Unfortunately, that's not *nearly* the option you'd think it is.
You'd have two options.
1. Abandon current communities to build the new ones. 2. Raze current communities to build the new ones in the same space.
If you abandon the current ones, those will likely just turn in to ghettos, and more valuable land will be consumed. You'd have to purposefully push people out of current communities and get them in to the walkable ones in order to reclaim the old land. That sounds a lot like #2.
So, for number 2, you build in and around the community as is.
Except you forget the whole reason communities are as sprawled out as they are is that people have to drive to work. Industrial areas need to be set off due to noise and odour, no one wants to live in the shadow of a skyscraper where the majority of office jobs are, and no one wants a Wal-Mart Super Centre to be the main fixture of their community, right in the middle for easiest access to all residents. So you get people who need to drive to work, usually long distances. You get the big-box stores setting up on the fringes of the community, killing the local shops, meaning people have to drive to the super centre, and suddenly your walkable communities are looking a lot like the old ones.
Unless the law has changed recently, all DMCA notices must contain the signature of the complaining party. So it can't be an _anonymous_ robot.
Sure it can be an anonymous robot. Some random web spider crawls around, and when it gets a hit, it kicks it over to the automated DMCA generator, which has a digital signature of whoever it needs. At no point is the robot identified. Hell, it might not even belong to the complaintant. They might be contracting it out.
So you're saying "take action" _has_ to be "nuke site from orbit?" "Take action" can't be "hey, you got a permit for that? Yeah? Okay, send it to these guys."?
So yes, it's evil and it's fucking lazy. A corporation doing business with individuals should at least make a token effort at resolving the situation with the involvement of the individual.
If you run on someone else's hosting, they'll just send the DMCA to your host, who will then take down your content. They only way you'd be safe from being DMCA'd is if you had your own server sitting in your closet. And that's what GP was talking about with their post.
in creative works I don't know if this really is as important.
Legally, if you specifically take text directly from one source, and transplant it to your work, you need to obtain permission or supply a bibliography no matter the "genre." If you're paraphrasing, then unless it's substantial (amount changes per jurisdiction), you don't need to do anything (though if non-fiction, citing sources is just best practices).
Apparently you don't understand how the human brain works. If you're not shouting louder than the other guy, people only hear one side, and they remember the accusations. Look in to "Source amnesia." After some time's passed, people won't remember where they heard that someone said "he's probably an ass rapist." Instead, they'll just think "Oh, he's an ass rapist." Even if "he" proves that he's not even got a dick to rape with. So, unfortunately, no, just demanding evidence in your own puny voice is not going to save you from a dedicated smear campaign.
Check the other replies, someone provided a link to the actual Australian laws that say even *possessing* something RC can get you in shit. Selling isn't a prerequisite in all areas there.
Being a stupid law, and not having the exact phrasing to hand, I cannot answer for certain, but I'd have to guess that probably the law is phrased "it is illegal to make available any materials not having received a classification." That'd cover selling, giving away, loaning, etc, but leaving the ability to import, since that seems to be a popular option there.
Do you have enough reasons to quit using their shitty software yet?
Nope. Not until I can run the same software on Linux that they do at work, and it can run all my games, and I don't have to edit and compile my own drivers because the company decided not to make compatable 64-bit drivers for my soundcard for Linux.
According to Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, the Australian government passes it off as "not censorship" because all they're doing is "refusing classification." Unfortunately, anything without a classification cannot be sold in Australia. So, they're not banning it, technically, they're simply making it impossible to sell in a legal manner.
It's a shit politicians' trick, and it's worked for a while. Fortunately, much of the citizenship there seems to finally be waking up, if the repeal of the law that made it illegal to anonymously comment on politics due to public outcry is anything to go on.
That's pretty damn awesome. Best I've seen is these cheezy little "webinars," where you've got maybe 100 people tops all watching a feed. Even then it wasn't exactly what I'd call "well handled" when it came time to ask questions and such.
was it an actual telephone conference, or was it using computers? Because I'm trying to imagine the logistics of 5000 attendees and someone wants to say something. Hell, even if no one wants to say anything, enough people with sensitive phones is going to crowd the line if they don't mute the phone.
Lemme know of another way to test a game to see if it's shit before buying it (no refunds, after all), or locate a stupidly-hard-to-find-movie that Amazon, your local retailers, and your local rental places don't carry.
I don't see why PC gamers should be fucked when it comes to seeing if a game's shitty just because of piracy concerns. I don't want to give my money to someone who doesn't deserve it, and there's a number of games that getting to rent it for a couple days, or even getting a *proper* demo (none of this 15 minute bullshit) would let me know to either spend the $50-$60, or move on.
As for my other scenario, I wanna watch a movie. The entire point of making a movie is to have people watch it. I did my dues, checking all the channels that would result in revenue for the creator, but they didn't see fit to exercise those options, or keep those options open, for some reason. If I've done my part in attempting to pay, why should I then not be able to watch it freely? It's not like they're losing a sale, and if I find it ever, I'll buy it (done that more than once).
So no, it isn't true that "The only reason someone would go to TPB would be to obtain copyrighted material without the need to pay for the material."
Eh, maybe more people move to darknets or something. Basically, the more techies that move to that kind of thing, the sooner it'd hit mainstream. Things like this, even if it only pushes a half-dozen people, could help.
Are casual users really using TPB and torrents in general? After all, keep in mind, that'd require them to download a tiny file, then download a torrenting program, and set that up properly (checking ports and such). Then actually open the torrent in the program. The casual user you're talking about would probably think that tiny thing they downloaded was the movie/song/program they were looking for, and wondered why it didn't work.
Are you aware of *just* how many posts are on 4chan? The most active board, "random," has over 100,000 posts a day. I think the entire site averages something like 1,000,000. Per DAY. You just can't effectively police something like that with the kind of set up they have. It was never built for that volume of traffic. They'd need to make everyone register, and that'd take away half the appeal of the place.
Anyone who makes a site completely out of Flash should be _shot_. Repeatedly. In the face and crotch. If I'm using flashblock, I should still be able to see more than a site's copyright notification. Using flash to design a site beyond video is nothing more than ostentatiousness. First you use a little flash for an animated menu. Then you do a little more for a slideshow on the front page. Soon you're serving *all* your content that way, your site takes 30-45 seconds or MORE to load on a broadband connection, and there's a 10 second delay to navigate to a new area on the site. I expect that shit on dial-up, not a 3mbps or more connection. If you can't make a good site without Flash, fucking hire a professional or STAY OFF THE NET.
Slashdot Mirror
build walkable communities,
Unfortunately, that's not *nearly* the option you'd think it is.
You'd have two options.
1. Abandon current communities to build the new ones.
2. Raze current communities to build the new ones in the same space.
If you abandon the current ones, those will likely just turn in to ghettos, and more valuable land will be consumed. You'd have to purposefully push people out of current communities and get them in to the walkable ones in order to reclaim the old land. That sounds a lot like #2.
So, for number 2, you build in and around the community as is.
Except you forget the whole reason communities are as sprawled out as they are is that people have to drive to work. Industrial areas need to be set off due to noise and odour, no one wants to live in the shadow of a skyscraper where the majority of office jobs are, and no one wants a Wal-Mart Super Centre to be the main fixture of their community, right in the middle for easiest access to all residents. So you get people who need to drive to work, usually long distances. You get the big-box stores setting up on the fringes of the community, killing the local shops, meaning people have to drive to the super centre, and suddenly your walkable communities are looking a lot like the old ones.
INSANITY!!! You fool! You'll kill us all!
rapeseed is also known as "canola."
Unless the law has changed recently, all DMCA notices must contain the signature of the complaining party. So it can't be an _anonymous_ robot.
Sure it can be an anonymous robot. Some random web spider crawls around, and when it gets a hit, it kicks it over to the automated DMCA generator, which has a digital signature of whoever it needs. At no point is the robot identified. Hell, it might not even belong to the complaintant. They might be contracting it out.
*gasp!* They can take my blog!
BUT THEY CAN NEVER TAKE... MY BAAAAAAAAAAACOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Filter error my ass. Of course so many caps is like yelling. That's the fucking point of the quote.
So you're saying "take action" _has_ to be "nuke site from orbit?" "Take action" can't be "hey, you got a permit for that? Yeah? Okay, send it to these guys."?
So yes, it's evil and it's fucking lazy. A corporation doing business with individuals should at least make a token effort at resolving the situation with the involvement of the individual.
If you run on someone else's hosting, they'll just send the DMCA to your host, who will then take down your content. They only way you'd be safe from being DMCA'd is if you had your own server sitting in your closet. And that's what GP was talking about with their post.
Footnotes are for losers! Endnotes 4 lyfe!
in creative works I don't know if this really is as important.
Legally, if you specifically take text directly from one source, and transplant it to your work, you need to obtain permission or supply a bibliography no matter the "genre." If you're paraphrasing, then unless it's substantial (amount changes per jurisdiction), you don't need to do anything (though if non-fiction, citing sources is just best practices).
Apparently you don't understand how the human brain works. If you're not shouting louder than the other guy, people only hear one side, and they remember the accusations. Look in to "Source amnesia." After some time's passed, people won't remember where they heard that someone said "he's probably an ass rapist." Instead, they'll just think "Oh, he's an ass rapist." Even if "he" proves that he's not even got a dick to rape with. So, unfortunately, no, just demanding evidence in your own puny voice is not going to save you from a dedicated smear campaign.
Check the other replies, someone provided a link to the actual Australian laws that say even *possessing* something RC can get you in shit. Selling isn't a prerequisite in all areas there.
Being a stupid law, and not having the exact phrasing to hand, I cannot answer for certain, but I'd have to guess that probably the law is phrased "it is illegal to make available any materials not having received a classification." That'd cover selling, giving away, loaning, etc, but leaving the ability to import, since that seems to be a popular option there.
Do you have enough reasons to quit using their shitty software yet?
Nope. Not until I can run the same software on Linux that they do at work, and it can run all my games, and I don't have to edit and compile my own drivers because the company decided not to make compatable 64-bit drivers for my soundcard for Linux.
No, it's really fucking not. Linux is fine for what it is, but what it is not is Windows sans MS.
Enjoying WGA that much, eh?
Apparently, very gullible.
According to Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, the Australian government passes it off as "not censorship" because all they're doing is "refusing classification." Unfortunately, anything without a classification cannot be sold in Australia. So, they're not banning it, technically, they're simply making it impossible to sell in a legal manner.
It's a shit politicians' trick, and it's worked for a while. Fortunately, much of the citizenship there seems to finally be waking up, if the repeal of the law that made it illegal to anonymously comment on politics due to public outcry is anything to go on.
That's pretty damn awesome. Best I've seen is these cheezy little "webinars," where you've got maybe 100 people tops all watching a feed. Even then it wasn't exactly what I'd call "well handled" when it came time to ask questions and such.
was it an actual telephone conference, or was it using computers? Because I'm trying to imagine the logistics of 5000 attendees and someone wants to say something. Hell, even if no one wants to say anything, enough people with sensitive phones is going to crowd the line if they don't mute the phone.
Lemme know of another way to test a game to see if it's shit before buying it (no refunds, after all), or locate a stupidly-hard-to-find-movie that Amazon, your local retailers, and your local rental places don't carry.
I don't see why PC gamers should be fucked when it comes to seeing if a game's shitty just because of piracy concerns. I don't want to give my money to someone who doesn't deserve it, and there's a number of games that getting to rent it for a couple days, or even getting a *proper* demo (none of this 15 minute bullshit) would let me know to either spend the $50-$60, or move on.
As for my other scenario, I wanna watch a movie. The entire point of making a movie is to have people watch it. I did my dues, checking all the channels that would result in revenue for the creator, but they didn't see fit to exercise those options, or keep those options open, for some reason. If I've done my part in attempting to pay, why should I then not be able to watch it freely? It's not like they're losing a sale, and if I find it ever, I'll buy it (done that more than once).
So no, it isn't true that "The only reason someone would go to TPB would be to obtain copyrighted material without the need to pay for the material."
Eh, maybe more people move to darknets or something. Basically, the more techies that move to that kind of thing, the sooner it'd hit mainstream. Things like this, even if it only pushes a half-dozen people, could help.
Are casual users really using TPB and torrents in general? After all, keep in mind, that'd require them to download a tiny file, then download a torrenting program, and set that up properly (checking ports and such). Then actually open the torrent in the program. The casual user you're talking about would probably think that tiny thing they downloaded was the movie/song/program they were looking for, and wondered why it didn't work.
Are you aware of *just* how many posts are on 4chan? The most active board, "random," has over 100,000 posts a day. I think the entire site averages something like 1,000,000. Per DAY. You just can't effectively police something like that with the kind of set up they have. It was never built for that volume of traffic. They'd need to make everyone register, and that'd take away half the appeal of the place.
Moot himself said on the 4chan status blog that it's only Verizon Wireless from what they can tell.
It should be interesting to see the fallout from this. 4channers aren't exactly the paragon of maturity.
Anyone who makes a site completely out of Flash should be _shot_. Repeatedly. In the face and crotch. If I'm using flashblock, I should still be able to see more than a site's copyright notification. Using flash to design a site beyond video is nothing more than ostentatiousness. First you use a little flash for an animated menu. Then you do a little more for a slideshow on the front page. Soon you're serving *all* your content that way, your site takes 30-45 seconds or MORE to load on a broadband connection, and there's a 10 second delay to navigate to a new area on the site. I expect that shit on dial-up, not a 3mbps or more connection. If you can't make a good site without Flash, fucking hire a professional or STAY OFF THE NET.