I would rightfully point out that they were being a moron.
But what you're doing isn't quite the same thing; whereas you are reserving the right to terminate a user licence on a particular basis, Orbitz is specifically prohibiting an activity (in the absence of a separate agreement moderating said activity). I know I'm nitpicking here, but the example you gave is not quite analogous to the Orbitz ToS.
It also fails to specify the results of those tests. Even assuming they were tested by these anonymous "institutions" et al, they could have failed without invalidating that assertion.
I also noticed that they are currently "processing" tests for certification.
You totally failed to see the point I was making...
You can't simply "pirate" media because you feel "it should be free" was my point. The people hosting torrents are just as responsible for the pirating action as the person providing the file.
My example was "just because I don't like property laws doesn't mean I can steal from you"
as in "just because you don't like IP laws doesn't mean you can violate them".
You also seem to be missing a point: property theft and copyright infringement are not the same thing. While the latter may indirectly diminish the value of the copyrighted work in question, the owner still remains in possession of it. It is this distinction which means there are far more people opposed to copyright law than are opposed to anti-theft law.
And passing a law prohibiting an activity does not prevent anyone from engaging in that activity; it just means that someone caught doing so faces the associated punishment. To many people, especially copyright violators, this risk is not sufficient to discourage them from breaking a law they don't like.
Fuck tard. I hope you die in a violent car fire with your entire family. You are the scum of the universe and the quicker people like you are shuffled off this existence the better.
It's heartening to see the principle of polite, reasoned discussion being upheld.
Of course I'm speculating here, what with the linked articles not detailing the specs of the robots in question, but the two-arm design probably makes it easier to accomodate the machines on the production line. Since the existing work areas would have been designed for use by humans, using more anthropomorphic robots minimises the necessary modifications to the production equipment.
But, like I said, just a guess. Anyone have any specification details for the droids?
As for the socioeconomic issues... I suddenly feel the urge to go and read some Asimov.
It's certainly a good move from the perspective of the Japanese economy; not outsourcing keeps the money from flowing out of the country, after all. Also, the exchange of low-skill jobs for fewer high-skill jobs will concentrate the distribution of wealth-- definitely a bonus for a declining population.
(Companies, after all exsit to do _nothing_ but make money, legal departments can only demonstrate their performance in "amount of litigation participated in" - Its a brave new world, friends!)
If you'll excuse the pedantry, I suspect that the proportion of successful litigation may also be regarded as a good benchmark....
I'm a fanboy as well. But Apple are right in doing this to one of the best rumour sites on the net. What if this information is false but because of it, their share price goes up and there is a geniune interest from investors. Only for the rumour to be false and thus they get hit by it.
Surely if the rumour was unfounded, it would leave the lawsuit without a basis, and Apple would still lose out?
I dare say that the litgation would cost Apple less than some more conventional advertising. But I'm cynical that way.
I do actually understand the difference between a network and a protocol; and sure, IP owners are quite justified in taking legal measures against anyone actively distributing their property without consent. My point was that by increasing the legitimate use of P2P protocols such as Bittorrent, it becomes harder for entities such as the MPAA and RIAA to attack the developers of P2P systems just because they could potentially be used for copyright infringement. That particular activity, IMO, is just an abuse of the legal system.
Nice idea; what needs to happen is for more people to make legal use of P2P networks, thereby increasing the profile of such systems as legitimate tools. That way they would be a far less easy target for litigation and legalistic strongarming.
They did exactly the same thing in this related story linked to from/. the other day. Something tells me The Register aren't exactly the MPAA's biggest fans....
The actual beginning was OK, but you have to admit there were some really dire filler episodes in the first and second seasons. Farscape, IMO, didn't suffer so badly from the filler problem, although in some cases, that was because some of the non-arc eps were just to weird to really rate....
Oh, and I keep meaning to go out and buy those Firefly DVDs. One day it may actually happen.
Slashdot Mirror
And sneakers with powered laces. Come on people, we've only got 8 years left!
Carbon nanotubes are usually manufactured by vaporising graphite impregnated with metal particles. The carbon condenses on the metal, forming tubular molecules. There's more information on the process here.
The statement is still valid, even if the first part is superfluous.
You may wish to RTFA more closely, specifically the part describing how home-grown, non-commercial HD content is also being interfered with.
...the ToS has this right at the start:
Which suggests to me that they intend to apply the thing to anyone so much as sending them a request header.
But what you're doing isn't quite the same thing; whereas you are reserving the right to terminate a user licence on a particular basis, Orbitz is specifically prohibiting an activity (in the absence of a separate agreement moderating said activity). I know I'm nitpicking here, but the example you gave is not quite analogous to the Orbitz ToS.
That's easy. Microsoft users are in the vast majority, and everyone knows that means they aren't "biased", but "normal".
</sarcasm>
</cynicism>
</bitter, twisted antipathy>
It also fails to specify the results of those tests. Even assuming they were tested by these anonymous "institutions" et al, they could have failed without invalidating that assertion. I also noticed that they are currently "processing" tests for certification.
I'm sure the "anonymous user" who submitted the story is entirely unaffiliated with the which produces these rather implausible items.
You also seem to be missing a point: property theft and copyright infringement are not the same thing. While the latter may indirectly diminish the value of the copyrighted work in question, the owner still remains in possession of it. It is this distinction which means there are far more people opposed to copyright law than are opposed to anti-theft law.
And passing a law prohibiting an activity does not prevent anyone from engaging in that activity; it just means that someone caught doing so faces the associated punishment. To many people, especially copyright violators, this risk is not sufficient to discourage them from breaking a law they don't like.
It's heartening to see the principle of polite, reasoned discussion being upheld.
[OT: what's with all the 503s?]
...or would shaking the phone about to control games make it a tad difficult to follow what's happening on the screen?
Of course I'm speculating here, what with the linked articles not detailing the specs of the robots in question, but the two-arm design probably makes it easier to accomodate the machines on the production line. Since the existing work areas would have been designed for use by humans, using more anthropomorphic robots minimises the necessary modifications to the production equipment.
But, like I said, just a guess. Anyone have any specification details for the droids?
As for the socioeconomic issues... I suddenly feel the urge to go and read some Asimov.
It's certainly a good move from the perspective of the Japanese economy; not outsourcing keeps the money from flowing out of the country, after all. Also, the exchange of low-skill jobs for fewer high-skill jobs will concentrate the distribution of wealth-- definitely a bonus for a declining population.
I don't dispute that. I'm sure that's whom at least some of the "other unnamed individuals" mentioned in the article are a reference to.
If you'll excuse the pedantry, I suspect that the proportion of successful litigation may also be regarded as a good benchmark....
Surely if the rumour was unfounded, it would leave the lawsuit without a basis, and Apple would still lose out?
I dare say that the litgation would cost Apple less than some more conventional advertising. But I'm cynical that way.
I do actually understand the difference between a network and a protocol; and sure, IP owners are quite justified in taking legal measures against anyone actively distributing their property without consent. My point was that by increasing the legitimate use of P2P protocols such as Bittorrent, it becomes harder for entities such as the MPAA and RIAA to attack the developers of P2P systems just because they could potentially be used for copyright infringement. That particular activity, IMO, is just an abuse of the legal system.
Nice idea; what needs to happen is for more people to make legal use of P2P networks, thereby increasing the profile of such systems as legitimate tools. That way they would be a far less easy target for litigation and legalistic strongarming.
They did exactly the same thing in this related story linked to from /. the other day. Something tells me The Register aren't exactly the MPAA's biggest fans....
The actual beginning was OK, but you have to admit there were some really dire filler episodes in the first and second seasons. Farscape, IMO, didn't suffer so badly from the filler problem, although in some cases, that was because some of the non-arc eps were just to weird to really rate....
Oh, and I keep meaning to go out and buy those Firefly DVDs. One day it may actually happen.