After a movie has been out for a number of years, they are no longer considered spoilers. Otherwise, there would be no discussion about any movie at all while a handful of people hold out on seeing the movie(s).
I have a bunch of zer0-day sploitz I would like to share with my friends. Also, I would like to be able to stream teh l8test industrial rock on my Aggreg8 page. Will this be possible?
It is this attention to detail that differentiates a quality product and something just chucked out the door.
I think that's a question we have to ask six months from now. If we are begging for a service pack, then we will know that Vista had been "chucked out the door."
I understand that, but since when did legal facts stop someone from filing a lawsuit? Also, if you look at the clip, Maher even admits that he would be sued if he was the first to name someone's name. He then goes on to presumably do so by naming Mehlman. So what was CNN's reasoning to edit out Maher's comment?
While it may seem difficult to prove malice in front of a judge, it may infinitely be easier to do so in front of a jury. Maher, in his seemingly blind hate for all things republican/religious/dogma made what seems to me a spiteful comment to dig at the Republican party and its chairman Mehlman, as he was trying to prove his point that the entire (or a large part of) republican party are closeted hypocritical gays. Larry King questioned his comment about Mehlman and Maher replied that "you must not attend the same bathhouses as I do" implying that he saw Mehlman in a bathouse. So, by using your criteria, Mehlman would just have to prove that he was not in any bathhouse that Maher was in. A joke to be sure, but the comments made before that are said matter-of-factly by Maher. Maher's humor can be extremely corrosive, and it would not be the first time his mouth got him in trouble. I'm sure that the RNC also does not like how their entire membership is made to look like a bunch of bad apples, even though a few surely have been.
I can think of a lot of less substantiative frivolous lawsuits that have made it to courtrooms. And if the plaintiff picked the right jury (aka the rightwingers he likes to make fun of), I could see how the plaintiff might possibly have a winner here. Maybe that discovery into Maher's bathhouse attendance might seem interesting to someone who took offense at the very least, even if the lawsuit was a non-starter.
So can you see how that joke/clip may be a bit problematic? I also but find it curious that Time Warner that owns HBO (the cable channel Maher's show is on) also owns an interest in CNN, the network for Larry King.
Well, thanks for your admission. I have followed copyright extensively since the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA or Sonny Bono act) was passed in 1998. Perhaps that is the reason I am sensitive to the obvious misconceptions about copyright law, and the way that it has been twisted into something that it was not inteneded to be (doesn't the US congress do this on a regular basis these days?).
The thing is that these misconceptions are continually affirmed by people who should not do so. The problem is if that one minute clip is bad, and then you use 30 second clip to make it ok. Until the rights holders are offended by the 30 second clip for whatever reason. Then you have to use an 8 second clip. Soon, no clip of any length is not allowed for whatever reason. This is the path copyright law is taking.
I don't care who promulgates this. Lawyer or not, it is uninformed and wrong. Though copyright holders will always want you to think otherwise.
BTW, nowhere in copyright law does it say how much of a work you may/or may not use for social commentary. Certainly a one minute slice should not warrant a DMCA takedown notice.
I re-read the link to the article, in my hurry to read the DMCA letter I did not see the other comments. You were simply parroting what the youtube uploader was suggesting. I thought you were originally suggesting the idea, not simply affirming it. So i was wrong in that aspect.
Regardless, I'm surprised that the uploader saying he has a legal background, would feel the need to further edit the uploaded video. But it makes sense from a point of view that strategically doing so would make CNN's motives obvious.
Unfortunately it has the adverse affect of limiting fair use rights, and giving ground to rights holders that they do not deserve.
Really, you're a clever troll, and I resent feeding you. But in the off chance you really care about perceptions of gays in society I'll clarify. Maybe you didn't pay attention to what my post is saying. Or you make assumptions. Or you're very bitter over the fact that homosexuality is not universally embraced.
Why is it that CNN cares about a one minute remark made by Maher about someone being gay? It's certainly not because they were trying to protect a copyright interest. Which means that CNN has other reasons having to do with the subject matter and that is to blame here. You are attacking the messenger, as I had nothing to do with pulling the video.
If being a homosexual was not damaging to someone's career, then Foley would still be in office. The fact is, in some instances it is (Gov. James McGreevey), and others it is not (Rep. Barney Frank).
I'm sorry that you mistakenly saw my post as globally attcking gays only, because I wasn't. The fact is that my post could be expanded to include heterosexual affairs as well, as that has ruined more than one career. It's just in this instance it involved homosexuality. If Maher accused Mehlman of having and heterosexual affair, he could reasonably sue for libel as it may be "damaging" to his career either way. The same goes for CNN, we are in such a litigous society, it's not what Maher said, it's the potential legal battle they wanted to avoid. That was the whole point of my post.
I'm gay, perfectly happy with myself
No, you are not. You have such extreme tunnel vision/obsession about your sexuality that you make bitter, uncivil comments. If you were perfectly happy, an offhand remark (or what anybody would say for that matter) wouldn't matter to you in the least. It's unfortunate you do not see your own misery.
Actually,ifthe fellow who posted the content to YouTube carefully editedthe video clips just enough
Any suggestion of further editing (by anyone) on something that already clearly falls under "fair use" is flat out ludicrous, and shameful to try and coddle big media when their intentions are not honest to begin with. It's not "virtually identical" to what I'm saying. What CNN was doing was abusing copyright law by using the DMCA (clearly implied by the letter sent) to further try and censor the video, most likely to cover somebody's butt from being sued. Furthermore, CNN will probably try to censor any part of that Maher's statement no matter how much it is seemingly "edited."
if the fellow who posted the content to YouTube carefully edited the video clips just enough to demonstrate that there had been an edit by CNN, and had added his own content explaining what this showed and why, it would probably fit under the Fair Use requirements for scholarship or criticism - but IANAL.
You're darn right you're not a lawyer. The clip as it stands would fit under the definition of fair use, as it gives context for Bill Maher's remarks. It only shows a small fraction of the Larry King Show, not a significant portion. Your comment shows the extreme ignorance concerning the purpose of copyright and fairuse, and giving rightsholders more than they deserve.
The clip was most likely removed because someone did not want to get sued. Either CNN or Maher later regretting his remarks, one of them possibly recognizing that they have no proof of Mehlman's sexual oreintation. Because calling someone a homesexual in our society may be considered libel if it is damaging to them.
It's curious, that Maher would instigate a homosexual witchhunt (intentional or not), ignorantly starting something that he supposedly abhors.
The same hubris that made them lie on the video in "hacking democracy" will lead them to ignore this letter. I poll watched Tuesday for a couple of hours, and even though there was the veneer of smooth operation here, in actuality there were numerous unseen problems/potential problems.
Poll workers were not familiar with the technology. They all know what a computer is, but they don't know what happens inside the computer. Like the difference between "registering a vote" (best for a testable system) versus actual "counting the vote" as the individual Diebold machines do.
These machines (unlike the ones in Virginia) do produce a paper tape of the votes. I bet Diebold, being the cheapskates they are, used the same printer used in the ATMs. The printer housing protrudes about 10 inches away from the touchscreen. So when the voter stands at the machine to vote the printer is at the side of the voter so the voter can not see it. I saw only one person watch what was printing, and he had to do this by stepping back from the machine after pressing each selection. Everybody else just ignored what was being printed.
There was numerous problems with inserting the voter card into the machine. Even though the voter put the machine in the card, it seemed to occasionally have a hard time accepting it, and it hung up a few people. A small detail, but with thousands of voters vying for a few machines and poll workers needing to attend to it, it has the cumulative effect of making the lines longer.
The elderly, handicapped, and infirm all seemed to universally struggled with the machines. While they may normally struggle with any voting, I overheard one person tell her caregiver and these were her exact words "those machines are hard." Her caregiver responded and said "no, those were easy" which brings up the next critical point;
Everybody liked the computer touchscreen. We are a nation that for the most part embraces new technology. But because "it's a computer automatically means that it's right" thinking takes over here. I heard many voters say "that's slick" or "that's neat." The public needs to be educated between the difference of "being slick" and "being correct." Election officials that had problems were quick to excuse it as "operating error" and big media inexcusably reported it as such, but clearly there are issues of usability that come into play with these machines. Giving voting machine vendors a pass on this is inexcusable. I think the election officials "defending their purchase" rather than address issues is wrong. And as voters think "Because it's a computer" does not make the machine and software operation and design correct (as any slashdotter will tell you), voting machine vendors should not take advantage of this to ignore problems.
I wonder what the durability of the memory cards are. Maybe my fellow slashdotters could enlighten me as to the number of read/write cycles before they go bad. This needs to be a matter of public record. Remember, these cards are facing industrial duty with millions of votes cast. Are they rated for this use or did they get them from CDW? I bet they aren't. This seems like a potentially fatal election killer to me if one of those cards break, either from memory going bad or the physical bending of contact pins in the slot (I have seen that happen with other cards).
While we have a paper trail, if there is a recount needed, how hard will it be for the election workers to read the votes in tape form? How long will this take? How accurate will it be, or will the recount only serve to confuse the outcome further or will it clarify it? As can be seen, the political climate is such that a recount happenning is guaranteed. Also, for all those machines without a "paper trail," because a recount is impossible (as it's just a re-tally), they should not be a part of an election syste
Now that the dirty hippies have access to the code - it is theirs to destroy much like the numerous number of projects they already have.
Thankfully to my future java-controlled shower to accurately control water pressure and temperature, I will soon be a clean hippie. And because it's java, I'll be able to be clean anywhere!
I would hope the machines would format any card at the start of an election and then write the encrypted count totals to the card and nothing else except a checksum and the machine ID number.
What is so mindblowing about this is the question why this very simple thing cannot being done, and the fact that the diebold engineers lied about the cards on tape.
If "A Fin Is a Limb Is a Wing" was true, then that would mean that fish would taste like chicken and also hold up in the fridge better. From personal observation, I find this is not the case.
I would say there is global warming. It's not just the snows of Kilimanjaro, but iceflows are retreating everywhere (Greenland and Alaska) not to mention that the coral reefs are dying off.
I also think that the effects of global dimming have been understated (and not even mentioned in this article) thus masking the effects of CO2 warming and thus would effect the CO2 numbers.
As one scientist puts it, you can't pump so much gunk into the atmosphere and expect nothing to happen, and that we are in effect creating one giant experiment on the atmosphere.
I do think that using misleading graphs is wrong and valid points are made in the article, and that the number of weather stations should be increased to measure and better understand the effect. And nobody is served by bad science. But to say that our enviroment is not changing, and probably for the worse, is putting your head in the sand.
Slashdot Mirror
So when the dupe shows up tomorrow, we will know the experiment is a success today.
I await notification of my Nobel prize any moment now.
When they start to play the violin, it's time to kick their butt outta the case.
What idiot decided that no one would be allowed to post corrections!!!....Look, either allow people to edit their posts or allows correction posts!!!
You're new here, aren't you??
After a movie has been out for a number of years, they are no longer considered spoilers. Otherwise, there would be no discussion about any movie at all while a handful of people hold out on seeing the movie(s).
That it was all written using Visual Basic.
I have a bunch of zer0-day sploitz I would like to share with my friends. Also, I would like to be able to stream teh l8test industrial rock on my Aggreg8 page. Will this be possible?
and RELEASE A TURD anyway.
I does seem to be the sound of fairies releasing a fart. Yeah, I kinda do hear it there now.
It is this attention to detail that differentiates a quality product and something just chucked out the door.
I think that's a question we have to ask six months from now. If we are begging for a service pack, then we will know that Vista had been "chucked out the door."
I understand that, but since when did legal facts stop someone from filing a lawsuit? Also, if you look at the clip, Maher even admits that he would be sued if he was the first to name someone's name. He then goes on to presumably do so by naming Mehlman. So what was CNN's reasoning to edit out Maher's comment?
While it may seem difficult to prove malice in front of a judge, it may infinitely be easier to do so in front of a jury. Maher, in his seemingly blind hate for all things republican/religious/dogma made what seems to me a spiteful comment to dig at the Republican party and its chairman Mehlman, as he was trying to prove his point that the entire (or a large part of) republican party are closeted hypocritical gays. Larry King questioned his comment about Mehlman and Maher replied that "you must not attend the same bathhouses as I do" implying that he saw Mehlman in a bathouse. So, by using your criteria, Mehlman would just have to prove that he was not in any bathhouse that Maher was in. A joke to be sure, but the comments made before that are said matter-of-factly by Maher. Maher's humor can be extremely corrosive, and it would not be the first time his mouth got him in trouble. I'm sure that the RNC also does not like how their entire membership is made to look like a bunch of bad apples, even though a few surely have been.
I can think of a lot of less substantiative frivolous lawsuits that have made it to courtrooms. And if the plaintiff picked the right jury (aka the rightwingers he likes to make fun of), I could see how the plaintiff might possibly have a winner here. Maybe that discovery into Maher's bathhouse attendance might seem interesting to someone who took offense at the very least, even if the lawsuit was a non-starter.
So can you see how that joke/clip may be a bit problematic? I also but find it curious that Time Warner that owns HBO (the cable channel Maher's show is on) also owns an interest in CNN, the network for Larry King.
Well, thanks for your admission. I have followed copyright extensively since the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA or Sonny Bono act) was passed in 1998. Perhaps that is the reason I am sensitive to the obvious misconceptions about copyright law, and the way that it has been twisted into something that it was not inteneded to be (doesn't the US congress do this on a regular basis these days?).
The thing is that these misconceptions are continually affirmed by people who should not do so. The problem is if that one minute clip is bad, and then you use 30 second clip to make it ok. Until the rights holders are offended by the 30 second clip for whatever reason. Then you have to use an 8 second clip. Soon, no clip of any length is not allowed for whatever reason. This is the path copyright law is taking.
I don't care who promulgates this. Lawyer or not, it is uninformed and wrong. Though copyright holders will always want you to think otherwise.
BTW, nowhere in copyright law does it say how much of a work you may/or may not use for social commentary. Certainly a one minute slice should not warrant a DMCA takedown notice.
I re-read the link to the article, in my hurry to read the DMCA letter I did not see the other comments. You were simply parroting what the youtube uploader was suggesting. I thought you were originally suggesting the idea, not simply affirming it. So i was wrong in that aspect.
Regardless, I'm surprised that the uploader saying he has a legal background, would feel the need to further edit the uploaded video. But it makes sense from a point of view that strategically doing so would make CNN's motives obvious.
Unfortunately it has the adverse affect of limiting fair use rights, and giving ground to rights holders that they do not deserve.
Really, you're a clever troll, and I resent feeding you. But in the off chance you really care about perceptions of gays in society I'll clarify. Maybe you didn't pay attention to what my post is saying. Or you make assumptions. Or you're very bitter over the fact that homosexuality is not universally embraced.
Why is it that CNN cares about a one minute remark made by Maher about someone being gay? It's certainly not because they were trying to protect a copyright interest. Which means that CNN has other reasons having to do with the subject matter and that is to blame here. You are attacking the messenger, as I had nothing to do with pulling the video.
If being a homosexual was not damaging to someone's career, then Foley would still be in office. The fact is, in some instances it is (Gov. James McGreevey), and others it is not (Rep. Barney Frank).
I'm sorry that you mistakenly saw my post as globally attcking gays only, because I wasn't. The fact is that my post could be expanded to include heterosexual affairs as well, as that has ruined more than one career. It's just in this instance it involved homosexuality. If Maher accused Mehlman of having and heterosexual affair, he could reasonably sue for libel as it may be "damaging" to his career either way. The same goes for CNN, we are in such a litigous society, it's not what Maher said, it's the potential legal battle they wanted to avoid. That was the whole point of my post.
I'm gay, perfectly happy with myself
No, you are not. You have such extreme tunnel vision/obsession about your sexuality that you make bitter, uncivil comments. If you were perfectly happy, an offhand remark (or what anybody would say for that matter) wouldn't matter to you in the least. It's unfortunate you do not see your own misery.
This is what you wrote;
Actually, if the fellow who posted the content to YouTube carefully edited the video clips just enough
Any suggestion of further editing (by anyone) on something that already clearly falls under "fair use" is flat out ludicrous, and shameful to try and coddle big media when their intentions are not honest to begin with. It's not "virtually identical" to what I'm saying. What CNN was doing was abusing copyright law by using the DMCA (clearly implied by the letter sent) to further try and censor the video, most likely to cover somebody's butt from being sued. Furthermore, CNN will probably try to censor any part of that Maher's statement no matter how much it is seemingly "edited."
if the fellow who posted the content to YouTube carefully edited the video clips just enough to demonstrate that there had been an edit by CNN, and had added his own content explaining what this showed and why, it would probably fit under the Fair Use requirements for scholarship or criticism - but IANAL.
You're darn right you're not a lawyer. The clip as it stands would fit under the definition of fair use, as it gives context for Bill Maher's remarks. It only shows a small fraction of the Larry King Show, not a significant portion. Your comment shows the extreme ignorance concerning the purpose of copyright and fairuse, and giving rightsholders more than they deserve.
The clip was most likely removed because someone did not want to get sued. Either CNN or Maher later regretting his remarks, one of them possibly recognizing that they have no proof of Mehlman's sexual oreintation. Because calling someone a homesexual in our society may be considered libel if it is damaging to them.
It's curious, that Maher would instigate a homosexual witchhunt (intentional or not), ignorantly starting something that he supposedly abhors.
The probe cannot reply to Earth signals because some ahole took away its "Reply" button!
That's not it. The spacecraft travelled 2^24 or 16,777,216 clicks, at which time the internal navigation turned into an unsigned mediumint.
They say they should be able to restore earth reply for the probe in 3+ hours. Otherwise, slashdotters will start probing for jokes.
... oh, you meant the other kind
Yea, they're gonna put a call center on the moon. Nobody will ever know.
Besides he wasn't under oath.
He was making a representation to election officials. Just because he hadn't sworn an oath doesn't mean that he didn't commit fraud.
Now that the dirty hippies have access to the code - it is theirs to destroy much like the numerous number of projects they already have.
Thankfully to my future java-controlled shower to accurately control water pressure and temperature, I will soon be a clean hippie. And because it's java, I'll be able to be clean anywhere!
Thanks Sun! you rock!
Dear aunt, let's set double the killer delete select all
I would hope the machines would format any card at the start of an election and then write the encrypted count totals to the card and nothing else except a checksum and the machine ID number.
What is so mindblowing about this is the question why this very simple thing cannot being done, and the fact that the diebold engineers lied about the cards on tape.
If "A Fin Is a Limb Is a Wing" was true, then that would mean that fish would taste like chicken and also hold up in the fridge better. From personal observation, I find this is not the case.
"Minor-attracted adults" sounds a lot better than "perverts," in which case the argument seems to lose much of its strength.
I would say there is global warming. It's not just the snows of Kilimanjaro, but iceflows are retreating everywhere (Greenland and Alaska) not to mention that the coral reefs are dying off.
I also think that the effects of global dimming have been understated (and not even mentioned in this article) thus masking the effects of CO2 warming and thus would effect the CO2 numbers.
As one scientist puts it, you can't pump so much gunk into the atmosphere and expect nothing to happen, and that we are in effect creating one giant experiment on the atmosphere.
I do think that using misleading graphs is wrong and valid points are made in the article, and that the number of weather stations should be increased to measure and better understand the effect. And nobody is served by bad science. But to say that our enviroment is not changing, and probably for the worse, is putting your head in the sand.
I read the article, and those aren't legs, they're fins.
I will only believe that a dolphin has legs when it walks up to me and shakes my hand.