Yes, but the real key points is that "in the absence of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability". The real question is, will they be able to prove LimeWire *encouraged* unlawful infringement, beyond simply not developing filtering mechanisms. If the answer is no, then I suspect the RIAA will lose... otherwise, LimeWire is probably screwed.
Personally, I think the RIAA *doesn't* have such proof, and they're hoping to expand the previous ruling such that not actively preventing infringement will qualify as contributory infringement. Here's to hoping they fail, otherwise the door will be open to sue practically anyone (including ISPs and other network operators).
Originally a genetically modified strain was found that survived well in aquariums in Germany,
Oh for fuck sake, it was *not* "genetically modified". It was simply a naturally occuring strain that was *found* in the ocean by people looking for a strain of seaweed that would survive well in aquariums. If anything, this is a classic example of evolution in action! But, hey, it's so much more fun to pull out the "genetically modified" boogeyman, isn't it?
But Sony is also going online in a big way this time - including free match play that Live costs $50 a year for (today).
'course, the irony here is that the people who'll be willing to drop the dough for a PS3 would presumably be perfectly happy paying for an online service.
First off, I'm not sure I believe that the guy who gets $50k elsewhere will actually make $100k in the high cost-of-living area. If you're in the Valley, for example, you're competing against a ton of other highly talented individuals. With this glut in potential employees, what's forcing the employer to offer such sky-high salaries?
I'd be more inclined to believe you if you'd said, say, $50k versus $75k. But that defeats your point, since the cheaper place wins.:)
Plus, you aren't taking into account other aspects of cost-of-living. What about food and other essentials? Commuter-related costs, such as gas, car wear-and-tear, etc, that are reduced in a smaller centre? Not to mention the cost of non-essentials like restaurants, which are likely more expensive in a place like Cali.
A lot of people have replied "No" to this, but it should be pointed out that the presence of a product on the market *can* (AFAIK) affect the amount in damages awarded.
LOL. And instead of blaming the actual people at fault, the corporations, you blame... the regulation. Because, somehow, the regulation made the corporations do it! Brilliant! It's thinking like this that allows corps to get away with fucking murder while people turn the other way, and instead whine and complain about an overreaching government.
It makes me wonder if the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist movement is just a cover for the corps, who would rather just undermine the voters directly rather than the representatives they elect...
Simple, companies lay down their own copper or fiber. Verizon already did it a few towns away from me, as they've been doing around the country.
Okay. Now *you* set up a company and start doing the same. What? You can't afford it? You don't have the *massive* resources at your disposal that a company like Verizon does? Oh. Hmm... so much for competition, then.
See, competition ain't competition if it's among, say, 2 or 3 big players who can choose to collude to fuck you up the ass. Welcome to the telecom industry.
These layers have to be separated during the recycling process, and added complexity increases the cost.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you just use thermal depolymerization to convert the plastics back into short-chain hydrocarbons? I presume you can then use the output as raw materials for the production of new plastics. Heck, you could even use part of the output as an energy source for producing the new plastics... yes, you'd end up with less plastic than you started with, but you wouldn't have to put new energy into the recycling process.
*nods* I can certainly understand that. Myself, I think I'd find the same weather all year 'round incredibly boring... I'm so used to the cycle of the seasons that to live without them would be... strange. But, some people just aren't confortable with those temperature extremes, not to mention those with health problems (eg, respiratory illnesses... asthma sucks during the winter).
On the flip side, I had my first chance to visit Hawaii last December, and I gotta say... that place is a frickin' paradise. I think I could live there for a few years and not miss the seasons too much...;)
Am I the only one that finds it quite easy to get regexs right just by, you know, typing them in? If a regex fails for me, 99% of the time, it's because my input data is in a different format from what I expected. But I've almost never needed any kind of "explorer" tool... that smacks of "tweak it until it works", which is never a good idea, IMHO...
Perhaps you should have read that page more closely. Or maybe taken a class in theory of computation.
Regular grammars are *not* the same thing as regular *languages*, which are what is under discussion here.
First off, it is true that regular *grammars* can express context-free *languages*. Of course, this also means that they can express regular languages, as regular languages are a proper subset of context-free languages. However, one only needs a subset of regular grammars (only left-regular or right-regular rules are needed) in order to express a regular expression.
However, in order to express a context-free language, you need both left-regular *and* right-regular rules. As such, it is most certainly *not* true that a regular expression can be used to express a context-free language.
To swipe an example from Wikipedia (though we covered this in my theory of computation class, as well), try converting this to a proper regular expression:
A -> xAy
This grammar generates all strings with n x's followed by n y's.
RegEx's are not-so-readable and not-very-maintainable programming abstracts that should be avoided whenever possible.
If a regex isn't quickly comprehensible to you, either a) the regex is badly written, or b) you need more practice with regex's.
Seriously, it's very rare for me to come across a regex I'm unable to comprehend. And for more complex ones, Perl certainly allows you to intersperse the regex with comments (I don't recall if Java allows this, though it does support a significant subset of Perl regex syntax).
Absolutely. Why this should be surprising, I don't know. The very nature of DFAs is that they don't support counting. Thus, the minute you find yourself dealing with recursion (ie, tags, brackets, etc), regular expressions break down.
However, if you're just doing vanilla text parsing with data that's not overly complex, regexs are an absolute godsend, and are far easier to use than a full lexer/parser package.
Now that I cannot agree with. I'm a proud Canadian, and Rick Mercer has his moments (particularly his rants that were often featured on This Hour), but his show on CBC *pales* in comparison to the works of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert (I've watched it... it's... painful). The latter two are truly insightful satirists, with writing teams that are quite brilliant. Meanwhile, the stuff on Mercer's show is rarely that deep (bordering on onliners, many times, and always organized as a series of short, disconnected little jokes), and his performances typically seem forced and overly rehearsed... most of the time, he's like a lame cross between John Stewart and a Jay Leno monologue.
And today the kids would pull knives on you, tell you to fsck off, and then report you to the cops as a pedophile.
Prove it.
The idea that youths today are measurably more violent than their predecessors is a farce. To quote:
"There is no evidence that young people involved in violence during the peak years of the early 1990s were more frequent or more vicious offenders than youths in earlier years."
The reason people won't interfere with this kind of behaviour is because the potential liabilities are huge and the potential benefits are tiny. If kids were vandalising a tree in the 50s an adult would have given them a slap around the ear and sent them home to their parents, who would have taught them not to do it again. Today that's 'child abuse', so there is literally no way to stop bad behaviour on the part of kids without throwing them into the legal system.
Uhh... slapping some random kid upside the head *is* abuse. You have absolutely no right to physically attack another person's child. You didn't in the 50s. You don't now. The correct action is to interfere and send them home to their parents, and let *them* deal with punishment. I fail to see any danger of liability with such an action.
In today's sue happy (and criminal prosecution happy) world, people don't dare get anywhere near other people's kids.
I don't know if I buy that. I live in Canada, which is far less litigious than our southern neighbours, and I find it startling how willing people are to ignore things going on around them. Frankly, I think the GP is on to something: people in the western world, in particular, seem to have forgotten the responsibilities they have toward their fellow man. Perhaps it's related to our neverending obsession with individualism, but it seems that, unless something directly affects "me", then people don't really care. This might also explain things like the lack of interest in the political process.
Just out of curiosity, is anybody PAYING you to spam that stupid link in inane comments like this, or do you just not have anything better to do with your time?
Actually, as this post explains, he's just spamming Google, attempting to increase the PageRank of his little pet website by piggybacking on Slashdot's PageRank.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the real key points is that "in the absence of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability". The real question is, will they be able to prove LimeWire *encouraged* unlawful infringement, beyond simply not developing filtering mechanisms. If the answer is no, then I suspect the RIAA will lose... otherwise, LimeWire is probably screwed.
Personally, I think the RIAA *doesn't* have such proof, and they're hoping to expand the previous ruling such that not actively preventing infringement will qualify as contributory infringement. Here's to hoping they fail, otherwise the door will be open to sue practically anyone (including ISPs and other network operators).
Originally a genetically modified strain was found that survived well in aquariums in Germany,
Oh for fuck sake, it was *not* "genetically modified". It was simply a naturally occuring strain that was *found* in the ocean by people looking for a strain of seaweed that would survive well in aquariums. If anything, this is a classic example of evolution in action! But, hey, it's so much more fun to pull out the "genetically modified" boogeyman, isn't it?
But Sony is also going online in a big way this time - including free match play that Live costs $50 a year for (today).
'course, the irony here is that the people who'll be willing to drop the dough for a PS3 would presumably be perfectly happy paying for an online service.
I just want to find out where location A and location B are. Apparently food and clothing are both included in the rent.
Given this is Slashdot, my guess is it's that place... what's it called... oh yeah, "Parent's Basement".
First off, I'm not sure I believe that the guy who gets $50k elsewhere will actually make $100k in the high cost-of-living area. If you're in the Valley, for example, you're competing against a ton of other highly talented individuals. With this glut in potential employees, what's forcing the employer to offer such sky-high salaries?
:)
I'd be more inclined to believe you if you'd said, say, $50k versus $75k. But that defeats your point, since the cheaper place wins.
Plus, you aren't taking into account other aspects of cost-of-living. What about food and other essentials? Commuter-related costs, such as gas, car wear-and-tear, etc, that are reduced in a smaller centre? Not to mention the cost of non-essentials like restaurants, which are likely more expensive in a place like Cali.
A lot of people have replied "No" to this, but it should be pointed out that the presence of a product on the market *can* (AFAIK) affect the amount in damages awarded.
But... if you don't have a giant home and two or three or ten vehicles... how do you know you're successful?!?
LOL. And instead of blaming the actual people at fault, the corporations, you blame... the regulation. Because, somehow, the regulation made the corporations do it! Brilliant! It's thinking like this that allows corps to get away with fucking murder while people turn the other way, and instead whine and complain about an overreaching government.
It makes me wonder if the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist movement is just a cover for the corps, who would rather just undermine the voters directly rather than the representatives they elect...
Shhhh! These poor anarch-capitalists have such fragile egos. Blithely poking holes in their religion is rather cruel.
Simple, companies lay down their own copper or fiber. Verizon already did it a few towns away from me, as they've been doing around the country.
Okay. Now *you* set up a company and start doing the same. What? You can't afford it? You don't have the *massive* resources at your disposal that a company like Verizon does? Oh. Hmm... so much for competition, then.
See, competition ain't competition if it's among, say, 2 or 3 big players who can choose to collude to fuck you up the ass. Welcome to the telecom industry.
These layers have to be separated during the recycling process, and added complexity increases the cost.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you just use thermal depolymerization to convert the plastics back into short-chain hydrocarbons? I presume you can then use the output as raw materials for the production of new plastics. Heck, you could even use part of the output as an energy source for producing the new plastics... yes, you'd end up with less plastic than you started with, but you wouldn't have to put new energy into the recycling process.
*nods* I can certainly understand that. Myself, I think I'd find the same weather all year 'round incredibly boring... I'm so used to the cycle of the seasons that to live without them would be... strange. But, some people just aren't confortable with those temperature extremes, not to mention those with health problems (eg, respiratory illnesses... asthma sucks during the winter).
;)
On the flip side, I had my first chance to visit Hawaii last December, and I gotta say... that place is a frickin' paradise. I think I could live there for a few years and not miss the seasons too much...
It's at a high enough elevation where they actually get snow during the winter.
:)
Hmm... I live in Edmonton Alberta, Canada: latitude: 53 degrees, elevation 2192 ft.
Santa Clarita: latitude: 34 degrees, elevation 1200 ft.
No offense, but you're a *huge* pussy.
Am I the only one that finds it quite easy to get regexs right just by, you know, typing them in? If a regex fails for me, 99% of the time, it's because my input data is in a different format from what I expected. But I've almost never needed any kind of "explorer" tool... that smacks of "tweak it until it works", which is never a good idea, IMHO...
Something as simple as finding the balanced parentheses in the string: (a+b)/((c-d)+e) using a regular expression is difficult.
It's not difficult. It's impossible. Perhaps you should start off by using the right tool for the right job.
Considering all regular languages are context free http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar, I fail to see the connection between your two statements.
Perhaps you should have read that page more closely. Or maybe taken a class in theory of computation.
Regular grammars are *not* the same thing as regular *languages*, which are what is under discussion here.
First off, it is true that regular *grammars* can express context-free *languages*. Of course, this also means that they can express regular languages, as regular languages are a proper subset of context-free languages. However, one only needs a subset of regular grammars (only left-regular or right-regular rules are needed) in order to express a regular expression.
However, in order to express a context-free language, you need both left-regular *and* right-regular rules. As such, it is most certainly *not* true that a regular expression can be used to express a context-free language.
To swipe an example from Wikipedia (though we covered this in my theory of computation class, as well), try converting this to a proper regular expression:
A -> xAy
This grammar generates all strings with n x's followed by n y's.
Good luck!
RegEx's are not-so-readable and not-very-maintainable programming abstracts that should be avoided whenever possible.
If a regex isn't quickly comprehensible to you, either a) the regex is badly written, or b) you need more practice with regex's.
Seriously, it's very rare for me to come across a regex I'm unable to comprehend. And for more complex ones, Perl certainly allows you to intersperse the regex with comments (I don't recall if Java allows this, though it does support a significant subset of Perl regex syntax).
And people wonder what a computing science degree is useful in the real world...
Absolutely. Why this should be surprising, I don't know. The very nature of DFAs is that they don't support counting. Thus, the minute you find yourself dealing with recursion (ie, tags, brackets, etc), regular expressions break down.
However, if you're just doing vanilla text parsing with data that's not overly complex, regexs are an absolute godsend, and are far easier to use than a full lexer/parser package.
Now that I cannot agree with. I'm a proud Canadian, and Rick Mercer has his moments (particularly his rants that were often featured on This Hour), but his show on CBC *pales* in comparison to the works of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert (I've watched it... it's... painful). The latter two are truly insightful satirists, with writing teams that are quite brilliant. Meanwhile, the stuff on Mercer's show is rarely that deep (bordering on onliners, many times, and always organized as a series of short, disconnected little jokes), and his performances typically seem forced and overly rehearsed... most of the time, he's like a lame cross between John Stewart and a Jay Leno monologue.
And today the kids would pull knives on you, tell you to fsck off, and then report you to the cops as a pedophile.
Prove it.
The idea that youths today are measurably more violent than their predecessors is a farce. To quote:
"There is no evidence that young people involved in violence during the peak years of the early 1990s were more frequent or more vicious offenders than youths in earlier years."
The reason people won't interfere with this kind of behaviour is because the potential liabilities are huge and the potential benefits are tiny. If kids were vandalising a tree in the 50s an adult would have given them a slap around the ear and sent them home to their parents, who would have taught them not to do it again. Today that's 'child abuse', so there is literally no way to stop bad behaviour on the part of kids without throwing them into the legal system.
Uhh... slapping some random kid upside the head *is* abuse. You have absolutely no right to physically attack another person's child. You didn't in the 50s. You don't now. The correct action is to interfere and send them home to their parents, and let *them* deal with punishment. I fail to see any danger of liability with such an action.
In today's sue happy (and criminal prosecution happy) world, people don't dare get anywhere near other people's kids.
I don't know if I buy that. I live in Canada, which is far less litigious than our southern neighbours, and I find it startling how willing people are to ignore things going on around them. Frankly, I think the GP is on to something: people in the western world, in particular, seem to have forgotten the responsibilities they have toward their fellow man. Perhaps it's related to our neverending obsession with individualism, but it seems that, unless something directly affects "me", then people don't really care. This might also explain things like the lack of interest in the political process.
Seems to me the people who bitch the most are the ones who can't afford the lifestyle, and are jealous.
Yes, you keep telling yourself that. I bet that's why people made fun of you in school, too, right? *snicker*
Just out of curiosity, is anybody PAYING you to spam that stupid link in inane comments like this, or do you just not have anything better to do with your time?
Actually, as this post explains, he's just spamming Google, attempting to increase the PageRank of his little pet website by piggybacking on Slashdot's PageRank.
Alternatively, you effected a change in the research by modifying the variables.
For a complete treatment of the subject, read this.