The thing that's cool about Diablo II is that the maps are 95% randomly generated, with just a few plot related ones in there (but still in random places relative to the start). This allows you to play it multiple times and not know the quickest path to item X. It does add a lot to the replay value.
No, you're thinking of trademark, where if you don't defend it, it becomes diluted and you can lose it. You can't accidentally give up copyright or patents, and, in fact, you can do some dastardly things with them (see Unisys's LZW patent for an example. It's harder to do with copyright).
It's not just availability, it standards. I'm refusing to buy a DVD(+/-)RW until it stabilizes more and it's apparent which format will win. Not only does it suck to have to pay for the wrong technology and then right one, but shifting old data to the newer format is a serious PITA.
You can purchase Macrovision removers (so called "stabilizers") for between $40-$200, if you really want to edit VHS. I believe DVDs also use macrovision on the analogue signal (the NEO4 chip for the PS2 removes the macrovision), so you can use it on DVDs too. DeCSS, really, only enables direct digital copying and playing DVDs on linux. Getting rid of it doesn't remove access to the contents of the DVD.
When I worked at Bell Northern Research (now Nortel) in the early 90s, we had a mail robot that would go from mail station to mail station. The sec-, ah, administrative assistants would load/unload mail and then tell it to go on. It used guides in the flooring to tell it where to go. The funny thing is that the flooring was these square carpetted panels that were pretty easy to move around (i guess so that you can modidy it's path easily when reorganizing cubeland). One common prank was to rearange the panels so that the robot would turn into someone's cubicle. It would stop once it got the the last panel.
I'm doubting this outcome. The document isn't readily available the to samba team because the license for the document prevents them from using it. It is no more readily available to them as it was when the only way to see the document was to buy 50% of microsoft's shares.
Ug. Did they just have someone as MS corporate write it and then forget to label it "advertisement"
In the process, the plan could boost Microsoft's high-profile.Net Web services plan and pave the way to enter new markets for document management and portal software, while simultaneously dealing a blow to competitors.
(emphasis mine)
we are just talking about replacing the file system with a database, right?
The question then becomes- do you allow people to do harm to their brains to adapt to cybernetic enhancements?
Why is this a question? It's like asking "do you allow people to harm their muscles to build up muscle mass". When you work out, that's what you do (the littl etears then fill in with new muscle tissue). If we allow body builders to work out, then why not allow cyborgs to enhance their brains?
Actually, thought, "Party on, dude" as a whole phrase is likely a reference to Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. To know the proper translation, you'd have to watch that movie in russian, because there's more meaning to the phrase than just telling people to continue to party.
Re:Hydrogen Peroxide
on
Carnivore Update
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ah. Makes sense. I think the one I use is.3%. I suppose that means I could just boil the water off and make rocket fuel. Cool.
Regardless, I think the overlying point is that the rights givin within Fair Use are actually constitutional, because the constitution only allows copyright laws that further science and arts, while a copyright law that prevents fair use overextends it's constitutional bounds.
It sounds to me like you are arguing that if there were a Naked In Your Bathroom Act, that the right to be naked in your bathroom wouldn't be constitutional but statutory, while in reality it would be both, even thought the constitution doesn't explicitly say that right (but instead has it as part of privacy rights).
While I'm sure all of them include some novel concepts by now, at their core they are all rip-offs of existing ideas.
This is true for all things. This is why copyright was originally limited to 17 years. Because any creative work, commercial or not, is standing on the shoulders of the giant works before them. Because you could not have created your work without society, you must share it with its co-creator when your time is up.
The answer to creating having more works created is shortening this time, not lengthening it. Otherwise you just end up recreating the road, just to take a step.
I think what we're missing is why you said the original poster is wrong. In the passage you quoted, he wasn't increasing the number of copies of the book in circulation. He was modifying existing copies by changing their color and fethering them and reselling them.
The real problem is that the left/right model is limited. The Nolan chart model is better and showes how the left-right model is just a projection on to the diagonal. A system could have little economic liberty, and just a little more personal liberty, and be just left of center.
The Nolan model is, of course, also just a projection on to a plane of a larger dimensional piece.
It would be is, say, you changed copyright laws retroactively so that currently copyrighted works in legality haven't been copyrighted for many years, and thus change the nature of several existing and past contracts.
Limit the copyright, but don't make it retroactive. Just make it so that if the copyright has expired under the new law, you no longer have it.
The thing is though, that neither the tech nor the recording industry wants copyright shortened. They'd rather have copyright forever.
I worked with a company that licenced the use of another company's "one time pad" encryption system. The long and the short of it is that it wasn't "one time pad". But the really important part was how the President/CEO of the encryption company honestly felt it was. No arguement (like the fact that an attacker only had to guess 4096bits to have all the information needed, and that analysis of data would quickly cut chunks of that down) could dissuade him from his belief. He had this whole, weird, meta logic that abstracted the problem out of the first tier (cracking the generated keys, which ostesibly were pretty random as individuals) but into the second tier (cracking the key generator, which was very structured and had 4096-bits of input). Because it was a meta problemone level up, he could see the problem, in the same way that Christians are fine with "God created the Universe" and don't see "Who created God" as a problem.
"Scream mode" in my mind would be a silent screan telling whoever that something is wrong. The watch also has two-button 911 and other feature that dont' make it useless. I'm certainly not saying it's going to be 100% effective, but in a lot of cases it will help enough. Once it becomes so common that a would be abductor always checks for one and always knows how to get it off and dispose of it (which will never truly happen because while there are smart criminals, there are always sloppy ones), there will be better technology (subdermal perhaps).
As for fascist parents, I'm a big believer in "you parent your way, I'll parent mine". I doubt I would use this in the way that you describe, but I don't want to block another parent's right to raise their child how they see fit. If their child goes crazy in college and catches an STD, or the whatever hyperbolic prediction of the week is. I don't want the government to mandate parents to use these. What I want is choice. This represents choice, and something I thought would be a good possible technology in the past.
fuckola. Thanks for letting me know. The link it to my website which does a redirect because the actual link is to loong for the/. sig. It should be working now, but if it doesn't it's here.
Conspiratorial is the fact that I only saw this in foreign news (the star is Canadian).
Really, it wasn't so much the going around the corner that I hated. The way it looked, it look liek it was plasma going around the corner.
It's just that even if you accept how the bomb worked, it sucked. It would have made more sense to take each single bomb out and detonate it while walking nonchalontly through the sewer. That's what Brian Boytano would have done.
And how the fuck did that chick survive. Earlier just a single bomb killed everyone underwater. Fuck the UV bomb. Fuck it right in the ear.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing that's cool about Diablo II is that the maps are 95% randomly generated, with just a few plot related ones in there (but still in random places relative to the start). This allows you to play it multiple times and not know the quickest path to item X. It does add a lot to the replay value.
No, you're thinking of trademark, where if you don't defend it, it becomes diluted and you can lose it. You can't accidentally give up copyright or patents, and, in fact, you can do some dastardly things with them (see Unisys's LZW patent for an example. It's harder to do with copyright).
It's not just availability, it standards. I'm refusing to buy a DVD(+/-)RW until it stabilizes more and it's apparent which format will win. Not only does it suck to have to pay for the wrong technology and then right one, but shifting old data to the newer format is a serious PITA.
You can purchase Macrovision removers (so called "stabilizers") for between $40-$200, if you really want to edit VHS. I believe DVDs also use macrovision on the analogue signal (the NEO4 chip for the PS2 removes the macrovision), so you can use it on DVDs too. DeCSS, really, only enables direct digital copying and playing DVDs on linux. Getting rid of it doesn't remove access to the contents of the DVD.
When I worked at Bell Northern Research (now Nortel) in the early 90s, we had a mail robot that would go from mail station to mail station. The sec-, ah, administrative assistants would load/unload mail and then tell it to go on. It used guides in the flooring to tell it where to go. The funny thing is that the flooring was these square carpetted panels that were pretty easy to move around (i guess so that you can modidy it's path easily when reorganizing cubeland). One common prank was to rearange the panels so that the robot would turn into someone's cubicle. It would stop once it got the the last panel.
Ok maybe it was only funny to us.
I'm doubting this outcome. The document isn't readily available the to samba team because the license for the document prevents them from using it. It is no more readily available to them as it was when the only way to see the document was to buy 50% of microsoft's shares.
Ug. Did they just have someone as MS corporate write it and then forget to label it "advertisement"
.Net Web services plan and pave the way to enter new markets for document management and portal software, while simultaneously dealing a blow to competitors.
In the process, the plan could boost Microsoft's high-profile
(emphasis mine)
we are just talking about replacing the file system with a database, right?
That's not a the translation at all. Notice they said "service". They can make money through deployment and training.
The question then becomes- do you allow people to do harm to their brains to adapt to cybernetic enhancements?
Why is this a question? It's like asking "do you allow people to harm their muscles to build up muscle mass". When you work out, that's what you do (the littl etears then fill in with new muscle tissue). If we allow body builders to work out, then why not allow cyborgs to enhance their brains?
Actually, thought, "Party on, dude" as a whole phrase is likely a reference to Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. To know the proper translation, you'd have to watch that movie in russian, because there's more meaning to the phrase than just telling people to continue to party.
Ah. Makes sense. I think the one I use is .3%. I suppose that means I could just boil the water off and make rocket fuel. Cool.
hydrogen peroxide? I use that as a mouth wash. Why is that in there.
Get a better client then. I personally use TTSSH on Windows. You could also use Cygwin's port of ssh.
I think the main point of your post is that you are so cynical, that you dismissed the truth as unbelievable.
that would imply "you not(!) equal to(=) gay". WTF did you think it meant?
If I use someone else's works, then I should compensate them for it.
Why?
Regardless, I think the overlying point is that the rights givin within Fair Use are actually constitutional, because the constitution only allows copyright laws that further science and arts, while a copyright law that prevents fair use overextends it's constitutional bounds.
It sounds to me like you are arguing that if there were a Naked In Your Bathroom Act, that the right to be naked in your bathroom wouldn't be constitutional but statutory, while in reality it would be both, even thought the constitution doesn't explicitly say that right (but instead has it as part of privacy rights).
While I'm sure all of them include some novel concepts by now, at their core they are all rip-offs of existing ideas.
This is true for all things. This is why copyright was originally limited to 17 years. Because any creative work, commercial or not, is standing on the shoulders of the giant works before them. Because you could not have created your work without society, you must share it with its co-creator when your time is up.
The answer to creating having more works created is shortening this time, not lengthening it. Otherwise you just end up recreating the road, just to take a step.
I think what we're missing is why you said the original poster is wrong. In the passage you quoted, he wasn't increasing the number of copies of the book in circulation. He was modifying existing copies by changing their color and fethering them and reselling them.
The real problem is that the left/right model is limited. The Nolan chart model is better and showes how the left-right model is just a projection on to the diagonal. A system could have little economic liberty, and just a little more personal liberty, and be just left of center.
The Nolan model is, of course, also just a projection on to a plane of a larger dimensional piece.
It would be is, say, you changed copyright laws retroactively so that currently copyrighted works in legality haven't been copyrighted for many years, and thus change the nature of several existing and past contracts.
Limit the copyright, but don't make it retroactive. Just make it so that if the copyright has expired under the new law, you no longer have it.
The thing is though, that neither the tech nor the recording industry wants copyright shortened. They'd rather have copyright forever.
I worked with a company that licenced the use of another company's "one time pad" encryption system. The long and the short of it is that it wasn't "one time pad". But the really important part was how the President/CEO of the encryption company honestly felt it was. No arguement (like the fact that an attacker only had to guess 4096bits to have all the information needed, and that analysis of data would quickly cut chunks of that down) could dissuade him from his belief. He had this whole, weird, meta logic that abstracted the problem out of the first tier (cracking the generated keys, which ostesibly were pretty random as individuals) but into the second tier (cracking the key generator, which was very structured and had 4096-bits of input). Because it was a meta problemone level up, he could see the problem, in the same way that Christians are fine with "God created the Universe" and don't see "Who created God" as a problem.
"Scream mode" in my mind would be a silent screan telling whoever that something is wrong. The watch also has two-button 911 and other feature that dont' make it useless. I'm certainly not saying it's going to be 100% effective, but in a lot of cases it will help enough. Once it becomes so common that a would be abductor always checks for one and always knows how to get it off and dispose of it (which will never truly happen because while there are smart criminals, there are always sloppy ones), there will be better technology (subdermal perhaps).
As for fascist parents, I'm a big believer in "you parent your way, I'll parent mine". I doubt I would use this in the way that you describe, but I don't want to block another parent's right to raise their child how they see fit. If their child goes crazy in college and catches an STD, or the whatever hyperbolic prediction of the week is. I don't want the government to mandate parents to use these. What I want is choice. This represents choice, and something I thought would be a good possible technology in the past.
fuckola. Thanks for letting me know. The link it to my website which does a redirect because the actual link is to loong for the /. sig. It should be working now, but if it doesn't it's here.
Conspiratorial is the fact that I only saw this in foreign news (the star is Canadian).
Really, it wasn't so much the going around the corner that I hated. The way it looked, it look liek it was plasma going around the corner.
It's just that even if you accept how the bomb worked, it sucked. It would have made more sense to take each single bomb out and detonate it while walking nonchalontly through the sewer. That's what Brian Boytano would have done.
And how the fuck did that chick survive. Earlier just a single bomb killed everyone underwater. Fuck the UV bomb. Fuck it right in the ear.