Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Disengenous (Score 1) 306

Then Libraries should partner with Amazon. Like the book. Try it in the library. Order it, and your UAV will drop it off at your house before you get home (or upload it to your Kindle). There's already lots of "free" places to browse books. The library. I don't see the problem.

Comment Re:Fatsos (Score 4, Insightful) 88

Calorie in Calorie out.

That's not how it works. Celery has calories (in the sense that burning it will generate heat), but has negative digestive calories (in the sense that pulling the nutrients from it and pushing the waste out will burn more calories than gained by the process).

Some people have low absorption. They eat anything they want, and don't get fat. Others are much more efficient. The efficient can eat according to any diet you pick that is sustainable for an inefficient person, and still gain weight.

You don't make fat from nothing, but some people can get fat on 1/2 the calories of someone else. Blaming the person with the efficient metabolism for eating "only" 75% of the other person (despite having a nearly identical hunger response), makes you a gigantic asshole.

Comment Re:1 or 1 million (Score 1) 274

So you don't consider a car named "Faster Than The Mustang" to be a product claim of any kind? If GM launched that (and didn't run into any trademark issues), you wouldn't consider it a problem if the car was slower than the Mustang?

Now, the claim would need to be related to the product. Like it's fraud to sell "fruit cocktail" in the USA that doesn't have the right percentage of cherry. And that's dependent on the product name, and is in the USA. And it wouldn't be fraud to sell the Toyota Wish, as no reasonable person would think that buying a crappy minivan would grant you a wish.

I mentioned outside the US, because "common sense" as expressed outside the US says fraud is illegal. I know fraud in a product name is illegal in the US for some meats, fruits, and fruit cocktail. But I don't know about other areas. You assert no, but you did so absolutely, and I know for a fact you are wrong, at least with some products, so I don't trust your opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... Reality proves you wrong. Your move.

Comment JJ meets his Waterloo attacking high tech (Score 0) 514

JJ meets his Waterloo when he barges into the electronics lab. Even the black people in the electronics/high tech biz are about as far away from being black as you can be. All fifty of them.

For 400 years, the Afro-american community has been desperately breeding a certain type of individual. A type of person who can survive slave work and still pass their inherent africaness into the next generation. After 20 solid generations, they created the 'African-American'.

The technology industry is almost as old (if you see the industrial revolution and beginning of science as part of the tech industry). It too has created a certain individual type: the nerd.

The A-As and the nerds are about as far apart as people can be. All the characteristics bred into one group were bred out of the other group. They can barely talk to each other, even when they speak the same language.

The tech industry hires two types of people: nerds and people who support the needs of nerds. And since the tech industry is one of the most important industries in the world today, (along with food production and high finance) , they get to choose who they will pay to work for them.

The only reason the nerds will hire black people is as office pets. And then only the ones who know the difference between flux and a capacitor. And the ones "just know" without being specifically taught that you can type "ST7735R" into Google when you want to get the 250 page manual of a thin-flat-transistor screen. And who would never bring up the subject of "mah dih'que" in the workplace. Not too many people like this around, and the ones that are, are already working in the high tech biz.

So let's just redirect our conversation to the vast legacy of great JJ jokes that have written over the past half century. Old standards like:

Q: What's this? fee foh fii - fii fee foh foh A: JJ's telephone number (from 1977)

-or, the more esoteric,

JJ visited the Middle East and met with Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat. After the meeting, JJ was overheard saying to himself: "...been a long time since I said 'Yah, sir' to anyone".

Comment Re:Isn't this exempted? (Score 1) 317

Nope, you misunderstand what the loophole was. It's utterly irrelevant whether or not it's easy to copy the music out.

You need to forget "plain English" and what "makes sense". We're dealing with the law and legalese. You need to think like a computer running into odd code. If a programmer writes "int Two=3;" then you'll get "Two+2=5". You need to obey the definition you're given, even if it clashes with what you think it should mean. You can't just assume Two+2 is supposed to be 4 when the code (or the law) says something different.

This law has a definitions section, and we are concerned with with three key pieces. I'll trim it to the critical bits.

A "digital musical recording" is a material object [...blah blah...]
A "digital musical recording" does not include a material object [...blah blah blah..] in which one or more computer programs are fixed

Therefore, according to the law, MP3 files on a computer hard drive are not "digital musical recordings".

A "digital audio copied recording" is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording [...blah blah...]

Therefore, according to the law, an MP3 player that copies an MP3 off of a computer is not creating a "digital audio copied recording".

A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device [...blah blah...] making a digital audio copied recording

Therefore an MP3 player copying MP3's off a computer is not a "digital audio recording device".

The law only applies to "digital audio recording devices", therefore nothing in the law applies to MP3 players. Unfortunately this shitty law does seem to apply to a car audio system copying music off of CDs. Unless the judge gets "creative" in interpreting the law, it seems to me that car manufacturers are going to have to pay damages for every unit produced so far, are going to have to implement DRM on these car audio systems (preventing them from loading any song that's flagged as already being a copy), and are going to have to pay royalties to the RIAA for each future unit sold.

-

Comment Re:Are they serious? (Score 1) 317

The Audio Home Recording Act makes it illegal to manufacture or sell "Audio Recording Devices" unless they implement the Serial Copy Management System (a form of DRM).

The Audio Home Recording Act has a clause explicitly excluding computers from being "an Audio Recording Device", and excluding computer hard drives from being "Audio Recording Media". So when MP3 players copy music from a computer they basically slide through a loophole in the law. The music industry fought a court case over MP3 players and lost on this exact point. According to that court ruling, MP3 players do NOT fall within the law's explicit definition of "Audio Recording Device". Therefore MP3 players are not required to implement the idiot DRM system.

It looks like the system installed in these cars does fall within the law's definition of Audio Recording Device. It looks like the music industry has a solid case here, unless an "activist" judge sees how stupid this all is and comes up with some creative way to avoid applying this idiot law.

-

Comment Re:Isn't this exempted? (Score 1) 317

The Audio Home Recording Act is a horrid law mandating DRM in any digital audio recording device. This law is directly responsible for the extermination of all technological innovation in the field, up until MP3 players essentially slipped through a loophole. Digital Audio Tape (DAT) failed in the consumer market because of this DRM crap. Minidisc failed even harder. And god-knows how many other technologies were killed by this law and I can't name them because they never got far enough to be named.

That said.... you are looking at the wrong part of the law. I'll post the correct sections below. I sure as hell hope the music industry loses this case, but based on this asinine law I don't see how they'd lose.

Section 1001. Definitions
(3) A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for -
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.

Section 1002. Incorporation of copying controls
(a) Prohibition on Importation, Manufacture, and Distribution. - No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to -
(1) the Serial Copy Management System;
(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the systemâ(TM)s method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or
(3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.

Section 1009. Civil remedies
(a) Civil Actions. - Any interested copyright party injured by a violation of section 1002 or 1003 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court against any person for such violation.

-

Comment Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 868

They've been offered freedom, with the condition that they stop trying to kill Israelis. They refused.Their movement is restricted because Egypt closed their borders as well. So why is nobody complaining about Egypt?

Israel has carte blanche to shoot wherever it wants and claim it was targetting Hamas

Yes. When they shoot back, they will always hit civilians. Nut Hamas refuses to stop giving them reasons to shoot back.

They had freedom of movement. It was ended when Hamas used that freedom to attack. They had freedom of trade, until Hamas used that freedom to trade in arms to attack with. All the problems in the area were caused by Hamas. Israel sits at the negotiation table trying to find a better way, but Hamas refuses to show up. And yet, it's all Israel's fault.

Comment Re:USB Import (Score 1) 317

Who the hell buys/uses CD's anymore?

(raises hand)

My CD from the 80s (yes, I still have a few) and 90s and 00s didn't disappear. I buy CDs from bands at shows. (And usually rip them, eventually.) And doing business with the forms of Pure Concentrated Evil known to mankind as Apple and Amazon is not an option, so digital download options are limited.

Comment Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 868

It isn't that old. It "started" with the numerous invasions by numerous people over time. The reason is because it was a crossroads to Africa, Asia, and Europe. Yes, aside from the Suez canal, it's possible to walk from Africa to Asia/Europe. They are one land mass, and one of the most convenient places to pass between them is the middle east.

The Crusades were because of economic envy, not religion. The area was so "important" that England held it for a while, which is how it was able to be "gifted" to the WWII refugees. And it's been war ever since with the neighbors trying to finish what Hitler started.

Between the crusades and the creation of Israel, England has more to do with starting this than many who lived there.

Comment Re:Radicalization (Score 2) 868

I don't bother to follow that mess. There's nothing I can do about it, so it's pointless to try. But, in response to your accusations, I looked and found nothing that supported the story.

Your quote confirms that Hamas used the school as a human shield, deliberately firing from there, which those near knew. But rather than evacuate, they stayed at the launch site for an attack on Israel. Why? Oh, Hamas refused them passage to safety. Hamas kidnapped them for human shields. And Israel is in the wrong for hitting Hamas back, because Hamas had kidnapped human shields still on site.

Yes, all Israel's fault.

Slashdot Top Deals

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Working...