Slashdot Mirror

Kind of funny, since French is typically more resistant to change, whereas English will happily hypenate then combine words (e.g., to[day|morrow].

100% false. Copyright law doesn't actually cover copying. But, it covers both "reproduction" and "distributing copies" of a copyrighted work.

Copyright law doesn't cover copying, it covers reproduction? reproduce - To produce a counterpart, image, or copy of. Where's that english teacher when you need them?

No, the copying and distribution happens at both ends. And position is irrelevant; whose "end" it took place at doesn't matter. The question is, who made the copy?

The copying and distributing happens at both ends? Just how many copies are made? And who the hell is the downloader distributing to? How is the downloader supposed to know how to make a copy when it doesn't have the original? Only the server has the original, and therefore only the server can send this information to the downloader. The server is sending a copy of the information down the wire where it is received, put back together, and stored by the client.

The copy was made by some software, but software can't be blamed. The person who operated that software can. And who instructed the software to make a copy? The person who issued a download request.

Why are you making the point that software can't be blamed? Of course this is true, we don't sue a Xerox machine for copying a book now do we? The person to blame is the one who is distributing copyrighted works. Placing these works on an FTP server is distribution. It's the same thing as someone making hundreds of copies of a CD and handing them out on the street. Just because he won't hand out a CD until someone asks him (initiates the transfer) he is still to blame for copying and distributing. The receiver is guilty of neither copying nor distributing and so is in the clear. Besides, how can I instruct your computer to copy a file for me? Unless I've hacked it, the only way I could do that is if you let me.

Go to the File menu in the upper-left of this window, and go down to Save. Type "slashdot.htm" in the little box, and push OK. Do you see what you just did? You made a copy of a file.

As soon as I go to slashdot.org slashdot sends me a copy of the HTML, which is stored in the browser cache. When you click "save as" you are making a second copy of the file. This second copy would be violating copyright if it were not covered under fair use. However, the first copy sent by slashdot is not.

Here's another experiment for you- see if you can go to ftp.gnu.org and take a copy of welcome.msg. (Right click on it, and push Save...)

I requested a copy of the file, and ftp.gnu.org sent it to me (wasn't that nice). I now have a copy of welcome.msg, which I received from the good people at the gnu ftp server.

Do you see what's going on here? By interacting with remote Web/FTP servers, you are making copies. Other people have set up software which allows you to make copies, but they are not doing the copying themselves.

The only way the information can get from the server to you is if the server sends a copy down the wire! Why is this so hard to grasp? Are you trying to make the point that the server is making the copies, not the server owner? Does this mean that someone who operates a printing press doesn't make copies, the printing press does? If you set up an FTP server or P2P app, you are responsible for the copies it creates.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

I guess marketing re-designated it to mean new technology.

HAs ANYONE ever heard of google?!!!! GODDAMMIT lazy ASS son OF a BITCH!!

That's DISCREET. Discrete means something entirely different.

Just what the hell is so hard to understand here?! This is almost as bad as those fucktards who can't tell the difference between "imply" and "infer".

That's DISCREET. Discrete means something entirely different.

Just what the hell is so hard to understand here?! This is almost as bad as those fucktards who can't tell the difference between "imply" and "infer".

Did you do know that a lot (most) of astronomy pictures are shown upside-down? It has been a convention pretty much since they started taking pictures through telescopes.

Interestingly enough, this would cause west to appear on the right in a photograph.

Limb. Look for the definition that says "Astronomy" in front of it.

Thank God! Here I was thinking of menopause and it's effects on V-ger. Would explain alot :)

(no, seriously!)

(nah, just kidding)

What he is saying is more like an opinion than a scientific work. It's like the example I mentioned in the above post of saying 'C++ sucks; Python rules'. One can't really justify "C++ sucks".

No, there is no difference between a scientific writing and the conversation we are having here. All are forms of communication, then begin just like a theorem, run their course just like a theorem would, and end with a proper conclusion just like a theorem would. This guy's article was like flamebait on slashdot -- nothing to back up the argument, just awkward ramblings. Now, as either a professor or an administrator of a university -- where whether you like it or not, identify and branding are important -- this guy has a responsibility to be as much of a loon as he wants until he drags his employer and their identify into his morass.

See...you don't care about freedom of speech. All you care about is image. You are a conformist. I guess you want everyone conforming to the mainstream status quo.

Now that's absolutely hysterical. That's essentially the same thing the author of the article did -- he started flinging the mud when providing a shred of proof or a coherent thought would have been more appropriate. Oh, and dude? I have a house full of over-the-hill punks here, we're listening to Fugazi, we're all drinking beer, and we're all laughing at you for being such a Jeff K. if you don't get that, it's a joke. Laugh about it, it's the only way to retain your sanity. The world is not a black-and-white, cut-and-dry, love-it-or-leave-it place -- nothing about it is, not even free speech. All rights end where someone else's begin -- trample on my shit, and get your shit squashed in return.

No, I work in public relations, and that's why I'm all over the slander issue. IANAL, and I'll even give it to you that calling it slander is a stretch. But that's what some reporters do -- they stretch shit until it fits what the producer or editor ultimately wants, whatever slant they take (good, bad, indifferent), they run it, and see what kind of shit they can stir up to generate more news to sell more subscriptions or jack up their ratings. It's like elementary physics -- energy is neither created nor destroyed, just transfered. This guy didn't back up anything he said when attacking professionals from the same field he works in? It's like his article spontaneously explodes and impodes at the same time, ultimately transferring no energy in the process. Uh, hello, but dude, that's a termination notice or a failing grade any way you cut it -- it's not about conformity, it's about an ancient, lost ideal called respect. For not only his peers, but for his profession, and he drags his employer into the mud at the end? Game over, dude.

What percentage of that T3 is taken up by flash interface & advertising and how much is consumed by the text content? I'm sure you'd find that the site could survive on much less than a T3 and 30 employees.

The "implicit agreement" you speak of is tantamount to "women know their place"...there is no agreement though you may think of it as a custom. Ad-pushing business hopes for (and assumes, it seems) pandemic Stockholm syndrome which doesn't necessarily exist.

Hmmm...tunnel...transport...symbolism?

I wont even bother replying to the rest of your comment.

I think what you're describing is metastasis, not malignancy.

A malignant tumor is a dangerous/damaging tumor. (The linked definition notes "tendency to metastasize" but that does not mean it is metastasizing. Kinda like HIV isn't AIDS, yet.) The opposite is benign, which means it's unusual but safe, kinda like scar tissue.

When a tumor metastasizes, it does precisely what you described: Sends out seed cells that establish hard-to-get-at tumors throughout the body.

I think what you're describing is metastasis, not malignancy.

A malignant tumor is a dangerous/damaging tumor. (The linked definition notes "tendency to metastasize" but that does not mean it is metastasizing. Kinda like HIV isn't AIDS, yet.) The opposite is benign, which means it's unusual but safe, kinda like scar tissue.

When a tumor metastasizes, it does precisely what you described: Sends out seed cells that establish hard-to-get-at tumors throughout the body.

I think what you're describing is metastasis, not malignancy.

A malignant tumor is a dangerous/damaging tumor. (The linked definition notes "tendency to metastasize" but that does not mean it is metastasizing. Kinda like HIV isn't AIDS, yet.) The opposite is benign, which means it's unusual but safe, kinda like scar tissue.

When a tumor metastasizes, it does precisely what you described: Sends out seed cells that establish hard-to-get-at tumors throughout the body.

I believe the word you were looking for is abject.
Nevertheless, I agree.

Before correcting someone's spelling, you should check that they're actually wrong, Dan...

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=phase:

phase

\Phase\, v. t. [Cf. Feeze.] To disturb the composure of; to disconcert; to nonplus. [Colloq.]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (C) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Fluid:

A continuous, amorphous substance whose molecules move freely past one another and that has the tendency to assume the shape of its container; a liquid or gas.

It will form a sphere until it hits the side of said container, at which point it will tend to assume the shape of the side it hits.

How is the parent modded as anything but a troll? Oh yeah - this is Slashdot.

You can see how quickly he's sold out the dream of linux on everything and turned it into the VC dream of 'linux on everything profitable'.

Guess what genius, Redhat is a for profit business. Which part of that don't you understand?

How is the parent modded as anything but a troll? Oh yeah - this is Slashdot.

You can see how quickly he's sold out the dream of linux on everything and turned it into the VC dream of 'linux on everything profitable'.

Guess what genius, Redhat is a for profit business. Which part of that don't you understand?

r.v. hotted, hotting, hots

Informal. To cause to increase in intensity or excitement. Often used with up: "His book is an exercise in the fashionable art of instant history, in which every episode is hotted up with an anecdote" (Harper's).

I think it's fair to post a correction for one reason: people may read what the troll wrote and think it true.

Now this encourages trolling, for sure. But it's different from feeding pigeons (which encourages pigeons to hang around people while they're eating). With pigeons, you can just not feed them and they go away. With mis-informing

I think it's fair to post a correction for one reason: people may read what the troll wrote and think it true.

Now this encourages trolling, for sure. But it's different from feeding pigeons (which encourages pigeons to hang around people while they're eating). With pigeons, you can just not feed them and they go away. With mis-informing

I think it's fair to post a correction for one reason: people may read what the troll wrote and think it true.

Now this encourages trolling, for sure. But it's different from feeding pigeons (which encourages pigeons to hang around people while they're eating). With pigeons, you can just not feed them and they go away. With mis-informing

I think it's fair to post a correction for one reason: people may read what the troll wrote and think it true.

Now this encourages trolling, for sure. But it's different from feeding pigeons (which encourages pigeons to hang around people while they're eating). With pigeons, you can just not feed them and they go away. With mis-informing

I think it's fair to post a correction for one reason: people may read what the troll wrote and think it true.

Now this encourages trolling, for sure. But it's different from feeding pigeons (which encourages pigeons to hang around people while they're eating). With pigeons, you can just not feed them and they go away. With mis-informing

I think it's fair to post a correction for one reason: people may read what the troll wrote and think it true.

Now this encourages trolling, for sure. But it's different from feeding pigeons (which encourages pigeons to hang around people while they're eating). With pigeons, you can just not feed them and they go away. With mis-informing

I think it's fair to post a correction for one reason: people may read what the troll wrote and think it true.

Now this encourages trolling, for sure. But it's different from feeding pigeons (which encourages pigeons to hang around people while they're eating). With pigeons, you can just not feed them and they go away. With mis-informing

I think it's fair to post a correction for one reason: people may read what the troll wrote and think it true.

Now this encourages trolling, for sure. But it's different from feeding pigeons (which encourages pigeons to hang around people while they're eating). With pigeons, you can just not feed them and they go away. With mis-informing

I think it's fair to post a correction for one reason: people may read what the troll wrote and think it true.

Now this encourages trolling, for sure. But it's different from feeding pigeons (which encourages pigeons to hang around people while they're eating). With pigeons, you can just not feed them and they go away. With mis-informing

I think it's fair to post a correction for one reason: people may read what the troll wrote and think it true.

Now this encourages trolling, for sure. But it's different from feeding pigeons (which encourages pigeons to hang around people while they're eating). With pigeons, you can just not feed them and they go away. With mis-informing

I think it's fair to post a correction for one reason: people may read what the troll wrote and think it true.

Now this encourages trolling, for sure. But it's different from feeding pigeons (which encourages pigeons to hang around people while they're eating). With pigeons, you can just not feed them and they go away. With mis-informing