"No spills in microgravity can be allowed, as these have a tendency to migrate into equipment and cause faults. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMtXfwk7PXg

I think copyrights are (or should be) structured fairly to serve a number of interests - those of the public, and those of the author/s (note that I didn't say copyright holder - I wouldn't grant the same rights of exploitation to an entity who has bought the copyright from the author) i.e. you seem to be saying that copyrights should primarily serve the public interest, and I disagree. I can respect your position about driving the hardest bargain possible, but as an author, I also want to drive the hardest bargain possible for my own benefit. I put in time, effort and money to create a work of interest and/or value, and I'll exploit that as much as possible.
 
BTW your statement about "quoting your post" is silly - this is, for all intents and purposes a public forum and we all have the expectation that our posts could be quoted - so there's an implicit permission granted to do so - don't want your post quoted? Don't post it.
 
"Reasonable" is quite a valid term, used frequently in the legal system - as you should know if you're a lawyer. I had the term "reasonable" explained to me by a judge when I was on jury duty - I was told it's an important part of considering all sorts of legal questions. So why shouldn't copyrights and exploitation of creative work be guided by what's "reasonable"? Why do you want creative works not treated reasonably?

There's a bit more to law and justice than the U.S. constitution. Granted, much of this happens under the jurisdiction of the U.S. constitution, but there are these concepts known as "natural justice" and "common law". Not being an expert on the U.S. constitution, I can't comment on "sweat of the brow" being unconstitutional, but whether a right to compensation for your work is enshrined, excluded or just not mentioned under a constitution or even a bill of rights, surely you're not seriously suggesting that the author of a creative work isn't entitled to compensation/income from that work, unless they've chosen to release it into the public domain?
 
I both create and consume content - and I respect the rights of those whose work I want to exploit (musicians, mostly). I ask their permission (and usually get it just by asking politely), but I'm also prepared to negotiate a licence and whatever fee that entails. Sometimes I've had to say "sorry, I can't afford that" and then I don't use that material. It's really that simple - can't afford it? Don't use it. Just because it's relatively easy to copy and distribute digital material doesn't mean you have the right to do so. I don't have the money to prevent you copying my work, so I just have to suck it up. If you buy one of my DVDs, I'm happy for you to back it up, format-shift it to as many of your devices as you want, sell it on, lend it, give it away etc, but I'm not happy for you to make copies for your friends or upload it to youtube, vimeo, etc. I think that's a reasonable approach.

There's more to graphics processing than games, you know....
 
I'll wait to see if Adobe certifies this card for Premiere Pro/After Effects. The difference between software rendering (i.e. not having a decent/certified GPU) and hardware rendering (a certified card with CUDA, memory and bandwidth) means that a card like this could pay for itself in a short period - maybe two or three projects.

The Princess Bride - imagine RoUS in 3D, a blast of hot air while moving through the forest, some kind of muscle relaxant to empathise with Westley as he recovers, aerosolised alcohol so we can be drunk with Inigo, hydrogen cyanide gas to spend our last moments with Vizzini, the list goes on......

What's misleading about it? No-one knows how long a PV panel made with organic molecule technology will last, so how could I mislead anyone, especially when my point was couched as a query - "what's the expected lifespan....."
 
Conventional doped silicon PV has a warranty of ~20 years for ~80% of rated output - such as the ones on my roof. That is a reasonable comparison to make - even if "organic" PV doesn't last as long as current technology - say one-quarter of the time - if it costs a similar amount in proportion, then it's a fair comparison . BTW I've been off-grid for almost 20 years and I support any efforts to improve decentralised domestic energy generation. Make yourself a nice green tea and have a good lie down before you attack, next time.

I'd be more worried about how long they last. What's the expected lifespan of organic molecules exposed to high levels of UV & heat for the majority of days over a 10 or 20-year period? Although if it's cheap enough, I guess you just strip and re-coat every 3-5 years.

Is it really worth the fuss to pirate/crack, when you can get the entire Adobe Suite on education/academic pricing for less than AUD$500?
 
I've saved more than $500 in delayed deadlines just by having access to the support community.

No - you produce a digital intermediate from your analog negative, edit the digital intermediate - cuts, transitions, etc, then hand that edited intermediate over to a film-cutter to assemble the analog master from the original negative, using the digital intermediate as a template.
 
It's much more complex than that, of course - but it's possible. Now as to why? Tonal range of 35mm film as mentioned above, probably. He'll need a good budget.

It seems that Bitcoin is being treated more like, and reacting more like a company or commodity stock. It's constantly being valued against the USD (which is convenient but not useful in terms of what a Bitcoin can actually do for you), and it's reacting to market pressures, e.g. value dropping on panic selling. In other words, traders see it as just another thing to be manipulated for their own gain. I was considering cranking up a mining client on one of my spare machines, souped up with a decent GPU, but now I couldn't be bothered.

All of it.

Best option from my point of view is to not let them use it at all - car or computer, but we'll stick with computer for now. Lots of options - 1. XP virtual machine under host Win 7. Advantage: familiar interface, no compromise to the host if the guest does something silly. Disadvantage: time spent wiping and starting from scratch. 2. LiveCD. Advantage: no compromise to the host, etc. Disadvantage: unfamiliar interface (although this alone might discourage them from even asking in the future). 3. Mandatory local policy to lock down access for the "guest" account. Advantage: very granular, no compromise to host IF it's accurately configured. Disadvantage: time and effort to configure and maintain. 4. Dedicated Linux box. similar advantages and disadvantages. 5 (bonus applicable to all options) Use OpenDNS and other tools on any platform to restrict access.

You can implement and edit "Local Computer Policy" but not on the "Home Premium" version - you need Pro or Ultimate.

Indeed - someone who can't recognise ROT-13 at a glance probably needs to expand their education a bit.
 
BIT, geddit? I'm such a funny fellow.....

Yes, black is not a colour, it's a complete lack of brightness, but you started talking about CMYK colour space, and now we're talking about cameras, which use RGB, and black has an RGB value of zero, zero, zero. It's still treated as a colour for all intents and purposes - saying "black is not a colour" is pointless in this context, as it has to be treated as a colour all the way through the process to the end viewer. It's not a passive "lack of brightness", it's taken into account in lots of ways when passed from one stage to another, e.g. during compression, also at broadcast stage, and so on.