The real question is whether he got the $150,000 for wilful copyright infringement
You could read the fine article. The "or else" he gave them was that they'd have to take down the music video they'd used it in, losing its huge hit count. In marketing value that would probably have cost them far more than $150,000, and he had the right to demand it. He was being a nice guy by giving them the option to advertise his site on their video instead.
Believe it or not, there was once a time when the internet had no ads, and no ubiquitous surveillance
No, not really. There were ads being posted on Usenet before there even was a WWW. And the fact is that you cannot have the web we have today without it. None of the websites I regularly visit (/. included) could exist without the full-time employees updating them and generating content. The only ways to do that are with paywalls or ads. You flat out cannot do paywalls; they break the entire linking/sharing paradigm the WWW is built on. That leaves ads.
What you are probably remembering is not an "ad-free" web, but rather a period around 1996-97 or so after the previous backlash against gaudy obnoxious ads. The worst offenders before then were based on things like the blink tag and popups. OpenSource browsers started routinely blocking both due to the abuse, and the problem mostly died down for a while. What's made it get bad again lately is the advent of auto-playing movie/flash plugins. Probably the denouement there will be browsers with built-in blocking for such things, at which point advertisers will get half a clue, and then slowly get worse for another decade or so until they get smacked down again.
I've sat and tried to think of anything that advertising actually improves (in my mind at least). About the closest I can seem to get is movie trailers before a movie
Well, you've touched on it right there. Some ads are actually for things I'd like to know about. This is particularly true if its a movie, new Netflix show, or cool new item on a specialty shop I visit like ThinkGeek.
Also, they pay for the content on the website I'm visiting. If I like the site enough, and the ads aren't annoying and/or resource hogs, I don't mind them at all. They are a good thing.
For instance, I have had enough karma for years to turn off the adds on/. I don't do it because I want to support the site. Also, some of the ThnikGeek stuff is pretty cool.
Tell this guy to STFU, read a copy of the K&R book
In what universe is that a good idea? It has been about 20 years since I last encountered a C compiler that used the K&R variety of the language. Even C fans realized early on that version of the language was utterly shitty.
This must be from someone who feels like you haven't lived until you've tracked down a runtime bug due to a routine spec not being available when used, thus silently assumed to be returning int with all parameters int, and then silently casting the float parameters in and out of int accordingly (but treated as float inside the implementation of the routine).
The various versions of ANSI C were created for a reason. They were attempts to bash into some reasonable kind of shape a language that, even its own designers admitted (when asked by the DoD as part of the Tinman effort), was unsuitable for serious software development.
Luckily I remember the good old days, and they were terrible. Having to pull the choke every time you turn off the engine or risk not being able to start it again? No thanks.
All the fun-filled mornings spent with the family pushing your car until it started?
I had to learn all sorts of tricks to start my old '70 Caddy. You couldn't just turn the key; you had to give it some gas. But not too much gas, or you'd flood the carburetor and it wouldn't start that way either. And then once it did start to catch you had to briefly pump the gas pedal a bit more to give it enough fresh gas or it would just die again (the further it was from its last tune-up, the worse this issue was). I also used to keep a gas can with a bit of gas in it in my trunk. Why? So if the car didn't want to start I could go pour some gas into the carburetor directly. And you only got 5 or so tries at it before the battery would start to give out and you'd need a jump. When you turned a car off, you honestly never knew for sure if you'd be able to start it again. That old horror movie trope about having trouble starting the car up in an emergency used to be merely a nod to accuracy.
Brakes on your car suddenly failing for no reason when you're going down the highway? (yes this actually happened to me) No thanks.
That same Caddy once had its brakes fail on me while I was on the interstate passing through Wheeling, West Virginia (think really, really big hills, and big-city traffic). That emergency brake is in there for a reason. I think that car went through 3 brake jobs and 2 transmission replacements in the 5 years I owned it. And those are just the major things. I had parts that don't even exist anymore go bad (the "generator" went bad twice).
Modern cars are way safer and more reliable; it's so silly it's not even a comparison
Seriously. My only real complaint about the reliability of modern cars is that it has gotten so good, car designers have stopped worrying about making their systems accessible for repairs. So when something does go out at 110 thousand miles, it costs a grand in labor to fix the dang thing.
Surely not counting Babbage, or are we to believe he never wrote a single program for the machine he designed?
That is exactly what you are to believe, because it is in fact the case. The machines themselves were never fully built (until modern times), so her programs are the only ones ever written for them. In fact, her programs acted as a "reference implementations" to help specify exactly how the machine operated, so she probably deserves some credit for helping design the machine as well.
Ok, her being a "programmer" is slightly dubious, as no such machine existed. But in computer science terms she layed out the abstract framework for programming.
She also did much of the work in actually laying out specifically how Babbage's machine actually worked, publishing it, and promoting it to help him get funding. Without her, Babbage's ideas would have been mere vaporware. So if the dude gets to hog all the credit for being the "father of computing" for his two (never fully built) engines, then its more than fair to give her credit for writing actual programs for it, which is only a part of what she contributed. She honestly deserves her title more than Babbage does his.
I am curious as to why you classify CE as "hard" and imply CS isn't.
Even worse, nobody is real sure exactly what "Computer Engineering" means. It sort of existed when I was in school back in the 80's, but there was no accreditation for it. So you'd basically be working your tail off for the same degree you could buy for $5 and printing costs from a diploma mill. Even today, if I got a resume from someone with that degree, I'd have no idea what that means and probably feel the need to grill them on what they took and what those classes taught. If you have an accredited CS degree, I'd already know.
I suspect that if sanders gets the Dem nomination, he will find many followers in the rural and suburban white majority that is usually not democrat
This is actually the What's the Matter with Kansas argument. Basically that Democrats sold their (largely white) working-class base down the river to "move to the center" during the Clinton "Third Way" years, so now all those folks have left to vote on is social issues (where they tend to be conservative).
I'm not sure I buy Frank's argument entirely. For one thing he anchors it on the politics in Kansas, which is a really unique state politically. But it is a school of thought, and he could be onto something.
Depends on your version of "a sellout". He started political life as an FDR supporter, then changed his tune when G.E. started paying him to tour the country shilling for them in the 50's. So some might argue that he actually sold out long before he was ever elected.
In My college Computer Science was combined in the Department of Math, Physics and Computer Science. So Computer Science was taught in more of Mathematical and Scientific method.
That's a nifty theory on paper. However, if you got an accredited degree then you had the same set of core courses with pretty much the same material in them I had for my accredited CS degree from an Engineering school. That's what accreditation means.
The only serious difference would have been in the other courses you took. My engineering school also required two semesters each of Chemistry, Physics, and Calculus (from the Engineering School. Not the easier versions the Liberal Arts folks took). Someone who got it from a Math department might instead have had to take more math, but less science. I'm guessing yours was more like mine, but not with the science classes specifically tailored to engineering students like mine were.
Hillary and Republicans, conversely, are in favor of CISA.
This is untrue. Hillary's campaign has not yet released any position on CISA. I suspect you'll find a lot of the Republican "Freedom Caucus" against it too, but I don't have the stomach to check.
She's actually in a bit of a weird position on any pending legislation. As both the "presumptive nominee" (for now) and a Clinton, her coming out against a bill is the one thing that can guarantee its passage in the Republican House. If its mostly a political football bill anyway (eg: The Keystone Pipeline), more's the better for everyone. But if its something that really might do some serious damage to the Republic if passed...
Perhaps its different these days, but when I was studying CS back in the 80's, pretty much every accredited program in the US was either part of its Uni's Math Department, or its Engineering Department.
So perhaps people had trouble making up their minds if it was a kind of Math or of Engineering, but either way it should already have been covered in STEM.
As far as I can tell, you're describing the classic CVS or Subversion small team setup.
That's my impression too. It looks like this list of requirements were thought out by someone who doesn't really understand how modern DVCS works.
__Server_running_locally__ - There's really no such thing as a "server" in Git. You can certainly (and probably will) set up your repositories in a fashion that there is effectively a parent repo everyone pulls from or pushes to on a server somewhere. But that's entirely up to you.
Use windows credentials - You can set up file permissions up on the underlying files any way you want, but I think that's not what you are talking about. This "requirement" seems to again be picturing a single "server" somewhere with a single monolithic tool used to access it.
The entire text of this article was lifted directly from the first linked article, but not attributed to its author Carrier Arnold at Quanta Magazine.
I don't generally want to be the/. stereotype complaining about editing, but this is just flat out unethical. If you are going to post or excerpt the unmodified content of someone else's work, you should at least credit them properly. Unless the "Anonomous Reader" was actually Carrie Arnold, that was not done here.
In each iteration these pathogens got more and more lethal....This explanation came out as a 12 page (The arrow of disease) article by Jared Diamond in 1992 in the Discover magazine. Later it was expanded into a Pulitzer winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel
IIRC, Jared's argument in GG&S was that each iteration became less and less lethal. No only did the humans with better natural protections survive and have offspring, but the disease itself survived better if it didn't kill off all its hosts, so it had evolutionary pressure to be less deadly and more endemic.
No one gives a crap about the gender of the person that wrote the code. When I submit a patch to an open source project, no one asks me about my gender.
And yet your tag here is clearly gendered. I can't recall ever meeting a female named "Bill".
I'm seeing you say that you don't believe people treat women any different when their patches are submitted, and your evidence of this is that you've done it on occasion with ID's that aren't obviously male (in an environment where male is likely considered the default). Why not test this assertion of yours by submitting patches with a female-looking ID for a while? That's really the only way you can assert truthfully that gender isn't an issue. Otherwise you are arguing out of ignorance.
As an aside, she's a blockbot user, so yes, she most definitely
...is getting harassed by people. That's the problem blockbot was designed to solve, and the only thing it is good for. If you aren't getting harassed, there isn't much point to running it.
The thing is, none of that matters if I don't have cable, and TiVO doesn't support the services/service types I want to use. And it will never support everything I can get on my computer and/or Android devices because it is one company's own black box, not a public platform. So the fact of the matter is that I need the streaming to go the other way. TO my TV, not from it.
Its a very good question. We are probably the prototype of a TiVO house. I have 3 hooked up, and 3 more obsolete ones lying around.
Thing is, we're looking at getting rid of cable, and without cable two of my TiVO's are nearly useless, and the newest one is just a Netflix/Youtube/Hulu box. Its Youtube is really inferior too, as it doesn't allow live stream feeds. I have to watch USL soccer matches on my computer instead. It doesn't support lots of the other streaming services, and if the "no live Youtube" is any indication, probably never will.
What's more, why do I need a static TV? My old Samsung pad is superior in about every way, can download any streamer's apps, and I can take the thing with me throughout the house. The only think I really need the TV for is watching shows with more than one person at the same time, and for that purpose I should just be able to send a phone/pad feed to it.
TiVO doesn't support that. So it just doesn't do what I need anymore.
- The USA celebrates violence: You as a culture group are not mature enough to have guns as freely as you do.
This is likely the biggest issue. We are also the only advanced wealthy country that still performs executions. There is just a general cultural attitude in the USA that its perfectly OK to kill another human being if they do something that scares you or ticks you off enough. People trying to do things like restrict gun ownership or stop executions have been making no headway whatsoever for the last 100 years because they are attacking symptoms rather than the disease.
Slashdot Mirror
The real question is whether he got the $150,000 for wilful copyright infringement
You could read the fine article. The "or else" he gave them was that they'd have to take down the music video they'd used it in, losing its huge hit count. In marketing value that would probably have cost them far more than $150,000, and he had the right to demand it. He was being a nice guy by giving them the option to advertise his site on their video instead.
Believe it or not, there was once a time when the internet had no ads, and no ubiquitous surveillance
No, not really. There were ads being posted on Usenet before there even was a WWW. And the fact is that you cannot have the web we have today without it. None of the websites I regularly visit (/. included) could exist without the full-time employees updating them and generating content. The only ways to do that are with paywalls or ads. You flat out cannot do paywalls; they break the entire linking/sharing paradigm the WWW is built on. That leaves ads.
What you are probably remembering is not an "ad-free" web, but rather a period around 1996-97 or so after the previous backlash against gaudy obnoxious ads. The worst offenders before then were based on things like the blink tag and popups. OpenSource browsers started routinely blocking both due to the abuse, and the problem mostly died down for a while. What's made it get bad again lately is the advent of auto-playing movie/flash plugins. Probably the denouement there will be browsers with built-in blocking for such things, at which point advertisers will get half a clue, and then slowly get worse for another decade or so until they get smacked down again.
I've sat and tried to think of anything that advertising actually improves (in my mind at least). About the closest I can seem to get is movie trailers before a movie
Well, you've touched on it right there. Some ads are actually for things I'd like to know about. This is particularly true if its a movie, new Netflix show, or cool new item on a specialty shop I visit like ThinkGeek.
Also, they pay for the content on the website I'm visiting. If I like the site enough, and the ads aren't annoying and/or resource hogs, I don't mind them at all. They are a good thing.
For instance, I have had enough karma for years to turn off the adds on /. I don't do it because I want to support the site. Also, some of the ThnikGeek stuff is pretty cool.
About the two party system...
I've never murdered anyone! I've never had sex with children! Who told you otherwise?
Sheesh. I'm glad they didn't ask him to explain the infield fly rule. I don't think I'm cosmopolitan enough to handle his answer to that one.
Tell this guy to STFU, read a copy of the K&R book
In what universe is that a good idea? It has been about 20 years since I last encountered a C compiler that used the K&R variety of the language. Even C fans realized early on that version of the language was utterly shitty.
This must be from someone who feels like you haven't lived until you've tracked down a runtime bug due to a routine spec not being available when used, thus silently assumed to be returning int with all parameters int, and then silently casting the float parameters in and out of int accordingly (but treated as float inside the implementation of the routine).
The various versions of ANSI C were created for a reason. They were attempts to bash into some reasonable kind of shape a language that, even its own designers admitted (when asked by the DoD as part of the Tinman effort), was unsuitable for serious software development.
C has it's ups and downs but sucking isn't one of its properties.
This is true only in the case where you are writing the code for a vacuum cleaner.
Luckily I remember the good old days, and they were terrible. Having to pull the choke every time you turn off the engine or risk not being able to start it again? No thanks. All the fun-filled mornings spent with the family pushing your car until it started?
I had to learn all sorts of tricks to start my old '70 Caddy. You couldn't just turn the key; you had to give it some gas. But not too much gas, or you'd flood the carburetor and it wouldn't start that way either. And then once it did start to catch you had to briefly pump the gas pedal a bit more to give it enough fresh gas or it would just die again (the further it was from its last tune-up, the worse this issue was). I also used to keep a gas can with a bit of gas in it in my trunk. Why? So if the car didn't want to start I could go pour some gas into the carburetor directly. And you only got 5 or so tries at it before the battery would start to give out and you'd need a jump. When you turned a car off, you honestly never knew for sure if you'd be able to start it again. That old horror movie trope about having trouble starting the car up in an emergency used to be merely a nod to accuracy.
Brakes on your car suddenly failing for no reason when you're going down the highway? (yes this actually happened to me) No thanks.
That same Caddy once had its brakes fail on me while I was on the interstate passing through Wheeling, West Virginia (think really, really big hills, and big-city traffic). That emergency brake is in there for a reason. I think that car went through 3 brake jobs and 2 transmission replacements in the 5 years I owned it. And those are just the major things. I had parts that don't even exist anymore go bad (the "generator" went bad twice).
Modern cars are way safer and more reliable; it's so silly it's not even a comparison
Seriously. My only real complaint about the reliability of modern cars is that it has gotten so good, car designers have stopped worrying about making their systems accessible for repairs. So when something does go out at 110 thousand miles, it costs a grand in labor to fix the dang thing.
Surely not counting Babbage, or are we to believe he never wrote a single program for the machine he designed?
That is exactly what you are to believe, because it is in fact the case. The machines themselves were never fully built (until modern times), so her programs are the only ones ever written for them. In fact, her programs acted as a "reference implementations" to help specify exactly how the machine operated, so she probably deserves some credit for helping design the machine as well.
Ok, her being a "programmer" is slightly dubious, as no such machine existed. But in computer science terms she layed out the abstract framework for programming.
She also did much of the work in actually laying out specifically how Babbage's machine actually worked, publishing it, and promoting it to help him get funding. Without her, Babbage's ideas would have been mere vaporware. So if the dude gets to hog all the credit for being the "father of computing" for his two (never fully built) engines, then its more than fair to give her credit for writing actual programs for it, which is only a part of what she contributed. She honestly deserves her title more than Babbage does his.
...actually though, I suspect by "CE" he meant "Chemical Engineering". If you had 90% of the same courses as a Chemical Engineer, something's weird.
I am curious as to why you classify CE as "hard" and imply CS isn't.
Even worse, nobody is real sure exactly what "Computer Engineering" means. It sort of existed when I was in school back in the 80's, but there was no accreditation for it. So you'd basically be working your tail off for the same degree you could buy for $5 and printing costs from a diploma mill. Even today, if I got a resume from someone with that degree, I'd have no idea what that means and probably feel the need to grill them on what they took and what those classes taught. If you have an accredited CS degree, I'd already know.
I suspect that if sanders gets the Dem nomination, he will find many followers in the rural and suburban white majority that is usually not democrat
This is actually the What's the Matter with Kansas argument. Basically that Democrats sold their (largely white) working-class base down the river to "move to the center" during the Clinton "Third Way" years, so now all those folks have left to vote on is social issues (where they tend to be conservative).
I'm not sure I buy Frank's argument entirely. For one thing he anchors it on the politics in Kansas, which is a really unique state politically. But it is a school of thought, and he could be onto something.
I would say Reagan wasn't a sellout.
Depends on your version of "a sellout". He started political life as an FDR supporter, then changed his tune when G.E. started paying him to tour the country shilling for them in the 50's. So some might argue that he actually sold out long before he was ever elected.
In My college Computer Science was combined in the Department of Math, Physics and Computer Science. So Computer Science was taught in more of Mathematical and Scientific method.
That's a nifty theory on paper. However, if you got an accredited degree then you had the same set of core courses with pretty much the same material in them I had for my accredited CS degree from an Engineering school. That's what accreditation means.
The only serious difference would have been in the other courses you took. My engineering school also required two semesters each of Chemistry, Physics, and Calculus (from the Engineering School. Not the easier versions the Liberal Arts folks took). Someone who got it from a Math department might instead have had to take more math, but less science. I'm guessing yours was more like mine, but not with the science classes specifically tailored to engineering students like mine were.
Hillary and Republicans, conversely, are in favor of CISA.
This is untrue. Hillary's campaign has not yet released any position on CISA. I suspect you'll find a lot of the Republican "Freedom Caucus" against it too, but I don't have the stomach to check.
She's actually in a bit of a weird position on any pending legislation. As both the "presumptive nominee" (for now) and a Clinton, her coming out against a bill is the one thing that can guarantee its passage in the Republican House. If its mostly a political football bill anyway (eg: The Keystone Pipeline), more's the better for everyone. But if its something that really might do some serious damage to the Republic if passed...
Perhaps its different these days, but when I was studying CS back in the 80's, pretty much every accredited program in the US was either part of its Uni's Math Department, or its Engineering Department.
So perhaps people had trouble making up their minds if it was a kind of Math or of Engineering, but either way it should already have been covered in STEM.
Don't forget Epix's Crush, Crumble, and Chomp from 1981. It was essentially a city-building game in reverse.
As far as I can tell, you're describing the classic CVS or Subversion small team setup.
That's my impression too. It looks like this list of requirements were thought out by someone who doesn't really understand how modern DVCS works.
__Server_running_locally__ - There's really no such thing as a "server" in Git. You can certainly (and probably will) set up your repositories in a fashion that there is effectively a parent repo everyone pulls from or pushes to on a server somewhere. But that's entirely up to you.
Use windows credentials - You can set up file permissions up on the underlying files any way you want, but I think that's not what you are talking about. This "requirement" seems to again be picturing a single "server" somewhere with a single monolithic tool used to access it.
The entire text of this article was lifted directly from the first linked article, but not attributed to its author Carrier Arnold at Quanta Magazine.
I don't generally want to be the /. stereotype complaining about editing, but this is just flat out unethical. If you are going to post or excerpt the unmodified content of someone else's work, you should at least credit them properly. Unless the "Anonomous Reader" was actually Carrie Arnold, that was not done here.
In each iteration these pathogens got more and more lethal....This explanation came out as a 12 page (The arrow of disease) article by Jared Diamond in 1992 in the Discover magazine. Later it was expanded into a Pulitzer winning book, Guns, Germs and Steel
IIRC, Jared's argument in GG&S was that each iteration became less and less lethal. No only did the humans with better natural protections survive and have offspring, but the disease itself survived better if it didn't kill off all its hosts, so it had evolutionary pressure to be less deadly and more endemic.
No one gives a crap about the gender of the person that wrote the code. When I submit a patch to an open source project, no one asks me about my gender.
And yet your tag here is clearly gendered. I can't recall ever meeting a female named "Bill".
I'm seeing you say that you don't believe people treat women any different when their patches are submitted, and your evidence of this is that you've done it on occasion with ID's that aren't obviously male (in an environment where male is likely considered the default). Why not test this assertion of yours by submitting patches with a female-looking ID for a while? That's really the only way you can assert truthfully that gender isn't an issue. Otherwise you are arguing out of ignorance.
As an aside, she's a blockbot user, so yes, she most definitely
...is getting harassed by people. That's the problem blockbot was designed to solve, and the only thing it is good for. If you aren't getting harassed, there isn't much point to running it.
The thing is, none of that matters if I don't have cable, and TiVO doesn't support the services/service types I want to use. And it will never support everything I can get on my computer and/or Android devices because it is one company's own black box, not a public platform. So the fact of the matter is that I need the streaming to go the other way. TO my TV, not from it.
Its a very good question. We are probably the prototype of a TiVO house. I have 3 hooked up, and 3 more obsolete ones lying around.
Thing is, we're looking at getting rid of cable, and without cable two of my TiVO's are nearly useless, and the newest one is just a Netflix/Youtube/Hulu box. Its Youtube is really inferior too, as it doesn't allow live stream feeds. I have to watch USL soccer matches on my computer instead. It doesn't support lots of the other streaming services, and if the "no live Youtube" is any indication, probably never will.
What's more, why do I need a static TV? My old Samsung pad is superior in about every way, can download any streamer's apps, and I can take the thing with me throughout the house. The only think I really need the TV for is watching shows with more than one person at the same time, and for that purpose I should just be able to send a phone/pad feed to it.
TiVO doesn't support that. So it just doesn't do what I need anymore.
- The USA celebrates violence: You as a culture group are not mature enough to have guns as freely as you do.
This is likely the biggest issue. We are also the only advanced wealthy country that still performs executions. There is just a general cultural attitude in the USA that its perfectly OK to kill another human being if they do something that scares you or ticks you off enough. People trying to do things like restrict gun ownership or stop executions have been making no headway whatsoever for the last 100 years because they are attacking symptoms rather than the disease.