Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:The Sony (Score 1) 684

I have only the Sony PRS-505, and have never used any other e-reader. I like it very much because it supports so many open/common formats, such as PDF, RTF, and EPUB. There is a good third-party FOSS app for it as well (Calibre). In addition to being good for public domain texts, it is also great for viewing your own documents. I used it to study my bar exam outlines, which I merely saved in RTF format and copied to the reader. Again, I can't compare it to other e-readers because I haven't tried any, but it's good for what I like to do with it. The interface is pretty clumsy, but that really doesn't get in the way too badly.

Comment Re:Don't be interested yet, headline is incorrect (Score 1) 297

That depends on the rocket.
The Redstone, Thor, Jupiter, Atlas, Delta, Saturn IB and the first stage of the Saturn V all used what is basically jet fuel. The USSR used liquid fueled rockets on subs and yes they did a few issues with that.
BTW the Navy was going use the Jupiter on subs but they decided that solid fuel was the way to go for the reasons you gave. In that case it wouldn't be the fuel so much as all that LOX and fuel together.
I do agree that there is a difference but If I had not included that statment you know that somebody would say, "What about the Regulus, Harpoon, and Tomahawk? They are liquid fueled."
And I really didn't want to deal with that today.

Comment The other side of the story (Score 2, Informative) 280

Mules, long noted for stubbornness, would seem to have nothing on either the music labels or Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Both sides have dug in deep and are prepared, almost unbelievably, to have a third trial on the question of whether Thomas-Rasset was a dirty P2P pirate... and of what she should pay if she was.

At the second trial, in 2009, Thomas-Rasset was again found liable, but the jury this time fined her $1.92 million. Last week, federal judge Michael Davis decided that this was "monstrous" in its disproportionality and slashed the damages to $54,000. The recording industry could either accept his decision or request a third trial.

The RIAA then sent a letter to Thomas-Rasset's lawyers with an alternate offer. Thomas-Rasset could settle for only $25,000 ("We are willing to negotiate a payment schedule for this sum," said a copy of the letter seen by Ars), and she wouldn't even need to pay the labels--all cash could go to a charity benefiting musicians. The entire settlement would be conditioned on the judge vacating his recent remittitur order.

"We do not believe embarking on a third trial is in anyone's interest," said the letter. "Continuing to use scarce judicial resources as well as spend our respective clients' time and money strikes as unwise and pointless."

It does not strike Thomas-Rasset that way. While the RIAA asked for an answer by Friday, January 29, Thomas-Rasset's lawyers have already responded: no deal.

I checked in with Kiwi Camara, one of Thomas-Rasset's lawyers. who confirmed that the settlement was ruled out. He added that Thomas-Rasset would likewise rule out any settlement asking her to pay damages, and that the Camara & Sibley law firm was ready to represent her pro bono once more.

It's hard to see how this will play out, but a few things are clear: Judge Davis, despite strong criticism of the damage award, had no kind words for Thomas-Rasset. He noted that "ThomasRasset's refusal to accept responsibility for her actions and her decision to concoct a new theory of the infringement casting possible blame on her children and exboyfriend for her actions demonstrate a refusal to accept responsibility and raise the need for strong deterrence." The judge even concluded that she "lied on the witness stand by denying responsibility for her infringing acts and, instead, blamed others, including her children, for her actions."

Given the facts in the case, which after two trials don't appear to be in dispute, it's hard to see how Thomas-Rasset hopes to prevail without paying a dime, but that appears to be the plan.

  If she had been willing to pay something, she would have done so long ago, when the RIAA offered her a settlement of a few thousand dollars. Instead, Thomas-Rasset has spent years of her life working with two law firms on two federal trials, and she's willing to risk a third.

The stubbornness isn't just on one side of the aisle, however. The RIAA is completely unwilling to abide Judge Davis' ruling that the jury's damage award was excessive. Accepting the ruling would set an unacceptable precedent for judges to alter jury awards in copyright cases at their whim. It's not the amount, but the principle--something shown by the fact that the trade group is willing to drop roughly a bazillion dollars more on the Denver law firm that has been prosecuting the case in order to do it all again. In addition, conversations with industry lawyers and executives over the years have also revealed a strong sense that Thomas-Rasset needs to take responsibility and pay something; there's a very real sense that, apart from issue of statutory damage law, Thomas-Rasset is thumbing her nose at the industry and hoping to get away with no penalty.

Thus--a third trial.

Thomas-Rasset vows to pay nothing, so third trial inevitable [Jan 28]

To restore a sense of reality, I think Walt Disney should have a Hardluckland. -- Jack Paar