Satire is entirely protected by free speech in the United States. Since they changed the names of the charachters, they should be even more protected from the lawyers.
Use of the original material for parody and satire is generally Fair Use. But not all satire is necessarily protected speech by the Bourne Convention (which, btw, Finland is almost certainly a participant). Specifically, non-parody Derivative Works are probably *not* protected.
This particular implementation sounds very much like a parody, however, which is explicitly protected regarding derivative works, depending how much of the original ideas or scripts they copied.
Fan flicks are not protected free speech, though, personally I think anything you can create whether it be music, speech, or video should all be protected under our first amendment rights.
I am happy this is not allowed. Otherwise we'd have some great music being "stolen" by popular musicians, depriving the real authors (but not as popular performers). That type of thing *should* be licensed.
Of course, ianal. But you can see here for some interesting info.
on the scale of Nerds <----> Matters
on
The NetBSD Toaster
·
· Score: 4, Funny
There are clauses in copyrights for "derivative works" that are not necessarily protected by Fair Use, and although this looks like it's a clear parody, it's also a (somewhat literal) derivative work.
They obviously chose copyright because it's easy enough to abuse to DMCA to bypass judicial controls. I can't wait to see if they try to stick him for some sort of security bypass or decryption technology.
Although it's a complete threadjack to go into the reasons for the war, whether we were lied to, why it was a good idea, and why it was a bad idea, one thing is clear: the reasons for going to war (and getting americans to agree) were based on false information and spin. Plain and simple. The end result might be good for the world and the region... but the reasons cited were not sound. You can see exactly what I'm talking about in old news articles. It makes the spin that much clearer.
Worse than that, is how the hell do you get OFF the phishing alert site once you've secured your box? Or even if your box was never cracked?
Competitors can simply send out fake phishing spam to make your system look like it's collecting illegitimate data, and shut you down. I can already see blackhat/.ers setting up mailer daemons to make whitehouse.gov, RIAA, and whatever other sites look like phishing sites.
from tfa: "The only "official" comment on the missing pages on the Cisco flaw was a photographed copy of a notice distributed with each bundle of conference materials. The notice states: Due to some last minute changes beyond Black Hat's control, and at the request of the presenter, the included materials aren't up to the standards Black Hat tries to meet. Black Hat will be the first to apologize. We hope the vendors involved will follow suit."
Sounds like the vendors did follow suit. A lawsuit, that is. There are limits to free speech, in this case, unfortunately.
I was going to comment on this, and similarity to the KFC mini-fillet burger where KFC marketing claimed the person holding their mini-sandwich may have had small hands.
Look at how meaty that guy's hands are. Obviously you find a model that isn't a twig when demonstrating how small a piece of electronics is. But it does occasionally bite the manufacturer.
The article doesn't actually say smaller than the tip of a finger, but that's what you think when you see the picture. It probably IS smaller than the tip of a finger, when you measure from the end of middle finger to the first joint.
I wonder if people could use mirrors to reflect the stuff back at the attacker...
No. You could use a fine metal parabolic mesh to reflect it, however you'd only be reflecting a tiny amount back (probably a cubic root of the distance to the source) due to the dispersal, which would have little effect.
unnatural stimuli given often enough to a large enough sample will eventually throw up something bad in individual cases at a rate higher than a control group. Its a statistical certainty.
This emits non-ionizing radiation. You aren't being bombarded with neutrons which would directly cause mutations. You're being hit with energy that converts into heat on the surface of your skin. So in short, No it can't cause cancer.
Citing the natural process of mutation to claim it could cause cancer is, IMHO, wrong. If your cells tended to mutate into cancerous cells from being shocked, you are already in a lot of trouble. Imagine the response from eating chile or standing in the sun for a minute or even breathing dust. Your response could justify that Tasers or baseball bats cause cancer. (I confess that mammalian wood shock is not my field of expertise.:-)
Due to the sheer number of cells and that mutation is a natural occurrence when repairing, it's a statistical certainty that if you blast enough people someone will get cancer. That might be true, but if you pop a balloon enough times around unsuspecting people, it's a similar statistical certainty that someone will have a heart attack more often than a control group. Stimulating a natural response is not causation... and usually not even close. Because mutation is a natural process that's going on in your body right now, it's a statistical certainty that living causes cancer by the same reasoning.
What "how often", "eventually" and "large enough" and "something bad" mean in relation to the weapon are anyone's guess. And I think thats a problem. You can find all this out for Aspirin, so why not the weapon? Generally, when testing a "non-lethal" weapon you consider the alternative: bullets. Is this less-lethal than bullets? Yes... yes it is. The idea of long-term testing of a weapon's effect of 1mm non-ionizing radiation versus the alternative of simply spraying the crowd with 5.56mm lead kind of boggles me.
I do not consider "Because God told me to." an acceptable excuse for unethical behaviour and I never will.
Great for you. Me neither, but that wasn't part of the discussion. Some people consider abortion to be reprehensible, yes? That is their moral belief. They think it's wrong, you might not. I don't personally, but I actually like to know a situation before passing judgement. You clearly don't care, and are willing to take a moral stand against something without any knowledge of it. Again, great for you for taking a stand based on ignorance. Lots of people do that, but few dare to do it in the man's eulogy.
And yes, virtually everything you just said above is injecting your morals and judgment of a situation you know nothing about except for a single fact: an 80yo had a child. Lots of people do make these judgements, but you're giving your personal armchair morality lesson at an inappropriate time, to an inappropriate audience.
And that's why you're being called a jerk by several people. Even if you're right about this small detail of the person's long life (which is moot), you're still clearly acting like a jerk about it.
I can honestly say that though I would dearly like to have children some day, I would never do so if I thought I wasn't going to be around to support them growing up.
Frankly, I didn't know Doohan personally... and neither did you. He might be one of those folks that finds the idea of abortion reprehensible. Or perhaps he was religious and it was verboten to use birth control.
What may come as a complete surprise to you, but the reason people are calling you a jerk is because you're too quick to throw your morals onto situations with no knowledge whatsoever of that situation. You pretend your armchair observations trump actually being in the situation. Doohan probably had the wherewithal to have arranged for the best he could for his children, and that could easily be far better than some situations I've witnessed where both parents were very much alive, and very much messed up. The children would've been better cared for in a foster home than with those monsters.
from tfa, The enclosure is filled with foam wadding and ported. The ports are vented directly out the bottom of the subwoofer. The design was modelled on WinISD to calculate the port lengths...
As some have noted, TFA talks mostly about patents, so I'm just going on the idea of a split lcd.
Obviously, console games would greatly benefit from this, as you could have multiplayers on one screen and one console.
One other application might be stereo vision for goggles.
A silly possibility is to prevent shoulder-surfing, and display fake screens to the sides of the laptop (looks like boring work) and the real picture to the center viewer (boobies).
Many HUDs today make you look like Geek of Borg by fitting over one eye instead of Geek Laforge.
I don't think this would be useful for a wearable rig, due to the low resolution. If it had about 4x the pixels, it might be useful for gaming if fitted with head-tracking.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a perturbed image (aren't they all?) of goatse embedded in possible captcha implementations. Browse carefully.
Reminds me of the old days of slashdot landmines!
Satire is entirely protected by free speech in the United States. Since they changed the names of the charachters, they should be even more protected from the lawyers.
Use of the original material for parody and satire is generally Fair Use. But not all satire is necessarily protected speech by the Bourne Convention (which, btw, Finland is almost certainly a participant). Specifically, non-parody Derivative Works are probably *not* protected.
This particular implementation sounds very much like a parody, however, which is explicitly protected regarding derivative works, depending how much of the original ideas or scripts they copied.
Fan flicks are not protected free speech, though, personally I think anything you can create whether it be music, speech, or video should all be protected under our first amendment rights.
I am happy this is not allowed. Otherwise we'd have some great music being "stolen" by popular musicians, depriving the real authors (but not as popular performers). That type of thing *should* be licensed.
Of course, ianal. But you can see here for some interesting info.
News for Nerds <--------> Stuff that Matters
I'd put this solidly on the "Nerds" side.
There are clauses in copyrights for "derivative works" that are not necessarily protected by Fair Use, and although this looks like it's a clear parody, it's also a (somewhat literal) derivative work.
They obviously chose copyright because it's easy enough to abuse to DMCA to bypass judicial controls. I can't wait to see if they try to stick him for some sort of security bypass or decryption technology.
Does it have a "boss button" which pops up a Visicalc screen?
We can now make the world's smallest violin... even smaller!
Iraq violated UN sanction after UN sanction for more than a decade.
... but the reasons cited were not sound. You can see exactly what I'm talking about in old news articles. It makes the spin that much clearer.
Go check how many UN sanctions and resolutions there have been against Israel, and for how many decades.
The Economist, a fairly good news source, published an article in 2002 documenting why Iraq's sanctions were different than Israel's but with the current information gathered today, it's clear they were wrong. They believed Iraq had wmd and was hotly pursuing a nuclear program as they had in the past. But the program was shut down and wasn't restarted.
Although it's a complete threadjack to go into the reasons for the war, whether we were lied to, why it was a good idea, and why it was a bad idea, one thing is clear: the reasons for going to war (and getting americans to agree) were based on false information and spin. Plain and simple. The end result might be good for the world and the region
Exactly.
/.ers setting up mailer daemons to make whitehouse.gov, RIAA, and whatever other sites look like phishing sites.
Worse than that, is how the hell do you get OFF the phishing alert site once you've secured your box? Or even if your box was never cracked?
Competitors can simply send out fake phishing spam to make your system look like it's collecting illegitimate data, and shut you down. I can already see blackhat
from tfa: "The only "official" comment on the missing pages on the Cisco flaw was a photographed copy of a notice distributed with each bundle of conference materials. The notice states: Due to some last minute changes beyond Black Hat's control, and at the request of the presenter, the included materials aren't up to the standards Black Hat tries to meet. Black Hat will be the first to apologize. We hope the vendors involved will follow suit."
Sounds like the vendors did follow suit. A lawsuit, that is. There are limits to free speech, in this case, unfortunately.
Anyone know the secret codes to unbreak the printers.
:-)
No, but I know the secret codes to BREAK the printers.
I've considered encoding this in my own digital images to see what happens when I take them to walgreens to have them printed.
Look at the IE addressbar (which is truncated) in this picture.
Makes you say "Hmmmmm..."
I was going to comment on this, and similarity to the KFC mini-fillet burger where KFC marketing claimed the person holding their mini-sandwich may have had small hands.
Look at how meaty that guy's hands are. Obviously you find a model that isn't a twig when demonstrating how small a piece of electronics is. But it does occasionally bite the manufacturer.
The article doesn't actually say smaller than the tip of a finger, but that's what you think when you see the picture. It probably IS smaller than the tip of a finger, when you measure from the end of middle finger to the first joint.
I wonder if people could use mirrors to reflect the stuff back at the attacker...
No. You could use a fine metal parabolic mesh to reflect it, however you'd only be reflecting a tiny amount back (probably a cubic root of the distance to the source) due to the dispersal, which would have little effect.
unnatural stimuli given often enough to a large enough sample will eventually throw up something bad in individual cases at a rate higher than a control group. Its a statistical certainty.
:-)
This emits non-ionizing radiation. You aren't being bombarded with neutrons which would directly cause mutations. You're being hit with energy that converts into heat on the surface of your skin. So in short, No it can't cause cancer.
Citing the natural process of mutation to claim it could cause cancer is, IMHO, wrong. If your cells tended to mutate into cancerous cells from being shocked, you are already in a lot of trouble. Imagine the response from eating chile or standing in the sun for a minute or even breathing dust. Your response could justify that Tasers or baseball bats cause cancer. (I confess that mammalian wood shock is not my field of expertise.
Due to the sheer number of cells and that mutation is a natural occurrence when repairing, it's a statistical certainty that if you blast enough people someone will get cancer.
That might be true, but if you pop a balloon enough times around unsuspecting people, it's a similar statistical certainty that someone will have a heart attack more often than a control group. Stimulating a natural response is not causation... and usually not even close. Because mutation is a natural process that's going on in your body right now, it's a statistical certainty that living causes cancer by the same reasoning.
What "how often", "eventually" and "large enough" and "something bad" mean in relation to the weapon are anyone's guess. And I think thats a problem. You can find all this out for Aspirin, so why not the weapon?
Generally, when testing a "non-lethal" weapon you consider the alternative: bullets. Is this less-lethal than bullets? Yes... yes it is. The idea of long-term testing of a weapon's effect of 1mm non-ionizing radiation versus the alternative of simply spraying the crowd with 5.56mm lead kind of boggles me.
I do not consider "Because God told me to." an acceptable excuse for unethical behaviour and I never will.
Great for you. Me neither, but that wasn't part of the discussion. Some people consider abortion to be reprehensible, yes? That is their moral belief. They think it's wrong, you might not. I don't personally, but I actually like to know a situation before passing judgement. You clearly don't care, and are willing to take a moral stand against something without any knowledge of it. Again, great for you for taking a stand based on ignorance. Lots of people do that, but few dare to do it in the man's eulogy.
And yes, virtually everything you just said above is injecting your morals and judgment of a situation you know nothing about except for a single fact: an 80yo had a child. Lots of people do make these judgements, but you're giving your personal armchair morality lesson at an inappropriate time, to an inappropriate audience.
And that's why you're being called a jerk by several people. Even if you're right about this small detail of the person's long life (which is moot), you're still clearly acting like a jerk about it.
I can honestly say that though I would dearly like to have children some day, I would never do so if I thought I wasn't going to be around to support them growing up.
Frankly, I didn't know Doohan personally... and neither did you. He might be one of those folks that finds the idea of abortion reprehensible. Or perhaps he was religious and it was verboten to use birth control.
What may come as a complete surprise to you, but the reason people are calling you a jerk is because you're too quick to throw your morals onto situations with no knowledge whatsoever of that situation. You pretend your armchair observations trump actually being in the situation. Doohan probably had the wherewithal to have arranged for the best he could for his children, and that could easily be far better than some situations I've witnessed where both parents were very much alive, and very much messed up. The children would've been better cared for in a foster home than with those monsters.
STFU already with your armchair morality lesson.
from tfa, The enclosure is filled with foam wadding and ported. The ports are vented directly out the bottom of the subwoofer. The design was modelled on WinISD to calculate the port lengths...
I find your lack of ??? disturbing.
This is definitely one place you can't win the
"Frist post!1!!!" wars.
As some have noted, TFA talks mostly about patents, so I'm just going on the idea of a split lcd.
Obviously, console games would greatly benefit from this, as you could have multiplayers on one screen and one console.
One other application might be stereo vision for goggles.
A silly possibility is to prevent shoulder-surfing, and display fake screens to the sides of the laptop (looks like boring work) and the real picture to the center viewer (boobies).
That's because they made their webserver out of old junked radio parts, 3 boxes of staplers, 2,000 vacuum tubes, 2 sheets of plywood, and a hamster.
That, and it's not windy today.
You forgot this code at the bottom:
push parent, @AMDsubpoena_list
Many HUDs today make you look like Geek of Borg by fitting over one eye instead of Geek Laforge.
I don't think this would be useful for a wearable rig, due to the low resolution. If it had about 4x the pixels, it might be useful for gaming if fitted with head-tracking.
Now I have to worry about people having a cellphone stuck to their EYE when driving?
I can just see the legislators wetting themselves now.
Wait until the millions of Hindu sue you for all those cows you've been eating.