Have you tried Satellite for Internet service? It adds some latency, but the bandwidth is much better than phone by itself. It's probably useless for gaming, but HTTP, FTP, and such should speed up considerably.
I had a Verizon phone that I used around my office in a rural location. It worked fine, with a good, strong signal, for months, and then it just stopped. Were it not for a few trees, I could see the tower from the office. I gave their tech support people a call and was told that they have never provided service there. Over the next week or so, I discovered that the tower was being worked on by their people (a tower they denied having,) so I waited until they were done working. The phone still didn't work unless I was within 100 yards of the tower.
Eventually, after some escalation with customer service and tech support, I got them to admit it was their tower; however, they refused to fix the problem. I refused to take the phone in to them as it works on all other cells around. Ultimately, I insisted that they cancel the service contract and refund a month of service, as well as my deposit. They caved in and mailed me a check (just a short three months later.) I'll never use Verizon again.
I sold the phone to another Verizon customer who still uses it today and never had a problem with it (different cell.)
Or pull a 'Dallas', have someone wake up and say 'oh, it was all just a bad dream'.
I'd rather have it end in a Newhart way. Maybe Scully wakes up after falling asleep waiting to meet the director in the pilot episode. Instead of waiting around, she takes off her badge and leaves. Roll credits.
At the end of the series finale on Newhart, Bob wakes up next to his wife from The Bob Newart Show. The whole series had been a dream.
I am usually on the same rail as Ebert, but there are times when he just doesn't know how to have enough fun
I feel very much the same about Ebert. I have a great deal of respect for his reviews of dramas, and I have seen many based on his recommendation. Rarely have I disagreed where dramas are concerned.
However, when it comes to comedy, Ebert has his head up his ass. For some reason, he seems to think that every movie has to move its audience to be good. If a movie fails to do that, regardless of how funny it is, Ebert pans it. While the Star Wars saga has dramatic overtones, it's just B-level sci-fi combined with A-level comedy. Star Wars succeeds because it's a very entertaining escape. Ebert expects more and, sadly, misses out.
If the police officer isn't present at the search, then there is a break in the chain of custody of the evidence.
There are plenty of other precidences that say otherwise:
If the police want to know what numbers telephone X called, the phone company retrieves that information from their system and provides it. The same is true if they want to know who's phone it is.
Police may go to a gun dealer and say "Who bought this gun from you?" The dealer then retrieves the information from his records and provides it.
In these circumstances, the phone company and the gun dealer may be called upon to testify to the accuracy of the records; but, unless the business itself is being investigated, businesses are trusted to do the record retrieval themselves.
As long as the records are delivered directly from the business to law enforcement, there's no break in the chain of custody. This could be done as easily by fax as it can in person, if not easier.
Look. It seems pretty clear that there are legal reasons to request these records. While requiring law enforcement's presence may temporarily reduce the number of warrants, it's only a matter of time before a workaround is proposed. If law enforcement must be present where the records are kept, congress will create a national registry that ISPs will be forced to tie into. Then, police can execute warrants without leaving their desk.
It's one thing to give police a hard time if they're crossing some ethical line, and I support that. Requiring that they fly across country to watch you type is completely unnecessary. If anything, it'll violate more due process: Police arrest suspect; they discover ISP might have evidence that exhonorates suspect; police spend 48 hours retrieving evidence in person while suspect is abused in jail; or police leave ISP record retrieval to the public defender, preserving their budget.
If for no other reason than to force there to be an actual cost for LE in a search
Be careful what you wish for...
Adding costs to law enforcement means that either fewer crimes get solved or taxes go up.
If law enforcement is really required to be present for each warrant, you can expect a law to be passed requiring ISPs to connect their databases into some national registry; then, law enforcement can execute search warrants from their desk.
Aside from cost to law enforcement, what is different between the following:
Law enforcement travels to ISP and stands around while ISP techs execute search warrant.
Law enforcement faxes warrant to ISP and ISP techs fax back results.
In either scenario, the searching will ultimately be done by ISP techs. This is no different than asking any other company for information about a customer. Police present warrant; employee retrieves records. Surely no one wants to give police the necessary access to retrieve records themselves. So what's the difference.
Besides, who wants police standing around in their office. More to the point, who wants police, who just took the red eye to cross the country, standing in their office.
The problem is simple to understand. It just takes a different perspective. Here goes:
Yahoo offers some free services to Internet users; these services require a simple registration giving Yahoo your name, address and phone number.
Yahoo's free services include email but are not limited to it. Many registered users have never used the email, or have long since stopped.
For all users who registered before Yahoo decided to do this, either there was no mention of marketing in the registration process or many of those users opted out of the marketing.
Yahoo creates their marketing plan and to implement it they do the following: First, they reset everyone's existing marketing preferences to settings that favor marketing; and second, they limit their sole notification to an email to [user]@yahoo.com.
Given these two premises, here's two problems right off the bat:
Individual's stated marketing preferences, given during registration, where blatantly thrown out.
While Yahoo has a right to amend its privacy policy, they also have a responsiblity to make a good-faith effort to notify users. Yahoo knows that many of their registered accounts fall into one of the following categories: duplicate, long-term dormant, or never used email. Yahoo could have easily put their notice infront of anyone currently using MyYahoo services, but there doing so would have been in the interest of subscribers. Clearly, Yahoo has not made a good-faith effort at notification. In reality, they did as little as they thought they could justify.
The fact is, Yahoo could tell everyone that marketing is a trade-off for the free services and go fsck yourself if you don't like it. Then people could either deal with it or cancel their account. (Is it possible to cancel your MyYahoo account?) However, they aren't doing that. Instead, previously expressed wishes on the topic have been tossed; and many registered people aren't even being notified.
For anyone who created a MyYahoo account and either doesn't use their email or has abandoned the account, their notification efforts are not unlike those experienced by Arthur Dent at the beginning of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"The plans [to demolish your home] have been on file at the planning office. They're stored in a file cabinet, in the basement, in a dis-used lavatory with a sign on the door that says 'Beware of the Leopard'"
I'm all for 'free markets', but they should be closer to 'fair markets' not 'free-for-all markets'. Yahoo has done the bare minimum their lawyers can defend. That's not the same thing as doing what's right. They could have put the same notification in front of every active account and considered anyone who acknowledged it to be fair game until they followed-up to opt out. However, it's much more profitable to use your entire list (active, inactive, duplicates, etc), even if you know many will never read the notice.
This law says that it's protecting minors from pornography on the internet, but the only way to verify age on the internet is through a credit card, which is more easily falsified than any fake ID, because anyone can take anyone else's credit card and claim that they're the person whose name is on it.
While it may be easy to fake a credit card number, what is required of the site is that they make the effort. If you make a good faith effort to comply with the law, and you fail anyway, you are unlikely to be prosecuted. Even if you are prosecuted, it's extremely unlikely to be successful. Any crime requires three things:
guilty mind (mens rea) - The will to commit a criminal act.
criminal act (actus reus) - Commission of the criminal act.
concurrence - Having the will to commit the crime and committing it.
If you setup precautions to ensure that any minor accessing your porn is doing so solely by defrauding your site, then you would lack both mens rea and concurrence.
Using the liquor store analogy, if you ignore blatantly false ID, then you are willfully violating the law. However, if you implement a system for your site as prescribed by law, in good faith, which places you in a position where you cannot know the validity of someone's ID, then any violation of the law is done so unwillingly.
In order to successfully prosecute someone for violating the act, prosecutors would need to do one of the following: Demonstrate that the porn can be accessed without age verification; or demonstrate that site operators are specifically aware of instances where the age verification has been defrauded and those operators have chosen to ignore said instances.
Believe it or not, constitutional rights are not extended to all U.S. citizens. For example, children in juvenile court do not have a right to a jury trial (McKeever v Pennsylvania.)
Until a child is an adult, parents are responsible for what the children are allowed to do or not do. In the absense of parental discipline, society has an established parental role (parens patriae.) Just as liquor stores can be barred from selling to minors, porn sites can be barred from distributing to minors.
If you produce porn, this Act doesn't bar you from distributing it. The Act simply requires that you take reasonable steps to ensure that minors are not in your audience while you exersize your free speech. You're mostly free to say what you want to other citizens; however, since children are not citizens, parents and society can decide for them as to whose speech they can listen to.
Nevada residents (read: voters) will only allow the Yucca Mountain Facility if the rest of the country rams it down their collective throat!
Actually, I can tell you, as a Nevada resident, that public opinion here is across the entire spectrum. Opinions are mostly broken down like so:
Tiny minority that supports the project for some random reason (jobs, war time nationalism, etc.)
Small minority that accepts the project because it's a little late now to back out. (We accepted the money to build it, after all.)
Large majority that can't hear the news over the din of slot machines.
Small minority that opposes the project because it doesn't pass many environmental tests.
Tiny militant factions that oppose the project for more radical reasons. Most of these either are actively interfering/sabotaging or plan to.
To date, the largest act of "interference", that I've heard of, has been the cutting off of water to the site. Without water, drilling has been basically stopped dead.
At the risk of them being dragged off to a museum in the distant future, this strikes me as the perfect purpose for the creation of modern equivalents of the Rosetta Stone. To that end, the warning should be given in every known written language.
If any presently known language survives to be known by those who discover the warning, they'll be able to read it. As a bonus, these warning markers could open vast wells of 21st century information to future societies. It is possible that we'd still be wondering what the pretty pictures in Egypt mean without the Rosetta Stone. Why not take this opportunity now?
Do you mean fewer domestic screens? It is supposed to open world wide in an apparently failed bid to beat counterfeiters. I had heard it will be released in 19 languages around the world for the same weekend.
Also, fewer screens may not mean fewer showings. 5 showings on 4 screens == 4 showings on 5 screens.
I'd say there's a good chance that Spider-man's record will be very short lived. At least a 50-50 chance.
You may have to prove date and ownership of copyright and you need to say on the CV that it was copyrighted to you.
As long as it is your work, you automatically have copyright: Legally, copyright is automatically bestowed on the author and must be assigned explicitly or by prior agreement. While it is expedient to state Copyright [date] [author], it is not necessary.
As to establishing ownership... Well, the CV is all about him. However, if X Solutions limited what they reproduced to the simple facts (Work History, Skills, etc.), an argument could be made that these details are not subject to copyright. If I say 'Bob worked for IBM from 1992 to 1996,' you could also say 'Bob worked for IBM from 1992 to 1996': You are simply restating a fact.
If he really wants to get X Solutions, he should speak to the DA in the town/city where he interviewed and press fraud charges against X Solutions. His resume was presented to the company by X Solutions claiming to represent him. This was done, I assume, in accordance with an agreement to receive a commission if he was hired. So, they've committed a fraud to solicit money. This is a Criminal act, and they should be pursued in both criminal and civil courts. Try to get the criminal prosecution first: It should make for a quick civil settlement.
Another source of satisfaction can be the Attorneys General in each state where X Solutions operates. Although, probably only his state will feel they have to act.
There are several things wrong with this bill: If enforced, sales of these games will be devistated; although the material is questionable in taste, other industries are allowed to show more realistic depictions to minors; and despite the seemingly obvious causation between seeing violence and the committing it, there is no proof of that.
While this bill is intended to protect minors, the real effect will be to attack video game manufacturers: How much of a dent in game sales makes their production unprofitable? Place enough restrictions on the sale of a product and you've censored it out of existence.
While computer animation is getting pretty realistic, it pales in comparison to real actors performing the same acts in movies and on television. Just this week, I've watched parents take young children (five years old) to see Jason X; but, even without parental supervision, many of the acts decribed in the bill can be seen in PG or PG-13 movies. Also, I've never seen ratings enforced at the rental counter. As far as television goes, the only comtrols are opt-in parental lock-outs. Imagine the confusion if parental controls were opt-out.
While many groups want to believe that violence in children is caused by exposure to violent imagery, there simply isn't proof. Parenting through legislation is not what is meant by the concept of "it takes a village to raise a child." All adults who come in contact with children, especially parents, need to understand how their words and deeds influence the development of children. Many parents use media as babysitters and take kids to violent movies because it's cheaper than hiring a sitter. Until these parents own up to their responsibility, the only thing this bill will change is that parents will buy the game for their kids.
Deciding what children see is a decision for parents, and restricting sales of these games will only amount to censoring them out of existence.
Now this makes no sense, it implies there was serious deflation from 1939 to 1956.
Actually, I read someplace that tickets were more for GWTW than for other movies (ranging from $.75 - $1.10.) Maybe this accounts for it, somehow. Maybe $198M means 198M tickets sold * today's average per ticket = $1.1B today. If that's true, and their adjusting tickets sold to todays price, then tickets for Ten Commandments were, roughly, $.55 on average. I don't believe there was this kind of deflation, but average ticket prices in 1939 may have been $.25 and GWTW was simply more per ticket than the average.
I know GWTW has been re-released at least once.
Here's some amusing trivia for you:
I have heard from several sources, but never personally checked, that the theater at CNN Center in Atlanta has been showing GWTW every day since the theater opened with no plans of stopping. It's become a tourist attraction.
Re:Someone has to say it...
on
Review: Spiderman
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
So, we should just rush out and put money in the pockets of the MPAA?
Find a theater showing Spider-man and an Indie flick at about the same time. Buy a ticket for the Indie and sit down in the Spider-man theater "by mistake." Just don't do it when Spider-man is sold out.
For bonus points, buy another ticket for the Indie flick and see that too.
But if you bookmarked those links and use them after they expire, then those expired links simply give you back the main page again.
I don't think you want this to happen to someone who has bookmarked an article. I, for one, would assume the article was no longer available.
There is also a difference between deep linking and bookmarks. Presumably, to have a bookmark, you've traversed the site from the main page to find the article. Also, while a deep link will be revealed by a referrer, a request from a bookmark IIRC doesn't report a referrer.
If you're concerned about getting fewer hits because people jump straight to the content via deep linking, you can kill deep linking by redirecting remote referrers. It's simpler than what you propose; and it doesn't confuse your regular readers, who are likely to bookmark pages they already browsed.
If I regularly browsed a news site and found pages expiring, I'd either find another site or save articles to my hard drive. Either way, no more ad revenue.
Get your DNS and mail service from one provider and web hosting from two others. Many providers will squirm at not getting everything, but tough.
If you keep your mail seperate from your website, you should avoid mail interruptions if a web hosting provider pulls your site.
By keeping your DNS seperate, you can control which IP requests for your site get sent to. Make sure you DNS zone file records expire frequently so that a change in IP is propogated quickly. If your provider will let you manage the DNS, even better.
Setup a scheme to keep your site backed up. Running the site in two locations, plus maintaining a backup would be ideal.
Here's how it would work: If one provider pulls your site, you change your DNS to the backup provider and secure a new backup provider. Unless your being persecuted by someone with serious clue, you can shuttle your site around indefinitely with only brief interruptions.
Of course, as someone else has suggested, consider off-shore hosting. You can have a.com anywhere. Even if the country is WIPO friendly, you'll still get more delay in anyone acting against your site.
One last thing: Anyone who wants your site down bad enough, may be able to simply get the domain pulled if you use a domestic registrar. Consider going off-shore with that as well.
So, my advice is this: Split up services; Maintain backups; Consider off-shore hosting; And consider off-shore registration. In general terms, don't keep your eggs all in one basket and hide the baskets.
Not everyone wants the hassle of running their own box.
Some providers offer "Managed Colocation." Your box, their admin. Routine config changes, security patches, and typical setups are all part of the service. Normally, plans include an hour/month of sysadmin service on top of normal colocation services.
I created a program like this at my last employer for example.
I agree though: Colocation isn't for everyone. Aside from inexperience causing problems, it may be more costly than a beginning site really needs.
Re:Shameless Self-Promotion
on
Web Services
·
· Score: 1
re: Other Tipoffs
OpenStandards was/.ed at the time. Also, I think there's are degrees of shamelessness. It's one thing to submit a story you've found someplace and think others might like. It's a bit shameless to submit a story about an article you wrote that another site posted. It's the epitamy of shameless to submit a story you wrote that is posted on a site you own.
I posted the whois information so that everyone could see just how little research/. needed to do to know that the submitted story was just an Ad.
Re:Shameless Self-Promotion
on
Web Services
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Why do a WHOIS? Erik's name is on the byline.
OpenStandards was/.ed at the time. Also, I think there's are degrees of shamelessness. It's one thing to submit a story you've found someplace and think others might like. It's a bit shameless to submit a story about an article you wrote that another site posted. It's the epitamy of shameless to submit a story you wrote that is posted on a site you own.
I posted the whois information so that everyone could see just how little research/. needed to do to know that the submitted story was just an Ad.
Shameless Self-Promotion
on
Web Services
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Hey Erik, nice ad:
Organization: Joshua Branch Erik Sliman 1449 Larchmont Ave., Dn Lakewood, OH 44107 US Phone: 216 228-7361 Email: erik(at)joshuabranch.org
Created on: Fri, Dec 17, 1999 Expires on: Sun, Dec 17, 2006 Record last updated on: Wed, Mar 06, 2002
Administrative Contact: Joshua Branch Erik Sliman 1449 Larchmont Ave., Dn Lakewood, OH 44107 US Phone: 216 228-7361 Email: erik(at)joshuabranch.org
Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Register.Com Domain Registrar 575 8th Avenue - 11th Floor New York, NY 10018 US Phone: 902-749-2701 Fax: 902-749-5429 Email: domain-registrar(at)register.com
Slashdot Mirror
Have you tried Satellite for Internet service? It adds some latency, but the bandwidth is much better than phone by itself. It's probably useless for gaming, but HTTP, FTP, and such should speed up considerably.
I had a Verizon phone that I used around my office in a rural location. It worked fine, with a good, strong signal, for months, and then it just stopped. Were it not for a few trees, I could see the tower from the office. I gave their tech support people a call and was told that they have never provided service there. Over the next week or so, I discovered that the tower was being worked on by their people (a tower they denied having,) so I waited until they were done working. The phone still didn't work unless I was within 100 yards of the tower.
Eventually, after some escalation with customer service and tech support, I got them to admit it was their tower; however, they refused to fix the problem. I refused to take the phone in to them as it works on all other cells around. Ultimately, I insisted that they cancel the service contract and refund a month of service, as well as my deposit. They caved in and mailed me a check (just a short three months later.) I'll never use Verizon again.
I sold the phone to another Verizon customer who still uses it today and never had a problem with it (different cell.)
Or pull a 'Dallas', have someone wake up and say 'oh, it was all just a bad dream'.
I'd rather have it end in a Newhart way. Maybe Scully wakes up after falling asleep waiting to meet the director in the pilot episode. Instead of waiting around, she takes off her badge and leaves. Roll credits.
At the end of the series finale on Newhart, Bob wakes up next to his wife from The Bob Newart Show. The whole series had been a dream.
I am usually on the same rail as Ebert, but there are times when he just doesn't know how to have enough fun
I feel very much the same about Ebert. I have a great deal of respect for his reviews of dramas, and I have seen many based on his recommendation. Rarely have I disagreed where dramas are concerned.
However, when it comes to comedy, Ebert has his head up his ass. For some reason, he seems to think that every movie has to move its audience to be good. If a movie fails to do that, regardless of how funny it is, Ebert pans it. While the Star Wars saga has dramatic overtones, it's just B-level sci-fi combined with A-level comedy. Star Wars succeeds because it's a very entertaining escape. Ebert expects more and, sadly, misses out.
Actually, the time a police officer spends executing one of these warrants will result in scenario's like this:
While you may disagree with how law enforcement spends its time. Forcing them to waste time and money won't change their priorities.
If the police officer isn't present at the search, then there is a break in the chain of custody of the evidence.
There are plenty of other precidences that say otherwise:
If the police want to know what numbers telephone X called, the phone company retrieves that information from their system and provides it. The same is true if they want to know who's phone it is.
Police may go to a gun dealer and say "Who bought this gun from you?" The dealer then retrieves the information from his records and provides it.
In these circumstances, the phone company and the gun dealer may be called upon to testify to the accuracy of the records; but, unless the business itself is being investigated, businesses are trusted to do the record retrieval themselves.
As long as the records are delivered directly from the business to law enforcement, there's no break in the chain of custody. This could be done as easily by fax as it can in person, if not easier.
Look. It seems pretty clear that there are legal reasons to request these records. While requiring law enforcement's presence may temporarily reduce the number of warrants, it's only a matter of time before a workaround is proposed. If law enforcement must be present where the records are kept, congress will create a national registry that ISPs will be forced to tie into. Then, police can execute warrants without leaving their desk.
It's one thing to give police a hard time if they're crossing some ethical line, and I support that. Requiring that they fly across country to watch you type is completely unnecessary. If anything, it'll violate more due process: Police arrest suspect; they discover ISP might have evidence that exhonorates suspect; police spend 48 hours retrieving evidence in person while suspect is abused in jail; or police leave ISP record retrieval to the public defender, preserving their budget.
Be careful what you wish for...
Adding costs to law enforcement means that either fewer crimes get solved or taxes go up.
If law enforcement is really required to be present for each warrant, you can expect a law to be passed requiring ISPs to connect their databases into some national registry; then, law enforcement can execute search warrants from their desk.
Aside from cost to law enforcement, what is different between the following:
In either scenario, the searching will ultimately be done by ISP techs. This is no different than asking any other company for information about a customer. Police present warrant; employee retrieves records. Surely no one wants to give police the necessary access to retrieve records themselves. So what's the difference.
Besides, who wants police standing around in their office. More to the point, who wants police, who just took the red eye to cross the country, standing in their office.
The problem is simple to understand. It just takes a different perspective. Here goes:
Given these two premises, here's two problems right off the bat:
The fact is, Yahoo could tell everyone that marketing is a trade-off for the free services and go fsck yourself if you don't like it. Then people could either deal with it or cancel their account. (Is it possible to cancel your MyYahoo account?) However, they aren't doing that. Instead, previously expressed wishes on the topic have been tossed; and many registered people aren't even being notified.
For anyone who created a MyYahoo account and either doesn't use their email or has abandoned the account, their notification efforts are not unlike those experienced by Arthur Dent at the beginning of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"The plans [to demolish your home] have been on file at the planning office. They're stored in a file cabinet, in the basement, in a dis-used lavatory with a sign on the door that says 'Beware of the Leopard'"
I'm all for 'free markets', but they should be closer to 'fair markets' not 'free-for-all markets'. Yahoo has done the bare minimum their lawyers can defend. That's not the same thing as doing what's right. They could have put the same notification in front of every active account and considered anyone who acknowledged it to be fair game until they followed-up to opt out. However, it's much more profitable to use your entire list (active, inactive, duplicates, etc), even if you know many will never read the notice.
See the problem?
While it may be easy to fake a credit card number, what is required of the site is that they make the effort. If you make a good faith effort to comply with the law, and you fail anyway, you are unlikely to be prosecuted. Even if you are prosecuted, it's extremely unlikely to be successful. Any crime requires three things:
If you setup precautions to ensure that any minor accessing your porn is doing so solely by defrauding your site, then you would lack both mens rea and concurrence.
Using the liquor store analogy, if you ignore blatantly false ID, then you are willfully violating the law. However, if you implement a system for your site as prescribed by law, in good faith, which places you in a position where you cannot know the validity of someone's ID, then any violation of the law is done so unwillingly.
In order to successfully prosecute someone for violating the act, prosecutors would need to do one of the following: Demonstrate that the porn can be accessed without age verification; or demonstrate that site operators are specifically aware of instances where the age verification has been defrauded and those operators have chosen to ignore said instances.
Believe it or not, constitutional rights are not extended to all U.S. citizens. For example, children in juvenile court do not have a right to a jury trial (McKeever v Pennsylvania.)
Until a child is an adult, parents are responsible for what the children are allowed to do or not do. In the absense of parental discipline, society has an established parental role (parens patriae.) Just as liquor stores can be barred from selling to minors, porn sites can be barred from distributing to minors.
If you produce porn, this Act doesn't bar you from distributing it. The Act simply requires that you take reasonable steps to ensure that minors are not in your audience while you exersize your free speech. You're mostly free to say what you want to other citizens; however, since children are not citizens, parents and society can decide for them as to whose speech they can listen to.
Here goes:
As strange as the truth may seem, whether you look up, down, left, or right, it is far easier to be charmed by beauty than by beast.
Actually, I can tell you, as a Nevada resident, that public opinion here is across the entire spectrum. Opinions are mostly broken down like so:
To date, the largest act of "interference", that I've heard of, has been the cutting off of water to the site. Without water, drilling has been basically stopped dead.
At the risk of them being dragged off to a museum in the distant future, this strikes me as the perfect purpose for the creation of modern equivalents of the Rosetta Stone. To that end, the warning should be given in every known written language.
If any presently known language survives to be known by those who discover the warning, they'll be able to read it. As a bonus, these warning markers could open vast wells of 21st century information to future societies. It is possible that we'd still be wondering what the pretty pictures in Egypt mean without the Rosetta Stone. Why not take this opportunity now?
Also, Ep2 is opening on fewer screens.
Do you mean fewer domestic screens? It is supposed to open world wide in an apparently failed bid to beat counterfeiters. I had heard it will be released in 19 languages around the world for the same weekend.
Also, fewer screens may not mean fewer showings. 5 showings on 4 screens == 4 showings on 5 screens.
I'd say there's a good chance that Spider-man's record will be very short lived. At least a 50-50 chance.
You may have to prove date and ownership of copyright and you need to say on the CV that it was copyrighted to you.
As long as it is your work, you automatically have copyright: Legally, copyright is automatically bestowed on the author and must be assigned explicitly or by prior agreement. While it is expedient to state Copyright [date] [author], it is not necessary.
As to establishing ownership... Well, the CV is all about him. However, if X Solutions limited what they reproduced to the simple facts (Work History, Skills, etc.), an argument could be made that these details are not subject to copyright. If I say 'Bob worked for IBM from 1992 to 1996,' you could also say 'Bob worked for IBM from 1992 to 1996': You are simply restating a fact.
If he really wants to get X Solutions, he should speak to the DA in the town/city where he interviewed and press fraud charges against X Solutions. His resume was presented to the company by X Solutions claiming to represent him. This was done, I assume, in accordance with an agreement to receive a commission if he was hired. So, they've committed a fraud to solicit money. This is a Criminal act, and they should be pursued in both criminal and civil courts. Try to get the criminal prosecution first: It should make for a quick civil settlement.
Another source of satisfaction can be the Attorneys General in each state where X Solutions operates. Although, probably only his state will feel they have to act.
The email talked about their time together and how she was having second thoughts when she called his house and his wife answered.
I responded that she must have the wrong email address.
You could have told her that your, that is his, wife was interested in a threesome and watch the sparks fly instead.
If you feel like a little mischief, mistaken identity can be a beautiful thing.
There are several things wrong with this bill: If enforced, sales of these games will be devistated; although the material is questionable in taste, other industries are allowed to show more realistic depictions to minors; and despite the seemingly obvious causation between seeing violence and the committing it, there is no proof of that.
While this bill is intended to protect minors, the real effect will be to attack video game manufacturers: How much of a dent in game sales makes their production unprofitable? Place enough restrictions on the sale of a product and you've censored it out of existence.
While computer animation is getting pretty realistic, it pales in comparison to real actors performing the same acts in movies and on television. Just this week, I've watched parents take young children (five years old) to see Jason X; but, even without parental supervision, many of the acts decribed in the bill can be seen in PG or PG-13 movies. Also, I've never seen ratings enforced at the rental counter. As far as television goes, the only comtrols are opt-in parental lock-outs. Imagine the confusion if parental controls were opt-out.
While many groups want to believe that violence in children is caused by exposure to violent imagery, there simply isn't proof. Parenting through legislation is not what is meant by the concept of "it takes a village to raise a child." All adults who come in contact with children, especially parents, need to understand how their words and deeds influence the development of children. Many parents use media as babysitters and take kids to violent movies because it's cheaper than hiring a sitter. Until these parents own up to their responsibility, the only thing this bill will change is that parents will buy the game for their kids.
Deciding what children see is a decision for parents, and restricting sales of these games will only amount to censoring them out of existence.
Now this makes no sense, it implies there was serious deflation from 1939 to 1956.
Actually, I read someplace that tickets were more for GWTW than for other movies (ranging from $.75 - $1.10.) Maybe this accounts for it, somehow. Maybe $198M means 198M tickets sold * today's average per ticket = $1.1B today. If that's true, and their adjusting tickets sold to todays price, then tickets for Ten Commandments were, roughly, $.55 on average. I don't believe there was this kind of deflation, but average ticket prices in 1939 may have been $.25 and GWTW was simply more per ticket than the average.
I know GWTW has been re-released at least once.
Here's some amusing trivia for you:
I have heard from several sources, but never personally checked, that the theater at CNN Center in Atlanta has been showing GWTW every day since the theater opened with no plans of stopping. It's become a tourist attraction.
So, we should just rush out and put money in the pockets of the MPAA?
Find a theater showing Spider-man and an Indie flick at about the same time. Buy a ticket for the Indie and sit down in the Spider-man theater "by mistake." Just don't do it when Spider-man is sold out.
For bonus points, buy another ticket for the Indie flick and see that too.
But if you bookmarked those links and use them after they expire, then those expired links simply give you back the main page again.
I don't think you want this to happen to someone who has bookmarked an article. I, for one, would assume the article was no longer available.
There is also a difference between deep linking and bookmarks. Presumably, to have a bookmark, you've traversed the site from the main page to find the article. Also, while a deep link will be revealed by a referrer, a request from a bookmark IIRC doesn't report a referrer.
If you're concerned about getting fewer hits because people jump straight to the content via deep linking, you can kill deep linking by redirecting remote referrers. It's simpler than what you propose; and it doesn't confuse your regular readers, who are likely to bookmark pages they already browsed.
If I regularly browsed a news site and found pages expiring, I'd either find another site or save articles to my hard drive. Either way, no more ad revenue.
Get your DNS and mail service from one provider and web hosting from two others. Many providers will squirm at not getting everything, but tough.
.com anywhere. Even if the country is WIPO friendly, you'll still get more delay in anyone acting against your site.
If you keep your mail seperate from your website, you should avoid mail interruptions if a web hosting provider pulls your site.
By keeping your DNS seperate, you can control which IP requests for your site get sent to. Make sure you DNS zone file records expire frequently so that a change in IP is propogated quickly. If your provider will let you manage the DNS, even better.
Setup a scheme to keep your site backed up. Running the site in two locations, plus maintaining a backup would be ideal.
Here's how it would work: If one provider pulls your site, you change your DNS to the backup provider and secure a new backup provider. Unless your being persecuted by someone with serious clue, you can shuttle your site around indefinitely with only brief interruptions.
Of course, as someone else has suggested, consider off-shore hosting. You can have a
One last thing: Anyone who wants your site down bad enough, may be able to simply get the domain pulled if you use a domestic registrar. Consider going off-shore with that as well.
So, my advice is this: Split up services; Maintain backups; Consider off-shore hosting; And consider off-shore registration. In general terms, don't keep your eggs all in one basket and hide the baskets.
Not everyone wants the hassle of running their own box.
Some providers offer "Managed Colocation." Your box, their admin. Routine config changes, security patches, and typical setups are all part of the service. Normally, plans include an hour/month of sysadmin service on top of normal colocation services.
I created a program like this at my last employer for example.
I agree though: Colocation isn't for everyone. Aside from inexperience causing problems, it may be more costly than a beginning site really needs.
re: Other Tipoffs
/.ed at the time. Also, I think there's are degrees of shamelessness. It's one thing to submit a story you've found someplace and think others might like. It's a bit shameless to submit a story about an article you wrote that another site posted. It's the epitamy of shameless to submit a story you wrote that is posted on a site you own.
/. needed to do to know that the submitted story was just an Ad.
OpenStandards was
I posted the whois information so that everyone could see just how little research
Why do a WHOIS? Erik's name is on the byline.
/.ed at the time. Also, I think there's are degrees of shamelessness. It's one thing to submit a story you've found someplace and think others might like. It's a bit shameless to submit a story about an article you wrote that another site posted. It's the epitamy of shameless to submit a story you wrote that is posted on a site you own.
/. needed to do to know that the submitted story was just an Ad.
OpenStandards was
I posted the whois information so that everyone could see just how little research
Hey Erik, nice ad:
Organization:
Joshua Branch
Erik Sliman
1449 Larchmont Ave., Dn
Lakewood, OH 44107
US
Phone: 216 228-7361
Email: erik(at)joshuabranch.org
Registrar Name: Register.com
Registrar Whois: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
Domain Name: OPENSTANDARDS.NET
Created on: Fri, Dec 17, 1999
Expires on: Sun, Dec 17, 2006
Record last updated on: Wed, Mar 06, 2002
Administrative Contact:
Joshua Branch
Erik Sliman
1449 Larchmont Ave., Dn
Lakewood, OH 44107
US
Phone: 216 228-7361
Email: erik(at)joshuabranch.org
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Register.Com
Domain Registrar
575 8th Avenue - 11th Floor
New York, NY 10018
US
Phone: 902-749-2701
Fax: 902-749-5429
Email: domain-registrar(at)register.com
Domain servers in listed order:
DNS13.REGISTER.COM 209.67.50.208
DNS14.REGISTER.COM 209.67.50.209