You have a right to your opinion, however there's nothing wrong with enjoying only one genre. For starters the idea that it is inherently better to read a wide variety of differing "types" is just not true. Read what you like, do what you like, don't let others tell you that what you are doing is wrong, or that you're missing out. That applies to music, reading, hobbies, whatever.
Like it or not, 'DVD Jon' and his work, DeCSS, do aid pirates.
Like it or not, that doesn't matter. At least in the U.S., I'm not familiar with Norwegian law but regardless, it's bullshit. Cars are used to getaway from crimes, guns (the obvious analogy) are used in crimes, paper and pens are used to plan crimes. Guess we should start going after manufacturers of these products.
He didn't mention a lot of things, no functional langauges at all (which completely ignores LISP machines). I'm thinking he's really not qualified to espouse an opinion on this subject, but the article is so badly written I can't finish it to find out.
... this article is hard to get through, and sometimes just plain misguided:
Regular expressions is actually a language, though a mini one
That's just horrible, and wrong. I'm assuming the author used such generic language for simplification, but come on. I also have trouble taking someone who is talking about language theory seriously when his only apparent experience is with Ruby, Perl, and Python.
Oh well back to the article, maybe I can make it past that line this time. I'm sure there's got to be some good stuff in there somewhere;)
No they are not. It is a fucking scrollbox, some options are check others are not, if you refuse to read the damn thing then that's your fault not theirs. If they hid the scroll buttons THEN it's misrepresentation. There are a lot of things that companies have been doing that is misrepresentaion... this is not one of them.
Still wrong, usually you have to sign each page, usually at the bottom, but it could be anywhere, and if you don't there is text stating that you read and understood the x number of pages that are included.
I've often wondered the same thing, what do they have to gain, and the only conclusion I can come up with in these circumstances is that whoever makes these decisions is simply stupid. There is really no other explanation.
I was wondering about my posts starting at 1 as well...
Right off the bat it is NOT misrepresentation. You did make a choice, you chose not to scroll down, part of the standard idiom of reading information on a computer screen, and lazily just click next. You not reading or clicking on something does not constitute claiming that you made no choice. You could easily turn the argument around (and it would be just as meaningless) if they weren't pre checkedby saying you weren't given the choice to say yes.
In a physical world example it would be like giving me a contract to sign but removing several pages from it. i.e. Not just sections that I jump over because it is awkward to review ala most EULA.
In a weak, and not applicicable physical example you're right. But let's make it more accurate. In a physical world example it would be like giving you a contract to sign and having multiple pages below the top one that you need to flip through to read, which is SUPRISE how it usually works.
Personally I feel like to be polite, all check boxes should be unchecked to begin with, but it certainly isn't, and shouldn't, be illegal to do otherwise.
Anyone else disturbed by the fact that the parent (at this time at least 1:54 EST), is modded +3 Informative, instead of Funny, or at least Interesting?;)
The world is not Linux. The world is not free. Why is it automatically assumed by members of this site that everything should be free?
Wrong. the world is free society is not. Why is it assumed that things should eventually be free? (To paraphrase your obvious intentional misinterpretation of the issue to prove your point) Because the Constitution says so. Case close, copyrights are providied for a limited duration for a reason, a bunch of old men who have changed the definition of limited to mean indefinite are obiously wrong.
How would you feel if, after some established time period (let's say 50 years), ownership of your property passed into the public domain? Programs you wrote, houses and land you own, cars you drive. Somebody could take your house, move themselves in, and there was nothing you could do about it. In fact, the police would come to insure that you could not prevent them from moving in.
If that's not redutium ad absurdum (sp?) I don't know what is, you don't have a copyright onphysical property you possess, you OWN it (for the most part) your analogy is worthless. As foar as programs I write, should I choose to copyright them, yes they go into the public domain after a limited time and that's the way it's supposed to be. The laws could easily be written to prevent me from owning something I can't really own anyway. Copyright law is only there to encourage me (or anyone else) to contribute creative works to the public, the copyright term and associated chance to make a living with it is a reward... not a right.
The world is not Linux. The world is not free. Why is it automatically assumed by members of this site that everything should be free?
Wrong. the world is free socitety is not. Why is it assumekd that things should eventually be free? (To paraphrase your obvious intentional misinterpretation of the issue to prove your point) Because the Constitution says so. Case close, copyrights are providied for a limited duration for a reason, a bunch of old men who have changed the definition of limited to mean indefinite are obiously wrong.
How would you feel if, after some established time period (let's say 50 years), ownership of your property passed into the public domain? Programs you wrote, houses and land you own, cars you drive. Somebody could take your house, move themselves in, and there was nothing you could do about it. In fact, the police would come to insure that you could not prevent them from moving in.
If that's not redutium ad absurdum (sp?) I don't know what is, you don't have a copyright onphysical property you possess, you OWN it (for the most part) your analogy is worthless. As foar as programs I write, should I choose to copyright them, yes they go into the public domain after a limited time and that's the way it's supposed to be. The laws could easily be written to prevent me from owning something I can't really own anyway. Copyright law is only there to encourage me (or anyone else) to contribute creative works to the public, the copyright term and associated chance to make a living with it is a reward... not a right.
J.R.R. Tolkien's family doesn't have the right to own copyright on the Lord of the Ring's. Why? Why should his work become public domain? What gives you the right to it?
The fucking Constitution you nitwit. Copyright is an agreement between society and the individual responsible for the creeative work, it is of limited duration to encourage people to submit material that will eventually benefit the public as a whole. If your attitude is what gives us the right to it, we can turn the question around, what gives you the right to "own" a sequence of words, or pattern of sounds, or a nebulous idea like Mickey Mouse? Nothing, except that very same contract that protects the public from people who are to greedy to follow the rules.
Writing a Scheme interpreter in any language is pretty easy, it's a very simple language to implement. I love Perl (and I'm going to get flamed for this) but I wouldn't use it as an interpreter for Scheme. It's just not the right tool for the job. I used to write everything in Perl unless I needed performance at which point I moved to C, kinda like the write in C then switch to assembler for performance that I did years ago. But Perl tends to get unwieldly at certain project scopes, for which I'm partially to blame but the language doesn't lend itself well to scaling.
I'm guessing somewhere there is a Scheme interpreter for both Perl and Python, and if there isn't (disregarding my previous paragraph) I may write one, because it's a fun project. I've never searched for them, but there are probably lex and yacc like tools for Perl and Python which would simplify the building of an interpreter. Of course if they don't exist yet... they should and that's another interesting project.
There are no "hippie" ideals involved. It is an open public technology. You either play by the rules in place, or you don't play. It isn't up to you to dictate policy on an open protocol unless you enforce them, neither I, or anyone else has any responsibility to do it for you. Your rights aren't being violated, you just assume that everyone else should do whatever you want. Guess what, it's not going to happen.
Yes I can say that and it's fair, if you can afford the risks associated with putting up content then don't put it up. Sorry, but that's the way it is. You can blame the isp that is charging you money in that fashion if you want. But the simple fact remains the protocol is open. You are free to limit access to your site in any way that you want,... through the technology. A linking policy is not a form of prevention using the protocol.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a right to your opinion, however there's nothing wrong with enjoying only one genre. For starters the idea that it is inherently better to read a wide variety of differing "types" is just not true. Read what you like, do what you like, don't let others tell you that what you are doing is wrong, or that you're missing out. That applies to music, reading, hobbies, whatever.
Like it or not, 'DVD Jon' and his work, DeCSS, do aid pirates.
Like it or not, that doesn't matter. At least in the U.S., I'm not familiar with Norwegian law but regardless, it's bullshit. Cars are used to getaway from crimes, guns (the obvious analogy) are used in crimes, paper and pens are used to plan crimes. Guess we should start going after manufacturers of these products.
He didn't mention a lot of things, no functional langauges at all (which completely ignores LISP machines). I'm thinking he's really not qualified to espouse an opinion on this subject, but the article is so badly written I can't finish it to find out.
A lot of comments that are being made here seem a little funny to me
Ahem. That's because they're jokes.
Regular expressions is actually a language, though a mini one
That's just horrible, and wrong. I'm assuming the author used such generic language for simplification, but come on. I also have trouble taking someone who is talking about language theory seriously when his only apparent experience is with Ruby, Perl, and Python.
Oh well back to the article, maybe I can make it past that line this time. I'm sure there's got to be some good stuff in there somewhere
Ummm, I can't tell if I would be informative by explaining the hat thing, or if you were joking ;)
No they are not. It is a fucking scrollbox, some options are check others are not, if you refuse to read the damn thing then that's your fault not theirs. If they hid the scroll buttons THEN it's misrepresentation. There are a lot of things that companies have been doing that is misrepresentaion... this is not one of them.
Certainly. I believe that it's wrong as well, but illegal, no, definitely not. It's shady as all hell but not misrepresentation at all.
Still wrong, usually you have to sign each page, usually at the bottom, but it could be anywhere, and if you don't there is text stating that you read and understood the x number of pages that are included.
2)It's unlikely that the slashdot community at large would turn down any girl, ugly or not.
3) Cowboy Neal.
I was wondering about my posts starting at 1 as well...
Right off the bat it is NOT misrepresentation. You did make a choice, you chose not to scroll down, part of the standard idiom of reading information on a computer screen, and lazily just click next. You not reading or clicking on something does not constitute claiming that you made no choice. You could easily turn the argument around (and it would be just as meaningless) if they weren't pre checkedby saying you weren't given the choice to say yes.
In a physical world example it would be like giving me a contract to sign but removing several pages from it. i.e. Not just sections that I jump over because it is awkward to review ala most EULA.
In a weak, and not applicicable physical example you're right. But let's make it more accurate. In a physical world example it would be like giving you a contract to sign and having multiple pages below the top one that you need to flip through to read, which is SUPRISE how it usually works.
Personally I feel like to be polite, all check boxes should be unchecked to begin with, but it certainly isn't, and shouldn't, be illegal to do otherwise.
Hmmm, inaccurate description in post, should have read "and some UGLY ones in metal bras".
Anyone else disturbed by the fact that the parent (at this time at least 1:54 EST), is modded +3 Informative, instead of Funny, or at least Interesting? ;)
No, and that's a silly analogy with no application to the topic.
30. Yet another Slashdot editor Hell-bent on a crusade against laws that don't have anything to do with them -- Priceless
If you live in the U.S. EVERY U.S law has something to do with you.
The world is not Linux. The world is not free. Why is it automatically assumed by members of this site that everything should be free?
Wrong. the world is free society is not. Why is it assumed that things should eventually be free? (To paraphrase your obvious intentional misinterpretation of the issue to prove your point) Because the Constitution says so. Case close, copyrights are providied for a limited duration for a reason, a bunch of old men who have changed the definition of limited to mean indefinite are obiously wrong.
How would you feel if, after some established time period (let's say 50 years), ownership of your property passed into the public domain? Programs you wrote, houses and land you own, cars you drive. Somebody could take your house, move themselves in, and there was nothing you could do about it. In fact, the police would come to insure that you could not prevent them from moving in.
If that's not redutium ad absurdum (sp?) I don't know what is, you don't have a copyright onphysical property you possess, you OWN it (for the most part) your analogy is worthless. As foar as programs I write, should I choose to copyright them, yes they go into the public domain after a limited time and that's the way it's supposed to be. The laws could easily be written to prevent me from owning something I can't really own anyway. Copyright law is only there to encourage me (or anyone else) to contribute creative works to the public, the copyright term and associated chance to make a living with it is a reward... not a right.
The world is not Linux. The world is not free. Why is it automatically assumed by members of this site that everything should be free?
Wrong. the world is free socitety is not. Why is it assumekd that things should eventually be free? (To paraphrase your obvious intentional misinterpretation of the issue to prove your point) Because the Constitution says so. Case close, copyrights are providied for a limited duration for a reason, a bunch of old men who have changed the definition of limited to mean indefinite are obiously wrong.
How would you feel if, after some established time period (let's say 50 years), ownership of your property passed into the public domain? Programs you wrote, houses and land you own, cars you drive. Somebody could take your house, move themselves in, and there was nothing you could do about it. In fact, the police would come to insure that you could not prevent them from moving in.
If that's not redutium ad absurdum (sp?) I don't know what is, you don't have a copyright onphysical property you possess, you OWN it (for the most part) your analogy is worthless. As foar as programs I write, should I choose to copyright them, yes they go into the public domain after a limited time and that's the way it's supposed to be. The laws could easily be written to prevent me from owning something I can't really own anyway. Copyright law is only there to encourage me (or anyone else) to contribute creative works to the public, the copyright term and associated chance to make a living with it is a reward... not a right.
J.R.R. Tolkien's family doesn't have the right to own copyright on the Lord of the Ring's. Why? Why should his work become public domain? What gives you the right to it?
The fucking Constitution you nitwit. Copyright is an agreement between society and the individual responsible for the creeative work, it is of limited duration to encourage people to submit material that will eventually benefit the public as a whole. If your attitude is what gives us the right to it, we can turn the question around, what gives you the right to "own" a sequence of words, or pattern of sounds, or a nebulous idea like Mickey Mouse? Nothing, except that very same contract that protects the public from people who are to greedy to follow the rules.
I'm guessing somewhere there is a Scheme interpreter for both Perl and Python, and if there isn't (disregarding my previous paragraph) I may write one, because it's a fun project. I've never searched for them, but there are probably lex and yacc like tools for Perl and Python which would simplify the building of an interpreter. Of course if they don't exist yet... they should and that's another interesting project.
Ummm.. Scheme, LISP? Where are they. Guess I'll just write an interpreter in C or Java and have it load a Scheme source file.
Obviously you didn't understand... getting rid of the spyware IS the game, kinda like Whack-A-Mole.
There are no "hippie" ideals involved. It is an open public technology. You either play by the rules in place, or you don't play. It isn't up to you to dictate policy on an open protocol unless you enforce them, neither I, or anyone else has any responsibility to do it for you. Your rights aren't being violated, you just assume that everyone else should do whatever you want. Guess what, it's not going to happen.
Bah, cars, keep your metal cage. I'll take my bike any day, it's faster, handles better, and requires more skill and balls than racing a car ;)
Yes I can say that and it's fair, if you can afford the risks associated with putting up content then don't put it up. Sorry, but that's the way it is. You can blame the isp that is charging you money in that fashion if you want. But the simple fact remains the protocol is open. You are free to limit access to your site in any way that you want, ... through the technology. A linking policy is not a form of prevention using the protocol.