That's true... but how many common portable devices provide you a capability to setup a wireless ad-hoc network with no working wifi or 3G signals, anyways?
I was suggesting lining the ceiling to make cell reception almost impossible, along with creating interference on the unlicensed frequencies.
Meaning since you can't jam cell signals, you're left with blocking them.
VERY expensive. Colleges don't really have the funds to justify that, especially when just banning the offending devices is free.
I'm not so sure it's that expensive.
I've seen countless places where it's been done accidentally, for example, by having a tin roof, that causes there to be zero cell reception.
Some inexpensive foil wallpaper, metallic paint, or wire mesh all over the place, and effectively, there is no wireless reception.
They don't need to go buy $100k materials to block out 100%, to make networked devices unusable, some simple blockage and interference are cheap.
Oh yeah... and banning devices may not be effective.
Especially when the non-networked functions of those devices could be beneficial on a test, if people are allowed to use electronic notekeeping aids, they should be allowed to use them (without the networking functions)
You can make WiFi unusable, however.
Or you could alter the classroom so RF cannot enter through the walls or ceiling.
And turn off the wireless AP in the room during exam time.
I suppose convincing the university to alter the classroom in this manner could be difficult, but they could also see the value in having some exam rooms that are essentially faraday cages
You didn't hear of Sun Unified Storage yet?
Controller redundancy is available out of the box on certain NASes, otherwise you can add it.
In particular, they tend to lack things like controller redundancy,
Usually if you need this, you, well, put two HBAs in.
All you need is an external JBOD array your NAS appliance attaches to using a pair of SAS HBAs, with dual-ported SAS drives. Controller redundancy is a function of the attachment bits, not your management software.
And this way your head node also doesn't have to be a single point of failure (cluster with two nodes).
Netscape-based browsers don't tend to have process redundancy, by the way. If your browser crashes, you are still down for a while, while you have to try to restart the browser, and then try to get back to the site you were at. Meanwhile, IE has process isolation...
FC connectivity, 10G ethernet,
Many of them have these connectivity options, or they can be easily added.
If you haven't seen them available, then you probably aren't looking very hard.
By the way, Netscape-based solutions don't tend to come with any Ad Blocking tools, Popup blocker, Malware site blacklisting, Anti-Phish, or any of the connectivity options you'd expect in an Enterprise class web browser, sometimes you even have to install it yourself, or seek out third party software or plugins... Oh the humanity...
vendor support and certification with third party products (eg: VMware).
When was the last time you saw a Netscape-based browser having vendor support and certification with third party products (eg: Microsoft Windows, Google.com, Windows Update) ?
Also, I don't think Mozilla Thunderbird is certified to be used with Microsoft Exchange's POP3 service.
Thunderbird also has not been certified in its ability to be used to read Viagra spam, which seems enterprise critical because 90% or more of all e-mail is Viagra spam.
Did that ever make all Netscape/Mozilla originating browsers irrelevent or useless as a 'mid range to high-end Enterprise Web Browser' / Mail Readers ?
Are we supposed to believe that a shiny 'certified for X' seal, that the hardware manufacturer paid X millions of dollars or did horsetrading to get, actually successfully makes sure the thing is a better product or work better with X?
Yes, that's what they want you to think, and that might be where some big marketing bucks go, but that doesn't make it accurate.
Hint: "certification" is largely a farce.
Can't count the number of times i've seen products that were certified to go to each other melt, and just because 'officially' something is supported, doesn't mean support personnel won't tell you otherwise, and refuse to help, when you finally need the support.
There are almost always caveats to "certification" and discrete arbitrary requirements, for example X and Y work together, as long as feature B is turned off on X, or burdensome/expensive conditions Q,R, and S, are true.
If there is no such caveat, they'll make one up in response to your support request, anything to get to tell you 'No dice, sorry, it's vendor Y's problem'
Other Hint: 3rd party "support" of supposed "high end" storage, software, and computer hardware sucks most of the time
MSIE is part of Microsoft's Premium Windows platform.
The Mozilla platform's not "tied" to the dead platform. Mozilla (also known as Netscape Browser) is the dead browser platform whose development ceased when Netscape was dissolved in 2003, and development ceased.
It's basically in a worse situation than even OpenSolaris-based distributions. At least, Solaris is still being developed, you know.
If they were dangerous, the government would never allow them to be sold to households for such common use,
since lightbulbs are used in food handling areas.
We pick up and vacuum up the pieces of broken CFLs without hazmat suits all the time,
and no ill effects to report...
They get broken about 10% of the time when a bulb is being changed, a bit more often than incandescents, which adds to the cost and annoyance of using these bulbs -- the CFLs seem to be more fragile for some reason and break too easily, not sure why that might be.
It's hard to see where there would be any crossover between customers for mid-range and high-end storage systems like NetApp's, and tied-to-a-dead-platform, low-end storage appliances like anything based on OpenSolaris.
It's hard to see where there would be any crossover between customers for mid-range and high-range Internet Browsers like Microsoft's, and tied-to-a-dead-platform, low-end Web browsers, like anything based on Netscape/Mozilla
Who said anything about NAS manufacturers using open source adaptations of it?
Some of them might use open source adaptations, others use closed source ones, such as Solaris itself, or some in-house-enhanced variant of Solaris, they keep closed source.
Open source implementations may also fork ZFS, add their own improvements, and create their own enhanced ZFS, that could be better than anything Oracle makes.
That is, if ZFS is no longer actively developed, the natural thing for a group of open source devs to do is fork it, continue development, and ignore the upstream that cut them off.
Sounds like fraud or grand theft.... it would be if anyone else did it, why is PayPal so privileged and above the law,
that they can keep their customer's money, if they are just a payment processing service the person hired to you know... accept payments and remit to them?
That is some serious chump change for PayPal to be stealing....
Or NetApp realizes they have smaller fish to fry.... like those companies building NAS hardware based on ZFS.
No reason to go after Oracle itself, in a fight you maybe cannot win, to protect sales of your aging NAS platform, if you can go after companies using ZFS/BTRFs instead,
much smaller targets with much less legal muster to defend themselves.
That just invites protestors to use thermite and similar materials (such as flamethrowers) against holy books.
And having book bombing (instead of burning) ceremonies, where they blow up or take oxyacetylene cutters against "invincible" books instead of merely torching them.
POTS service is regulated by the FCC.
The incumbent provider of landline phone service is not able to disconnect you because they think you "spammed" someone or apply other conditions to your service beyond the rules, the local provider cannot legally disconnect your service, because someone complained about "phone spam" from you, and if they did, you would have a nice complaint to take to the PSC, and the carrier would get at least a slap on the wrist for that, if not some serious penalties imposed on them.
Although you may be subject to legal action, if your "phone spam" is in violation of any laws.
There are only very specific situations in which it would be legal for the POTS provider to disconnect you, and they are based on your what you connect to your phone line causing a disruption to their network, and have nothing to do with the content if your messages.
They can limit you to 10,000 connections a month or 50,000 minutes, and still be a 'common carrier'.
They cannot say "no telemarketing calls" and still be a common carrier.
Just like whether your IP provider allows you 100,000,000 IP datagrams a day or limits you 1,000,000, has nothing to do with whether they are common carrier or not.
If you can explain to me how burning someone else's holy book qualifies as satire or parody then I'll accept the equivalence with Westergaard's case.
I'm sure burning someone else's holy book would be vandalism, destruction of property, and a crime.
However, burning your own copy of a different religion's holy book, would just be destroying your own property,
which isn't harming anyone else.
And making fun of religious folks in general, and some people's strange notion that destroying one copy of a book is somehow scorning their beliefs.
If a religion wants to prevent people from burning their book, then they should distribute the book only to their religious institutions, under requirement that special agreements be assigned to protect their copy of the book from vandalism, restrictions against distribution, etc.
Web hosting providers are not common carriers; they police user content all the time.
Also as evidenced by this action, Rackspace is also not a common carrier.
ISPs are also not common carriers: your service can get disconnected if you are detected sending spam.
Of course they would like to have all protections as possible, because just because they will respond to complaints does not mean
they actually monitor or have the ability to monitor everything; there is a limit to what is feasible.
I guess you missed the part where he said that after the bust, he couldn't get a job that paid 90k. Because 90k wasn't an option for him
You mean he couldn't get a job that paid 90k, because he gave up his job that paid 90k, and couldn't find another opening available where he could be paid that rate.
That in no way implies that if he had continued working instead of leaving that 90k job, that he would not still be getting paid that much (or more).
In fact, he would have X more years of work experience under his belt, where 'X' is the number of years he took off to go to graduate school, and he could be a more competitive hire for a higher paid programming position.
It's not a case of "take graduate school or nothing"; he did it by choice, meaning he had the choice of "take graduate school", or forego graduate school and take >90k / year in pay for each of those 3 to 6 years he would have been in grad school working on that degree.
Nonsense the so called "bust" would not necessarily mean that he wouldn't still be making 90k, even after the "bust", most people making that before are still making that or more, AND he would have had all the additional work experience at that time, to justify at least maintaining that rate.
Presumably he's out $90k, for some portion of the years he took off to pursue graduate work, however, and probably more when you account for things like raises.
Meaning it's generous to say he's $10k in the hole.
In actuality, he probably sacrificed an opportunity cost of $180k + interest to pursue the masters, by not having that 90k income during that time, in addition to the actual tuition and other costs imposed by the school and his circumstances, not to mention the gap in his work experience ---- even though it was to pursue an education, this 'gap' can be expected to make him less attractive to an employer, or less meritorous of a higher wage.
He is also pursuing different type of work. And the graduate degree could make him appear overqualified for jobs he had had before.
So his "graduate" degree cost approximately $240,000 in real terms. Maybe it would have been cheaper if he had waited until the so called "bust".
Maybe not.
Some things not being considered: (A) DON'T expect to see an immediate benefit from having a graduate degree. Expect to see long-term improvement in earnings instead. If your graduate degree is from a university with a strong reputation, it will increase your long term earnings potential, or open up possible doors that would be closed otherwise, many jobs, especially research/teaching jobs at universities, are open only to holders of a MS or P.h.D. ---- just because it may have a possibility of doing this in the future, does not necessarily mean it helps you immediately.
Expecting an immediate return here, is kind of like buying a stock based on a company's fundamentals, and saying the company's a crappy investment if you don't get a great return in a week.
(B) Getting the graduate degree might not pay off economically.
If you wanted it to do that, you should have a realistic idea of how it will do that.
"They will pay me more to do exactly the same thing", is probably not a realistic assessment.
Particularly when graduate work isn't particularly related to "the thing".
(C) It would be better if you had something in mind you need a graduate degree to do, that you want to do in the first place.
Economic advantage matters, but cannot realistically be the be-all end-all.
You can have lots of dollars, but be bored with your work, as the GP finds.
Im not sure how we are supposed to protect our life and property if we can't arm ourselves responsibly.
We cannot. But it is an inalienable human right to secure arms to defend ourselves, our lives, our property, our rights, our neighbors lives, and their rights, against unlawful assault, whether the enemy is some murderer off the street, or a soldier invading from another country, that right is so fundamental, that it is included in the bill of rights, 2nd only to the protections of rights to free speech and free practice of religion.
It is true that Google downranks or delists pages that they deem to be "spammers".
These spammer / SEO folks would very much like Google to be forced to not filter their sites out of search results or be allowed to adjust their algorithms to downrank them.
It would hurt Google and google users if Google were not allowed to do this.
It would also ultimately hurt all search engines, except ones that are protected by being the default.
As there would no longer be a reason to prefer Google or any other search engine (they would always be full of spam,
and typing any 'search' would just get a bunch of keyword spammers and SEO pages on the 1st 10 pages of search results.)
And US code and the text of actual laws is allowed to be published online, without the US and state LOBBYISTS who wrote the law getting any royalties for each view??
Yeah... and it's perfectly normal to copy clip art images from some template you found on the internet and use them on your web site too.
But some folks may still take exception to this.
For now, though, RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, and patent trolls are the big thing, though, I guess.
But how long will it be seriously, before we have an association of legal/public document trolls?
They must find it sickening that sites like chilling effects are even allowed to exist.
And US code and the text of actual laws is allowed to be published online, without the US and state representatives who wrote the law getting any royalties??
Arguably if they are sending down a takedown notice, this is not about getting 'credit ' for authorship.
In fact they are not publishing anything when they send a takedown letter, or authorizing anything to be published.
So it is questionable that it could be called plagiarism when they aren't even publishing a work.
The letter has a specific utilitarian purpose, and while the sender may be signing a statement to swear in affirmation
to what the letter says is true...
Signing a legal statement does not in any way imply or guarantee you wrote that statement.
Not only is authorship not implicitly understood when sending a letter like this, it is assumed and known that such letters or contracts are provided by the
person or organization's legal team / advisors, and not really a work of authorship by the company sending it .
That is: "cease and decist" letters and "contracts" are factual agreements between two parties, not pieces of art, that the parties to the agreement
get any credit for writing; they only get credit (in the case of contract) for having come to the agreement, when both parties sign.
The selection of words used in boilerplate are not dictated by circumstances.
Many different choices of words are possible to express essentially the same idea,
as with any letter.
So how is the choice of wording for a particular boilerplate letter, not a 'creative expression' ?
Slashdot Mirror
That's true... but how many common portable devices provide you a capability to setup a wireless ad-hoc network with no working wifi or 3G signals, anyways?
I was suggesting lining the ceiling to make cell reception almost impossible, along with creating interference on the unlicensed frequencies.
Meaning since you can't jam cell signals, you're left with blocking them.
VERY expensive. Colleges don't really have the funds to justify that, especially when just banning the offending devices is free.
I'm not so sure it's that expensive. I've seen countless places where it's been done accidentally, for example, by having a tin roof, that causes there to be zero cell reception.
Some inexpensive foil wallpaper, metallic paint, or wire mesh all over the place, and effectively, there is no wireless reception.
They don't need to go buy $100k materials to block out 100%, to make networked devices unusable, some simple blockage and interference are cheap.
Oh yeah... and banning devices may not be effective. Especially when the non-networked functions of those devices could be beneficial on a test, if people are allowed to use electronic notekeeping aids, they should be allowed to use them (without the networking functions)
You can make WiFi unusable, however. Or you could alter the classroom so RF cannot enter through the walls or ceiling. And turn off the wireless AP in the room during exam time.
I suppose convincing the university to alter the classroom in this manner could be difficult, but they could also see the value in having some exam rooms that are essentially faraday cages
You didn't hear of Sun Unified Storage yet? Controller redundancy is available out of the box on certain NASes, otherwise you can add it.
In particular, they tend to lack things like controller redundancy,
Usually if you need this, you, well, put two HBAs in.
All you need is an external JBOD array your NAS appliance attaches to using a pair of SAS HBAs, with dual-ported SAS drives. Controller redundancy is a function of the attachment bits, not your management software. And this way your head node also doesn't have to be a single point of failure (cluster with two nodes).
Netscape-based browsers don't tend to have process redundancy, by the way. If your browser crashes, you are still down for a while, while you have to try to restart the browser, and then try to get back to the site you were at. Meanwhile, IE has process isolation...
FC connectivity, 10G ethernet,
Many of them have these connectivity options, or they can be easily added. If you haven't seen them available, then you probably aren't looking very hard.
By the way, Netscape-based solutions don't tend to come with any Ad Blocking tools, Popup blocker, Malware site blacklisting, Anti-Phish, or any of the connectivity options you'd expect in an Enterprise class web browser, sometimes you even have to install it yourself, or seek out third party software or plugins... Oh the humanity...
vendor support and certification with third party products (eg: VMware).
When was the last time you saw a Netscape-based browser having vendor support and certification with third party products (eg: Microsoft Windows, Google.com, Windows Update) ?
Also, I don't think Mozilla Thunderbird is certified to be used with Microsoft Exchange's POP3 service. Thunderbird also has not been certified in its ability to be used to read Viagra spam, which seems enterprise critical because 90% or more of all e-mail is Viagra spam.
Did that ever make all Netscape/Mozilla originating browsers irrelevent or useless as a 'mid range to high-end Enterprise Web Browser' / Mail Readers ?
Are we supposed to believe that a shiny 'certified for X' seal, that the hardware manufacturer paid X millions of dollars or did horsetrading to get, actually successfully makes sure the thing is a better product or work better with X? Yes, that's what they want you to think, and that might be where some big marketing bucks go, but that doesn't make it accurate.
Hint: "certification" is largely a farce. Can't count the number of times i've seen products that were certified to go to each other melt, and just because 'officially' something is supported, doesn't mean support personnel won't tell you otherwise, and refuse to help, when you finally need the support.
There are almost always caveats to "certification" and discrete arbitrary requirements, for example X and Y work together, as long as feature B is turned off on X, or burdensome/expensive conditions Q,R, and S, are true.
If there is no such caveat, they'll make one up in response to your support request, anything to get to tell you 'No dice, sorry, it's vendor Y's problem'
Other Hint: 3rd party "support" of supposed "high end" storage, software, and computer hardware sucks most of the time
On what basis do you judge IE to be "high range"
MSIE is part of Microsoft's Premium Windows platform.
The Mozilla platform's not "tied" to the dead platform. Mozilla (also known as Netscape Browser) is the dead browser platform whose development ceased when Netscape was dissolved in 2003, and development ceased.
It's basically in a worse situation than even OpenSolaris-based distributions. At least, Solaris is still being developed, you know.
No ME funeral, and Vista's still alive and well, and will be until 2021.
However, Microsoft is probably about to have a Windows 2000 Funeral, seeing as they just declared it End Of Life in July, XP is next in (2014).
If they were dangerous, the government would never allow them to be sold to households for such common use, since lightbulbs are used in food handling areas.
We pick up and vacuum up the pieces of broken CFLs without hazmat suits all the time, and no ill effects to report... They get broken about 10% of the time when a bulb is being changed, a bit more often than incandescents, which adds to the cost and annoyance of using these bulbs -- the CFLs seem to be more fragile for some reason and break too easily, not sure why that might be.
Massive deflation?
Massive oil spill, oil company going bankrupt?
Cap and trade?
Replacement of oil with greener alternatives?
Government-imposed price caps and rationing of oil?
It's hard to see where there would be any crossover between customers for mid-range and high-end storage systems like NetApp's, and tied-to-a-dead-platform, low-end storage appliances like anything based on OpenSolaris.
It's hard to see where there would be any crossover between customers for mid-range and high-range Internet Browsers like Microsoft's, and tied-to-a-dead-platform, low-end Web browsers, like anything based on Netscape/Mozilla
Who said anything about NAS manufacturers using open source adaptations of it? Some of them might use open source adaptations, others use closed source ones, such as Solaris itself, or some in-house-enhanced variant of Solaris, they keep closed source.
Open source implementations may also fork ZFS, add their own improvements, and create their own enhanced ZFS, that could be better than anything Oracle makes.
That is, if ZFS is no longer actively developed, the natural thing for a group of open source devs to do is fork it, continue development, and ignore the upstream that cut them off.
Sounds like fraud or grand theft.... it would be if anyone else did it, why is PayPal so privileged and above the law, that they can keep their customer's money, if they are just a payment processing service the person hired to you know... accept payments and remit to them?
That is some serious chump change for PayPal to be stealing....
Or NetApp realizes they have smaller fish to fry.... like those companies building NAS hardware based on ZFS. No reason to go after Oracle itself, in a fight you maybe cannot win, to protect sales of your aging NAS platform, if you can go after companies using ZFS/BTRFs instead, much smaller targets with much less legal muster to defend themselves.
That just invites protestors to use thermite and similar materials (such as flamethrowers) against holy books.
And having book bombing (instead of burning) ceremonies, where they blow up or take oxyacetylene cutters against "invincible" books instead of merely torching them.
POTS service is regulated by the FCC. The incumbent provider of landline phone service is not able to disconnect you because they think you "spammed" someone or apply other conditions to your service beyond the rules, the local provider cannot legally disconnect your service, because someone complained about "phone spam" from you, and if they did, you would have a nice complaint to take to the PSC, and the carrier would get at least a slap on the wrist for that, if not some serious penalties imposed on them.
Although you may be subject to legal action, if your "phone spam" is in violation of any laws.
There are only very specific situations in which it would be legal for the POTS provider to disconnect you, and they are based on your what you connect to your phone line causing a disruption to their network, and have nothing to do with the content if your messages.
They can limit you to 10,000 connections a month or 50,000 minutes, and still be a 'common carrier'. They cannot say "no telemarketing calls" and still be a common carrier.
Just like whether your IP provider allows you 100,000,000 IP datagrams a day or limits you 1,000,000, has nothing to do with whether they are common carrier or not.
If you can explain to me how burning someone else's holy book qualifies as satire or parody then I'll accept the equivalence with Westergaard's case.
I'm sure burning someone else's holy book would be vandalism, destruction of property, and a crime.
However, burning your own copy of a different religion's holy book, would just be destroying your own property, which isn't harming anyone else. And making fun of religious folks in general, and some people's strange notion that destroying one copy of a book is somehow scorning their beliefs.
If a religion wants to prevent people from burning their book, then they should distribute the book only to their religious institutions, under requirement that special agreements be assigned to protect their copy of the book from vandalism, restrictions against distribution, etc.
Web hosting providers are not common carriers; they police user content all the time. Also as evidenced by this action, Rackspace is also not a common carrier.
ISPs are also not common carriers: your service can get disconnected if you are detected sending spam.
Of course they would like to have all protections as possible, because just because they will respond to complaints does not mean they actually monitor or have the ability to monitor everything; there is a limit to what is feasible.
I guess you missed the part where he said that after the bust, he couldn't get a job that paid 90k. Because 90k wasn't an option for him
You mean he couldn't get a job that paid 90k, because he gave up his job that paid 90k, and couldn't find another opening available where he could be paid that rate.
That in no way implies that if he had continued working instead of leaving that 90k job, that he would not still be getting paid that much (or more).
In fact, he would have X more years of work experience under his belt, where 'X' is the number of years he took off to go to graduate school, and he could be a more competitive hire for a higher paid programming position.
It's not a case of "take graduate school or nothing"; he did it by choice, meaning he had the choice of "take graduate school", or forego graduate school and take >90k / year in pay for each of those 3 to 6 years he would have been in grad school working on that degree.
Nonsense the so called "bust" would not necessarily mean that he wouldn't still be making 90k, even after the "bust", most people making that before are still making that or more, AND he would have had all the additional work experience at that time, to justify at least maintaining that rate.
Presumably he's out $90k, for some portion of the years he took off to pursue graduate work, however, and probably more when you account for things like raises.
Meaning it's generous to say he's $10k in the hole. In actuality, he probably sacrificed an opportunity cost of $180k + interest to pursue the masters, by not having that 90k income during that time, in addition to the actual tuition and other costs imposed by the school and his circumstances, not to mention the gap in his work experience ---- even though it was to pursue an education, this 'gap' can be expected to make him less attractive to an employer, or less meritorous of a higher wage.
He is also pursuing different type of work. And the graduate degree could make him appear overqualified for jobs he had had before.
So his "graduate" degree cost approximately $240,000 in real terms. Maybe it would have been cheaper if he had waited until the so called "bust". Maybe not.
Some things not being considered: (A) DON'T expect to see an immediate benefit from having a graduate degree. Expect to see long-term improvement in earnings instead. If your graduate degree is from a university with a strong reputation, it will increase your long term earnings potential, or open up possible doors that would be closed otherwise, many jobs, especially research/teaching jobs at universities, are open only to holders of a MS or P.h.D. ---- just because it may have a possibility of doing this in the future, does not necessarily mean it helps you immediately.
Expecting an immediate return here, is kind of like buying a stock based on a company's fundamentals, and saying the company's a crappy investment if you don't get a great return in a week.
(B) Getting the graduate degree might not pay off economically. If you wanted it to do that, you should have a realistic idea of how it will do that. "They will pay me more to do exactly the same thing", is probably not a realistic assessment. Particularly when graduate work isn't particularly related to "the thing".
(C) It would be better if you had something in mind you need a graduate degree to do, that you want to do in the first place. Economic advantage matters, but cannot realistically be the be-all end-all. You can have lots of dollars, but be bored with your work, as the GP finds.
Im not sure how we are supposed to protect our life and property if we can't arm ourselves responsibly.
We cannot. But it is an inalienable human right to secure arms to defend ourselves, our lives, our property, our rights, our neighbors lives, and their rights, against unlawful assault, whether the enemy is some murderer off the street, or a soldier invading from another country, that right is so fundamental, that it is included in the bill of rights, 2nd only to the protections of rights to free speech and free practice of religion.
It is true that Google downranks or delists pages that they deem to be "spammers".
These spammer / SEO folks would very much like Google to be forced to not filter their sites out of search results or be allowed to adjust their algorithms to downrank them.
It would hurt Google and google users if Google were not allowed to do this.
It would also ultimately hurt all search engines, except ones that are protected by being the default.
As there would no longer be a reason to prefer Google or any other search engine (they would always be full of spam, and typing any 'search' would just get a bunch of keyword spammers and SEO pages on the 1st 10 pages of search results.)
I guess someone was looking for -1 Disagrees with Parent, or -1 Reminder of inconvenient facts, but couldn't find those?
Sorry, in my haste, I made an error
Should be:
And US code and the text of actual laws is allowed to be published online, without the US and state LOBBYISTS who wrote the law getting any royalties for each view??
Yeah... and it's perfectly normal to copy clip art images from some template you found on the internet and use them on your web site too. But some folks may still take exception to this.
For now, though, RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, and patent trolls are the big thing, though, I guess.
But how long will it be seriously, before we have an association of legal/public document trolls?
They must find it sickening that sites like chilling effects are even allowed to exist. And US code and the text of actual laws is allowed to be published online, without the US and state representatives who wrote the law getting any royalties??
Arguably if they are sending down a takedown notice, this is not about getting 'credit ' for authorship. In fact they are not publishing anything when they send a takedown letter, or authorizing anything to be published. So it is questionable that it could be called plagiarism when they aren't even publishing a work.
The letter has a specific utilitarian purpose, and while the sender may be signing a statement to swear in affirmation to what the letter says is true... Signing a legal statement does not in any way imply or guarantee you wrote that statement.
Not only is authorship not implicitly understood when sending a letter like this, it is assumed and known that such letters or contracts are provided by the person or organization's legal team / advisors, and not really a work of authorship by the company sending it .
That is: "cease and decist" letters and "contracts" are factual agreements between two parties, not pieces of art, that the parties to the agreement get any credit for writing; they only get credit (in the case of contract) for having come to the agreement, when both parties sign.
The selection of words used in boilerplate are not dictated by circumstances. Many different choices of words are possible to express essentially the same idea, as with any letter.
So how is the choice of wording for a particular boilerplate letter, not a 'creative expression' ?