Re:os/2 was not able to windows 32 bit apps just 3
on
25 Years of IBM's OS/2
·
· Score: 1
First line needs to be a comment so cmd.exe knows to pass it off to the REXX interpreter.
So would it start something like this?
/* rexx code */
say certainly/* i'll give it my best shot... */
Thank you kindly for the correction, by the way. Much appreciated!
Re:os/2 was not able to windows 32 bit apps just 3
on
25 Years of IBM's OS/2
·
· Score: 5, Funny
say certainly/* "i'll give it my best shot" */
parse upper pull obvious_joke/* retrieve next obvious joke */
do while (obvious_joke)/* as long as we've got jokes */
select
when (grammar_error)
say requote_with_satirical_comments_added/* need to fill in details here... */
when (recursion_mentioned)
do
NOP/* need to study more SICP to tell this type of joke; try to read SICP, then reread thread */
end
otherwise
if modpoints
say mod_up_insightful/* well done! */
else
say wish_i_had_modpoints/* but good job! somebody with modpoints get in on this */
end
parse upper pull obvious_joke/* get the next joke if there is one! */
end/* done with the post! */
/* thanks JD, that was a lot of fun */
Re:os/2 was not able to windows 32 bit apps just 3
on
25 Years of IBM's OS/2
·
· Score: 5, Funny
10 I
20 REM FIXED CAPITALIZATION
30 might have a valid point in there somewhere - but
40 REM EXTRA COMMA REMOVED
50 sadly, our grammar and punctuation were so poor that it is lost.
60 REM PERIOD ADDED
70 Congratulations,
80 REM FIXED CAPITALIZATION
90 my written english is even less readable than INTERCAL!
100 COMEFROM: 10
110 Fixed that for you.
120 And congratulations on learning INTERCAL, I'm still stuck in BASIC dialects.
130 SYSTEM
A mod point, a mod point, a kingdom for a mod point!
Thank you for pointing out the important distinction that this request was for *sales* staff purchases with company funds. There's no indication in the summary that other divisions were affected by this request. Here's to you get to +5 Insightful quick!
I think that the anon above may have wanted to link this story address rather than the response to the story which was linked above (though that was also interesting).
Thanks much at any rate for bringing our attention to the New Yorker; their writing is pretty well rounded, and the 14 page article is a bit longer than the other news treatments I've seen about the situation.
You, sir/madame/or other, made my day. If I had mod points, or extra automobiles, I would bestow them, but as I do not have either, I may only provide my thanks in words.
Thank you.
Re:The response of 99.9% of humanity:
on
GitHub Hacked
·
· Score: 5, Funny
(I realize vncplay doesn't record the entire screencast; recommendations on open source vnc session software that does it better would be appreciated if obvious.)
Either way, you could force the students to install VNC in their machines, then get a package like VNCplay to record all the test taking sessions. http://suif.stanford.edu/vncplay/freenix05-html/ Advise the students that all the screen sessions are being recorded, and enjoy watching them cheat with their smartphones instead.
Or you could have the students work on their computers to solve the test, and walk around the room. Anyone you dislike is excused and gets to (re)take the same test on the next class period (instead of having the day off), only with no electronics allowed. Since they saw it already, they should be responsible for memorizing all of the necessary equations. In the "same" test, you change a few numbers so any memorized answers will be wrong. No partial credit.
There are people who read your messages-- and it always warms my heart to hear from you. Thanks for taking the time to chime in with such a nice, warmhearted message.
(I'd also like to thank Rockbox for being awesome. I used it on an iRiver I had which worked great... until I knocked it off my desk while it was playing. Maybe I can replace the internal drive with something else and revive it!)
Downloaders do not matter to the issue at hands. UPLOADERS do.
Thanks very much for pointing that out. I believe the distinction had gotten lost in the shuffle! I'll try to call attention to your comment in my future replies, and provide you with proper credit for "raising your hand first."
If you'd like to run a more extensive, scientifically controlled poll, please do. I'd love to see the results.
To respond to your allegation that there would be a reporting bias, I agree that, at first, that sounds like a good argument. However, this particular site is more technically minded users, and even the least paranoid is likely (on this cultured site) quite aware of proxies and Tor and can sufficiently obscure their identity to their own satisfaction if they wished to step up and take part. I therefore believe anyone who supports the statement above, that 99% of uploaders do not, to wit "have their papers in order," would be quite able to comment as Anonymous participants while doing so. I'm checking all the posts down to -1 in this thread to make sure I haven't overlooked any in this category.
Another commentor above noted that the poll really should only consider -uploading- users, which I've integrated into the below comment. The same is true enough considering downloading as well, if you'd prefer to stay in your different, new topic, with the stats quoted in your parent comment.
So far (taking into account everyone who has mentioned uploading) those who have commented individually number two: myself and one of Anonymous, and we both uploaded media to which we owned the copyrights and/or were licensed. I would be delighted to hear from (anonymously would be fine) another 198 people who opine that they have uploaded improperly licensed materials, and then be quite glad to agree with the great-great grandparent's statement.
(I'm participating myself for purely selfish reasons, you see. I'd like to know what's really going on, rather than repeating this or that slogan without swelling my own personal level of understanding.)
I'm afraid I do not understand you deeply enough to reply to your comment in an insightful way.
If it's not too much trouble, and you'd like to continue our discussion, would you please provide an specific example or two of uses which you're referring to in a general way so I could better follow what you mean?
I feel I'm on the cusp of grasping what you're saying, but falling slightly short due to the omission. Thank you (quite a bit!) in advance.
Thanks very much for your comment, Anon. (It's always nice to hear from someone who knows how to write coherent sentences that are on topic.)
I noted that your response fits into my little grassroots poll, started above in a different branch of this subtree.
Including your post, we've had four people who have stated they use MediaFire, one who states a belief they may have downloaded infringing content (though they have not confirmed that this is the case), and three (including myself, and you, and the poster who claimed to download infringing content) who have stated that they use Mediafire for non-infringing purposes.
Further, another anon above noted that he, she, or it observed a lot of non-infringing use (though this is under debate in that subthread).
This seems to be somewhat far from the 99% infringing to 1% non-infringing use that the grandparent suggested, and closer to 25% (believed infringing) vs 75% non-infringing. The more submissions, the merrier, of course.
I agree with your analysis, presuming infringement is occuring in the case of this type of photography, and feel frustration myself in this conglomeration of laws which appear to be setting up a nonproductive situation with citizens are being placed in an untenable position.
I do have one concern, though, which I would like you to address, if you would. When discussing these admittedly mundane activities, I am having trouble seeing that any infringement has occurred at all under the law, given the way that the pictures and data are being used. I can find plenty of examples of the contrary: For example, there are many photographs of sculptures and artwork on Wikipedia which are of a small resolution (similar to cell phones), and have been vetted to be non-infringing fair use for educational purposes.
Therefore, if it's not too much trouble for you, could you please present to me an description of one of our topics of discussion (cell phone pictures of sculptures) which is, in fact, an infringing use that does not fall under a fair use exception? Or, if not those, something related which we could include from COM:DW's list of examples? I would very much like to know of one, because I was unable to find one myself. Whether this is because of my limited imagination, or the lack of an example, I sadly cannot say.
Looking forwards to hearing your thoughts, and about that example! (Of course, if anyone else would like to chime in, I'd love to hear from you as well.)
I believe a lot of these cases are covered by fair use, though of course the particulars would be for the courts to decide.
I'd like to discuss this further with you, if you'd care to provide specific examples and your reasoning for why the cell phone pictures you have selected as examples are infringing.
A momentary visit to "Google," as suggested in your signature, provided me with the following discussion http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1158 which discusses one example where an image taken with high quality equipment and turned into a postage stamp which was then sold to collect $17 million dollars was found to be infringing.
I'm not sure how many cell phone pictures gross $17 million dollars in profits from being posted on MediaFire, but if you know of one I'd be delighted to have you describe it and provide references.
Are you confident that in -every- case you considered infringing the content was not authorized by the copyright holder? Sometimes it is difficult to say from the downloading side of things; I recall that some of Trent Reznor's fans got approached by his previous record company for leaks which he personally authorized (to promote Year Zero? If you're interested I can look for some references for you).
I'd like to chime in here that I use MediaFire to distribute musical compositions which I hold the copyrights to collaborators and fans. I'll concede that I may be considered as "indie and amateur stuff."
Prior to supporting your quote, however, I'd like to see 99 people follow this post with replies advising that they use MediaFire only to distribute "copyright infringing content," a term which would not include anything falling under fair use provisions.
Any99 mind stepping up to support the parent's position?
I think that the parent was including the price of the ipad in the "total cost."
Raspberry Pi looks pretty cool though, I'm glad that launch is coming so soon.
What if the camera hovers 20m above the street and stares into someone's sleeping quarters rather than at the ceiling, as one could view from a normal 1-2m height from the street?
Or if it sits in the air above a property and takes pictures from there?
Does an expert on air traffic have information on how far from the ground vehicles need to be before they're considered "in public space?"
Slashdot Mirror
First line needs to be a comment so cmd.exe knows to pass it off to the REXX interpreter.
So would it start something like this?
say certainly
Thank you kindly for the correction, by the way. Much appreciated!
say certainly /* "i'll give it my best shot" */
/* retrieve next obvious joke */
/* as long as we've got jokes */
/* need to fill in details here... */
/* need to study more SICP to tell this type of joke; try to read SICP, then reread thread */
/* well done! */
/* but good job! somebody with modpoints get in on this */
/* get the next joke if there is one! */
/* done with the post! */
parse upper pull obvious_joke
do while (obvious_joke)
select
when (grammar_error)
say requote_with_satirical_comments_added
when (recursion_mentioned)
do
NOP
end
otherwise
if modpoints
say mod_up_insightful
else
say wish_i_had_modpoints
end
parse upper pull obvious_joke
end
/* thanks JD, that was a lot of fun */
10 I
20 REM FIXED CAPITALIZATION
30 might have a valid point in there somewhere - but
40 REM EXTRA COMMA REMOVED
50 sadly, our grammar and punctuation were so poor that it is lost.
60 REM PERIOD ADDED
70 Congratulations,
80 REM FIXED CAPITALIZATION
90 my written english is even less readable than INTERCAL!
100 COMEFROM: 10
110 Fixed that for you.
120 And congratulations on learning INTERCAL, I'm still stuck in BASIC dialects.
130 SYSTEM
A mod point, a mod point, a kingdom for a mod point!
Thank you for pointing out the important distinction that this request was for *sales* staff purchases with company funds. There's no indication in the summary that other divisions were affected by this request. Here's to you get to +5 Insightful quick!
I think that the anon above may have wanted to link this story address rather than the response to the story which was linked above (though that was also interesting).
Thanks much at any rate for bringing our attention to the New Yorker; their writing is pretty well rounded, and the 14 page article is a bit longer than the other news treatments I've seen about the situation.
Maybe you'll get thrown into one of the FEMA death camps so no one has to suffer your posts anymore.
FEMA would be happy to have you do some training so, in the event of an emergency, you'll be prepared to assist more effectively.
Be Informed! Make a plan! Build a kit! Get involved!
Yeah. No Valhalla for you.
You, sir/madame/or other, made my day. If I had mod points, or extra automobiles, I would bestow them, but as I do not have either, I may only provide my thanks in words.
Thank you.
This is Slashdot, the 99.9% doesn't come here
Slashdot, home of the 0.1%.
(I realize vncplay doesn't record the entire screencast; recommendations on open source vnc session software that does it better would be appreciated if obvious.)
Or you could have the students work on their computers to solve the test, and walk around the room. Anyone you dislike is excused and gets to (re)take the same test on the next class period (instead of having the day off), only with no electronics allowed. Since they saw it already, they should be responsible for memorizing all of the necessary equations. In the "same" test, you change a few numbers so any memorized answers will be wrong. No partial credit.
There are people who read your messages-- and it always warms my heart to hear from you. Thanks for taking the time to chime in with such a nice, warmhearted message.
(I'd also like to thank Rockbox for being awesome. I used it on an iRiver I had which worked great ... until I knocked it off my desk while it was playing. Maybe I can replace the internal drive with something else and revive it!)
Downloaders do not matter to the issue at hands. UPLOADERS do.
Thanks very much for pointing that out. I believe the distinction had gotten lost in the shuffle! I'll try to call attention to your comment in my future replies, and provide you with proper credit for "raising your hand first."
-5117
If you'd like to run a more extensive, scientifically controlled poll, please do. I'd love to see the results.
To respond to your allegation that there would be a reporting bias, I agree that, at first, that sounds like a good argument. However, this particular site is more technically minded users, and even the least paranoid is likely (on this cultured site) quite aware of proxies and Tor and can sufficiently obscure their identity to their own satisfaction if they wished to step up and take part. I therefore believe anyone who supports the statement above, that 99% of uploaders do not, to wit "have their papers in order," would be quite able to comment as Anonymous participants while doing so. I'm checking all the posts down to -1 in this thread to make sure I haven't overlooked any in this category.
Another commentor above noted that the poll really should only consider -uploading- users, which I've integrated into the below comment. The same is true enough considering downloading as well, if you'd prefer to stay in your different, new topic, with the stats quoted in your parent comment.
So far (taking into account everyone who has mentioned uploading) those who have commented individually number two: myself and one of Anonymous, and we both uploaded media to which we owned the copyrights and/or were licensed. I would be delighted to hear from (anonymously would be fine) another 198 people who opine that they have uploaded improperly licensed materials, and then be quite glad to agree with the great-great grandparent's statement.
(I'm participating myself for purely selfish reasons, you see. I'd like to know what's really going on, rather than repeating this or that slogan without swelling my own personal level of understanding.)
-5117
Aha!
Thank you very much for these examples.
I will peruse, and then probably be able to reply above (my apologies for overlooking your comment down here while up there).
-5117
I'm afraid I do not understand you deeply enough to reply to your comment in an insightful way.
If it's not too much trouble, and you'd like to continue our discussion, would you please provide an specific example or two of uses which you're referring to in a general way so I could better follow what you mean?
I feel I'm on the cusp of grasping what you're saying, but falling slightly short due to the omission. Thank you (quite a bit!) in advance.
Thanks very much for your comment, Anon. (It's always nice to hear from someone who knows how to write coherent sentences that are on topic.)
I noted that your response fits into my little grassroots poll, started above in a different branch of this subtree.
Including your post, we've had four people who have stated they use MediaFire, one who states a belief they may have downloaded infringing content (though they have not confirmed that this is the case), and three (including myself, and you, and the poster who claimed to download infringing content) who have stated that they use Mediafire for non-infringing purposes.
Further, another anon above noted that he, she, or it observed a lot of non-infringing use (though this is under debate in that subthread).
This seems to be somewhat far from the 99% infringing to 1% non-infringing use that the grandparent suggested, and closer to 25% (believed infringing) vs 75% non-infringing. The more submissions, the merrier, of course.
Thank you again for participating!
5117
I agree with your analysis, presuming infringement is occuring in the case of this type of photography, and feel frustration myself in this conglomeration of laws which appear to be setting up a nonproductive situation with citizens are being placed in an untenable position.
I do have one concern, though, which I would like you to address, if you would. When discussing these admittedly mundane activities, I am having trouble seeing that any infringement has occurred at all under the law, given the way that the pictures and data are being used. I can find plenty of examples of the contrary: For example, there are many photographs of sculptures and artwork on Wikipedia which are of a small resolution (similar to cell phones), and have been vetted to be non-infringing fair use for educational purposes.
Therefore, if it's not too much trouble for you, could you please present to me an description of one of our topics of discussion (cell phone pictures of sculptures) which is, in fact, an infringing use that does not fall under a fair use exception? Or, if not those, something related which we could include from COM:DW's list of examples? I would very much like to know of one, because I was unable to find one myself. Whether this is because of my limited imagination, or the lack of an example, I sadly cannot say.
Looking forwards to hearing your thoughts, and about that example! (Of course, if anyone else would like to chime in, I'd love to hear from you as well.)
-5117
I believe a lot of these cases are covered by fair use, though of course the particulars would be for the courts to decide.
I'd like to discuss this further with you, if you'd care to provide specific examples and your reasoning for why the cell phone pictures you have selected as examples are infringing.
A momentary visit to "Google," as suggested in your signature, provided me with the following discussion http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1158 which discusses one example where an image taken with high quality equipment and turned into a postage stamp which was then sold to collect $17 million dollars was found to be infringing.
I'm not sure how many cell phone pictures gross $17 million dollars in profits from being posted on MediaFire, but if you know of one I'd be delighted to have you describe it and provide references.
Very cool. And thanks for chiming in.
Are you confident that in -every- case you considered infringing the content was not authorized by the copyright holder? Sometimes it is difficult to say from the downloading side of things; I recall that some of Trent Reznor's fans got approached by his previous record company for leaks which he personally authorized (to promote Year Zero? If you're interested I can look for some references for you).
I'd like to chime in here that I use MediaFire to distribute musical compositions which I hold the copyrights to collaborators and fans. I'll concede that I may be considered as "indie and amateur stuff."
Prior to supporting your quote, however, I'd like to see 99 people follow this post with replies advising that they use MediaFire only to distribute "copyright infringing content," a term which would not include anything falling under fair use provisions.
Any99 mind stepping up to support the parent's position?
I think that the parent was including the price of the ipad in the "total cost." Raspberry Pi looks pretty cool though, I'm glad that launch is coming so soon.
What if the camera hovers 20m above the street and stares into someone's sleeping quarters rather than at the ceiling, as one could view from a normal 1-2m height from the street? Or if it sits in the air above a property and takes pictures from there? Does an expert on air traffic have information on how far from the ground vehicles need to be before they're considered "in public space?"