They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."
Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer. Unless you are still paying him, of course. (sorry nycLawyer)
I think the traditional ire against lawyers is better applied to instances where they foment and churn expensive litigation (e.g., chase ambulances)... not where you pay them to voice your position more eloquently and knowledgably than you could. Moreover, it seems here there's an outside chance that the lawyers just might be voicing their own position...
It may not be the worst movie ever, but it is kinda like releasing a Sherlock Holmes movie where he runs around with a giant gun killing people until he solves the crime. Yeah, it might be a good action movie or whatever, but is hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work. That so few Star Trek fans "get" this is a bit unnerving.
(Mod parent fully 'insightful'). At the same time, though, a broadly entertaining "reboot" like this one can only be good news for Trek fans, who can now reasonably hope that its projected two sequels will recognize those original underpinnings as the only viable (i.e., profitable) direction to boldly go.
So, if I were designing an ultimate survivor species, I'd have it do a grinding incremental evolution most of the time. However, I'd also have members of the species occasionally take huge risks for a possible huge reward.... If a family member gets lucky then it will be at the top of the food chain for generations.
Hmm... that algorithm seems to favor the emergence of a race of blind squirrels...
... movies rated on the weekends were significantly more likely to be rated a 1 or a 5 than during the week... because people are more likely to watch movies with other people on the weekends and the mob mentality takes over...
Maybe. But weekenders are also more likely to be those who choose their movies based on advertising "promises"... which makes those viewers 1) less discriminating by nature, and 2) more liable to anger when the movie reneges on those promises.
I can't recall a single example in history where a software innovator was rewarded by their patent - there are probably a few, but they are vastly outnumbered by the software patents
...in other words, a ratio similar to non-software patents.
Again, the purpose of patents is to motivate widespread innovation... which should apply in software as much as elsewhere, including the non-copyrightable creation of new software processes and methods.
The difference with software is merely its speed of research and development. A 20-year exclusivity license is ridiculous overkill...
Let an ultra-intelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever.
But the "activity" of interest here is programming, or, more specifically, the conceiving of some creative goal which programming helps achieve. (Note, btw, that a truly "ultra-intelligent" machine won't need to program, e.g., another of itself.) Thus, the BIG question remains whether such a programmed machine can ever perform (much less surpass) "all the intellectual activities of any man". Afaics, it hardly seems a given...
1) High-contrast images such as credits can indeed be "projected at" the screen plane to prevent ghosting... but high-contrast images at any other plane will always have some ghosting. In my experience, this is true of polaroid, red-blue, and LCD-shutter glasses... and comprises a fundamental flaw in mass-audience 3D (...except for maybe your old View-Master).
2) Indeed, the one-projector high-Hz system is no doubt a great boon to exhibitors, as noted. In practice, unfortunately, it suffers from the fact that there's a necessary mis-sync between the display of supposedly simultaneous left- and right-images. In particular, you may notice that, in current Real-3D presentations, fast lateral-moving but-still-sharp objects produce a bizarre depth artifact/flicker... e.g., none of which is present in Imax's fully simultaneous 2-projector system. (I know that Real-3D waves its fabulous 144-fps rate. But watch carefully next time, and you'll see the proof is not in the pudding...)
"The truth" was a solid defense against libel claims?
IANAL, but... if I intended to publish such reasonable suspicions (especially against a well-heeled defendant), I'd be careful to state them as exactly that, my suspicions... including the reasons for them... and including, for good measure, an invitation to post the defendant's rebuttal. That ought to leave little purchase for counterclaims of malice, negligence, etc....
...the problem is, there's no content... This is a chicken and egg problem...
But there's a condor here. Every NFL fan who's watched a game in hi-def on his buddy's 60-inch widescreen now lives in constant resentment of his own former pride-and-joy set. The same will happen as soon as either of them watches a pass spiral into their living room. (Fwiw, the glasses are comfortable enough to be a relative non-issue.)
Fwiw, you can see a (very hi-def) approximation of the technology right now... if you're willing to sit through CHICKEN LITTLE... (another sort of chicken and egg problem...)
...a ferocious predator, feeding on other marine reptiles and large sea creatures...
...and yet, National Geo's dramatic illustration shows the fearsome beast springing from the waves to snatch down a flying ptero-whatzis. I guess a photo-op is a photo-op...
What is a patent? It is lending government's monopoly on the use of force....
Like it or not, it's also a way to encourage innovation. You might argue that Amazon's latest patent doesn't merit 20-year exclusivity... and I, for one, wouldn't argue with you. But it sure would be nice to somehow fix the USPTO's technique without relinquishing their goal...
...change the ranking of Google's organic results per each individual user...
Okay, here's a tinfoil-wrapped theory for your light enjoyment:
Psychologists have long claimed that advertising affects our psyches (e.g., cartoon shows' cereal and toy ads, the NFL's beer ads...). Google proposes to detect those changes in our psyches, and presumably to reinforce them. This could amount to a self-fulfilling and dangerous feedback-loop... resulting in mental image-burn, if not outright transformation. Before the body-snatching takes hold, I'm writing my congressperson...
Not being funny. (Not intentionally, anyway.) I confess that I'm only halfway through the Hines version, but I'm guessing that's enough to reliably opine. What Hines was trying to do (imo) was to channel the movie Wells would've made in 1898, including camera-work, pacing, film-stock, acting, etc. (I know there's a ton of anachronisms in there, but make allowances...) I'd even include the movie's Warhol-ian 3 hour running time. For a somewhat related well-regarded effort, take a look at the recent DRACULA: PAGES FROM A VIRGIN'S DIARY. (Rent or borrow, don't buy... and do have a fallback dvd on hand...) And, fwiw, I though the Spielberg WOTW was the summer movie of the year...
They're going to make you pay for what you would otherwise do for free at a bookstore (read parts of the book before you buy).
Isn't the key here that the portion of your library bought from Amazon becomes automatically computer-indexable? It does indeed sound as though Amazon should give it away for free...
Different strokes, to be sure... but I think the ending's defensible as one of sci-fi's all-time greats. (Don't be misled by the century of fiction since it was written.)
Meanwhile, fans of War of the Worlds, in all its incarnations but especially the original 19th-century book... should definitely check out the "other", much maligned, direct-to-video recent version. You may (repeat may) find it to be an unexpected treat, as I did...
...a pet peeve of mine...is that with [ultra hi-res], you can see if the camera isn't focused perfectly.
IANAExpert, but think that sequential generational losses are multiplicative... meaning that even the lowest-res tv presentation won't conceal bad focusing.
Apple just finished its fiscal 2005 with a profit margin just shy of 9.6%.
A knowledgeable personal acquaintance (a mutual-fund manager) once told me never to pick a stock on the basis of its CEO, because the guy's (/gal's) potential is always factored into the share-price. I guess that rule still makes sense, but, for those seeking exceptions, Steve Jobs does seem a good place to start...
Slashdot Mirror
Dwarf Planets Accumulate In Outer Solar System
"Heigh-ho, heigh-ho..."
They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."
Thus demonstrating again why you should never trust a lawyer. Unless you are still paying him, of course. (sorry nycLawyer)
I think the traditional ire against lawyers is better applied to instances where they foment and churn expensive litigation (e.g., chase ambulances)... not where you pay them to voice your position more eloquently and knowledgably than you could. Moreover, it seems here there's an outside chance that the lawyers just might be voicing their own position...
It may not be the worst movie ever, but it is kinda like releasing a Sherlock Holmes movie where he runs around with a giant gun killing people until he solves the crime. Yeah, it might be a good action movie or whatever, but is hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work. That so few Star Trek fans "get" this is a bit unnerving.
(Mod parent fully 'insightful'). At the same time, though, a broadly entertaining "reboot" like this one can only be good news for Trek fans, who can now reasonably hope that its projected two sequels will recognize those original underpinnings as the only viable (i.e., profitable) direction to boldly go.
Imagine a hurricane formed with the energy from 5-10 damped out storms.
Blows my mind...
So, if I were designing an ultimate survivor species, I'd have it do a grinding incremental evolution most of the time. However, I'd also have members of the species occasionally take huge risks for a possible huge reward. ... If a family member gets lucky then it will be at the top of the food chain for generations.
Hmm... that algorithm seems to favor the emergence of a race of blind squirrels...
Class teaches anyone social skills. Not sure you can learn it, though...
... movies rated on the weekends were significantly more likely to be rated a 1 or a 5 than during the week ... because people are more likely to watch movies with other people on the weekends and the mob mentality takes over ...
Maybe. But weekenders are also more likely to be those who choose their movies based on advertising "promises"... which makes those viewers 1) less discriminating by nature, and 2) more liable to anger when the movie reneges on those promises.
I can't recall a single example in history where a software innovator was rewarded by their patent - there are probably a few, but they are vastly outnumbered by the software patents
Again, the purpose of patents is to motivate widespread innovation... which should apply in software as much as elsewhere, including the non-copyrightable creation of new software processes and methods.
The difference with software is merely its speed of research and development. A 20-year exclusivity license is ridiculous overkill...
Let an ultra-intelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever.
But the "activity" of interest here is programming, or, more specifically, the conceiving of some creative goal which programming helps achieve. (Note, btw, that a truly "ultra-intelligent" machine won't need to program, e.g., another of itself.) Thus, the BIG question remains whether such a programmed machine can ever perform (much less surpass) "all the intellectual activities of any man". Afaics, it hardly seems a given...
and more importantly, can you divide by partial zero?
Well, I think you can... but, then, I'm partial...
Points from an attentive consumer:
1) High-contrast images such as credits can indeed be "projected at" the screen plane to prevent ghosting... but high-contrast images at any other plane will always have some ghosting. In my experience, this is true of polaroid, red-blue, and LCD-shutter glasses... and comprises a fundamental flaw in mass-audience 3D (...except for maybe your old View-Master).
2) Indeed, the one-projector high-Hz system is no doubt a great boon to exhibitors, as noted. In practice, unfortunately, it suffers from the fact that there's a necessary mis-sync between the display of supposedly simultaneous left- and right-images. In particular, you may notice that, in current Real-3D presentations, fast lateral-moving but-still-sharp objects produce a bizarre depth artifact/flicker... e.g., none of which is present in Imax's fully simultaneous 2-projector system. (I know that Real-3D waves its fabulous 144-fps rate. But watch carefully next time, and you'll see the proof is not in the pudding...)
Per Merriam-Webster . . . To bind means to constipate...
IANAL, but... if I intended to publish such reasonable suspicions (especially against a well-heeled defendant), I'd be careful to state them as exactly that, my suspicions... including the reasons for them... and including, for good measure, an invitation to post the defendant's rebuttal. That ought to leave little purchase for counterclaims of malice, negligence, etc. ...
It's well-known that the only true anti-gravity device is a (Score:5, Funny)
But there's a condor here. Every NFL fan who's watched a game in hi-def on his buddy's 60-inch widescreen now lives in constant resentment of his own former pride-and-joy set. The same will happen as soon as either of them watches a pass spiral into their living room. (Fwiw, the glasses are comfortable enough to be a relative non-issue.)
Fwiw, you can see a (very hi-def) approximation of the technology right now... if you're willing to sit through CHICKEN LITTLE... (another sort of chicken and egg problem...)
Like it or not, it's also a way to encourage innovation. You might argue that Amazon's latest patent doesn't merit 20-year exclusivity... and I, for one, wouldn't argue with you. But it sure would be nice to somehow fix the USPTO's technique without relinquishing their goal...
Okay, here's a tinfoil-wrapped theory for your light enjoyment:
Psychologists have long claimed that advertising affects our psyches (e.g., cartoon shows' cereal and toy ads, the NFL's beer ads...). Google proposes to detect those changes in our psyches, and presumably to reinforce them. This could amount to a self-fulfilling and dangerous feedback-loop... resulting in mental image-burn, if not outright transformation. Before the body-snatching takes hold, I'm writing my congressperson...
Not being funny. (Not intentionally, anyway.) I confess that I'm only halfway through the Hines version, but I'm guessing that's enough to reliably opine. What Hines was trying to do (imo) was to channel the movie Wells would've made in 1898, including camera-work, pacing, film-stock, acting, etc. (I know there's a ton of anachronisms in there, but make allowances...) I'd even include the movie's Warhol-ian 3 hour running time. For a somewhat related well-regarded effort, take a look at the recent DRACULA: PAGES FROM A VIRGIN'S DIARY. (Rent or borrow, don't buy... and do have a fallback dvd on hand...) And, fwiw, I though the Spielberg WOTW was the summer movie of the year...
Right... up to a certain number of books. But I was thinking Amazon would index each book's content, too...
Isn't the key here that the portion of your library bought from Amazon becomes automatically computer-indexable? It does indeed sound as though Amazon should give it away for free...
Different strokes, to be sure... but I think the ending's defensible as one of sci-fi's all-time greats. (Don't be misled by the century of fiction since it was written.)
Meanwhile, fans of War of the Worlds, in all its incarnations but especially the original 19th-century book... should definitely check out the "other", much maligned, direct-to-video recent version. You may (repeat may) find it to be an unexpected treat, as I did...
IANAExpert, but think that sequential generational losses are multiplicative... meaning that even the lowest-res tv presentation won't conceal bad focusing.
A knowledgeable personal acquaintance (a mutual-fund manager) once told me never to pick a stock on the basis of its CEO, because the guy's (/gal's) potential is always factored into the share-price. I guess that rule still makes sense, but, for those seeking exceptions, Steve Jobs does seem a good place to start...