Slashdot Mirror

The archive.org capture of Feb 11, 2011 shows a godaddy.com parking page.

The next archive.org capture of Oct 14, 2017 shows a page devoted to the mysterious "TitleTown Tech Solutions". The last capture of Aug 26, 2018 looks to be very similar as does the live page as of this posting.

The site at no point that was captured contains phone number, street address, specific list of services or products. "About us", or other things one would expect of most businesses. The only forms of contact are on the Contact Us page and consist of two email addresses: info@titletowntech.com and helpdesk@titletowntech.com.

It's hard to believe this site is representing a "real" business.

The archive.org capture of Feb 11, 2011 shows a godaddy.com parking page.

The next archive.org capture of Oct 14, 2017 shows a page devoted to the mysterious "TitleTown Tech Solutions". The last capture of Aug 26, 2018 looks to be very similar as does the live page as of this posting.

The site at no point that was captured contains phone number, street address, specific list of services or products. "About us", or other things one would expect of most businesses. The only forms of contact are on the Contact Us page and consist of two email addresses: info@titletowntech.com and helpdesk@titletowntech.com.

It's hard to believe this site is representing a "real" business.

^ This

It's even linked in the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20...

A website does not make a business.

^ This

It's even linked in the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Most importantly, do they have Battletoads?

Why, yes, they do.

Some people of all backgrounds do bad things. Someone growing up badly is more likely to happen when parents and the community do not have enough resources to make time for kids and for each other -- since "it takes a village to raise a child well". So, making more money available to people outside of formal schooling seems (to me) to overall be likely to lead to a reduction in violence and other bad behavior across the board -- including by reducing stress levels. (A universal basic income would be another way to address this.)

The mostly forgotten purpose of Prussian-inspired schooling in according to Gatto is to turn children into obedient cannon fodder for a military empire. That includes increasing class and race prejudice in structural ways (e.g. the medium is the message, regardless of the content). Give public schools more money and they will only do that distasteful task even better.

So, without public schools derived from Prussian militaristic ambitions, would the USA overall -- including wars -- be a less violent nation?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The Prussian education system refers to the system of education established in Prussia as a result of educational reforms in the late 18th and early 19th century, which has had widespread influence since. It is predominantly used as an American political slogan in educational reform debates, since it was adopted by all American K-12 public schools and major universities as early as the late 18th century, and is often used as a derogatory term for education in the service of nation-building, teaching children and young adults blind obedience to authority, and reinforcing class and race prejudice. The actual Prussian education system was introduced as a basic concept in the late 18th century and was significantly enhanced after Prussia's defeat in the early stages of the Napoleonic Wars. The Prussian educational reforms inspired other countries and remains important as a biopower in the Foucaultian sense for nation-building. Compulsory education on the Prussian example was soon mirrored in Scandinavia, and United States started to adopt the Prussian example."

And in general, by John Taylor Gatto: https://archive.org/details/Th...
"John Taylor Gatto is a former New York public schoolteacher who taught for thirty years and won multiple awards for his teaching. However, constant harassment by unhelpful administrations plus his own frustrations with what he came to realize were the inherent systemic deficiencies of our `public' schools led him to resign; he now is a school-choice activist who writes and speaks against our compulsory, government-run school system.
THE UNDERGROUND HISTORY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION is a freewheeling investigation into the real - as opposed to the `official' - history of schooling, focused on the U.S. but with examinations of other historical examples for the purposes of comparing and contrasting, as well as for tracing where ideas and concepts related to education originated. You will discover things you were never told in the official version, things that will, at times, surprise, disgust, and scare you. You will also be introduced to the little-known historiography of the the darker side of the construction of compulsory government schooling.
In the final analysis, Gatto believes that compulsory, government-run schooling is inherently destructive to true education, the cultivation of self-reliance, and indeed to individualism - which used to be a defining element of the American character. The true purpose of our public school system in reality has more to do with control than it does with learning. This does not mean that rank-and-file teachers, principals, and even superintendents believe they are making students dumber, more conformist, less self-reliant, less capable of genuine analytical, independent thou

Please read Mr. Damore's thesis, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20...

I read it as an honest statement of belief, based on traditional beliefs about sexual dimorphism. My own opinion? He's assuming some specific human social traditions, rather than "Mrs. Bear has the same job description as Mr. Bear. Find lunch!"

Ignition!: An informal history of liquid rocket propellants by John D. Clark, first published by Rutgers University Press, 1972.

It's now available as free PDF and ebooks at archive.org. I thought I'd flip through it for a couple minutes and ended up reading it cover to cover. It's well written, and you don't need to be a chemist or rocket scientist to enjoy it. What I got out of it is how nasty some of the chemicals used in rocket propellants are. And of course there are tales of lonely nerds slaving away in their labs only to die in an explosion. Really a fun read for nerds.

America's top "mathletes" have won the first place once again this year in the international Math Olympiad.

The team's group picture, however, is as racist as it gets...

The winning team picture has been archived @ https://web.archive.org/web/20...
 
There were altogether 7 members on the stage - consist of 5 yellow (4 male and 1 female) plus 2 brown males
 
Taking a cue from Slashdot's anti-Chinese sentiment - that the Chinese are all thieves and cheaters - the 5 Chinese thieves and cheaters must have stolen everything from their 2 brown skinned friends.
 
Next time we should just send those 2 brown skinned guys. It would save us some money.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Optional wireless charging case coming in 2018.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Because

Your post didn't work very well. There was no because.

C is for systems programmers who already need to be aware that they can't just make assumptions

Then why are there so many vulnerabilities in C applications? Seems like there are assumptions aplenty.

C is already safe

Is it? Let's have a look at a security analysis of applications written in C on FreeRTOS. It seems like they're riddled with flaws. Saying "just write better code" lacks real world perspective.

If you enjoyed that joke, check this one out. The EPA quickly took it down as they found it quite embarrassing.

As reported by Vox:

“[The new fuel efficiency proposal] is anticipated to prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule,” the EPA wrote in a press release about the announcement. The EPA said the proposed changes would save 1,000 lives per year.

The navy either has to acquire
longer range fighters and strike aircraft, buy more of their existing aircraft to use as tankers, or acquire a dedicated tanker aircraft.

There is no need for the navy to do any of the above. Consider:

"A total of 262 KC-135s and 46 KC-10s operating out of 21 locations
in 10 countries provided round the clock aerial refueling support to U.S.
Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and Coalition forces during
Desert Storm." (https://archive.org/stream/DTIC_ADA279743/DTIC_ADA279743_djvu.txt with obvious typos in aircraft designations corrected.)

Yet the navy still maintains their own in-flight refueling capability using fighter/attack aircraft.

Isn't a majority of the air force's tanker assets reserved for strategic operations?

As far as reliability, I suspect an automated drone will be more reliable than a human pilot in short order for difficult operations like landings.

You can suspect all you want, but when was the last time you heard of a tanker crashing on a carrier? Navy pilots are exceptionally good at landing on carriers.

Using drones for refueling would free up pilots (or the expense of those pilots) for jobs they can currently do better than autonomous aircraft.

The navy either has to acquire longer range fighters and strike aircraft, buy more of their existing aircraft to use as tankers, or acquire a dedicated tanker aircraft.

There is no need for the navy to do any of the above. Consider:

"A total of 262 KC-135s and 46 KC-10s operating out of 21 locations in 10 countries provided round the clock aerial refueling support to U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and Coalition forces during Desert Storm." (https://archive.org/stream/DTIC_ADA279743/DTIC_ADA279743_djvu.txt with obvious typos in aircraft designations corrected.)

As far as reliability, I suspect an automated drone will be more reliable than a human pilot in short order for difficult operations like landings.

You can suspect all you want, but when was the last time you heard of a tanker crashing on a carrier? Navy pilots are exceptionally good at landing on carriers.

It should always be assumed that Google is spying on anything they can, that they will lie about it when feasible, and that they have no shame in doing so. This is not new. It's up to you to protect yourself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

The burden of proof is with the person making the claim, not with Google. Having said that, evidence is considered a successful debunk. If you did something, others can see you did it, and then you say you did, that's sufficient. At this point you shouldn't believe anything that Trump says.

You got the dates wrong. The Wayback Machine operates on UTC, not EST. Since the SOTU address began at 9pm EST, you're effectively trying to find a live broadcast half a day before it happened. You can find the Wayback Machine link to Trump's 2018 SOTU address on Google's website here

Ignoring the "not technically SOTU", the Jan 30, 2018 address was promoted, right?

Curiously I can't find it on the Wayback Machine, though Obama's are indeed there from well early each morning on the days noted.

Here's Jan 30, 2018 mid-afternoon:
http://web.archive.org/web/201...

Can anyone point me to the right time of day, or alternative to archive.org which has a capture showing what's claimed in the article?

You got the dates wrong in that Obama took the presidency in 2009, not 2016. His initial speech to joint session of Congress was on 2/24/2009: https://web.archive.org/web/20... See a link here?

From TFA:
"a Google spokesperson clarifies that the company promoted neither former President Barack Obama nor Trump’s inaugural SOTU addresses in 2009 and 2017, respectively." ... (since they are not technically SOTU addresses) ... "Google resumed promoting Obama’s SOTU address in 2010 and continued to do so through 2016"

The link for Trumps 2018 SOTU address is here.

Trump is lying. Yet again. Unfortunately all of his supporters foghorn out his lies without checking the facts, and they spread.

You got the dates wrong. The Wayback Machine operates on GMT, not EST, since the SOTU address began at 9pm, you need to look at the 31st GMT, not the 30th EST. You can find the SOTU linked Google page here.

You really have reading compehension issues, don't you?

From TFA:
"a Google spokesperson clarifies that the company promoted neither former President Barack Obama nor Trump’s inaugural SOTU addresses in 2009 and 2017, respectively." ... "Google resumed promoting Obama’s SOTU address in 2010 and continued to do so through 2016"

Meanwhile, the 2018 advertisement is clearly visible on the Wayback Machine, which operates on GMT not EST, so you should have been looking at the morning of 31st, not the 30th.

In short, Trump lied, and you're a fucking retard.

Have you checked the Wayback Machine? Google is flat-out lying. Go to https://archive.org/web/ and put in the dates yourself. Obama's last SOTU was January 12, 2016. You find it advertised on Google's home page. Then check out the 2018 date, January 30. There's no adverstisement.

Trump told the truth. Google lied.

The article says 170 tapes with 30 tracks, it does not say how long any of them are or that they were only recording 30 tracks at one time. 5,100 tracks is all it gives you. The NASA release mentions these are "surviving tapes" and also says there is a lot more audio that hasn't been digitized. It also hints at transcriptions, perhaps coming to the Explore Apollo site at some point.

The labels have things like "Flight Director (L)" and "Flight Director (R)" taking up two tracks on a tape. Some of the ones I have opened up sound like they are data (the labels are the same for every tape and do not match the contents). I also found one with some folks that sound Australian (maybe) troubleshooting something.

I imagine "T880" is a tape label (I get 24 audio tracks for that one), followed by which Historical Recorder was used and potentially which reel on the recorder (U and L look a lot like Upper/Lower to me), then the channel. Unsure on the timestamp, except it appears to be sequential (T889 has channel 17 from 01-42-10_10-12-10 and 10-12-10_18-21-28, but there is silence in the first and talking in the second).

Bitcoin mining power usage estimates: 1-4 GW (anonymous experts quoted by Washington Post; Dec 2017), 3.3 GW (Power Compare, a consultancy; Nov 2017), 0.5 GW (some random blogger who shows his working; Mar 2017). I'm going to trust the last of these to be most reliable, and add a factor of two for a year's worth of growth, and guess 1 GW, acknowledging that there's a big error bar here.

Taking a major gold-mining company (Newmont), their energy usage is 40-50m GJ = 1.4 GW. This is about half diesel fuel, and a quarter from the grid. They produce ~5m oz/yr of gold, out of a total global production of 4000 t/yr = 140m oz/yr (some well-referenced table on wikipedia; 2013). Assuming this company is typical, this implies total energy usage for gold mining of 40 GW; the figure for 2018 might be ~2 times higher, judging by the growth trend.

Finally, total global power consumption is ~18,000 GW (an IEA report linked from wikipedia; 2015). So bitcoin mining is ~0.01% of total power usage, and gold mining is ~0.2% of total power usage.

Conclusions: (1) bitcoin mining uses much less (~40x less) power than gold mining; (2) the title of TFA is utter bullshit.

Here's what the law basically says. I'm paraphrasing: A company that hosts online user-generated content (Facebook, Twitter, etc., yes?) is protected from liability from that content, as long as the content is end-user-controlled. HOWEVER... if the hosting company controls that content, i.e. censors it or otherwise restricts what that content may be, then the company assumes liability for that content. Another way to put it is: when they suspend accounts over speech they find objectionable, they are accepting liability for all the other content that remains. There is legal precedent for this and in fact it's pretty clear in the law. They are protected if they take down illegal content, but not content they just don't like.

That's what the law said in 1995. The U.S. New York Supreme Court decision Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 323710 held that online service providers could be held liable for the speech of their users. However, in 1996 the Communications Decency Act was passed, which includes the crucial section 230:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. ... [Section 230] remains in force and allows ISPs and other service providers to restrict customers' actions without fear of being found legally liable for the actions that are allowed. The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the Court notes that "Congress enacted 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision.[4]"

So section 230 overturned Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy 1995. The Electronic Frontier Foundation explains:

"CDA 230 also offers its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments."

That editorial judgments link lists several court cases upholding this law, including Blumenthal v. Drudge, 922 F. Supp. 44, 52 (D.D.C. 1998): "230 forbids the imposition of publisher liability on a service provider for the exercise of its editorial and self-regulatory functions."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation FAQ makes this clear:

Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content?

"Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find that you have sufficien

Here's what the law basically says. I'm paraphrasing: A company that hosts online user-generated content (Facebook, Twitter, etc., yes?) is protected from liability from that content, as long as the content is end-user-controlled. HOWEVER... if the hosting company controls that content, i.e. censors it or otherwise restricts what that content may be, then the company assumes liability for that content. Another way to put it is: when they suspend accounts over speech they find objectionable, they are accepting liability for all the other content that remains. There is legal precedent for this and in fact it's pretty clear in the law. They are protected if they take down illegal content, but not content they just don't like.

That's what the law said in 1995. The U.S. New York Supreme Court decision Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 323710 held that online service providers could be held liable for the speech of their users. However, in 1996 the Communications Decency Act was passed, which includes the crucial section 230:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. ... [Section 230] remains in force and allows ISPs and other service providers to restrict customers' actions without fear of being found legally liable for the actions that are allowed. The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the Court notes that "Congress enacted 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision.[4]"

So section 230 overturned Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy 1995. The Electronic Frontier Foundation explains:

"CDA 230 also offers its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments."

That editorial judgments link lists several court cases upholding this law, including Blumenthal v. Drudge, 922 F. Supp. 44, 52 (D.D.C. 1998): "230 forbids the imposition of publisher liability on a service provider for the exercise of its editorial and self-regulatory functions."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation FAQ makes this clear:

Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content?

"Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find that you have sufficien

Here's what the law basically says. I'm paraphrasing: A company that hosts online user-generated content (Facebook, Twitter, etc., yes?) is protected from liability from that content, as long as the content is end-user-controlled. HOWEVER... if the hosting company controls that content, i.e. censors it or otherwise restricts what that content may be, then the company assumes liability for that content. Another way to put it is: when they suspend accounts over speech they find objectionable, they are accepting liability for all the other content that remains. There is legal precedent for this and in fact it's pretty clear in the law. They are protected if they take down illegal content, but not content they just don't like.

That's what the law said in 1995. The U.S. New York Supreme Court decision Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 323710 held that online service providers could be held liable for the speech of their users. However, in 1996 the Communications Decency Act was passed, which includes the crucial section 230:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. ... [Section 230] remains in force and allows ISPs and other service providers to restrict customers' actions without fear of being found legally liable for the actions that are allowed. The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the Court notes that "Congress enacted 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision.[4]"

So section 230 overturned Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy 1995. The Electronic Frontier Foundation explains:

"CDA 230 also offers its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments."

That editorial judgments link lists several court cases upholding this law, including Blumenthal v. Drudge, 922 F. Supp. 44, 52 (D.D.C. 1998): "230 forbids the imposition of publisher liability on a service provider for the exercise of its editorial and self-regulatory functions."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation FAQ makes this clear:

Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content?

"Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find that you have sufficien

Average 1 microsecond per request. Let's see you do that in Node.

http://web.archive.org/web/20170208150733/https://github.com/uWebSockets/uWebSockets/wiki/(More-than)-one-million-requests-per-second-in-Node.js

People seem to be developing a comprehensive archive of Mozilla legacy extensions for continued use in Waterfox. Preserving comments and ratings is still important. Will people at Internet Archive and Software Heritage give their part of the larger task appropriate effort?

Waterfox, Its Legacy and Looking to the Future

Legacy Extensions Database #303

Waterfox the developer mentioned somewhere that he made a backup of the addons.

I take it you didn't actually check the sources your article used? Because the links they cite in their very first sentence contradict what that sentence says. They said:

Since the repeal of “net neutrality” took effect on June 11, the U.S. internet speed has gone from 12th to 6th fastest in the world

But if you follow those links, you'll see that the "12th" link goes to December 2017—seven months prior to the repeal of net neutrality taking effect—rather than to June 11th, when it actually happened. On June 11th, the US was ranked 9th, not 12th.

Now, you might argue that 9th to 6th is still a big improvement, but it really isn't. That jump only required a meager 5 Mbps improvement because there was a cluster of countries in the rankings all around the same speed. In contrast, the jump from 12th to 9th—which, again, happened prior to the repeal taking effect—required a 15 Mbps improvement due to the countries being more spread out in speed around those ranks. So when you're saying that "internet traffic in the US has increased significantly" since the repeal took effect, let's be clear that the actual increase isn't the 21 Mbps that the article would have you believe: it's only a quarter of that.

But even if we ignore the inconvenient facts that contradict the article's claims, the real argument they are trying to make is that speeds are better today because of the repeal. But if you look back through the data, all I see is a trend line that—aside from a three month blip when there was a lot of uncertainty leading up to the vote—has been fairly consistent for some time now. Blip aside, things were were steadily improving before the vote to repeal, kept up prior to the repeal taking effect, and have continued now that the repeal has come into effect. There really isn't an argument to be made either way.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Oh this is mostly true, of course you've just forgotten that the left pretty much has a strangehold on culture and has for oh 60 odd years at this point in most of the west.

Oh, my sweet summer child... You have no idea what it means when the left has a stranglehold on culture

You have yet to find a polarized school in your country? How would you know if the viewpoints you're exposed to have already been censored and curated.

They're not. It's just that nobody gives a fuck in schools what your political leanings are. And why would they? That's not what a school is for. American schools, on the other way...

No, they're actually talking about this one.

40 years ago it was an earth wrecking ice age coming our way - and proven by science.

Except the myth that 40 years ago science was warning the world about a coming ice age is just that; a myth: http://web.archive.org/web/201...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/
http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

> Let's face it, if you have someone's IP without paying for it, it's IP theft, and no amount of "but I'm poor" justifies it.

/sarcasm Damn! And here all the gifts I've given/received actually turned out to be "IP theft"! Who knew!

/sarcasm Wait till my family finds out that they are commiting "IP theft" when I buy a DVD / BluRay and they watch it for free !

/sarcasm Who knew that Libraries were part of IP theft !? My friends can rent a book / CD / DVD and we can all enjoy it. OH NO!

/sarcasm Wait till you find out about Project Gutenberg -- one can read over 57,000 books! /sarcasm Look at ALL that IP theft!

On a more serious note, you are out of touch with reality. It is obvious you don't have a clue how the Fashion Industry works. It has no copyright or patent protection and yet it thrives.

Are you against books / movies / games passing into the public domain after X amount of time?

* If so, then WHAT length of time is reasonable ?
* If not, then why do you get to hold culture hostage? What gives you the right to dictate to who I can or can't share it with after you are dead??

> whining about their entitlement to intellectual property

Red Herring Fallacy much?

Disagreeing with the premise and/or the definitions is NOT whining -- it's called having a discussion. Not everyone agrees with:

* Hijacking the term "copyright" to mean "Intellectual Property",
* Extending the duration of copyright to some unreasonable length of time, and
* The delusion of "Imaginary Property" that magically becomes some bullshit "Intellectual Property" because lawyers say so. It is in their best self-serving interest to make copyright as long as possible.

Artists did NOT invent copyright. Copyright was invented by --> Publishers <-- to maintain control by preventing other publishers from making a profit.

"The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books. The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books."

I suggest reading the History of Copyright Law

Not everyone agrees with the shenanigans of life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years. The ONLY reason the original 20 year copyright was extended was due to excessive greed by corporations lobbying, er, bribing congress.

Copyright is NOT property. It is a compromise contract:

* Creator gets exclusivity for a certain amount of time, and
* In exchange the Public gets free access to it afterwards.

Most people would, probably, be OK with the original 20 year copyright.

The current 120 years is TOO long.

Even back in 1841 the "dangers" of a long copyright was being discussed by Thomas Babbington Macaulay and the House of Commons.

--
Greed is a cancer that destroys society

/whoosh

It's called Imaginary Property to show the absurdity of how broken the current legal system is.

Due to your profession's excessive greed you guys are even patenting Math !?!?!?! Worse, the fucking algorithm is even named, Carmack's Reverse, after the person who independently discovered and shared it. Yet assholes like you think it is OK that a company can "own" another man's original and independent thought -- preventing the idea from being implemented.

The fact that you defend patents proves that you are nothing more then a leech upon society when your profession patents bullshit like "a single click for buying", illegal numbers, TWO prime numbers (512-bit and 1024-bit) (WTF???), or even a fucking minimal web page!?!

Your (blatant) greed is a cancer upon society and I will continue to call out your Imaginary Property bullshit while you continue to "justify" and provide excuses for a corrupt system based on flim flam definitions.

> But feel free to explain how the law does not define property,

ALL (Legal) Laws are ARTIFICIAL contracts. Physical property can't be copied and shared like "Intellectual Property." Gee, maybe you should pay more attention to the principal author of the Declaration of Independence when he said:

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." -- Thomas Jefferson

Hijacking the term "property" and trying to refine the "definition" of Property in context of "Intellectual Property" to be treated the same way as physical property is nothing more then a charade for plutocracy propaganda. You produce nothing of "value" except what you can profit from the work of others -- without inventors you would have nothing to patent! Pretending that you think you "own" an idea doesn't make it so regardless of how much legal intimidation you try to use. Someday you will realize it is better to share knowledge instead of hoarding it and profiting off of artificial scarcity. Children hoard, Adults share. It sounds like you missed that kindergarten class? /rhetorical

> whereupon I shall be freed to appropriate that vehicle that you use to get to work.

I walk to work. Maybe you should stick to facts instead of conjecture. How LONG have you been practicing law again???

Now kindly please fuck off when you realize there are more important things then money.

Probably Fair Use, as it was noncommercial & academic/educational in nature.

Or do you think the Wayback Machine should be bankrupted.

https://archive.org/details/DE...

Those words were written in US News and World Report more than 23 years ago about the investigation into Phil Zimmerman for having given away PGP.

And...I forgot the link: https://web.archive.org/web/20130616165334/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/950403/archive_010975.htm

Several years ago, we were talking about Gracenote's metadata, it came up that your musical tastes are a shockingly accurate predictor of your political leanings.

So consider that this metadata just helped all those "partners" build an even more accurate profile of you.

Actually, they can be produced for under 100$
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028073926/http://www.geocities.com/spm_stm/Project.html

Fair point, but the general principle still applies, and it should be noted that it was Betteridge himself that referred to journalists ("The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit"). (I note that the original quote- now corrected in the Wikipedia article- says "bullshit", not "bollocks" too).

Sorry, it turns out your guess is wrong. There are several tests that must be met in order for an image to be copyright eligible. One of those tests is the threshold of originality.
If you draw a typical stick figure, you can't copyright it because it'll look pretty much like every other stick figure. Production of the the image must require creativity, and must in some way reflect the personality of the artist - if pretty much everyone would draw about in about the same way, it can't be protected. Another is a specific exemption of stylized text. An image which consists solely of cool text cannot be copyrighted in the US. It may be a trademark, or possibly eligible for a design patent, but any image of text is explicitly not eligible for copyright. The wording may be, if the words are sufficient to sufficient to comprise a significant creative work. That's separate issue.

  For logos specifically, the logos of Best Western, Skyy vodka, and Sony have all been held not coyprightable.

See
House Report No. 94-1476

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc.

The thing is I have no problem with him being this rich. However, I do have a problem with how he is using his money to buy influence. The guy knows a lot about business and tech and almost nothing about pretty much anything else. The problem is he went and bought the Washington Post and has since turned it into one of the most biased and unjournalistic newspapers in existence. People get confused because they know the brand but since 2013, Bezos has run this paper into the ground and used it as the propaganda arm of the DNC.

Am I the only one who actually read the archived web site and figured their talking points were pretty benign and reasonable? I mean, RISC-V isn't even a full spec at the moment and is still a work in progress.

Like most things I've come across in the open-source world, RISC-V is a bunch of good ideas, but ARM has proven, working implementations of their own ISA. From a business perspective, it's not outlandish to boast about that. If ARM were tearing apart the concepts behind RISC-V, then that would be a different story.

As The Register's analysis wasn't actually very thorough, let alone insightful, I'd suggest looking at the original criticism before letting loose the nerdrage.

Doing so is part of a trend for Walmart. "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price", Robert Greenwald's 2005 documentary, covered how Wal-Mart set up cameras on their stores aimed at the parking lots in order to let store staff monitor any union organizing going on within view of the cameras. Meanwhile, in Germany, Wal-Mart couldn't avoid the unionized workers so Wal-Mart does business with unionized staff.

Why go to such lengths to prevent better working conditions? The same documentary tells us that a toy made in their Shenzen China factory cost $0.18 to assemble (the worker makes less than $3/day), retails at Wal-Mart for $14.96, and "Wal-Mart imported $18B from China in 2004".

Charles Kernaghan, Director of the National Labor Committee tells us that in Bangladesh workers who sew clothing for Wal-Mart:

[...]are getting up at 5:30 in the morning, they brush their teeth with their finger using ashes from the fire because they can't afford a toothbrush. They're forced to work from 8:00 in the morning until 10:00 at night, 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, on these wages of 13 to 17 cents an hour. These are women who are hit by their supervisors, trapped in utter misery.

You can see more of Charles Kernaghan's work in "The Corporation" (2003) which is available online and in a 2-disc DVD set which has extended interviews with all of the interviewees. One segment of "The Corporation" features Kernaghan talking about the exploitation of children making "Kathie Lee Gifford" garments for Wal-Mart around 19m43s:

We were in Honduras and some workers, they knew what kind of work we did, and they approached us and said conditions in our factory are horrible. Will you please meet with us. And we said we would. But you can't meet in the developing world you can't walk up in a factory with your notebook and workers come up and interview them. I mean there's goons, there's spies, the military police, so you do everything in a clandestine manner. We are about to start the meeting, and in walk three guys, very tough looking guys. The company had found out about our meeting and sent these spies. Obviously we didn't have the meeting. But these young girls were really bright. And as they were leaving, away from the eyesight of the spies they started to put their hands underneath the table. And I put my hand under there and they put into my hand their pay stubs. So we'd know who they were, what they were paid, and the labels that they made in the factory so we'd know who they worked for. So I took my hand after everyone had left. And in the palm of my hand was the face was of Kathie Lee Gifford. And on the bottom of it [a Kathie Lee garment tag] was "A portion of the proceeds from the sale of this garment would be donated to various children's charities." Very touching gets you right here [he touches his heart]. Wal-Mart is telling you if you purchase these pants and Kathie Lee is telling you if you purchase these pants you will be helping children. The problem was the people that handed us this label were 13 years of age.

Time Cube is great. As are the ramblings of ATZE-TM and his website. But I will admit, once you get through the lengthy copyright notice, dlak-TM's ambient music is quite enjoyable.