You're primarily limited by the alcohol tolerance of the strain of yeast that you select to do the fermentation. With some very special handling, I've seen breweries get this up to 20%, but nowhere close to 55%.
The freezing technique they use is called "freeze distillation". Yes, it is a form of distillation, which means that technically this is not a beer anymore, but something else. They can call it whatever they want though, even if it is not correct.
Last time I checked, we live in a capitalist society
This has nothing to do with capitalism. The media companies give extremely large campaign contributions to the politicians. The politician is not going to receive another check during the next election cycle if the company no longer exists. That's why the government is willing to save their failing business models.
You are correct. Almost all of the news stories about this sort of thing get the downloading/uploading terminology wrong. This type of lawsuit is almost always against uploaders.
Those copies are not covered by copyright (incidental copies created during normal use are not infringement), therefore you don't need a license. Using/receiving material is completely different from distributing material.
That point being that being once removed from the crime does not necessarily mean you have any right to the merchandise, whether we're talking theft or infringement.
That is wrong, and it goes directly to the heart of the difference between theft and copyright infringement. The concept of "stolen property" does not exist in copyright. Copyright law is about the act of distribution, not ownership of the merchandise.
When I view a webpage, I have already copied a whole lot of copyrighted material without reviewing any license
Nor do you need one just to view it. On the other hand, start distributing copies of that webpage to others and you'll find out what the license is for.
No, every work is copyrighted when it is created. That doesn't mean that every work is STILL under copyright. I realize that there are many who would like it to be otherwise, but copyright is not permanent (yet).
I don't know how our set of laws compare in this area, but if I buy stolen goods, I don't own it.
There's no such thing as "stolen goods" in copyright law. It was Amazon's distribution that violated copyright law, not the end user's possession of those files.
In reality, they're going to go after whoever the European equivalent of the RIAA tells them to go after. They don't care what type of music you have, or even if it is copyrighted at all. If the RIAA claims you shared music illegally, then they will cut off your service.
Yes, this bypasses any sort of due process, but that's the whole point. A 3 strikes law wouldn't need to exist if they were interested in following due process. If a court finds you guilty, 1 strike would be enough. This way, they don't need to bother with any of that "innocent until proven guilty" or "evidence" nonsense.
You'd also be surprised at how many people claim to want that, but as soon as they get it begin asking... now what about all of the features it's missing.:)
Here they will know, they will know who is listening, who is trying. Even worse, if your connection is encrypted, I am sure that there will be in the future an assumption you are braking the law, so you will be presumed guilty for having an encrypted connection
It's worse than that. They don't really even have to worry about finding who is listening or whether or not the traffic is encrypted. Because it's based on merely being accused 3 times, not actually proving you were guilty 3 times. They could just pull random names out of a hat. If they pick your name 3 times, you lose your internet. It wouldn't even matter that you did nothing or that they had no proof of anything. Then it would be up to you to sue them in order to get your connection back. Guilty until proven innocent (which is what these 3-strike laws are trying to get away with).
The Guinness "widget" works because it doesn't require a trigger to release the nitrogen, the pressure change of opening the bottle/can does it. It's based off the fact that nitrogen won't dissolve into beer very easily. I don't think the same device would work with O2.
Slashdot Mirror
You're primarily limited by the alcohol tolerance of the strain of yeast that you select to do the fermentation. With some very special handling, I've seen breweries get this up to 20%, but nowhere close to 55%.
The freezing technique they use is called "freeze distillation". Yes, it is a form of distillation, which means that technically this is not a beer anymore, but something else. They can call it whatever they want though, even if it is not correct.
There isn't. They're using freeze distillation. Once you switch from "brewing" to "distilling", it's not really beer anymore.
They can call it anything they want on the label, but you're right.
I was not aware that they even needed evidence. It doesn't seem to have stopped them so far.
Last time I checked, we live in a capitalist society
This has nothing to do with capitalism. The media companies give extremely large campaign contributions to the politicians. The politician is not going to receive another check during the next election cycle if the company no longer exists. That's why the government is willing to save their failing business models.
You are correct. Almost all of the news stories about this sort of thing get the downloading/uploading terminology wrong. This type of lawsuit is almost always against uploaders.
Those copies are not covered by copyright (incidental copies created during normal use are not infringement), therefore you don't need a license. Using/receiving material is completely different from distributing material.
That point being that being once removed from the crime does not necessarily mean you have any right to the merchandise, whether we're talking theft or infringement.
That is wrong, and it goes directly to the heart of the difference between theft and copyright infringement. The concept of "stolen property" does not exist in copyright. Copyright law is about the act of distribution, not ownership of the merchandise.
When I view a webpage, I have already copied a whole lot of copyrighted material without reviewing any license
Nor do you need one just to view it. On the other hand, start distributing copies of that webpage to others and you'll find out what the license is for.
Every work by default is copyrighted.
No, every work is copyrighted when it is created. That doesn't mean that every work is STILL under copyright. I realize that there are many who would like it to be otherwise, but copyright is not permanent (yet).
I don't know how our set of laws compare in this area, but if I buy stolen goods, I don't own it.
There's no such thing as "stolen goods" in copyright law. It was Amazon's distribution that violated copyright law, not the end user's possession of those files.
Don't laugh, it already happened.
"Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html
In reality, they're going to go after whoever the European equivalent of the RIAA tells them to go after. They don't care what type of music you have, or even if it is copyrighted at all. If the RIAA claims you shared music illegally, then they will cut off your service.
Yes, this bypasses any sort of due process, but that's the whole point. A 3 strikes law wouldn't need to exist if they were interested in following due process. If a court finds you guilty, 1 strike would be enough. This way, they don't need to bother with any of that "innocent until proven guilty" or "evidence" nonsense.
The outcry is not that Apple is revoking a right but simply that they are deliberately crippling a product ... and for what reason?
They don't need a reason.
Now if they can just teach the robot to play MMORPGs!
I think they already taught it simplified and repetitive tasks.
I haven't even read the posts.
You'd also be surprised at how many people claim to want that, but as soon as they get it begin asking... now what about all of the features it's missing. :)
Most people agree that the original author should have control of his creation.
I certainly hope not. Copyright has very little to do with guaranteeing control. If you want absolute control of your creation, don't publish it.
It seems like 80% of Slashdotters think that 80% of programmers suck but they're not part of that 80%.
Uhm... that's most likely a true statement. You do realize that not all programmers read Slashdot, and not all slashdot readers are programmers?
Exactly. Making fairly intricate stuff out of billet aluminum for the automotive industry has been going on for a long time.
Most of this stuff is made the same way as this demo. http://www.billetspecialties.com/subcategory.asp?cid=16
EInk has been saying "we'll have a color display next year"... for at least 5 years now.
Here they will know, they will know who is listening, who is trying. Even worse, if your connection is encrypted, I am sure that there will be in the future an assumption you are braking the law, so you will be presumed guilty for having an encrypted connection
It's worse than that. They don't really even have to worry about finding who is listening or whether or not the traffic is encrypted. Because it's based on merely being accused 3 times, not actually proving you were guilty 3 times. They could just pull random names out of a hat. If they pick your name 3 times, you lose your internet. It wouldn't even matter that you did nothing or that they had no proof of anything. Then it would be up to you to sue them in order to get your connection back. Guilty until proven innocent (which is what these 3-strike laws are trying to get away with).
What does copyright have to do with a story on patents?
I think you meant "promoted".
Microsoft, however, owns the patents
Really? Which ones are they again?
The Guinness "widget" works because it doesn't require a trigger to release the nitrogen, the pressure change of opening the bottle/can does it. It's based off the fact that nitrogen won't dissolve into beer very easily. I don't think the same device would work with O2.