If someone pays you to perform work, they own all rights to that work. When I was married, we had a difficult time finding a photographer that agreed, and simply didn't do business with those that wanted to be paid for their work, and wanted to keep all rights to said photos for use in promotions and fees for reprints. I consider that a form of double jeopardy where I'm being forced to pay for something twice.
Agreed! I've had the same thing happen in the grocery store even. I hand the guy a five, and he says "sir, the total is ten dollars", and I tell him "what, you want me to pay for this stuff twice?!?" I stopped shopping there after that.
I subcontract to a company and on Monday morning I'm going to walk right in (actually send an email) and tell them that all that code I have developed for them over the last several years is actually mine and that if they want the source code then they need to pay me a $$$ more money.
They'd just say that you already made the above arrangement when you walked in and asked for employment with them. In that case, the "more money" was "more than zero".
We could have a registry for all people who abuse the laws and their political positions. I guess we already have one, that being the list of anyone who's ever served in office.
The first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80% or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month.
In the first stage of a multi-step process aimed at encouraging copyright compliance instead of punishing scofflaws, Pitkow said online publishers identified by his company will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites.
If copyright pirates refuse to pay, Attributor will request the major search engines to remove offending pages from search results and will ask banner services to stop serving ads to pages containing unauthorized content. The search engines and ad services are required to immediately honor such requests by the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
If the above efforts fail, Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites. Because hosting services face legal liability under the DCMA if they do not comply, they will act quickly, said Pitkow.
"We are not going after past damages" from sites running unauthorized content said Pitkow. The emphasis, he said is "to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance" by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future.
License fees, which are set by each of the individual organizations producing content, may range from token sums for a small publisher to several hundred dollars for yearlong rights to a piece from a major publisher, said Pitkow.
Attributor identifies copyright violators by scraping the web to find copyrighted content on unauthorized sites. A team of investigators will contact violators in an effort to bring them into compliance or, alternatively, begin taking action under DMCA.
Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown, said Pitkow, because almost all of them depend on banner ads served by U.S.-based services. Because the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator, Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world.
Attributor already has been engaged by several major book publishers to get unauthorized eBooks off unauthorized sites. "And we have 99% success rate," he said.
OK, now that I've read the portion of the article, I can comment. His main point about making the version field only one bit is that a second version might never even exist, and only when it does should more space be devoted to the version number. A one-bit version field does NOT limit future versions, as explained in my previous post.
There's at least one obvious flaw in his reasoning. He talks about removing the 8-bit version field in the header and replacing that with a 1-bit portion of the flags field to distinguish it from a hypothetical future version. That only works if one assumes there will only *ever* be two versions (v1 and v2). Such a basic failing of analysis is a pretty good indicator that he hasn't thought it all through as completely as he thinks he has.
Actually, it shows the opposite to me. You have the current version, which decoders know how to decode. You also have slight revisions that don't break current decoders. And you have a future version that does break current decoders. Thus, you have a single flag in each version, specifying whether the file is that version, or the next one.
To determine file version, you first parse the file as the first version; if its "next version" flag is set, you then parse it as the second version; if its "next version" flag is set, you parse as version 3, etc. It only makes sense for a bitstream though (I haven't looked to see which this is). And it seems mostly a theoretically-elegant approach, in that it has no limit to the number of versions, and for each new version, the change is the same.
Practically, a version field seems simpler for everyone. And this doesn't rule out the above scheme, it just means you have versions 0-254 (assuming an 8-bit version field), and then version 255 which adds a second version field. Maybe the site isn't Slashdotted anymore so I can read his comments as well.
Almost all cars generate braking forces far in excess of whatever the engine is capable of putting out. Adequate brake torque isn't the problem here. If the brakes have to resist the the torque input, then their effectiveness will obviously be diminished.
But the brakes would have to overcome the engine power AND your car's momentum (now greater than usual because the engine is at full throttle as well), if you want to come to a stop in a reasonable distance.
Exactly. Sort of like how optical discs don't have bits directly encoded, instead pits and lands of varying lengths along the spiral. The guy is looking for things that just aren't there (except maybe on really old hard drives).
This is wonderful news. If we could find a way to bring that water to Earth, we could solve all these water shortage problems people are always going on about.
I wish (US) copyright law worked this way around... right now there's essentially no risk in tacking on a questionable copyright notice.
Maybe that's because virtually everything is copyrighted the moment it's created? Not everything is patented, which might be a reason for putting a notice on things that are.
I look at it like this: the job of police is to find perpetrators of crime. They do this by collecting evidence. In some situations, they can best collect evidence by telling lies.
The police's job isn't to be anyone's friend. I can lie to people as well, for my own reasons, and in general it's not illegal. Nobody is under any obligation to answer truthfully either, or even talk to me. The same with police. They try to find things out using various means, and you are free to tell them to buzz off (unless they're giving your orders, in which case you should comply).
As a genuine cyborg, my first concern about such "electrical storm/attack" fears & warnings is their impact on pacemakers and other life-sustaining electronic devices.
There would be almost no impact. The solar Storm would affect long pieces of conductive material 20+ meters in length.
Does that include really big 20+ meter pacemakers, though?
You have to ask questions that hide what you're trying to find out, like psychologists do. So you ask "which plug is it plugged into?" or "which lights are lit on the computer? (or what color)" This way, if they give you a bullshit answer, it's more likely detected, than when you ask a yes/no question.
In addition, if you are worried consider that future buyers may also be worried. Unless you plan to either die in the apartment or leave it to your children, resale ability and ease of resale may be things you wish to consider.
Look on the bright side: if he really does die from the microwave radiation, he won't have to worry about resale value.
You know, your post just made me realize that Microsoft has made a good entry for perhaps next year's Underhanded C Contest: write some innocent-looking code that is supposed to randomize a selection, but fails to do so fairly and favors certain selections over others.
And me who forgets to encode my entities in HTML. Let's try again.
I'm not as bothered by the lack of randomness as the violation of the constraints for a comparison function, as covered in the blog entry. It's like the newbies who want to write a comparison for a structure with two integer members, and write the is_less as (x.i < y.i) || (x.j < y.j) (or some such simplistic incorrect version).
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed! I've had the same thing happen in the grocery store even. I hand the guy a five, and he says "sir, the total is ten dollars", and I tell him "what, you want me to pay for this stuff twice?!?" I stopped shopping there after that.
They'd just say that you already made the above arrangement when you walked in and asked for employment with them. In that case, the "more money" was "more than zero".
We could have a registry for all people who abuse the laws and their political positions. I guess we already have one, that being the list of anyone who's ever served in office.
Call the suicide hotline, or avoid mentioning your desire for the font whose name we don't speak of.
Why did you use such an empty subject line? Why not something like "No incentive to be efficient". Sums up your message nicely.
Any reason why you didn't choose a useful subject line like "Needs to cap telomeres to live that long".
Click the link to read the first 21%
The first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80% or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month.
In the first stage of a multi-step process aimed at encouraging copyright compliance instead of punishing scofflaws, Pitkow said online publishers identified by his company will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites.
If copyright pirates refuse to pay, Attributor will request the major search engines to remove offending pages from search results and will ask banner services to stop serving ads to pages containing unauthorized content. The search engines and ad services are required to immediately honor such requests by the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
If the above efforts fail, Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites. Because hosting services face legal liability under the DCMA if they do not comply, they will act quickly, said Pitkow.
"We are not going after past damages" from sites running unauthorized content said Pitkow. The emphasis, he said is "to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance" by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future.
License fees, which are set by each of the individual organizations producing content, may range from token sums for a small publisher to several hundred dollars for yearlong rights to a piece from a major publisher, said Pitkow.
Attributor identifies copyright violators by scraping the web to find copyrighted content on unauthorized sites. A team of investigators will contact violators in an effort to bring them into compliance or, alternatively, begin taking action under DMCA.
Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown, said Pitkow, because almost all of them depend on banner ads served by U.S.-based services. Because the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator, Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world.
Attributor already has been engaged by several major book publishers to get unauthorized eBooks off unauthorized sites. "And we have 99% success rate," he said.
OK, now that I've read the portion of the article, I can comment. His main point about making the version field only one bit is that a second version might never even exist, and only when it does should more space be devoted to the version number. A one-bit version field does NOT limit future versions, as explained in my previous post.
Actually, it shows the opposite to me. You have the current version, which decoders know how to decode. You also have slight revisions that don't break current decoders. And you have a future version that does break current decoders. Thus, you have a single flag in each version, specifying whether the file is that version, or the next one.
To determine file version, you first parse the file as the first version; if its "next version" flag is set, you then parse it as the second version; if its "next version" flag is set, you parse as version 3, etc. It only makes sense for a bitstream though (I haven't looked to see which this is). And it seems mostly a theoretically-elegant approach, in that it has no limit to the number of versions, and for each new version, the change is the same.
Practically, a version field seems simpler for everyone. And this doesn't rule out the above scheme, it just means you have versions 0-254 (assuming an 8-bit version field), and then version 255 which adds a second version field. Maybe the site isn't Slashdotted anymore so I can read his comments as well.
Yes, but what format is the website in? I'm thinking something involving ashes.
Except this thing uses stem cells rather than ink, so it'll be a lot cheaper per cartridge.
I think you mean PC LOAD STEM.
Here's an ASCII preview of the declassified outlines:
+-----------x
| |\
| | \
| | \
| | \
| ----
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+----------------+
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
I guess now I'm going to be getting support calls from people unable to find the "any key except F1" key.
But the brakes would have to overcome the engine power AND your car's momentum (now greater than usual because the engine is at full throttle as well), if you want to come to a stop in a reasonable distance.
Sense. Your comment makes none. The summary has no links to TFA, and where is anyone linking to an XKCD comic?
Exactly. Sort of like how optical discs don't have bits directly encoded, instead pits and lands of varying lengths along the spiral. The guy is looking for things that just aren't there (except maybe on really old hard drives).
This is wonderful news. If we could find a way to bring that water to Earth, we could solve all these water shortage problems people are always going on about.
Maybe that's because virtually everything is copyrighted the moment it's created? Not everything is patented, which might be a reason for putting a notice on things that are.
The police's job isn't to be anyone's friend. I can lie to people as well, for my own reasons, and in general it's not illegal. Nobody is under any obligation to answer truthfully either, or even talk to me. The same with police. They try to find things out using various means, and you are free to tell them to buzz off (unless they're giving your orders, in which case you should comply).
Does that include really big 20+ meter pacemakers, though?
You have to ask questions that hide what you're trying to find out, like psychologists do. So you ask "which plug is it plugged into?" or "which lights are lit on the computer? (or what color)" This way, if they give you a bullshit answer, it's more likely detected, than when you ask a yes/no question.
Look on the bright side: if he really does die from the microwave radiation, he won't have to worry about resale value.
You know, your post just made me realize that Microsoft has made a good entry for perhaps next year's Underhanded C Contest: write some innocent-looking code that is supposed to randomize a selection, but fails to do so fairly and favors certain selections over others.
And me who forgets to encode my entities in HTML. Let's try again.
I'm not as bothered by the lack of randomness as the violation of the constraints for a comparison function, as covered in the blog entry. It's like the newbies who want to write a comparison for a structure with two integer members, and write the is_less as (x.i < y.i) || (x.j < y.j) (or some such simplistic incorrect version).