I believe most people do away with this with the checksum digit at the end of most cards. This is to prevent problems with scanning or typing in cards.
In credit cards, it's nearly impossible to screw up a single number and have it work; with ISBNs, it's a little harder so you don't accidentally ring someone up a higher or lower cost item; etc.
That would be why it was linked in the story? I assumed people who didn't know would easily find info about all three areas of interest through the hyperlinks.
His non-J&SB movie pretty much flopped, and well, he hasn't had much luck with anything except Clerks being positively received by the public. Why not?
It's a shame, he's got a good sense of humor and a novel approach to movie making. Here's hoping he can get back into the groove.
I love how when people on Slashdot disagree with your assessment, you're a troll.
Without copyright, the GPL would be unenforceable. Without copyright, would anyone have invested all that money into making The Matrix, Doom, or even the Harry Potter series?
As much as people here don't care, or don't want the big bad corporations to get money from entertainment (yes, that's all this is, ENTERTAINMENT), if you don't want to pay for something the rights' owner wants you to pay for, don't enjoy it.
Copyright's a necessary evil that helps, and not everyone uses copyright to squeeze money out of the public. Strange that this is trolling on a site built off the hard work of those who protect their rights with copyright laws.
Most people don't consider stealing cable as wrong, or speeding as wrong, or rolling stops, or any number of "nuisance" laws which could be ignored and most people wouldn't be harmed.
However, in all those instances, including P2P piracy, there's a harm to someone indeed. Even if you're not physically taking something away, or you weren't going to buy the thing anyways, you still are taking away the right of the distributor to choose how its work can be disseminated through public channels.
Rolling stops cause problems if you don't really check for that cop car speeding toward the intersection, or the speed law if a dog darts across the road, or stealing cable when your bootleg cable scrambler causes problems on the lines.
Some laws are necessary, and just because most people don't want them around, is not a reason for them to be abolished. Copyright infringement is a necessary law, and for once/. should be applauding the fact that the DoJ is going after some of the biggest traders around, instead of bitching that corporations are owning the Government.
From what I'm aware (though IANAL), only the code they've distributed as GPL retain the GPL license. However, if they distributed the same code under GPL as, say, the PHP License, they can withdraw the GPL distribution from their own channel and keep only the PHP License version. If no one got ahold of the GPL version, then there is no more GPL version to distribute.
However, once it is distributed under the GPL and someone gets ahold of a copy of it through the distribution chain, it stays under the GPL if it is ever distributed again.
This is why some people, like id Software, will release code under the GPL, but still offer a non-GPL version license on the same code, in case the people who will use it do not wish to license it under the GPL.
Now if only Slashdot could hire someone to find duplicates before they're posted. But then again, dupes help with revenue, as twice the stories means twice the adviews!
[NOTE: Just a little sarcastic tone, nothing bad meant]
Exactly. I was speaking with someone a few years back about UT vs. Q3A, and he said Q3A was terrible because it wasn't realistic.
I asked him how it was unrealistic compared to UT, and his answer?
Bunny hopping.
Neverminding that both games allow you to respawn, don't kill you when bullets fill your body with holes, or allow you to launch rockets at glass or trees without doing any damage to them...
Just that strafe jumping makes the game unrealistic.
Games are entertainment. They should have a balance between realism to immerse the player into something that seems real, and enough unrealistic stuff to keep the game entertaining and linear. Without this balance of realism and fantasy, would anyone keep playing the games?
Fine, then how do you suggest the problem be solved by individuals or partnerships or other small entities?
If, after all, corporations should only earn a certain profit margin, and after that piracy is open game on them, and because you give away your rights, therefore everyone else apparently should . ..
Seriously, though, back to reality, what do you propose would work?
Obviously, the person who made the fansite did not have the authority to repost the videos, nor the many sites throughout the world he linked to.
And because 100% of the people don't get investigated, doesn't mean no one should. If someone's misusing your copyright, enforce it how you see fit. If you have no copyrights, you have little to worry about in this department.
And as another taxpayer, I believe sometimes the FBI must stand in, as some people think that without any reason to stop, they'll just keep on infringing on others' copyrights.
Whether you agree or not it's a crime, it is. And if people have no real incentive to stop, or the civil lawsuits will never bring about the cost to sue as most infringers are individuals, what do you propose would be a suitable method to stop infringement?
And there are specific departments of the FBI for all types of crime. Investigating infringement, for example, will not diminish the investigation of suspicious people learning to fly planes or non-profit organizations funnelling money overseas.
When someone clearly infringes on copyright, there's always someone who suggests that the copyright holder should politely ask them to remove the items.
Do you believe that the police should politely remind you not to speed only? Or that if you shoplift and get caught, you should only be told it's bad and not do it again?
Whether or not you know you're committing a crime, obviously taking someone else's creative efforts and reposting it without permission should set off flags in your head. If you still do it, why should anyone be nice to you when you've taken their rights away from them in how their efforts are distributed?
And Germany was allied with Japan, and vice versa, which just made Germany an equal enemy.
Don't forget, Japan and Germany had a pact together through World War II. This is why we went to war with Germany.
Re:Stealing bad music?
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 1
There's another reason.
I knew someone who downloaded and traded for everything he could get, burn it onto CD-ROM, catalog it in a database, and stored them in shelves so he wouldn't clog his hard drives.
The reasoning? At any time he needed something he wanted, he could trade for it using the many, many things he didn't.
To adults, I mean, not to toddlers and adolescents.
It's sex. Sometimes it's really raunchy, sometimes it's really tame. It can be drawn, painted, rendered or live-action.
But in the end, none of us would be here had two people somewhere in their ancestry had sex. So, again, why is it so taboo?
Because of repressed feelings derived from religious and other morals. These are imposed on others because they should be just as ashamed as those with these repressed morals about sex.
I say, let adults enjoy pornography in their private lives. If you don't like it that your neighbor enjoys watching two other consenting people humping on cable, that's only YOUR problem, not his and not theirs.
Man, this Slate writer loves his thesaurus, doesn't he?
The Slate article really doesn't state much that is fake with the movie, just that the person doesn't like Moore, what Moore's done outside the movie, and how the Slate writer really didn't like the film. *shrugs*
It's as long winded as Moore can be sometimes. I don't know why you use it to say that the movie is wrong.
Re:What out for Michael Moore lawsuits through....
on
Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Uh, libel isn't protected by the First Amendment and isn't free speech. If someone can truthfully say something bad about the film or Moore, there's little he can do about that.
However, if someone's going to go out and say that Moore made up the camcorder version of the kids' reading in Florida, or that it happened on another day and Moore spliced it in under lies, that's what I believe Moore is saying is reason for a lawsuit.
Remember, slander and libel are *NOT* protected free speech in America.
Usually only 50-70% of the ticket price goes back to the distributor. However, movie theaters are expensive to run, thus the high prices on everything.
Ambient lighting, 400 speakers per theater, air conditioning, outdoor lights, projectors running over twelve hours a day every day of the year . ..
1) Sure, you can refuse to give your name, but you'll be arrested for it should a police officer wish to arrest you.
2) Remaining silent doesn't prevent your arrest. Mostly, if you are arrested for suspicion or warrant or whatever, you're given the right to refuse to speak.
Even though cops have the power to arrest you for anything, it still has to pass through the courts. And if a cop abused his powers, you still have the IAB, civil suits, and even the media would love a story on police brutality. So, there's a lot of reasons a cop WON'T abuse his power, but a minute few slip through the cracks.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe most people do away with this with the checksum digit at the end of most cards. This is to prevent problems with scanning or typing in cards.
In credit cards, it's nearly impossible to screw up a single number and have it work; with ISBNs, it's a little harder so you don't accidentally ring someone up a higher or lower cost item; etc.
That would be why it was linked in the story? I assumed people who didn't know would easily find info about all three areas of interest through the hyperlinks.
His non-J&SB movie pretty much flopped, and well, he hasn't had much luck with anything except Clerks being positively received by the public. Why not?
It's a shame, he's got a good sense of humor and a novel approach to movie making. Here's hoping he can get back into the groove.
I love how when people on Slashdot disagree with your assessment, you're a troll.
Without copyright, the GPL would be unenforceable. Without copyright, would anyone have invested all that money into making The Matrix, Doom, or even the Harry Potter series?
As much as people here don't care, or don't want the big bad corporations to get money from entertainment (yes, that's all this is, ENTERTAINMENT), if you don't want to pay for something the rights' owner wants you to pay for, don't enjoy it.
Copyright's a necessary evil that helps, and not everyone uses copyright to squeeze money out of the public. Strange that this is trolling on a site built off the hard work of those who protect their rights with copyright laws.
Most people don't consider stealing cable as wrong, or speeding as wrong, or rolling stops, or any number of "nuisance" laws which could be ignored and most people wouldn't be harmed.
/. should be applauding the fact that the DoJ is going after some of the biggest traders around, instead of bitching that corporations are owning the Government.
However, in all those instances, including P2P piracy, there's a harm to someone indeed. Even if you're not physically taking something away, or you weren't going to buy the thing anyways, you still are taking away the right of the distributor to choose how its work can be disseminated through public channels.
Rolling stops cause problems if you don't really check for that cop car speeding toward the intersection, or the speed law if a dog darts across the road, or stealing cable when your bootleg cable scrambler causes problems on the lines.
Some laws are necessary, and just because most people don't want them around, is not a reason for them to be abolished. Copyright infringement is a necessary law, and for once
From what I'm aware (though IANAL), only the code they've distributed as GPL retain the GPL license. However, if they distributed the same code under GPL as, say, the PHP License, they can withdraw the GPL distribution from their own channel and keep only the PHP License version. If no one got ahold of the GPL version, then there is no more GPL version to distribute.
However, once it is distributed under the GPL and someone gets ahold of a copy of it through the distribution chain, it stays under the GPL if it is ever distributed again.
This is why some people, like id Software, will release code under the GPL, but still offer a non-GPL version license on the same code, in case the people who will use it do not wish to license it under the GPL.
In this period of American dialogue, the term is "misunderestimate". Fit the speaker well, fits many mods well.
Now if only Slashdot could hire someone to find duplicates before they're posted. But then again, dupes help with revenue, as twice the stories means twice the adviews!
[NOTE: Just a little sarcastic tone, nothing bad meant]
Exactly. I was speaking with someone a few years back about UT vs. Q3A, and he said Q3A was terrible because it wasn't realistic.
I asked him how it was unrealistic compared to UT, and his answer?
Bunny hopping.
Neverminding that both games allow you to respawn, don't kill you when bullets fill your body with holes, or allow you to launch rockets at glass or trees without doing any damage to them...
Just that strafe jumping makes the game unrealistic.
Games are entertainment. They should have a balance between realism to immerse the player into something that seems real, and enough unrealistic stuff to keep the game entertaining and linear. Without this balance of realism and fantasy, would anyone keep playing the games?
Ah, my apologies, I read the beginning, and remembered that Sting did win the domain off the guy. Now I will have to find out how this happened.
Thank you for correcting me.
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/200 0/d2000-0596.html
Sting got the WIPO to stand in and give him the domain.
Real geeks have 3200x1200 desktops, using dual 21" flat panel monitors.
Ugh, people continue to bring up Weird Al as proof that simply changing lyrics means it's true fair use.
Weird Al *ASKS* permission first, always, and won't do a song unless he gets permission.
Fine, then how do you suggest the problem be solved by individuals or partnerships or other small entities?
.
If, after all, corporations should only earn a certain profit margin, and after that piracy is open game on them, and because you give away your rights, therefore everyone else apparently should . .
Seriously, though, back to reality, what do you propose would work?
Obviously, the person who made the fansite did not have the authority to repost the videos, nor the many sites throughout the world he linked to.
And because 100% of the people don't get investigated, doesn't mean no one should. If someone's misusing your copyright, enforce it how you see fit. If you have no copyrights, you have little to worry about in this department.
And as another taxpayer, I believe sometimes the FBI must stand in, as some people think that without any reason to stop, they'll just keep on infringing on others' copyrights.
Whether you agree or not it's a crime, it is. And if people have no real incentive to stop, or the civil lawsuits will never bring about the cost to sue as most infringers are individuals, what do you propose would be a suitable method to stop infringement?
And there are specific departments of the FBI for all types of crime. Investigating infringement, for example, will not diminish the investigation of suspicious people learning to fly planes or non-profit organizations funnelling money overseas.
This is stupid.
When someone clearly infringes on copyright, there's always someone who suggests that the copyright holder should politely ask them to remove the items.
Do you believe that the police should politely remind you not to speed only? Or that if you shoplift and get caught, you should only be told it's bad and not do it again?
Whether or not you know you're committing a crime, obviously taking someone else's creative efforts and reposting it without permission should set off flags in your head. If you still do it, why should anyone be nice to you when you've taken their rights away from them in how their efforts are distributed?
Screw that, enforce the law.
Germany never attacked us, but Japan did.
And Germany was allied with Japan, and vice versa, which just made Germany an equal enemy.
Don't forget, Japan and Germany had a pact together through World War II. This is why we went to war with Germany.
There's another reason.
I knew someone who downloaded and traded for everything he could get, burn it onto CD-ROM, catalog it in a database, and stored them in shelves so he wouldn't clog his hard drives.
The reasoning? At any time he needed something he wanted, he could trade for it using the many, many things he didn't.
Strange, but true.
Post your torrent links here, folks!
/. torrent cluster.
Nothing says "I'm trading this" like a
I can't fathom this.
How is pornography bad?
To adults, I mean, not to toddlers and adolescents.
It's sex. Sometimes it's really raunchy, sometimes it's really tame. It can be drawn, painted, rendered or live-action.
But in the end, none of us would be here had two people somewhere in their ancestry had sex. So, again, why is it so taboo?
Because of repressed feelings derived from religious and other morals. These are imposed on others because they should be just as ashamed as those with these repressed morals about sex.
I say, let adults enjoy pornography in their private lives. If you don't like it that your neighbor enjoys watching two other consenting people humping on cable, that's only YOUR problem, not his and not theirs.
Man, this Slate writer loves his thesaurus, doesn't he?
The Slate article really doesn't state much that is fake with the movie, just that the person doesn't like Moore, what Moore's done outside the movie, and how the Slate writer really didn't like the film. *shrugs*
It's as long winded as Moore can be sometimes. I don't know why you use it to say that the movie is wrong.
Uh, libel isn't protected by the First Amendment and isn't free speech. If someone can truthfully say something bad about the film or Moore, there's little he can do about that.
However, if someone's going to go out and say that Moore made up the camcorder version of the kids' reading in Florida, or that it happened on another day and Moore spliced it in under lies, that's what I believe Moore is saying is reason for a lawsuit.
Remember, slander and libel are *NOT* protected free speech in America.
Usually only 50-70% of the ticket price goes back to the distributor. However, movie theaters are expensive to run, thus the high prices on everything.
.
Ambient lighting, 400 speakers per theater, air conditioning, outdoor lights, projectors running over twelve hours a day every day of the year . .
Not cheap to run.
1) Sure, you can refuse to give your name, but you'll be arrested for it should a police officer wish to arrest you.
2) Remaining silent doesn't prevent your arrest. Mostly, if you are arrested for suspicion or warrant or whatever, you're given the right to refuse to speak.
Even though cops have the power to arrest you for anything, it still has to pass through the courts. And if a cop abused his powers, you still have the IAB, civil suits, and even the media would love a story on police brutality. So, there's a lot of reasons a cop WON'T abuse his power, but a minute few slip through the cracks.