As my mom would would tell me, even when I was as young six: "Dictionary is on the shelf. Same place it's always been."
You realize that MS not releasing their format is what causes the problems you are having, right?
No shit. I even said that. The big fucking deal is that it's not the user's fault. If you say you're compatable, then be compatable. Halfway isn't good enough. It never was, and it never will be. Especially when the most trivial documents can't even be imported correctly.
Why should MS own the data you created with their product (that you paid for)? When they hide formats that is what they are trying to do.
You're playing the old open source saw of "blame the user." The user isn't at fault, when your application doesn't work as designed and advertised. It's yours. OOo says they are compatable. They aren't. Or more precisely, by attempting to be compatable, all the short comings are highlighted, making it less worthwhile to use.
You go on to implicitly argue that if the user would just go with all the OOo native formats then there wouldn't be any problems. You're wrong. You're just trading the existing problems for a whole new set of problems, that are in fact worse. For you see, the user would now be completely cut off from the MSO user network, instead of poking at the fringe of the network.
Why are you so hostile when all someone wants to do is create a free office suite?
I'm not hostile to creating an open source office suite. I'm hostile to the meme that OOo is somehow equivalent to MSO in all respects. It's not, and it never has been. It's not even a good replacement, from a compatability view or from a usability view. Maybe someday. But it's not now, and that's the meme that's repeated way too often here.
Just because NeoOffice is being upfront about their bugs, doesn't mean that has just a few bugs as MS Office.
Look, the components of Office have been around for more than 15 years. During that time they've been tested, rewritten, and tested some more. OpenOffice and NeoOffice just haven't been around that long to generate that stable of base. More importantly, MS does extensive user testing for all their products. OpenOffice doesn't, and consequently the bugs you see aren't things that cause crashes, but interface problems. Things are just too hard in OpenOffice. Then you have all the compatability bugs when opening MS Office documents. (I always have kerning problems when opening powerpoint.) Yeah yeah, "M$ doesn't release their format!" Big fucking deal. Deal with it jackass, and deal with the fact that when it comes to certain things, if it's not 100% correct, it's wrong. That's just the nature of the problem. You can whine that I'm being too hard, but that's just the cold reality of the situation.
Open/NeoOffice doesn't even have all the features found in MS Office, so I don't know why I would bother. Namely, MS has a grammar checker, and Open/Neo/Star doesn't. And forget that talk of the MS Upgrade Treadmill. You haven't had to upgrade since like Office 95 or Office 97. The format has remained the same.
Finally, this talk about MS Office is "stagnant" is absurd. Really? How much more innovation can you really have in a word processor? You set paper size and margins. You set font styles. You insert graphics. That's pretty much it. Everything else is essentially wizards.
Map-Reduce is useful, but it's an incredibly simple archictecture that only works for the most trivially parallelizable problems. Which isn't surprising given the problem domain it was designed for.
You know, I hear that comment a lot about dubbed anime; but frankly, most of the time it's just people being snotty. I've yet to see any anime that was "ruined" by the english voice actors. On the other hand, I find the fact that the Japanese never bother to match the sounds with the mouths very distracting.
Don't even try to make the comparison to watching a subtitled vs dubbed live action movie. In live action, the actor is doing the complete performance. In animation, the animator is doing at least half of it. The voice actor just has to deliver the lines. Also, dubbed live action is distracting because the audio doesn't match the video.
Ahh, but Clone Wars didn't have Lucas involved on a day-to-day basis. He didn't write it (thank the maker!;) ) or direct it. It took Genndy Tartakovsky to show that Star Wars could be cool again, and he did. Clone Wars was great. While I fully expect Lucas to fuck up Star Wars, I have enough faith that pretty much anyone can come up with something better than Lucas. He just fucked up the prequels, so much that the series isn't even internally consistent. (Yeah, there's some fanboy will argue that it is internally consistent, from a certain point of view, but that's crap. It requires you to reject everything the community believed for over 20 years, for that to be true.)
[Tithing] is not so hard to understand. It's about supporting an institution financially.
Bingo. It's about an organization trying to get it's cut from the hardwork and reward of someone else. The whole idea that it's given "with cheerful heart" is absurd when you consider the lifelong indoctrination and social pressure to give.
Religious heirarchies the world over always make sure that they're at the top of the social order. There's no more higher calling than them. Now support us materialistically.
This is another ridiculous statement in troll-like behaviour. It does not say in the new testament that God will curse you for not worshipping Him.
You go to hell, if you don't worship god. That's a curse. Anyway, there's two parts to my statement. If your pray, good things happen to you. Do you deny that God helps those that ask for his help, and so those that ask for his help are more successful than those who don't?
Good things happen to evil people. Look at Hitler, he had great success in war. He would consider that a good thing to happen. This doesn't mean God did it for him.
Epicurus had it right, when he said, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
How do you reconcile that position with "Remember the Sabaath and keep it holy" and "Have no other gods before me?" The god of the Old Testament is a petty, vindictive, son of a bitch.
While the idea that worship is the "natual state" may be the initial motivation, but it's lost in vast majority of the Bible and the actions of the assorted churches. It all about making sure you show up at least once a week (twice a week for some denominations). Making sure you give at least 10%, otherwise you don't love baby Jesus enough. If you don't worship, bad things will happen to you, or at least good things won't happen to you.
You obviously don't know how censorship works. Sure there's the obvious book burning censorship, but then there's the more subtle kind. The kind that's motivated from access and financial motivations. "If you don't kill the story, we'll take our 10 million dollar advertising contract to your largest competitor." "If you don't paint this story in light favorable to us, you'll never have access to us again."
That's censorship. If you don't think these things happen, you're incredibly naive. Sure, it's comforting to think that there's only one form of censorship, but that's simply not the case.
Current.TV is a television channel. I know it's available via DirecTV, but there's probably other outlets for it as well. The concept is to allow people to create short documentaries about subjects they feel are important. These short docs are then run on the channel when they get enough votes on line. If you consistently produce good material, Current.TV will give you a contract to produce more material. If it's YouTube, then it's YouTube for people with actual talent, equipment, and something actually interesting to say. Seriously. When was the last time you saw something like this?
BTW a good number of HPC tools and applications are still written in FORTRAN.
Only the apps written by physicists. If the physics community ask for help from the HPC research community, then that's not the case. Seriously though, it would be a shame if the new guard of physicists kepts using the same tools as the the old guard who learned to code on PDP-11s.
Well in the pendaanic sense it does, but as you said right of execution is implied and through the affirmative action of distributing the code in a manner that it would be immediately and automaticly executed.
I remember reading that many astrologers estimate that just a half a degree either way and we'd have much larger ice caps or a band of uninhabitable desert.
What am I allowed to do with your perl code then? Where do you specify that?
You may run it. That's it. You have no other rights. I do not have specify that you have no other rights, since this is default position under the law. No other rights were explcitly granted, and no other rights may be infered. The right of execution can be reasonably infered, if it's not explcitly granted, because why would someone purchase a piece of software if they may not execute it? Collectors' value? I don't think so.
Where is it specified what I'm allowed to do with a piece of JavaScript stored on a publicly accessible HTTP server? At what point am I in violation of any inferred license? When I tune about:config to make the script less obnoxious? Running NoScript?
Legally, you must default to believing that the entire work is owned by the person/group running the website, and that they have full rights to their work and that you have none. They may grant you additional rights, but it's only prudent to take the most conservative posture when approaching a new work.
In your examples, you're not violating the copyright of the script, because you're not modifying the script itself. You're modifying the environment that the script executes in. The script owner has no rights over the execution environment. That is your domain. While you may not go through the code and remove all calls to "alert()", since that's modifying the code, you can simply disable the alert() call so that it doesn't actually do anything. The end effect is the same, alert boxes don't display, but technically, and, more importantly, legally they are distinctly different.
I'll grant you the redistribution aspect, because Copyright protects that, but Copyright doesn't say I can't add words to my copy of Alice in Wonderland.
Alice in Wonderland is in the public domain. You can do anything you want to it.
I suspect that you were actually trying to pick a famous work that is still under copyright protection for your point. So let's assume that you want to add words to your copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
In this case it matters what the nature of the addition is. If you're simply writing "Trillian is teh hotness" in the margins, then that's fine. You're not modifying the work (i.e. the story) but rather the presentation (i.e. the physical book). "Trillian is teh hotness" would be your intellectual property, since you created it. Additionally, in the United States at least, it is automatically copyrighted to you upon its creation. You do not have to register this copyright at the US Copyright Office to enjoy protection of this work under the law. However, failure to register copyright may prevent you from receiving restitution if your copyright on "Trillian is teh hotness" is infringed. (i.e. You can sue to cease and desist the person making "Trillian is teh hotness" t-shirts, but you can't sue for money. (The money from the t-shirt sales probably would be forfitted to the government's general fund, but I don't know.)) Furthermore, you can even quote a small portion of the HGTTG as evidence of Trillian's "hotness." This is protected under fair use, since 1) it's a small amount, and 2) it's for commentary on an existing work.
Now, if you say changed Ford Prefect's name to "Ford Escort," you'd be violating the copyright. You have created a derivitive work, and that is explicitly forbidden under copyright law. Now, I'll grant you that if you're just marking up your own paperback copy of the book, no one will notice, and no one will care, but as a matter of law, you've commited a criminal act. The moment you attempt to distribute "Bill McGonigle's Edition" of HTTG, you've violated copyright three times. Once because you've created a derivative work without permission. Second, you're distributing a copyrighted work without permission. Third, you've created a "confusingly similar" work, which is
"Open source" means you have the right to redistrubute the original work, or make derivitive works from the the original and redistribute those. "Free software" is open source software with the additional restriction that you must distribute the source code of any derivitive work made from similarly licensed work.
However, merely possessing, the source code, does not make it open source. It never has, and it never will.
I can make (and actually have made) proprietary Perl scripts. I simply tag them "Copyright 2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." In order to run this code, you must have the source code. (Yeah I could obfuscate it, but let's say I didn't.) While you may have the source code, you are not allowed to redistrbute it, you are not allowed to make derivative works from it (i.e. hack it), and you can not copy portions of it into your own work (another kind of derivative work). Practically speaking, you could, but legally you are not allowed to. And if I found out that you did, I could bring a whole world of legal hurt down upon you.
Since the beginning of UNIX, source code was the prefered distribution method of all software, open and closed. The reason was that each environment was so different, it was simply impossible to distribute binaries for every permutation, so you just sent the source code and compiled it. Open source was just removing the artifical barriers to what many were already doing.
Anyway copyright is on the software itself, not the specific form it takes, source or binary. It's just a like a book. The story is what is copyrighted, not the fact that it's the story packaged in 6" x 7" pages filled with 10 point Times.
Of course, Germany couldn't cast a veto, since they aren't a permanent member. France and Russia are permament members, and thus get a veto. Nuclear weapons have nothing to do with it, as Pakistan was on the 2003 UN Security Council, and didn't have a veto. Instead, it's all about who won World War II.
The real intersting lesson we learned about the UN Security Council showdown was that the US resolution to authorize the invasion of Iraq would have been defeated, even without a veto. Remember, that prior to the war, the Bush administration went to the UN trying to get authorization for the war. When it looked like that they would fail, they began to use their legal mojo and make the bold assertion that UN had actually authorized the war some 12 years earlier! Let's also rememeber, that the Bush administration was the only group that backed that assertion, and the fact that they tried to go to the UN in 2003 betrays the fact that they didn't actually believe that assertion either. Anyway... So the Adminstration is cajoled into going to the UN because Blair would really like authorization.
US: yes UK: yes France: no Germany: no Russia: no China: no Bulgaria: yes Angola: leaning no Camaroon: leaning no Chile: leaning no Guinea: leaning no Mexico: leaning yes, but immediately criticized the war Pakistan: no Syria: no Spain: yes
So putting it to a straight vote: 5 for invasion, 10 against, the war would have failed to gain authorization.
Now leading up to the vote, there was a position taking by some in the adminstration, similar to how you've painted the situation. They argued that the US should put the resolution up to a vote, win on the vote count and let Russia and France veto it. Then turnaround and say that France and Russia vetoed the resolution only because of their own self-interest, and that "responsible" members of the world are with the US.
Now this didn't happen, because at the last minute, the US withdrew the resolution authorizing the invasion from consideration. The reason is, that counted up the votes, and realized they weren't going to get a majority of the votes, let alone the 9 votes required for a resolution to pass.
Of course the whole ironic part of the lead up to the invasion that it was the Bush administration saying that they had defend the UN. The UN had to be strong, and forceful, and show they had teeth. This is ironic, because this adminstration is made up of people with nothing but contempt for the UN, some going as far to call for its abolisment. So to say they concern for the UN was a motivation, is -- and was at the time even -- laughably absurd.
My parents have an XM radio. It came installed in their Bonneville. My dad listens to "Hank's Place," which is old skool country, and my mom listens to *shudder* "Sunny," which plays what is ironically known as "beautiful music."
I also have cousin that got an XM radio specificly for Opie and Anthony. Even had the bumper sticker. No idea if he still has subscription.
Sure streaming is fine for viewing things in a one off way, but there's sometimes I want to save the video. Streaming sites, don't let you do this. Sure, I can use something like VideoDownloader for Firefox, but that only works for a handful of sites, and really, I shouldn't have to. Easy downloading the FLV instead of the MOV or MPG would be fine. I don't want to have my videos on unstable remote storage damn it.
And it's completely irrelevant, since every USA is fired with the chaning of every adminstration. This is about targetting specific USAs that refused to use their positions of partisian purposes. Seriously. Do you know anything about the Iglassias firing? That's the most damning one of all.
5. No mater what any breathless, emptyheaded DNC staffer or MSM stooge says, their cannot be a crime here. Period, over and out.
Funny. I thought it was I thought it was the mafia. Or was it the KGB? Or was it the Cubans? Or was it the Exiled Cubans? Or was it the Military Industrial Complex as Oliver Stone implied?
Seriously. Have you ever actually read the Warren Commission Report?
The purpose of a DTD is to define what the legal/agreed format of the data is, Not what format the data is actually in.
Huh?
A DTD is a computer readable formal spec of a document structure. Why it needs to be computer readable is beyond me. All it does is allow for pendanic software, which really isn't desirable quality, except in a lint tool.
Practically speaking, the easiest way to spec an XML document is simply to construct an example document using every bell and whistle available in the system.
You can't deduce the DTD from the XML itself as the XML may be illegally/incorrectly formatted or otherwise corrupted.
You are simply, utterly, and completely wrong.
Malformed and and invalid XML can handled through simple regexps. How do you think HTML has been handled since day 1? You can even correct the XML prior sending it to true parser if you want, but you don't have to.
Furthermore, the literature is full of techniques to infer DTDs from example XML documents. It's a standard problem and there's a standard solution.
Also the XML file you create the DTD from my not happen to use all the legal variations of allowed formats, therefore you won't get a complete DTD anyway.
True, but you just keep sampling documents until you get a good enough DTD.
Say you're sampling XHTML documents. Does it really matter if you don't find the "loz" entity? Of course not. No one uses it. If it was relevant, and you had a representiitive sample, you would have seen it. Constructing the true DTD isn't necessary. You only need the parts you actually use. Even if you do come across something you missed, you simply throw a warning and ignore it. It's called failing gracefully. That's what you're supposed to do anyway; not only in the XML world, but the engineering world in general.
Slashdot Mirror
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/30/205022 4
What are kerning problems?
As my mom would would tell me, even when I was as young six: "Dictionary is on the shelf. Same place it's always been."
You realize that MS not releasing their format is what causes the problems you are having, right?
No shit. I even said that. The big fucking deal is that it's not the user's fault. If you say you're compatable, then be compatable. Halfway isn't good enough. It never was, and it never will be. Especially when the most trivial documents can't even be imported correctly.
Why should MS own the data you created with their product (that you paid for)? When they hide formats that is what they are trying to do.
You're playing the old open source saw of "blame the user." The user isn't at fault, when your application doesn't work as designed and advertised. It's yours. OOo says they are compatable. They aren't. Or more precisely, by attempting to be compatable, all the short comings are highlighted, making it less worthwhile to use.
You go on to implicitly argue that if the user would just go with all the OOo native formats then there wouldn't be any problems. You're wrong. You're just trading the existing problems for a whole new set of problems, that are in fact worse. For you see, the user would now be completely cut off from the MSO user network, instead of poking at the fringe of the network.
It's classic economics. Perhaps you can take that next year when you enroll in college.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
Why are you so hostile when all someone wants to do is create a free office suite?
I'm not hostile to creating an open source office suite. I'm hostile to the meme that OOo is somehow equivalent to MSO in all respects. It's not, and it never has been. It's not even a good replacement, from a compatability view or from a usability view. Maybe someday. But it's not now, and that's the meme that's repeated way too often here.
Just because NeoOffice is being upfront about their bugs, doesn't mean that has just a few bugs as MS Office.
Look, the components of Office have been around for more than 15 years. During that time they've been tested, rewritten, and tested some more. OpenOffice and NeoOffice just haven't been around that long to generate that stable of base. More importantly, MS does extensive user testing for all their products. OpenOffice doesn't, and consequently the bugs you see aren't things that cause crashes, but interface problems. Things are just too hard in OpenOffice. Then you have all the compatability bugs when opening MS Office documents. (I always have kerning problems when opening powerpoint.) Yeah yeah, "M$ doesn't release their format!" Big fucking deal. Deal with it jackass, and deal with the fact that when it comes to certain things, if it's not 100% correct, it's wrong. That's just the nature of the problem. You can whine that I'm being too hard, but that's just the cold reality of the situation.
Open/NeoOffice doesn't even have all the features found in MS Office, so I don't know why I would bother. Namely, MS has a grammar checker, and Open/Neo/Star doesn't. And forget that talk of the MS Upgrade Treadmill. You haven't had to upgrade since like Office 95 or Office 97. The format has remained the same.
Finally, this talk about MS Office is "stagnant" is absurd. Really? How much more innovation can you really have in a word processor? You set paper size and margins. You set font styles. You insert graphics. That's pretty much it. Everything else is essentially wizards.
Map-Reduce is useful, but it's an incredibly simple archictecture that only works for the most trivially parallelizable problems. Which isn't surprising given the problem domain it was designed for.
You know, I hear that comment a lot about dubbed anime; but frankly, most of the time it's just people being snotty. I've yet to see any anime that was "ruined" by the english voice actors. On the other hand, I find the fact that the Japanese never bother to match the sounds with the mouths very distracting.
Don't even try to make the comparison to watching a subtitled vs dubbed live action movie. In live action, the actor is doing the complete performance. In animation, the animator is doing at least half of it. The voice actor just has to deliver the lines. Also, dubbed live action is distracting because the audio doesn't match the video.
I already used that joke!
But if the visuals don't matter, why does the voice?
Ahh, but Clone Wars didn't have Lucas involved on a day-to-day basis. He didn't write it (thank the maker! ;) ) or direct it. It took Genndy Tartakovsky to show that Star Wars could be cool again, and he did. Clone Wars was great. While I fully expect Lucas to fuck up Star Wars, I have enough faith that pretty much anyone can come up with something better than Lucas. He just fucked up the prequels, so much that the series isn't even internally consistent. (Yeah, there's some fanboy will argue that it is internally consistent, from a certain point of view, but that's crap. It requires you to reject everything the community believed for over 20 years, for that to be true.)
[Tithing] is not so hard to understand. It's about supporting an institution financially.
Bingo. It's about an organization trying to get it's cut from the hardwork and reward of someone else. The whole idea that it's given "with cheerful heart" is absurd when you consider the lifelong indoctrination and social pressure to give.
Religious heirarchies the world over always make sure that they're at the top of the social order. There's no more higher calling than them. Now support us materialistically.
This is another ridiculous statement in troll-like behaviour. It does not say in the new testament that God will curse you for not worshipping Him.
You go to hell, if you don't worship god. That's a curse. Anyway, there's two parts to my statement. If your pray, good things happen to you. Do you deny that God helps those that ask for his help, and so those that ask for his help are more successful than those who don't?
Good things happen to evil people. Look at Hitler, he had great success in war. He would consider that a good thing to happen. This doesn't mean God did it for him.
Epicurus had it right, when he said, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
How do you reconcile that position with "Remember the Sabaath and keep it holy" and "Have no other gods before me?" The god of the Old Testament is a petty, vindictive, son of a bitch.
While the idea that worship is the "natual state" may be the initial motivation, but it's lost in vast majority of the Bible and the actions of the assorted churches. It all about making sure you show up at least once a week (twice a week for some denominations). Making sure you give at least 10%, otherwise you don't love baby Jesus enough. If you don't worship, bad things will happen to you, or at least good things won't happen to you.
Please defend the "anti-American" comment. Contrast slashdot with a "pro-American" site.
The whole "x hates America" meme has been used for over 50 years with little justificiation beyond, "X doesn't agree with my reactionary viewpoint."
I've checked your website, and I have to ask, why do you hate America? Because from any objective viewpoint, you hate America. Why is that?
You obviously don't know how censorship works. Sure there's the obvious book burning censorship, but then there's the more subtle kind. The kind that's motivated from access and financial motivations. "If you don't kill the story, we'll take our 10 million dollar advertising contract to your largest competitor." "If you don't paint this story in light favorable to us, you'll never have access to us again."
That's censorship. If you don't think these things happen, you're incredibly naive. Sure, it's comforting to think that there's only one form of censorship, but that's simply not the case.
Wasn't that Bush-Cheney's 2004 slogan?
Current.TV is a television channel. I know it's available via DirecTV, but there's probably other outlets for it as well. The concept is to allow people to create short documentaries about subjects they feel are important. These short docs are then run on the channel when they get enough votes on line. If you consistently produce good material, Current.TV will give you a contract to produce more material. If it's YouTube, then it's YouTube for people with actual talent, equipment, and something actually interesting to say. Seriously. When was the last time you saw something like this?
BTW a good number of HPC tools and applications are still written in FORTRAN.
Only the apps written by physicists. If the physics community ask for help from the HPC research community, then that's not the case. Seriously though, it would be a shame if the new guard of physicists kepts using the same tools as the the old guard who learned to code on PDP-11s.
Well in the pendaanic sense it does, but as you said right of execution is implied and through the affirmative action of distributing the code in a manner that it would be immediately and automaticly executed.
I remember reading that many astrologers estimate that just a half a degree either way and we'd have much larger ice caps or a band of uninhabitable desert.
o my
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astron
What am I allowed to do with your perl code then? Where do you specify that?
You may run it. That's it. You have no other rights. I do not have specify that you have no other rights, since this is default position under the law. No other rights were explcitly granted, and no other rights may be infered. The right of execution can be reasonably infered, if it's not explcitly granted, because why would someone purchase a piece of software if they may not execute it? Collectors' value? I don't think so.
Where is it specified what I'm allowed to do with a piece of JavaScript stored on a publicly accessible HTTP server? At what point am I in violation of any inferred license? When I tune about:config to make the script less obnoxious? Running NoScript?
Legally, you must default to believing that the entire work is owned by the person/group running the website, and that they have full rights to their work and that you have none. They may grant you additional rights, but it's only prudent to take the most conservative posture when approaching a new work.
In your examples, you're not violating the copyright of the script, because you're not modifying the script itself. You're modifying the environment that the script executes in. The script owner has no rights over the execution environment. That is your domain. While you may not go through the code and remove all calls to "alert()", since that's modifying the code, you can simply disable the alert() call so that it doesn't actually do anything. The end effect is the same, alert boxes don't display, but technically, and, more importantly, legally they are distinctly different.
I'll grant you the redistribution aspect, because Copyright protects that, but Copyright doesn't say I can't add words to my copy of Alice in Wonderland.
Alice in Wonderland is in the public domain. You can do anything you want to it.
I suspect that you were actually trying to pick a famous work that is still under copyright protection for your point. So let's assume that you want to add words to your copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
In this case it matters what the nature of the addition is. If you're simply writing "Trillian is teh hotness" in the margins, then that's fine. You're not modifying the work (i.e. the story) but rather the presentation (i.e. the physical book). "Trillian is teh hotness" would be your intellectual property, since you created it. Additionally, in the United States at least, it is automatically copyrighted to you upon its creation. You do not have to register this copyright at the US Copyright Office to enjoy protection of this work under the law. However, failure to register copyright may prevent you from receiving restitution if your copyright on "Trillian is teh hotness" is infringed. (i.e. You can sue to cease and desist the person making "Trillian is teh hotness" t-shirts, but you can't sue for money. (The money from the t-shirt sales probably would be forfitted to the government's general fund, but I don't know.)) Furthermore, you can even quote a small portion of the HGTTG as evidence of Trillian's "hotness." This is protected under fair use, since 1) it's a small amount, and 2) it's for commentary on an existing work.
Now, if you say changed Ford Prefect's name to "Ford Escort," you'd be violating the copyright. You have created a derivitive work, and that is explicitly forbidden under copyright law. Now, I'll grant you that if you're just marking up your own paperback copy of the book, no one will notice, and no one will care, but as a matter of law, you've commited a criminal act. The moment you attempt to distribute "Bill McGonigle's Edition" of HTTG, you've violated copyright three times. Once because you've created a derivative work without permission. Second, you're distributing a copyrighted work without permission. Third, you've created a "confusingly similar" work, which is
Actually, it doesn't.
"Open source" means you have the right to redistrubute the original work, or make derivitive works from the the original and redistribute those. "Free software" is open source software with the additional restriction that you must distribute the source code of any derivitive work made from similarly licensed work.
However, merely possessing, the source code, does not make it open source. It never has, and it never will.
I can make (and actually have made) proprietary Perl scripts. I simply tag them "Copyright 2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." In order to run this code, you must have the source code. (Yeah I could obfuscate it, but let's say I didn't.) While you may have the source code, you are not allowed to redistrbute it, you are not allowed to make derivative works from it (i.e. hack it), and you can not copy portions of it into your own work (another kind of derivative work). Practically speaking, you could, but legally you are not allowed to. And if I found out that you did, I could bring a whole world of legal hurt down upon you.
Since the beginning of UNIX, source code was the prefered distribution method of all software, open and closed. The reason was that each environment was so different, it was simply impossible to distribute binaries for every permutation, so you just sent the source code and compiled it. Open source was just removing the artifical barriers to what many were already doing.
Anyway copyright is on the software itself, not the specific form it takes, source or binary. It's just a like a book. The story is what is copyrighted, not the fact that it's the story packaged in 6" x 7" pages filled with 10 point Times.
Of course, Germany couldn't cast a veto, since they aren't a permanent member. France and Russia are permament members, and thus get a veto. Nuclear weapons have nothing to do with it, as Pakistan was on the 2003 UN Security Council, and didn't have a veto. Instead, it's all about who won World War II.
The real intersting lesson we learned about the UN Security Council showdown was that the US resolution to authorize the invasion of Iraq would have been defeated, even without a veto. Remember, that prior to the war, the Bush administration went to the UN trying to get authorization for the war. When it looked like that they would fail, they began to use their legal mojo and make the bold assertion that UN had actually authorized the war some 12 years earlier! Let's also rememeber, that the Bush administration was the only group that backed that assertion, and the fact that they tried to go to the UN in 2003 betrays the fact that they didn't actually believe that assertion either. Anyway... So the Adminstration is cajoled into going to the UN because Blair would really like authorization.
Powell gives his speech. Prior to voting (now we're talking days or weeks before voting, not minutes), the Security Council members made their positions on authorizing an invasion known:
US: yes
UK: yes
France: no
Germany: no
Russia: no
China: no
Bulgaria: yes
Angola: leaning no
Camaroon: leaning no
Chile: leaning no
Guinea: leaning no
Mexico: leaning yes, but immediately criticized the war
Pakistan: no
Syria: no
Spain: yes
So putting it to a straight vote: 5 for invasion, 10 against, the war would have failed to gain authorization.
Now leading up to the vote, there was a position taking by some in the adminstration, similar to how you've painted the situation. They argued that the US should put the resolution up to a vote, win on the vote count and let Russia and France veto it. Then turnaround and say that France and Russia vetoed the resolution only because of their own self-interest, and that "responsible" members of the world are with the US.
Now this didn't happen, because at the last minute, the US withdrew the resolution authorizing the invasion from consideration. The reason is, that counted up the votes, and realized they weren't going to get a majority of the votes, let alone the 9 votes required for a resolution to pass.
Of course the whole ironic part of the lead up to the invasion that it was the Bush administration saying that they had defend the UN. The UN had to be strong, and forceful, and show they had teeth. This is ironic, because this adminstration is made up of people with nothing but contempt for the UN, some going as far to call for its abolisment. So to say they concern for the UN was a motivation, is -- and was at the time even -- laughably absurd.
My parents have an XM radio. It came installed in their Bonneville. My dad listens to "Hank's Place," which is old skool country, and my mom listens to *shudder* "Sunny," which plays what is ironically known as "beautiful music."
I also have cousin that got an XM radio specificly for Opie and Anthony. Even had the bumper sticker. No idea if he still has subscription.
Sure streaming is fine for viewing things in a one off way, but there's sometimes I want to save the video. Streaming sites, don't let you do this. Sure, I can use something like VideoDownloader for Firefox, but that only works for a handful of sites, and really, I shouldn't have to. Easy downloading the FLV instead of the MOV or MPG would be fine. I don't want to have my videos on unstable remote storage damn it.
3. Clinton Fired all of them to get his guys in.
And it's completely irrelevant, since every USA is fired with the chaning of every adminstration. This is about targetting specific USAs that refused to use their positions of partisian purposes. Seriously. Do you know anything about the Iglassias firing? That's the most damning one of all.
5. No mater what any breathless, emptyheaded DNC staffer or MSM stooge says, their cannot be a crime here. Period, over and out.
Wrong. Gonazles. Lying to congress.
Funny. I thought it was I thought it was the mafia.
Or was it the KGB?
Or was it the Cubans?
Or was it the Exiled Cubans?
Or was it the Military Industrial Complex as Oliver Stone implied?
Seriously. Have you ever actually read the Warren Commission Report?
I doubt it.
The purpose of a DTD is to define what the legal/agreed format of the data is, Not what format the data is actually in.
Huh?
A DTD is a computer readable formal spec of a document structure. Why it needs to be computer readable is beyond me. All it does is allow for pendanic software, which really isn't desirable quality, except in a lint tool.
Practically speaking, the easiest way to spec an XML document is simply to construct an example document using every bell and whistle available in the system.
You can't deduce the DTD from the XML itself as the XML may be illegally/incorrectly formatted or otherwise corrupted.
You are simply, utterly, and completely wrong.
Malformed and and invalid XML can handled through simple regexps. How do you think HTML has been handled since day 1? You can even correct the XML prior sending it to true parser if you want, but you don't have to.
Furthermore, the literature is full of techniques to infer DTDs from example XML documents. It's a standard problem and there's a standard solution.
Also the XML file you create the DTD from my not happen to use all the legal variations of allowed formats, therefore you won't get a complete DTD anyway.
True, but you just keep sampling documents until you get a good enough DTD.
Say you're sampling XHTML documents. Does it really matter if you don't find the "loz" entity? Of course not. No one uses it. If it was relevant, and you had a representiitive sample, you would have seen it. Constructing the true DTD isn't necessary. You only need the parts you actually use. Even if you do come across something you missed, you simply throw a warning and ignore it. It's called failing gracefully. That's what you're supposed to do anyway; not only in the XML world, but the engineering world in general.
DTDs are a complete nonissue.