No, he means that the word "piracy" has been used as a synonym for "copyright infringement" for 400 year, not that piracy on the high-seas died out 400 years ago.
I know it's an incredibly unpopular use of the word here, but it's been used in that sense for centuries, and trying to change it now is a battle you will not win.
I do, when I'm trying to order physical goods (no, I do not want to ship from the US to the UK, or to have to pay in a foreign currency), or want my search results to favour my country (as google.co.uk will do, but google.com won't).
That doesn't necessarily require ccTLDs of course, but it's two examples off the top of my head when I care about geography on the net.
I was always taught that way back when, years went (e.g.)...3BC, 2BC, 1BC, AD1, AD2, AD3...
There was no year 0. Call it "logical gymnastics" if you like, but humans don't count from zero, and the first century AD technically ran from AD1 to AD100.
I've given up trying to convince people though, and celebrating the new millennium on my own in 2001 would've sucked...
That only works when it's the good guys; some people will kill you for doing the right thing.
Note that I am not asserting that the government is the good guys, just pointing out that e.g. undercover cops infiltrating gangs, agents infiltrating terrorist cells, etc most certainly do have something to hide.
Couldn't and shouldn't are contractions, not concatenations (and the word is concatenation not concocation which isn't a word at all), and black mail most definitely is one word - unless you are literally talking about mail that is black in colour.
News flash - people skilled in one field sometimes make a mess of jargon used in a different field. Film at 11.
Also, you realise that you're quoting the criticism of the lawyers, not the lawyers themselves, yes? The terms may not be quite right, but the concept - that just because an IP address was identified as being involved in the copyright infringement doesn't prove that the person paying for the connection is the infringer - is bang on.
But you go ahead and castigate the people trying to curb this sort of scatter-gun approach to suing for messing up some of the technical terms.
No, there is no such thing as an anti-photon. Also, even if there were, it would not annihilate protons and electrons, only photons; similarly a positron can only annihilate an electron, not a proton or anti-proton, and so on.
On the other hand in the right conditions photons can "annihilate" into particle/anti-particle pairs; all that is required is that energy and momentum be conserved.
Matter can neither be created or destroyed, merely transformed
My particle physics is a little rusty, and I only studied it to undergrad level, but isn't an anti-particle annihilated and converted into energy on contact with its "normal" particle?
In that sense, yes, matter most certainly can be destroyed (though of course *energy* is conserved in all cases).
I don't think it's misleading at all - I read "would be" (in this case) as short-hand for "...if it turns out that a violation has taken place"; it is inherently conditional. Contrast with "are liable".
Yet ONE person uploads that to facebook and facebook themselves start spamming me, followed in rapid succession by pill pushers and foreign diplomats, dethroned princes, and ousted former heads of state, all with lots of money they want to share with me.
Pics or it didn't happen. A couple of my friends used Facebook's "friend finder" feature, and I got a few "don't forget $friend has invited you to join Facebook!" type mails. I have received zero spam to that address.
Well, he says "next to every single damn comment" - the category icons aren't against the comments, they're against the story. (Unless I already switched them off and don't remember)
From England it gives me the link as described by the GP - but also a sponsored link above it. Are you sure you're not confusing the sponsored link (ie advert) with an actual search result?
So, you see fixing a security vulnerability as something that should be paid for by the customer?
Interesting. Personally I see it as a critical flaw that should have been caught in testing and never allowed into production - and I say that as a professional programmer working at a web agency.
if God hadn't wanted us to eventually select it for ourselves, there would have been no apple
That's addressed in Paradise Lost. The gist of the idea is that God wanted us to love and obey Him because we wanted to, not because He made us that way - thus, we had to have free will, including the will to disobey.
I'm curious; if the future of computing is all smartphones and tablets, and desktops (and I assume laptops) are going to disappear, what will I (as a programmer) be developing apps on? I can just about stand to send emails on a smartphone, there's no way I'm going to be writing code on one.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he means that the word "piracy" has been used as a synonym for "copyright infringement" for 400 year, not that piracy on the high-seas died out 400 years ago.
I know it's an incredibly unpopular use of the word here, but it's been used in that sense for centuries, and trying to change it now is a battle you will not win.
Who cares about country anyway on the net.
I do, when I'm trying to order physical goods (no, I do not want to ship from the US to the UK, or to have to pay in a foreign currency), or want my search results to favour my country (as google.co.uk will do, but google.com won't).
That doesn't necessarily require ccTLDs of course, but it's two examples off the top of my head when I care about geography on the net.
I was always taught that way back when, years went (e.g.) ...3BC, 2BC, 1BC, AD1, AD2, AD3...
There was no year 0. Call it "logical gymnastics" if you like, but humans don't count from zero, and the first century AD technically ran from AD1 to AD100.
I've given up trying to convince people though, and celebrating the new millennium on my own in 2001 would've sucked...
That only works when it's the good guys; some people will kill you for doing the right thing.
Note that I am not asserting that the government is the good guys, just pointing out that e.g. undercover cops infiltrating gangs, agents infiltrating terrorist cells, etc most certainly do have something to hide.
Couldn't and shouldn't are contractions, not concatenations (and the word is concatenation not concocation which isn't a word at all), and black mail most definitely is one word - unless you are literally talking about mail that is black in colour.
Why the quotes around 'crimes'? Because they're not really illegal in China, or because you personally don't think they should be illegal?
News flash - people skilled in one field sometimes make a mess of jargon used in a different field. Film at 11.
Also, you realise that you're quoting the criticism of the lawyers, not the lawyers themselves, yes? The terms may not be quite right, but the concept - that just because an IP address was identified as being involved in the copyright infringement doesn't prove that the person paying for the connection is the infringer - is bang on.
But you go ahead and castigate the people trying to curb this sort of scatter-gun approach to suing for messing up some of the technical terms.
That's all well and good, but that's about Paltalk's patents, not the Immersion ones that the GP is talking about.
Page 8, line 7 of the bill specifically mentions IP addresses.
If you're going to criticise people at least try to make sure the criticisms are accurate.
No, there is no such thing as an anti-photon. Also, even if there were, it would not annihilate protons and electrons, only photons; similarly a positron can only annihilate an electron, not a proton or anti-proton, and so on.
On the other hand in the right conditions photons can "annihilate" into particle/anti-particle pairs; all that is required is that energy and momentum be conserved.
The only difference we *expect* to see from anti-matter is that the electrical charge is reversed. The mass, spin states, etc. should all be the same.
Tell that to the anitneutron. Mass is (or should be) the same, yes, but reversing the electrical charge definitely is not the only difference.
Matter can neither be created or destroyed, merely transformed
My particle physics is a little rusty, and I only studied it to undergrad level, but isn't an anti-particle annihilated and converted into energy on contact with its "normal" particle?
In that sense, yes, matter most certainly can be destroyed (though of course *energy* is conserved in all cases).
I can only assume he's referring to your typo (it's Margaret, not Margareth) in the least helpful and most offensive way he could think of.
She was Prime Minister of the UK during the 1980s.
Lots of mods appear to give either Interesting or Insightful instead of Funny because Funny doesn't award karma.
Given that the ban is apparently only for edits, I don't see why the vast majority of Verizon's users would care either.
I don't think it's misleading at all - I read "would be" (in this case) as short-hand for "...if it turns out that a violation has taken place"; it is inherently conditional. Contrast with "are liable".
You can't charge $10 per piece for a nonproprietary gum...
You can if that's what it costs to make it and people are willing to pay it.
Yet ONE person uploads that to facebook and facebook themselves start spamming me, followed in rapid succession by pill pushers and foreign diplomats, dethroned princes, and ousted former heads of state, all with lots of money they want to share with me.
Pics or it didn't happen. A couple of my friends used Facebook's "friend finder" feature, and I got a few "don't forget $friend has invited you to join Facebook!" type mails. I have received zero spam to that address.
Well, he says "next to every single damn comment" - the category icons aren't against the comments, they're against the story. (Unless I already switched them off and don't remember)
Must be a US thing, I've never heard it here in the UK.
Either that or I'm more past it than I realised...
Are you saying that you would prefer that the law does not apply equally to all people regardless of social standing, job, etc?
From England it gives me the link as described by the GP - but also a sponsored link above it. Are you sure you're not confusing the sponsored link (ie advert) with an actual search result?
So, you see fixing a security vulnerability as something that should be paid for by the customer?
Interesting. Personally I see it as a critical flaw that should have been caught in testing and never allowed into production - and I say that as a professional programmer working at a web agency.
if God hadn't wanted us to eventually select it for ourselves, there would have been no apple
That's addressed in Paradise Lost. The gist of the idea is that God wanted us to love and obey Him because we wanted to, not because He made us that way - thus, we had to have free will, including the will to disobey.
I'm curious; if the future of computing is all smartphones and tablets, and desktops (and I assume laptops) are going to disappear, what will I (as a programmer) be developing apps on? I can just about stand to send emails on a smartphone, there's no way I'm going to be writing code on one.