It's spelled Touareg. Could VW have come up with a more confusing name for its premium 'ute? I still don't know how to say it!
The sales-turd at the stealership pronounced it "twar-egg" when I test drove one, but VW ad material says it's "tour-egg". Being that it's taken from the name of a sub-saharan nomadic tribe, the real pronounciation is likely somewhere in between and probably begins with a tongue click instead of a T...
"When I create a work (i.e. write in my blog) it automatically is covered by full copyright law. I can't think of a simpler way to make sure I retain the controls I want but still let other people use my work in limited ways without the need to hire a lawyer."
That's not CC, that's just regular copyright. It's pretty hard to simplify copyright--everything you create is copyrighted!
Did you miss the part where he said "but still let other people use my work in limited ways"? That's something you have to do through licensing terms. Copyright is pretty much an all-or-nothing affair all by itself. Creative Commons licensing provides an easy way to permit various degrees of non-commercial duplication and re-use, while still preventing some jackass from selling a book titled "Funniest Blog Posts Evar!" without sending you a dime. Please elaborate how it is you think that copyright law alone covers this?
What exactly is the difference between ethanol (made from corn waste..?) and biodiesel (made from slaughterhouse waste..?)? Are they the same thing? Do they work differently in practice, can the same engines use them?
Ethanol is alcohol, and can be used in gasoline engines. Biodiesel is a processed natural oil that can be used in diesel engines. The two are not interchangeable.
"Did you by chance mean to refer to the Hague Conventions instead? Because one of them is what prohibits the use of expanding or mushrooming ammunition, contrary to what you see in the movies."
Your implication being that the Geneva Conventions did not address the issue of hollow/soft point (i.e. non FMJ) ammunition. The fact that the Hague Convention 1899 did so in greater detail is totally immaterial to the point
Which seems pretty clear.
Again, clarity of Hague 1899 is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the original poster was correct in asserting that the Geneva Conventions prohibit the use of certain types of ammunition. The actual portion of the protocol that addresses the issue may be vague, but the DOD seems to think it does.
So quit being an asshole, Dun.
I will if you will. Saying that Geneva doesn't prohibit hollow points, then switching to the argument that it doesn't specifically prohibit them, and that the US military's interpretation that it does is irrelevant is pretty assholish pedantry, if you ask me.
Isn't it? If nothing else, you perhaps learned how to spell "lobbyist".
Oh dear, I see I'm going to have to point it out to you, because you're apparently bright not enough to work it out on your own.
It's correctly spelt elsewhere in the post (I tried hinting to this, but you still were unable pick up on it). This means your assertion that I am unable to spell it correctly is err, manifestly wrong (as it would appear to be a isolated error, rather than a case of not actually knowing how to spell the word as you assert).
Well gee, ya got me there! Allow me to amend my statement to "you perhaps learned how to spell lobbyist consistently". Though unfortunately, inconsistent spellers don't seem to learn, so I'm probably wasting both of our time. Besides, the fact that you spelled it right in one place doesn't erase the fact that you spelled it ridiculously wrong in another. At most, it maybe shows that you're unsure of the spelling. I bet you're not anymore. I appreciate your attempt to help me "save face" by initially gently suggesting that I go on a treasure hunt to find your other, correct spelling of the word; but that's pointless. I'm clearly trolling. The first post I made above was unnecessarily snide, as properly befits a troll. I prefer to remain a troll once I've started off a post as one.
I've checked out a good number of the popular "blogs" (stupid fucking word - you'd think geeks could come up with something better than that)
When you think about it, the word is perfect. It's downright onomonopoetic, being the sound a handfull of feces makes when gently flung against the wall.
Now why would a guy running a blog named "Professional blogger - Helping bloggers earn money" possibly want to exaggerate the amount of money he makes off his blogging?
Heh. Set up a blog to discuss the way he makes money running blogs in order to lure traffic (and clickthroughs) and perhaps actually make money running a blog.
One of the more interesting things I've seen out of this war was the unveiling of some absolutely brutally honest product reviews from the Marines.
Put simply -- this ain't the first clotting agent thats been developed, but oh boy does QuikClot apparently fail. Story here:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000458.html
News flash for those jarheads: major arterial bleeding isn't EVER going to be stoppable with "magic dust". Tourniquet, hemostat, or direct pressure are the only way. Are these people stupid?
(reposting AC parent to improve visibility, as wiseguy jackasses really do need to be publicly humiliated)
Actually, why don't you get a clue? Here is an excerpt from the 1st protocol of the Geneva Conventions:
"Part III. Methods and Means of Warfare Combatant and Prisoners-Of-War
Section I. Methods and Means of Warfare
Art. 35. Basic rules
1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.
2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
Art. 36. New weapons
In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.
Art. 37. Prohibition of Perfidy
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; (c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and (d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation."
I think that's pretty clear. Before you talk out of your ass, why don't you inform yourself. Heck, the 1st Protocol is even mentioned in the link you gave, but apparently you don't even read your own sources. Anyway, for those interested, here is the 1st Protocol in its full text:
BTW: that was just totally idiotic. Morons should not try and explain physics. Here's a clue for you: rifles buffer and dissipate much of the energy they release upon firing, so the person firing it does not receive 100% energy released or even close. The muzzle design, the cocking mechanism, etc all of those dissapate energy. If they didn't it would break your shoulder smart guy.
Actually, you're full of it here pal. Springs, compensators, buffers, et al soften the sharpness of the kick, but only slightly. Even assuming it imparted all its kinetic energy upon impact, an M855 round, weighing 4g and moving at 925m/s imparts the same amount of force as a 150g MLB standard baseball thrown at 56mph (82fps).
The person receiving the bullet does receive 100% of the energy included in the impact.
Unless the bullet penetrates enough to go all the way through, which happens quite often. This is why we are intructed in the military to check for entrance AND exit wounds.
Idiot. Just STFU with your ignorance. The last thing the world needs is another armed idiot.
Include yourself amongst the ignorant too then, jackass.
This is just great. Making it illegal to look for anything. You may only watch/hear/read what you're given by your corporate masters. The internet essentially turned into television, where only those with big money for advertising will be heard. Now what do we say to those that call Canada "America Junior"?
an important thing to remember here ( and i know it doesnt pertain directly to your theoretical case). If you are a private citizen acting under the direction or request of a government agent, you are considered a government agent for searches and siezures.
I.E. a cop cannot ask you to steal him the evidence he needs and then introduce it in court as legally obtained evidence.
Indeed an important point. A government agent need not have a badge, or even be an employee of the government. As far as the 4th Amendment is concerned, an "agent" would be "one empowered to act for or represent another". So if the feds send (say) a bunch of plumbers in to get the goods on you and bring them to FBI HQ, they have to be sure it looks like the plumbers did it all on their own!
It's a constitutional guarantee, at least in the US.
The thinking runs that any wrongs that are created by illegally obtained evidence is outweighed by the wrongs that would result from abuses that would ensue if illegally obtained evidence was allowed to be used.
"Illegally obtained evidence" only pertains to searches and seizures by government agents. You are not constitutionally protected against a thief stealing your briefcase, finding it's full of kiddy porn, and in a fit of moral outrage turning it in to the police. You can get the thief incarcerated, but you're going with him!
>No jackass, it's not legal to copy software.
Some people have a hard time understanding when people are joking and when they are not...
Sorry. People here frequently make the "ok to copy software" comment and they're not joking. If you meant it to be funny, it should have been more obviously absurd.
It is still protected by copyright laws though, no difference.
The issue at hand is not whether it was copyrighted, but at what point and to what degree the viewing (or making available to other to view) of a web page becomes "copying". The protocol itself requires copying which, if copyright law is applied strictly and literally, could technically be construed as infringement.
They have made a copy for their archieve and they are making it available to the public. What is the difference to making a copy of a game I have available to the public? None!
No, with a game you purchase a single copy. With a web page you are essentially given permission to copy from their server for free as many times as you like. If they were handing out free paper pamphlets and let me have 1000 copies, could they claim copyright infringement if I handed out those 1000 copies to people ten years later?
Is it legal? No.
Who needs judges! We'll just ask you!
No, they made they web page available to anyone who wanted to visit their webpage,
Huh? That's exactly what I said.
just as I make, for example a book available to anyone in a shop.
What? Nobody has to buy a public web page.
That does not give anyone visiting the site to in turn take a copy and make it available to the public.
Sure it does. Ever been to a library? Yeah, now you'll trot out the "single instance" argument, but remember that that only illustrates how your analogy of a book is flawed.
And just as it is not allowed to make a copy of a game I got available to the public, they are not allowed to make a copy of someone elses web page available to the public!
When one purchases a game, one purchases a single copy. The nature of web pages is such that relatively indiscriminant copying goes on as a normal part of the process. Add to that the fact that they were "giving away copies" to any and all comers, and you have a very different situation.
The real issue here is where do you draw the line between "cache" and "unauthorized duplication"? How strictly do you apply copyright law to a medium that depends upon the free and easy copying of information from one point to another? Web pages exist smack in the middle of a very large gray area.
>This company dumped the pages out on the public
>Internet, with no robots.txt. Surely they know
>what that means.
Cool, now it is legal to copy software freeley, make it available on the net and so on. Why?
No jackass, it's not legal to copy software. A web page is not software, and IA isn't "copying". By making it available on the internet the plaintiff essentially distributed a free copy of the contents of their web site to every man, woman, child, and bot who visited it. The question here is whether IA is allowed to show anyone else the copy they received.
I don't see any problem at all with this if it is indeed for all non-intel processors. Targeting a competitor directly by slowing things down is a bad thing, but putting in the simplest default fallback for any other processors than the one you are trying to optimize for seems like a very reasonable way to go.
It's not reasonable if the different code paths are dependent on SSE2 compatibility, but the compiler sends all non-Intel CPUs down the non-SSE2 path based on the CPU manufacturer ID rather than on the SSE2 compatibility, which has its own check totally independent of the manufacturer ID. That's intentional hamstringing.
No, it would be offering Coke and Pepsi both. Then rigging the Coke machine so that the Coke had too much or too little syrup so that the taste was bad. It was still Coke, it just was bad Coke. But the Pepsi was perfect every time.
Also, add to it that you are Pepsico rather than Taco Bell and you are one of only two or three soda fountain makers out there.
The product is clearly labeled as a high performance compiler for Intel CPUs. The grandparent used the wrong tool for the job which required a generic compiler.
It would be one thing if the compiler always spit out binaries that ran only on Intel CPUs and errored out when attempting to run on anything else, but it's churning out a multi-path binary that sets up all sorts of unnecessary hurdles for execution on non-Intel CPUs and sends all CPUs not returning a "genuine Intel" ID string down that path. There are already standard methods of determining whether a given CPU is SSE2 instruction compatible, and it's not done by checking the CPU manufacturer. The fig leaf of "ensuring compatibility on unknown hardware" just doesn't cover their actions here.
Indeed, if you look at PCI and PCI Express connectors they strongly resemble the old MCA connectors in physical design.
Yah, OK, but my gigbit ethernet connector (8P8C USOC modular jack derivative) is the same as used for the old 4800bps serial lines feeding VT52 terminals! Furthermore, MCA was a double/staggered contact design (like the AGP slot) with up to 55 pins (x2) whereas PCI and PCI express are single row, up to 82 pins. When you check out the pinouts for PCI Express compared to MCA, you'd have to have a pretty far-out imagination tosay one was derived from the other in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
The sales-turd at the stealership pronounced it "twar-egg" when I test drove one, but VW ad material says it's "tour-egg". Being that it's taken from the name of a sub-saharan nomadic tribe, the real pronounciation is likely somewhere in between and probably begins with a tongue click instead of a T...
That's not CC, that's just regular copyright. It's pretty hard to simplify copyright--everything you create is copyrighted!
Did you miss the part where he said "but still let other people use my work in limited ways"? That's something you have to do through licensing terms. Copyright is pretty much an all-or-nothing affair all by itself. Creative Commons licensing provides an easy way to permit various degrees of non-commercial duplication and re-use, while still preventing some jackass from selling a book titled "Funniest Blog Posts Evar!" without sending you a dime. Please elaborate how it is you think that copyright law alone covers this?
Ethanol is alcohol, and can be used in gasoline engines. Biodiesel is a processed natural oil that can be used in diesel engines. The two are not interchangeable.
Crane's Crest Opaque Fluorescent White. It's close enough to fool most regular folks, and readily available.
"Did you by chance mean to refer to the Hague Conventions instead? Because one of them is what prohibits the use of expanding or mushrooming ammunition, contrary to what you see in the movies."
Your implication being that the Geneva Conventions did not address the issue of hollow/soft point (i.e. non FMJ) ammunition. The fact that the Hague Convention 1899 did so in greater detail is totally immaterial to the point
Which seems pretty clear.
Again, clarity of Hague 1899 is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the original poster was correct in asserting that the Geneva Conventions prohibit the use of certain types of ammunition. The actual portion of the protocol that addresses the issue may be vague, but the DOD seems to think it does.
So quit being an asshole, Dun.
I will if you will. Saying that Geneva doesn't prohibit hollow points, then switching to the argument that it doesn't specifically prohibit them, and that the US military's interpretation that it does is irrelevant is pretty assholish pedantry, if you ask me.
Oh dear, I see I'm going to have to point it out to you, because you're apparently bright not enough to work it out on your own.
It's correctly spelt elsewhere in the post (I tried hinting to this, but you still were unable pick up on it). This means your assertion that I am unable to spell it correctly is err, manifestly wrong (as it would appear to be a isolated error, rather than a case of not actually knowing how to spell the word as you assert).
Well gee, ya got me there! Allow me to amend my statement to "you perhaps learned how to spell lobbyist consistently". Though unfortunately, inconsistent spellers don't seem to learn, so I'm probably wasting both of our time. Besides, the fact that you spelled it right in one place doesn't erase the fact that you spelled it ridiculously wrong in another. At most, it maybe shows that you're unsure of the spelling. I bet you're not anymore. I appreciate your attempt to help me "save face" by initially gently suggesting that I go on a treasure hunt to find your other, correct spelling of the word; but that's pointless. I'm clearly trolling. The first post I made above was unnecessarily snide, as properly befits a troll. I prefer to remain a troll once I've started off a post as one.
Pardon? I thought I made it fairly clear that I am judging your post solely on your inability to spell "lobbyist".
Too much at once for you was it?
Frankly, I don't really care about the issue one way or the other, hence my focus on the horrific butchering of the word "lobbyist".
You didn't make it as far as any of the links either it seems.
Why no, of course I didn't. I'm being a spelling nazi!
How marvellously amusing!
Isn't it? If nothing else, you perhaps learned how to spell "lobbyist".
When you think about it, the word is perfect. It's downright onomonopoetic, being the sound a handfull of feces makes when gently flung against the wall.
Heh. Set up a blog to discuss the way he makes money running blogs in order to lure traffic (and clickthroughs) and perhaps actually make money running a blog.
News flash for those jarheads: major arterial bleeding isn't EVER going to be stoppable with "magic dust". Tourniquet, hemostat, or direct pressure are the only way. Are these people stupid?
While it may seem petty and irrational, I'd never trust the word of someone who can't spell "lobbyist".
Actually, why don't you get a clue? Here is an excerpt from the 1st protocol of the Geneva Conventions:
"Part III. Methods and Means of Warfare Combatant and Prisoners-Of-War
Section I. Methods and Means of Warfare
Art. 35. Basic rules
1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.
2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
Art. 36. New weapons
In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.
Art. 37. Prohibition of Perfidy
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; (c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and (d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation."
I think that's pretty clear. Before you talk out of your ass, why don't you inform yourself. Heck, the 1st Protocol is even mentioned in the link you gave, but apparently you don't even read your own sources. Anyway, for those interested, here is the 1st Protocol in its full text:
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1. html
Actually, you're full of it here pal. Springs, compensators, buffers, et al soften the sharpness of the kick, but only slightly. Even assuming it imparted all its kinetic energy upon impact, an M855 round, weighing 4g and moving at 925m/s imparts the same amount of force as a 150g MLB standard baseball thrown at 56mph (82fps).
The person receiving the bullet does receive 100% of the energy included in the impact.
Unless the bullet penetrates enough to go all the way through, which happens quite often. This is why we are intructed in the military to check for entrance AND exit wounds.
Idiot. Just STFU with your ignorance. The last thing the world needs is another armed idiot.
Include yourself amongst the ignorant too then, jackass.
This is just great. Making it illegal to look for anything. You may only watch/hear/read what you're given by your corporate masters. The internet essentially turned into television, where only those with big money for advertising will be heard. Now what do we say to those that call Canada "America Junior"?
Indeed an important point. A government agent need not have a badge, or even be an employee of the government. As far as the 4th Amendment is concerned, an "agent" would be "one empowered to act for or represent another". So if the feds send (say) a bunch of plumbers in to get the goods on you and bring them to FBI HQ, they have to be sure it looks like the plumbers did it all on their own!
hold on, I'm in the wrong discussion here...
"Illegally obtained evidence" only pertains to searches and seizures by government agents. You are not constitutionally protected against a thief stealing your briefcase, finding it's full of kiddy porn, and in a fit of moral outrage turning it in to the police. You can get the thief incarcerated, but you're going with him!
Some people have a hard time understanding when people are joking and when they are not...
Sorry. People here frequently make the "ok to copy software" comment and they're not joking. If you meant it to be funny, it should have been more obviously absurd.
It is still protected by copyright laws though, no difference.
The issue at hand is not whether it was copyrighted, but at what point and to what degree the viewing (or making available to other to view) of a web page becomes "copying". The protocol itself requires copying which, if copyright law is applied strictly and literally, could technically be construed as infringement.
They have made a copy for their archieve and they are making it available to the public. What is the difference to making a copy of a game I have available to the public? None!
No, with a game you purchase a single copy. With a web page you are essentially given permission to copy from their server for free as many times as you like. If they were handing out free paper pamphlets and let me have 1000 copies, could they claim copyright infringement if I handed out those 1000 copies to people ten years later?
Is it legal? No.
Who needs judges! We'll just ask you! No, they made they web page available to anyone who wanted to visit their webpage,
Huh? That's exactly what I said.
just as I make, for example a book available to anyone in a shop.
What? Nobody has to buy a public web page. That does not give anyone visiting the site to in turn take a copy and make it available to the public.
Sure it does. Ever been to a library? Yeah, now you'll trot out the "single instance" argument, but remember that that only illustrates how your analogy of a book is flawed.
And just as it is not allowed to make a copy of a game I got available to the public, they are not allowed to make a copy of someone elses web page available to the public!
When one purchases a game, one purchases a single copy. The nature of web pages is such that relatively indiscriminant copying goes on as a normal part of the process. Add to that the fact that they were "giving away copies" to any and all comers, and you have a very different situation.
The real issue here is where do you draw the line between "cache" and "unauthorized duplication"? How strictly do you apply copyright law to a medium that depends upon the free and easy copying of information from one point to another? Web pages exist smack in the middle of a very large gray area.
>Internet, with no robots.txt. Surely they know
>what that means.
Cool, now it is legal to copy software freeley, make it available on the net and so on. Why?
No jackass, it's not legal to copy software. A web page is not software, and IA isn't "copying". By making it available on the internet the plaintiff essentially distributed a free copy of the contents of their web site to every man, woman, child, and bot who visited it. The question here is whether IA is allowed to show anyone else the copy they received.
It's not reasonable if the different code paths are dependent on SSE2 compatibility, but the compiler sends all non-Intel CPUs down the non-SSE2 path based on the CPU manufacturer ID rather than on the SSE2 compatibility, which has its own check totally independent of the manufacturer ID. That's intentional hamstringing.
Because then nobody would use their compiler at all. They wanted to subtly punish buyers of AMD CPUs, not drive away compiler customers.
Also, add to it that you are Pepsico rather than Taco Bell and you are one of only two or three soda fountain makers out there.
It would be one thing if the compiler always spit out binaries that ran only on Intel CPUs and errored out when attempting to run on anything else, but it's churning out a multi-path binary that sets up all sorts of unnecessary hurdles for execution on non-Intel CPUs and sends all CPUs not returning a "genuine Intel" ID string down that path. There are already standard methods of determining whether a given CPU is SSE2 instruction compatible, and it's not done by checking the CPU manufacturer. The fig leaf of "ensuring compatibility on unknown hardware" just doesn't cover their actions here.
No, this is exactly like a white plantation owner cutting off the foot of a runaway negro slave to keep him from escaping again. Duh.
Yah, OK, but my gigbit ethernet connector (8P8C USOC modular jack derivative) is the same as used for the old 4800bps serial lines feeding VT52 terminals! Furthermore, MCA was a double/staggered contact design (like the AGP slot) with up to 55 pins (x2) whereas PCI and PCI express are single row, up to 82 pins. When you check out the pinouts for PCI Express compared to MCA, you'd have to have a pretty far-out imagination tosay one was derived from the other in any way.