Did you know that circular references are not properly cleaned up by Perl's garbage collector? I doubt you accounted for that in your brilliant 3-line solution.
Looks like MIS Major Down the Hallway's recommendation will cause you to leak memory. Then again that's the kind of solution you'd expect from someone whose idea of education is copy-pasting his way through college using example code from a $20 book.
Fox News is far more slanted than any other networ
on
Battlefield Lasers
·
· Score: 1
Is this a joke?
Fox News sensationalizes and editorializes much more than any other network. Just because Fox has a right-wing slant and the other mainstream television news networks are left-wing moderate does not mean that Fox News is *less* biased than the rest. However that is the illusion they try to sell. It absolutely astounds me that people believe they're getting fairer news from Fox. I guess PT Barnum was right; nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
All of their commentary is biased towards the right. "Hannity and Colmes" is far from fair. The program's representation from the left, Colmes, is more of a moderate than a liberal. He is a poor debater and not at all telegenic (it doesn't surprise me that Fox picked the creepy eyebrowed lazy eyed looking person to represent the left).
O'Reilly is my personal favorite. This quote from his show on March 3, 2001 should say it all. If you can't see the irony here you might want to enroll in a course on Fact vs. Opinion at your local elementary school:
"Tonight, violent
demonstrations on the rise all over the world as capitalism comes under assault
and America's college campuses are being besieged with socialistic messages.
We'll have a report. The first 100 days of Hillary Clinton in the Senate. Did
she actually do anything? We'll find out. And was Al Gore antagonistic toward
some of his students at Columbia? That's the word. Caution. You're about to
enter a no-spin zone."
You may also want to check out Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)'s series of articles on Fox News.
I assume Jacobs is referring to DMCA cases. The 2600 v MPAA DeCSS case got tons of attention last year, probably more than Skylarov's. It was all over the New York Times. This guy Jacobs is probably just out of touch, as one would expect from a US attorney spokesperson.
This reminds me of the Broderbund's U-Force controller.
Michaelangelo Virus for me is like Kennedy assass.
on
Death To Virus Writers
·
· Score: 1
I remember exactly where I was the day of the Michelangelo virus (March 6, 1992).
I was in 8th grade. A classmate and I were working on an extra credit project for Computer Literacy class during study hall. The junior high school had a lab of Apple ][es for Computer Literacy students to use. However there was a class using it during our study hall, so we had to use an extra Apple ][e that was on a cart in the closet of the principal's office. We wheeled the thing out of the closet and plugged it in. As we booted the computer, the vice principal walked out of his office and said "Whoa! What do you think you're doing? The MICHELANGELO VIRUS is today!" made us unplug the thing, put it away, and go back to study hall.
You may be forgetting that capitalism is a relatively new concept in Western Civilization. It took a long time for us to figure out that feudalism was flawed. Had Slashdot been around back then I'm sure most serfs would respond to criticism of the system with a cliche like "If you don't like it, become a noble and start your own fief!"
Historically, "Father of the free market" Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations wasn't published until 1776. There was organized trade before that (e.g. Dutch East India Company), but the world's economic landscape looked nothing like it does today.
I just pulled Peter Lynch's book "Learn to Earn" off of the shelf, I wish I had a better reference.. Anyway, consider this sentence:
"By 1800, there were 295 corporations formed in the United States, but most of these remained in private hands so the general public couldn't own them."
In the early 1800s, there were various stock market panics and bubbles that didn't do much to encourage Americans to invest in the stock market. But during the later half of the 1800s, the corporation in the United States really took off. That's when we saw the proliferation of inventions like the steamboat, the cotton gin, fancy pistols, Edison's inventions, etc. Getting these new products out there took a lot of investment, and that's when the stock market became very active.
Since then we've incurred incredible societal changes with a move from agrarian life to urban and suburban life, various ethnic groups have more representation in government and less discrimination. The industrial revolution and factories have made mass production of prpducts possible. Corporations are a lot more VISIBLE now. Brand names weren't well known until the early 20th century thanks to A&P being the first popular chain store, making mass produced items like Nabisco crackers and Heinz ketchup ubiquitously known in American towns. Chain stores have now made our cities (particularly the suburbs) look like carbon copies of one another (read The Geography of Nowhere.) Advertising has gone from Burma Shave billboards along Route 66 to huge screens on buildings displaying brightly lit, flashing animated ads that distract drivers on the road.
Historically, you don't really have a CLUE what the answer is to the question "Which is better: GOVERNMENT or CORPORATION?" because the impact of the corporation on our culture has changed so much in only the past 150 years.
That patch is for Solaris 2.6 on i386 and is dated 3/27/01. The xref'd SPARC patch was for 2.6 as well. I'm running Solaris 2.8 on a SPARC and I've installed all recommended patches since at least 3/27/01.
You know, government expenditure has the potential to SAVE taxpayers money in the long run. Ever take macroeconomics?
I consider laws like this a possible investment when proven effective. If people do take this to court and it becomes a deterrent against spammers, this could be saving you money. The amount of _your_ taxes spent on pursuing issues like this is miniscule. If this is found to be a deterrent, ISPs and businesses in general may save money on a macro-scale because of a reduction hardware expenses as a consequence of heavy mail traffic.
The aggregate amount of money saved may well be greater than the amount spent on ligitation at the public's expense. And that while that might be a miniscule amount that you gain by lower prices or an improved product or increased mailbox space on your free mail account, it may be more than the haypenny or less you paid more in taxes. It's worth consideration, in any case.
I have serious problems with people who immediately consider all government expenditure a "waste of taxpaper resources." That's why I don't vote libertarian.
I haven't been following the Napster case very much so I apologize if this is common knowledge. I did notice in the RIAA response that Leon P. Gold of the firm Prosauker, Rose, LLP. is in the list of legal counsel for the RIAA. It is interesting to note that Leon P. Gold is the main attorney that the MPAA hired in the DeCSS case. Small world, eh? After reading those DeCSS depositions and trial transcripts, by the way, you can see that our rotund friend Leon can get quite nasty.
Without reading the story, you can tell what side the NY Times is leaning towards-- just by looking at the pictures. Photographers take pictures from below looking upwards when they want to imply that something is powerful or dominating.. If you look at the picture of Emmanuel, that's exactly the position they took the picture from. Then on the other hand, you've got Mr. Gold frowning and pointing. Not a very flattering picture, eh? I'm not complaining, though...
Weren't they the oens who posted to Slashdot?
on
Geek Flavor
·
· Score: 2
How do you know they didn't know it would be posted to Slashdot? If you look at the whois record of geekflavor.com, snowphoton@MINDSPRING.COM is listed as technical and administrative contact. 'snowphoton' was the handle of the person who submitted the story.
I don't think it's that weird.
on
Caffeine Vault
·
· Score: 1
That page did not suggest he is a regular user of pot and LSD. He just said he used them. We don't know how many times.
I can understand how one might have a problem with caffeine and a desire to stop using it. By no means do I wish to trivialize the possible long-term consequences of pot or LSD usage, but I will note three things true about the drug caffeine that are not necessarily true for pot or LSD. Caffeine is cheap and readily available, it is acceptable to ingest caffeine just about wherever you want, and it is physically addictive. LSD is not something most recreational drug users do everyday. For one thing, it's not very easy to have LSD around all of the time, even if you are a small-scale dealer. Secondly, it's not something you really want to do everyday. You want to allocate a chunk of time in advance for when you want to trip because you know you're going to be awake and unable to sleep for several hours. You also want pick a time when you won't need to drive somewhere or will be expecting a visit from an unpleasant person such as a relative or an IRS auditor. There are precautions that most recreational drug users think about before they decide to trip. It's something you put more thought into and something that is generally done infrequently. It's more common to smoke pot on a regular basis, but obviously there are reasons why you would still restrict your intake so that you're not smoking up all day long. You can lose your job if you're stoned at work, get in an accident if you're stoned when you drive, etc. These are just a few examples of why you'd have reason to put some serious thought into the times and frequency in which you'll smoke pot.
Caffeine does not mentally impair you the way that alcohol, pot, or LSD does. However, it's still a drug! It still effects your body, and as such it's a good idea to regulate your intake of it. Regulating your caffeine habit could be more difficult than restricting your cannabis or LSD usage because you can ingest caffeine just about whenever you want! You could go to work, drink coffee, eat your lunch and drink soda, drink more coffee in the afternoon, etc. and not worry about it because it's viewed as totally harmless. You didn't have as many reasons to think about why you should watch your caffeine intake. If you are extremely careless, you could get yourself into patterns of lacking energy, being unable to concentrate, and being up at hours you don't want to be.
I'm of course not saying the health effects of caffeine are worse than pot or LSD, or anything like that. I'm just saying I think it is completely plausible that someone could have a problem with a caffeine addiction that's having unpleasant effects on their life but at the same time be able to use pot and LSD in moderation and responsibly.
I certainly agree with you on the importance of discerning between fact and opinion, which is why I said I believe it to be true instead of asserting it as fact. I'm more interested in discovering factual truths than promoting my opinion, which is why I'm posting here.
After I read your first response, I pasted it to a group of friends on IRC and asked whether or not your assertions were correct. A friend of mine who went to Temple Univ. told me he was taught in a class that you can be charged with copyright violation regardless of the commercial value and that commercial value was used for determining damages. He learned all of this in the context of film as intellectual property. So, yes, you may be correct, it may not directly apply to electronic media on the Internet. It is indeed a multi-faceted issue. There are of course some exceptions to when you can claim intellectual property as your own. To take a film example for instance, universities may own the rights to a student's film as was the case of Spike Lee's first movie.
I wish I had better sources, but that's all I have. I'd look around more but my brain is fried since I've been up for 26 hours and I've spent the past few hours reading the 450k Emmanuel Goldstein deposition on 2600.com. Now on to the trial transcripts...
.A violation of copyright can only be charged if the material has a commercial value. The commercial value of your posts (assuming it has any) is greatly damaged once you put it out there for free and it becomes accessible to countless numbers of users.
I believe you can get a court order to stop someone from using your material without permission regardless of the commercial value. Commercial value is considered only if you opt to sue the offending party for damages.
If you post to Usenet, your material that you post is copyrighted. You and you alone own the rights unless you specify otherwise. Deja is thus bound to YOUR terms and conditions, it's not the other way around. The only choice you have to keep Deja from using your work to advertise products without compensating you is have is to add a no-archive tag in your message header. Deja is putting the burden on you. They are effectually turning that no-archive tag to mean no-turn-my-post-into-an-ad. Maybe I want my material to be archived (perhaps by other archivers besides Deja), but I don't want specific content in my posts to be used to endorse products without my permission. I guess I no longer have a choice because Deja is forcing people who don't want their messages to become advertisements to give up their rights to let it be archived ANYWHERE.
Fact: All posts to Usenet are by default copyrighted material and not in the public domain unless explicitly stated. Read this for more info. The Copyright FAQ states that many believe it is implied, though, that by posting to Usenet you agree to let your material be redistributed through that medium. Copyright FAQ is here.
Fact: Most posts to Usenet are made independent of Deja, so whether or not their browsing service is free or their terms of service or whatever conditions they make up is irrelevant when determining if they have violated your intellectual property rights.
Opinion: I don't think allowing your copyrighted material to be reproduced immediately grants others a license use it to promote their commercial interests. I think this whole debate on the legality of Deja's move to use words from your post is a question of fair use.
Opinion/Analogy: Copyrighted music is played on the radio. It is free to whoever tunes in. However, it is illegal for me to record that music off of the radio and then use it in a television commercial without permission/paying royalties to the original copyright owner. I may not be altering the original content of the copyrighted work (the song). I may put a BIG ORANGE TRIANGLE on the screen with my company's logo in it, but does that make it legal? Deja made a business decision to use the content of your copyrighted work to endorse products without your permission. I don't see how this issue is much different.
Final opinion: This forum needs more lawyers and less speculation (including that of my own).
Slashdot Mirror
Did you know that circular references are not properly cleaned up by Perl's garbage collector? I doubt you accounted for that in your brilliant 3-line solution.
Looks like MIS Major Down the Hallway's recommendation will cause you to leak memory. Then again that's the kind of solution you'd expect from someone whose idea of education is copy-pasting his way through college using example code from a $20 book.
MEoW
Is this a joke?
Fox News sensationalizes and editorializes much more than any other network. Just because Fox has a right-wing slant and the other mainstream television news networks are left-wing moderate does not mean that Fox News is *less* biased than the rest. However that is the illusion they try to sell. It absolutely astounds me that people believe they're getting fairer news from Fox. I guess PT Barnum was right; nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
All of their commentary is biased towards the right. "Hannity and Colmes" is far from fair. The program's representation from the left, Colmes, is more of a moderate than a liberal. He is a poor debater and not at all telegenic (it doesn't surprise me that Fox picked the creepy eyebrowed lazy eyed looking person to represent the left).
O'Reilly is my personal favorite. This quote from his show on March 3, 2001 should say it all. If you can't see the irony here you might want to enroll in a course on Fact vs. Opinion at your local elementary school:
"Tonight, violent demonstrations on the rise all over the world as capitalism comes under assault and America's college campuses are being besieged with socialistic messages. We'll have a report. The first 100 days of Hillary Clinton in the Senate. Did she actually do anything? We'll find out. And was Al Gore antagonistic toward some of his students at Columbia? That's the word. Caution. You're about to enter a no-spin zone."
You may also want to check out Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)'s series of articles on Fox News.
I assume Jacobs is referring to DMCA cases. The 2600 v MPAA DeCSS case got tons of attention last year, probably more than Skylarov's. It was all over the New York Times. This guy Jacobs is probably just out of touch, as one would expect from a US attorney spokesperson.
This reminds me of the Broderbund's U-Force controller.
I remember exactly where I was the day of the Michelangelo virus (March 6, 1992).
I was in 8th grade. A classmate and I were working on an extra credit project for Computer Literacy class during study hall. The junior high school had a lab of Apple ][es for Computer Literacy students to use. However there was a class using it during our study hall, so we had to use an extra Apple ][e that was on a cart in the closet of the principal's office. We wheeled the thing out of the closet and plugged it in. As we booted the computer, the vice principal walked out of his office and said "Whoa! What do you think you're doing? The MICHELANGELO VIRUS is today!" made us unplug the thing, put it away, and go back to study hall.
You may be forgetting that capitalism is a relatively new concept in Western Civilization. It took a long time for us to figure out that feudalism was flawed. Had Slashdot been around back then I'm sure most serfs would respond to criticism of the system with a cliche like "If you don't like it, become a noble and start your own fief!"
Historically, "Father of the free market" Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations wasn't published until 1776. There was organized trade before that (e.g. Dutch East India Company), but the world's economic landscape looked nothing like it does today.
I just pulled Peter Lynch's book "Learn to Earn" off of the shelf, I wish I had a better reference.. Anyway, consider this sentence:
"By 1800, there were 295 corporations formed in the United States, but most of these remained in private hands so the general public couldn't own them."
In the early 1800s, there were various stock market panics and bubbles that didn't do much to encourage Americans to invest in the stock market. But during the later half of the 1800s, the corporation in the United States really took off. That's when we saw the proliferation of inventions like the steamboat, the cotton gin, fancy pistols, Edison's inventions, etc. Getting these new products out there took a lot of investment, and that's when the stock market became very active.
Since then we've incurred incredible societal changes with a move from agrarian life to urban and suburban life, various ethnic groups have more representation in government and less discrimination. The industrial revolution and factories have made mass production of prpducts possible. Corporations are a lot more VISIBLE now. Brand names weren't well known until the early 20th century thanks to A&P being the first popular chain store, making mass produced items like Nabisco crackers and Heinz ketchup ubiquitously known in American towns. Chain stores have now made our cities (particularly the suburbs) look like carbon copies of one another (read The Geography of Nowhere.) Advertising has gone from Burma Shave billboards along Route 66 to huge screens on buildings displaying brightly lit, flashing animated ads that distract drivers on the road.
Historically, you don't really have a CLUE what the answer is to the question "Which is better: GOVERNMENT or CORPORATION?" because the impact of the corporation on our culture has changed so much in only the past 150 years.
Henry Fool
Error correction..
/usr/local/bin/dosprompt
Make this your prompt in tcsh by typing:
alias precmd
set prompt=""
Do it in bash by:
PS1="\$(/usr/local/bin/dosprompt)"
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
/,$_;
/usr/local/bin/dosprompt, then
# I wrote this just now on my Solaris box.
# Customize however you like..
%drvltrs=("/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0"=>C,
"/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s7"=>D);
foreach(`/sbin/mount`){
split/
$dirhash{$_[0]}=$drvltrs{$_[2]};
}
$wd=`/bin/pwd`;chomp $wd;
foreach (sort {length($b)<=>length($a)} keys %dirhash) {
$wd=~/^$_/&&($f=$_,last)
}
print $dirhash{$f};$wd=~s/^$f//;print ":$wd> ";
# I wrote this to
# in tcsh: set prompt = `/usr/local/bin/dosprompt`
# Enjoy,
# Henry Fool
Are you sure that's the right patch?
That patch is for Solaris 2.6 on i386 and is dated 3/27/01. The xref'd SPARC patch was for 2.6 as well. I'm running Solaris 2.8 on a SPARC and I've installed all recommended patches since at least 3/27/01.
Thanks. I was using Sun's tar. GNU tar worked just fine.
Anyone else having this problem when trying to untar the thing?
t /JTreeTable.ListToTreeSelectionModelWrapper.html, 15932 bytes, 32 tape blocks
[...]
ganymede-1.0/doc/javadoc/arlut/csd/ganymede/clien
tar: directory checksum error
You know, government expenditure has the potential to SAVE taxpayers money in the long run. Ever take macroeconomics?
I consider laws like this a possible investment when proven effective. If people do take this to court and it becomes a deterrent against spammers, this could be saving you money. The amount of _your_ taxes spent on pursuing issues like this is miniscule. If this is found to be a deterrent, ISPs and businesses in general may save money on a macro-scale because of a reduction hardware expenses as a consequence of heavy mail traffic. The aggregate amount of money saved may well be greater than the amount spent on ligitation at the public's expense. And that while that might be a miniscule amount that you gain by lower prices or an improved product or increased mailbox space on your free mail account, it may be more than the haypenny or less you paid more in taxes. It's worth consideration, in any case.
I have serious problems with people who immediately consider all government expenditure a "waste of taxpaper resources." That's why I don't vote libertarian.
I haven't been following the Napster case very much so I apologize if this is common knowledge. I did notice in the RIAA response that Leon P. Gold of the firm Prosauker, Rose, LLP. is in the list of legal counsel for the RIAA. It is interesting to note that Leon P. Gold is the main attorney that the MPAA hired in the DeCSS case. Small world, eh? After reading those DeCSS depositions and trial transcripts, by the way, you can see that our rotund friend Leon can get quite nasty.
Without reading the story, you can tell what side the NY Times is leaning towards-- just by looking at the pictures. Photographers take pictures from below looking upwards when they want to imply that something is powerful or dominating.. If you look at the picture of Emmanuel, that's exactly the position they took the picture from. Then on the other hand, you've got Mr. Gold frowning and pointing. Not a very flattering picture, eh? I'm not complaining, though...
How do you know they didn't know it would be posted to Slashdot? If you look at the whois record of geekflavor.com, snowphoton@MINDSPRING.COM is listed as technical and administrative contact. 'snowphoton' was the handle of the person who submitted the story.
That page did not suggest he is a regular user of pot and LSD. He just said he used them. We don't know how many times.
I can understand how one might have a problem with caffeine and a desire to stop using it. By no means do I wish to trivialize the possible long-term consequences of pot or LSD usage, but I will note three things true about the drug caffeine that are not necessarily true for pot or LSD. Caffeine is cheap and readily available, it is acceptable to ingest caffeine just about wherever you want, and it is physically addictive. LSD is not something most recreational drug users do everyday. For one thing, it's not very easy to have LSD around all of the time, even if you are a small-scale dealer. Secondly, it's not something you really want to do everyday. You want to allocate a chunk of time in advance for when you want to trip because you know you're going to be awake and unable to sleep for several hours. You also want pick a time when you won't need to drive somewhere or will be expecting a visit from an unpleasant person such as a relative or an IRS auditor. There are precautions that most recreational drug users think about before they decide to trip. It's something you put more thought into and something that is generally done infrequently. It's more common to smoke pot on a regular basis, but obviously there are reasons why you would still restrict your intake so that you're not smoking up all day long. You can lose your job if you're stoned at work, get in an accident if you're stoned when you drive, etc. These are just a few examples of why you'd have reason to put some serious thought into the times and frequency in which you'll smoke pot.
Caffeine does not mentally impair you the way that alcohol, pot, or LSD does. However, it's still a drug! It still effects your body, and as such it's a good idea to regulate your intake of it. Regulating your caffeine habit could be more difficult than restricting your cannabis or LSD usage because you can ingest caffeine just about whenever you want! You could go to work, drink coffee, eat your lunch and drink soda, drink more coffee in the afternoon, etc. and not worry about it because it's viewed as totally harmless. You didn't have as many reasons to think about why you should watch your caffeine intake. If you are extremely careless, you could get yourself into patterns of lacking energy, being unable to concentrate, and being up at hours you don't want to be.
I'm of course not saying the health effects of caffeine are worse than pot or LSD, or anything like that. I'm just saying I think it is completely plausible that someone could have a problem with a caffeine addiction that's having unpleasant effects on their life but at the same time be able to use pot and LSD in moderation and responsibly.
I certainly agree with you on the importance of discerning between fact and opinion, which is why I said I believe it to be true instead of asserting it as fact. I'm more interested in discovering factual truths than promoting my opinion, which is why I'm posting here.
After I read your first response, I pasted it to a group of friends on IRC and asked whether or not your assertions were correct. A friend of mine who went to Temple Univ. told me he was taught in a class that you can be charged with copyright violation regardless of the commercial value and that commercial value was used for determining damages. He learned all of this in the context of film as intellectual property. So, yes, you may be correct, it may not directly apply to electronic media on the Internet. It is indeed a multi-faceted issue. There are of course some exceptions to when you can claim intellectual property as your own. To take a film example for instance, universities may own the rights to a student's film as was the case of Spike Lee's first movie.
I wish I had better sources, but that's all I have. I'd look around more but my brain is fried since I've been up for 26 hours and I've spent the past few hours reading the 450k Emmanuel Goldstein deposition on 2600.com. Now on to the trial transcripts...
.A violation of copyright can only be charged if the material has a commercial value. The commercial value of your posts (assuming it has any) is greatly damaged once you put it out there for free and it becomes accessible to countless numbers of users.
I believe you can get a court order to stop someone from using your material without permission regardless of the commercial value. Commercial value is considered only if you opt to sue the offending party for damages.
If you post to Usenet, your material that you post is copyrighted. You and you alone own the rights unless you specify otherwise. Deja is thus bound to YOUR terms and conditions, it's not the other way around. The only choice you have to keep Deja from using your work to advertise products without compensating you is have is to add a no-archive tag in your message header. Deja is putting the burden on you. They are effectually turning that no-archive tag to mean no-turn-my-post-into-an-ad. Maybe I want my material to be archived (perhaps by other archivers besides Deja), but I don't want specific content in my posts to be used to endorse products without my permission. I guess I no longer have a choice because Deja is forcing people who don't want their messages to become advertisements to give up their rights to let it be archived ANYWHERE.
Fact: All posts to Usenet are by default copyrighted material and not in the public domain unless explicitly stated. Read this for more info. The Copyright FAQ states that many believe it is implied, though, that by posting to Usenet you agree to let your material be redistributed through that medium. Copyright FAQ is here.
Fact: Most posts to Usenet are made independent of Deja, so whether or not their browsing service is free or their terms of service or whatever conditions they make up is irrelevant when determining if they have violated your intellectual property rights.
Opinion: I don't think allowing your copyrighted material to be reproduced immediately grants others a license use it to promote their commercial interests. I think this whole debate on the legality of Deja's move to use words from your post is a question of fair use.
Opinion/Analogy: Copyrighted music is played on the radio. It is free to whoever tunes in. However, it is illegal for me to record that music off of the radio and then use it in a television commercial without permission/paying royalties to the original copyright owner. I may not be altering the original content of the copyrighted work (the song). I may put a BIG ORANGE TRIANGLE on the screen with my company's logo in it, but does that make it legal? Deja made a business decision to use the content of your copyrighted work to endorse products without your permission. I don't see how this issue is much different.
Final opinion: This forum needs more lawyers and less speculation (including that of my own).