Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Pixels aren't little squares (Score 1) 304

His algorithm steps up pixel density by 36, fusses around with it to enhance contrast, then effectively halves it again (as each pixel is now 2 fixed, if oddly shaped, blocks of solid color). I think this is more effective as an "enhance contrast" algorithm than a compression algo, since it seems you would still need to account for the increased resolution, though adding tracking as RGBA1/RGBA2/Shape/Rotation could streamline the bitmap data.

Comment Re:But the TERRORISTS! (Score 1) 450

Dust build up and sandstorms are likely to cause more damage than petty thieves and t'rr'rists. Also less easy to solve.

C&C style tesla towers powered by the sea of solar panels could stop trespassers. A Saharan Storm, however, doesn't fear death; and the only thing that doesn't fear a Saharan storm is a saharan... wait, where am I? Too much spice.

Comment Re:Geothermal (Score 1) 369

I'm sorry parasite, the Earth cannot hear you over Mars's incessant taunting. It thinks it's sooo grown up just because it shed it's biosphere a billion years earlier. Well you know what, Mars? Everyone acts like they don't notice that enormous mountain when they talk to you, but they do. We all do. We even have a name for it.

Comment Re:Scape Goat (Score 1) 168

If a manufacturer or provider of a service that induces customers to use the product for copyright infringement, then they can be held liable.

I think there is a strong case that they do, let me start with the following so you can see where I'm coming from.

Postulate: Downloading doesn't violate copyright owners right to control distribution, uploading, however, does. We all talk about downloading, but we're talking about a system that combines consumption and distribution. The courts have never been leveraged against leechers or non-p2p downloads. I feel this is strong evidence that even the RIAA must agree this to be the case or they would be more eager to terrorize IRC/Usenet users, who are just as easy to catch in the act.

Justification of Inducement claim: Since Limewire does not inform it's users that the content they are downloading is copyrighted, it could be argued they are inducing the user to unwittingly redistribute it by providing it to them, then causing them to immediately begin uploading it to others. If the user had to manually opt-in to share each file they download, I don't think they would have a case against Limewire. Consider an IRC program. mIRC (I don't know what's hot these days..) may not inform you that you are downloading copyrighted works; but the user must take it upon themselves to intentionally redistribute it. Thus mIRC does not induce the user to distribute licensed works.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 168

$150,000 is the maximum the law allows for statutory damages. It does not consider actual damages caused by the infringement. You can sue for those too, you just have to prove the number you come up with; which is hard. Asking for statutory damages is easy.

So, why not all the money on earth? Because that would require them to work for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

My idea of roughing it turning the air conditioner too low.

Working...