Can Lasers really print photos as effectively as a inkjet though? All the lasers I've seen manage text and line art fine, but color photos look bad even on a brand new printer. And the quality drops throughout the printer life - printing halftone color on the office color laser looks like something out of the 1980's.
Copyright your DNA, and send a DMCA notice to your wife forcing her to delete or surrender the kids as unauthorized derivative works of your exclusive intellectual property.
We're talking about taxes, not subsidies. In the UK, fuel taxes are sky high and and in the US they aren't. Describing a low tax rate as a subsidy is a bit dishonest.
Is that what the artists say about the "true warez people"? I mean, they spend far less effort that the people who create the material originally, even if they spend a bit more than Tony.
Easy to avoid that, the in car could detect erratic behaviour from nearby humans, and warn the other cars not to let their humans get too close. The cool thing is that they wouldn't have to know why at all, their neural networks could just learn that they were carrying *something* that drove the other drivers wild.
You could build a cryptography obsessed system where hacked boxes have their certificates revoked. Hell, any new system should have stuff like this, it's not like public key crypto and signing is computationally expensive these days.
LAST week, Viacom asked a federal court to order the video-sharing service YouTube to pay it more than $1 billion in damages for some 150,000 videos that Viacom claims it owns and YouTube users have shared. YouTube, the complaint alleges, has harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale, threatening not just Viacom, but the economic underpinnings of one of the most important sectors of the United States economy.
Yet as federal courts get started on this multiyear litigation about the legality of a business model, we should not forget one prominent actor in this drama largely responsible for the eagerness with which business disputes get thrown to the courts: the Supreme Court.
For most of the history of copyright law, it was Congress that was at the center of copyright policy making. As the Supreme Court explained in its 1984 Sony Betamax decision, the Constitution makes plain that it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly, or copyright. It has thus been Congress that has fashioned the new rules that new technology made necessary. The court explained that sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for copyrighted materials. In the view of the court in Sony, if you dont like how new technologies affect copyright, take your problem to Congress.
The court reaffirmed this principle of deference in 2003, even when the question at stake was a constitutional challenge to Congresss extension of copyright by 20 years. Challenges are evaluated against the backdrop of Congresss previous exercises of its authority under the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, it wrote. Congresss practice not simply the Constitutions text, or its original understanding thus determined the Constitutions meaning.
These cases together signaled a very strong and sensible policy: The complex balance of interests within any copyright statute are best struck by Congress.
But 20 months ago, the Supreme Court reversed this wise policy of deference. Drawing upon common law-like power, the court expanded the Copyright Act in the Grokster case to cover a form of liability it had never before recognized in the context of copyright the wrong of providing technology that induces copyright infringement. It announced this new form of liability even though at precisely the same time Congress was holding hearings about whether to amend the Copyright Act to create the same liability.
The Grokster case thus sent a clear message to lawyers everywhere: You get two bites at the copyright policy-making apple, one in Congress and one in the courts. But in Congress, you need hundreds of votes. In the courts, you need just five.
Viacom has now accepted this invitation from the Supreme Court. The core of its case centers on the safe harbor provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The provision, a compromise among a wide range of interests, was intended to protect copyright owners while making it possible for Internet businesses to avoid crippling copyright liability. As applied to YouTube, the provision immunizes the company from liability for material posted by its users, so long as it takes steps to remove infringing material soon after it is notified by the copyright owner.
The content industry was a big supporter of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998. Viacom is apparently less of a supporter today. It complains that YouTube has not done enough to take reasonable precautions to deter the rampant infringement on its site. Instead, the Viacom argument goes, YouTube has shifted the burden of monitoring that infringement onto the victim of that infringement namely, Viacom.
But it wasnt YouTube that engineered this shift. It was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As the statute plainly states, a provider (like YouTube) need not monitor its service or
Bullshit. The aliens in V thought it was worth shipping water and a few humans (food and cannon fodder) 8.7 light years. Taking water from Mars should be much cheaper.
I'd bring a knife and a pistol. If you can get hold of a PRC-6 military radio, do so. When the pistol and knife don't cut it, you can call in an airstrike. If the airstrike doesn't cut it use suicide pills, if you can get 'em. It's rare to see an ad for them in Soldier Of Fortune these days.
Still, the if you've still got copies from the 1980's, some of the numbers still work.
One of my Dad's physicist friends said of him something like "he only popularises other peoples work, he's done almost nothing profound, the only reason he's so famous is because he looks and sounds like Davros".
Physicists are not very nice people. Funny though.
A lot of that is probably true, but it annoys me when people use bogus arguments for doing something even if I agree with doing for other reasons. It's like Nuclear Winter in the 70's. There are good arguments for not fighting a nuclear war, you don't need to use bad ones. Same with reducing oil dependancy. I reckon there's an argument for some sort of Federal subsidies for non fossil fuel sources for much the reason you say. Actually, screwing "terrorist petrostates" as you put it is a pretty good argument in itself.
The problem is, some of these won't necessarily fit in with environmentalist conventional wisdom, for example nuclear power. So humoring the environmentalists is not a good idea. That said, there are plenty of people on the right who are in the way of a solution to energy dependency too, notably the farmers who managed to persuade the GOP to keep ludicrous tariff barriers against Brazillian ethanol.
Slashdot Mirror
You misspelled Orc place.
No one LARTS like a LARPer.
Can Lasers really print photos as effectively as a inkjet though? All the lasers I've seen manage text and line art fine, but color photos look bad even on a brand new printer. And the quality drops throughout the printer life - printing halftone color on the office color laser looks like something out of the 1980's.
Even tweakers don't try to inject ink with a syringe. You crazy bastard. Hope you're using a ink with a water soluble pigment.
Does it get you really fucked up though? Not that I'm interested or anything...
Front page stories
* Dungeons & Dragons and IT
* Organism Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex
* Gifted Children Find Heavy Metal Comforting
Did anyone see suck's parody of slashdot?
http://www.suck.com/daily/99/12/13/daily.html
Doesn't seem so funny now, does it?
So the US gets the money for it's higher fuel subsidies from it's lower fuel taxes. Neat trick!
Slashdot must have a weird sense of humour, because todays quote of the day is :
"Know how to save 5 drowning lawyers? -- No? GOOD!"
Copyright your DNA, and send a DMCA notice to your wife forcing her to delete or surrender the kids as unauthorized derivative works of your exclusive intellectual property.
Then move in with Miss Seltzer.
Eh?
We're talking about taxes, not subsidies. In the UK, fuel taxes are sky high and and in the US they aren't. Describing a low tax rate as a subsidy is a bit dishonest.
I believe the phrase you're looking for in vast left-wing conspiracy
Nonsense, cows will eat anything.
De massa only beats me when I's a bad slave!
Is that what the artists say about the "true warez people"? I mean, they spend far less effort that the people who create the material originally, even if they spend a bit more than Tony.
Easy to avoid that, the in car could detect erratic behaviour from nearby humans, and warn the other cars not to let their humans get too close. The cool thing is that they wouldn't have to know why at all, their neural networks could just learn that they were carrying *something* that drove the other drivers wild.
You could build a cryptography obsessed system where hacked boxes have their certificates revoked. Hell, any new system should have stuff like this, it's not like public key crypto and signing is computationally expensive these days.
Yeah, but at least we can still watch Jon Stewart mocking Bush on YouTube. Get some priorities man.
Make Way for Copyright Chaos
By LAWRENCE LESSIG
Berlin
LAST week, Viacom asked a federal court to order the video-sharing service YouTube to pay it more than $1 billion in damages for some 150,000 videos that Viacom claims it owns and YouTube users have shared. YouTube, the complaint alleges, has harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale, threatening not just Viacom, but the economic underpinnings of one of the most important sectors of the United States economy.
Yet as federal courts get started on this multiyear litigation about the legality of a business model, we should not forget one prominent actor in this drama largely responsible for the eagerness with which business disputes get thrown to the courts: the Supreme Court.
For most of the history of copyright law, it was Congress that was at the center of copyright policy making. As the Supreme Court explained in its 1984 Sony Betamax decision, the Constitution makes plain that it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly, or copyright. It has thus been Congress that has fashioned the new rules that new technology made necessary. The court explained that sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for copyrighted materials. In the view of the court in Sony, if you dont like how new technologies affect copyright, take your problem to Congress.
The court reaffirmed this principle of deference in 2003, even when the question at stake was a constitutional challenge to Congresss extension of copyright by 20 years. Challenges are evaluated against the backdrop of Congresss previous exercises of its authority under the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, it wrote. Congresss practice not simply the Constitutions text, or its original understanding thus determined the Constitutions meaning.
These cases together signaled a very strong and sensible policy: The complex balance of interests within any copyright statute are best struck by Congress.
But 20 months ago, the Supreme Court reversed this wise policy of deference. Drawing upon common law-like power, the court expanded the Copyright Act in the Grokster case to cover a form of liability it had never before recognized in the context of copyright the wrong of providing technology that induces copyright infringement. It announced this new form of liability even though at precisely the same time Congress was holding hearings about whether to amend the Copyright Act to create the same liability.
The Grokster case thus sent a clear message to lawyers everywhere: You get two bites at the copyright policy-making apple, one in Congress and one in the courts. But in Congress, you need hundreds of votes. In the courts, you need just five.
Viacom has now accepted this invitation from the Supreme Court. The core of its case centers on the safe harbor provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The provision, a compromise among a wide range of interests, was intended to protect copyright owners while making it possible for Internet businesses to avoid crippling copyright liability. As applied to YouTube, the provision immunizes the company from liability for material posted by its users, so long as it takes steps to remove infringing material soon after it is notified by the copyright owner.
The content industry was a big supporter of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998. Viacom is apparently less of a supporter today. It complains that YouTube has not done enough to take reasonable precautions to deter the rampant infringement on its site. Instead, the Viacom argument goes, YouTube has shifted the burden of monitoring that infringement onto the victim of that infringement namely, Viacom.
But it wasnt YouTube that engineered this shift. It was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As the statute plainly states, a provider (like YouTube) need not monitor its service or
Bullshit. The aliens in V thought it was worth shipping water and a few humans (food and cannon fodder) 8.7 light years. Taking water from Mars should be much cheaper.
Oh yeah. Spoiler warning.
I'd bring a knife and a pistol. If you can get hold of a PRC-6 military radio, do so. When the pistol and knife don't cut it, you can call in an airstrike. If the airstrike doesn't cut it use suicide pills, if you can get 'em. It's rare to see an ad for them in Soldier Of Fortune these days.
Still, the if you've still got copies from the 1980's, some of the numbers still work.
When I read posts like this, I imagine al Qaeda operatives entering them into some kind of decoder ring and then heading off to terrorise stuff.
One of my Dad's physicist friends said of him something like "he only popularises other peoples work, he's done almost nothing profound, the only reason he's so famous is because he looks and sounds like Davros".
Physicists are not very nice people. Funny though.
Careful dude, that's close to suggesting that people actually choose to use Microsoft software.
This is slashdot, they'll eat you alive!
However, with no offense intended, please don't give me Gimp when I ask for Photoshop.
Serif Photo Plus is free as in beer, and it does 80% of what Photoshop does.
twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself...
A lot of that is probably true, but it annoys me when people use bogus arguments for doing something even if I agree with doing for other reasons. It's like Nuclear Winter in the 70's. There are good arguments for not fighting a nuclear war, you don't need to use bad ones. Same with reducing oil dependancy. I reckon there's an argument for some sort of Federal subsidies for non fossil fuel sources for much the reason you say. Actually, screwing "terrorist petrostates" as you put it is a pretty good argument in itself.
The problem is, some of these won't necessarily fit in with environmentalist conventional wisdom, for example nuclear power. So humoring the environmentalists is not a good idea. That said, there are plenty of people on the right who are in the way of a solution to energy dependency too, notably the farmers who managed to persuade the GOP to keep ludicrous tariff barriers against Brazillian ethanol.