... a significant number of Muslim countries are cesspools of racism, hatred, and violence.
Except most of the people in this group (all but one) are native U.S. citizens. So you only have a point if the U.S. is a "cesspool of racism, hatred and violence."
... and I didn't really see that great a range in difficulty. They were all fairly straightforward, which is of course what you'd expect in a high school chemistry exam. The main differences I could see were that the more recent questions had a greater percentage of descriptive (non-numeric) questions. It was actually the questions from 1975 which had the greatest percentage of multiple-choice answers.
I suspect a lot of the difference in the students' results is from teaching to the test - they did well on the 2005 questions, because those are (in terms of phrasing and presentation) the ones they were taught to answer.
There is one very memorable user picture that I have seen "in my area" as I surf from hotels all over the eastern half of the country, every time she is in my city.
Dude, she's following you! Either get her phone number, or get a restraining order.
using however, someone's PRECISE arrangement of the text is not permissible however- that has its own copyright...
That is true in the UK and Commonwealth countries, but not in the U.S., so far as I can tell. The UK has something called "typographical arrangement copyright" which is what you were referring to. This lasts for 25 years, independent of any copyright of the text itself.
The U.S., however, has no explicit equivalent stated in its copyright laws. I suppose one might make a claim that normal copyright should also apply, though in a cursory review, I haven't found any cases along those lines. But given that you can't copyright typefaces in the U.S., or "mere arrangements of data," it does seem dubious to me that U.S. courts would support such a thing.
Uh, a "real book" is a fake book. Hal Leonard was (I believe) the first to call their line of fake books "real books," just to emphasize that they were legal from a copyright perspective.
The original fake books were done on the sly, massive mimeographed or xeroxed collections of tunes passed from one musician to another. These proved so popular that sheet music publishers finally took the hint and started producing their own legal, royalty-paid versions.
Comparing and contrasting that situation with the current one involving recorded music is left as an exercise for the reader.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, vodka'll do that to you.
If anyone orders iMerlot, I'm leaving. I am NOT using any f@@king iMerlot!
I've been there. Could have fooled me.
I didn't - it was my cat who clicked on this!
You might want to contact Lorena Bobbitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorena_Bobbitt).
I worked for two startups in a row which failed, and then joined IBM - only to be assigned to the Workplace OS project, a $2 billion fiasco.
And yet, after all that, I got the best job I ever had. I did have to convince them I wasn't some sort of carrier, though.
Wait - my box of Crayolas says "64 colors" on it. Were they lying to me?
I'd take it back for a refund, but I already ate the purple.
hulu.com. Though they show them with a 3-second secondary commercial first. Yes, commercials sponsoring commercials.
I've used an analogous technique to deal with teenage boys, and can testify that it is extremely effective.
Except most of the people in this group (all but one) are native U.S. citizens. So you only have a point if the U.S. is a "cesspool of racism, hatred and violence."
Oh, wait.
... and I didn't really see that great a range in difficulty. They were all fairly straightforward, which is of course what you'd expect in a high school chemistry exam. The main differences I could see were that the more recent questions had a greater percentage of descriptive (non-numeric) questions. It was actually the questions from 1975 which had the greatest percentage of multiple-choice answers.
I suspect a lot of the difference in the students' results is from teaching to the test - they did well on the 2005 questions, because those are (in terms of phrasing and presentation) the ones they were taught to answer.
Dude, she's following you! Either get her phone number, or get a restraining order.
Hey, we said it was Beta. -- Google
I disagree; there are people on 4chan who are obviously very interested in children.
I'm not comfortable with the U.N. becoming involved in Slashdot's moderation process.
I don't think I can afford him.
Were you aware that airplanes (larger ones, at least) tend to have bathrooms on them? Or ... wait ... this isn't Lisa Nowak, is it?
Personally, I'd be a little worried about a 5-year-old who's still in diapers.
And there isn't any connection between those two statements. Trust me!
I'm fairly confident in this case the developers did look at what else was on the market.
You forgot Poland!
(That's a joke.)
Urban legend alert! Contrary to your talking point, Congressmen have been part of Social Security since 1984.
That is true in the UK and Commonwealth countries, but not in the U.S., so far as I can tell. The UK has something called "typographical arrangement copyright" which is what you were referring to. This lasts for 25 years, independent of any copyright of the text itself.
The U.S., however, has no explicit equivalent stated in its copyright laws. I suppose one might make a claim that normal copyright should also apply, though in a cursory review, I haven't found any cases along those lines. But given that you can't copyright typefaces in the U.S., or "mere arrangements of data," it does seem dubious to me that U.S. courts would support such a thing.
The original fake books were done on the sly, massive mimeographed or xeroxed collections of tunes passed from one musician to another. These proved so popular that sheet music publishers finally took the hint and started producing their own legal, royalty-paid versions.
Comparing and contrasting that situation with the current one involving recorded music is left as an exercise for the reader.
ObPedant: Uh, factoring primes is trivial: p = 1*p...