Congratulations on being the 1 millionth Slashdotter to completely misunderstand the concept of "fair use."
"Fair use" doesn't mean "I think it's only fair that I get to copy and use this." Fair use is a statutory defense to a charge of copyright infringement that is available primarily to those who use a portion of a copyrighted work (not the entire concert, program, etc.) for educational or journalistic purposes, and is especially effective when that use is non-commercial. Fair use protects your local t.v. newscast when they show you a 30 second clip of the band playing at your local arena, or when you quote some of the lyrics to a song in a review. It does not protect you wanting to make copies of CDs for your friends or taping entire concerts without the permission of the artist.
You'll notice that there's nothing in the box at the top for "date of offense."
A good lawyer could get this thrown out easily. There's no proof that the conduct shown in the picture occurred on any particular day, and thus, no proof that this "crime" occurred within the statute of limitations.
Your program won't work. It'll just keep prining out 1's indefinitely.
(I'm assuming that you forgot or HTML ate your less-than sign in line 130. Even so, it still won't work.)
You never closed your "for" loop with a "next." Instead, you cobbled together two ways of doing the same thing, repeatedly sending the program from line 130 to 100, where i gets re-set to 1 every time. You needed to either:
100 for i=1 to 10; print i; next; end
or:
100 i=1 110 print i; i=i+1 120 if i=11 then end 130 goto 110
The second example is not particularly elegant, but it'll work.
I don't know-- I seem to recall seeing "re-issued" CDs (now "digitally remastered"!) with "bonus tracks" as early as, say, 1994 or so.
Lucas first polished up SW for the "20th Anniversary" release circa 1997.
Really, if somebody has to take the credit (blame) for the practice of dripping out tiny bits of new content to get you to buy the old product, it's the record industry.
Spam is indeed quite popular not only in Hawaii, but throughout the Pacific islands.
Importing food to Hawaii, Micronesia, etc. is expensive and difficult. Fresh foods, like dairy products and breads, come by boat (too bulky to ship by air, for the most part), but that means a delay of several days to several weeks before they wind up on store shelves. Lots of things go bad in that amount of time, even on refrigerated ships.
Spam, and to a lesser extent, canned meats like corned beef from Australia, fill the need for meat nicely. They stay fresh indefinitely and travel easily without the need for refrigeration. As a result, they're much cheaper than "fresh" meat and much more popular.
(Travel writer Paul Theroux joked in "The Happy Isles of Oceania" that islanders liked Spam because it reminded them of their history of cannibalism. Of course, very few islands ever had a history of cannibalism in the first place, and Theroux admits that he threw the idea out there as a cheap joke, not an anthropological theory.)
Wonder what would have happened if Guthenberg was allowed to take a patent (don't think that particularly concept existed at that time) off his invention of the printing press.
What would have happened? The patent would have expired 14 years later, that's what (28 years if he bothered to renew it). Net effect on society: probably about zero, because technology didn't spread very quickly.
Gutenberg invented the moveable type press in 1455. The first printing press didn't appear in England until 1476, more than 20 years later. Printing didn't become regularly established in Europe until the turn of the century, and even then, printing presses only managed to churn out a handful of books per year.
The requirement at issue is found in the Equal Employment Oppoertunity Commission's regulations interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Title VII prohibits employers of 15 or more persons from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion, etc.
The EEOC has issued regulations that interpret the law. Among those regulations are recommendations as to how long employers should retain various items of paperwork. The article stems from a misunderstanding as to the meaning of 29 C.F.R. s. 1602.14, which states:
Any personnel or employment record made or kept by an employer (including but not necessarily limited to requests for reasonable accommodation, application forms submitted by applicants and other records having to do with hiring, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off or termination, rates of pay or other terms of compensation, and selection for training or apprenticeship) shall be preserved by the employer for a period of one year from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later.
What the article fails to acknowledge is that the EEOC's regulations are nothing more than recommendations, and are neither specifically enforcible by the EEOC nor binding on the Courts. Note 29 C.F.R. s. 1602.12:
The Commission has not adopted any requirement, generally applicable to employers, that records be made or kept.
In other words, the article is pure FUD: the EEOC recommends that you keep applications and resumes for at least a year, but doing so is neither required nor something that you can be punished for. (As a matter of corporate policy, it makes sense to retain bona fide resumes for at least that long in case of litigation, but what is "smart" and what is "required by law" are often two very different things.)
... has a well-considered, well-written piece (Google cache link, since I can't get the real VGN page to come up) on this subject.
Kevin is one of the authors of the (tongue-in-cheek, in case you're an idiot) "crate rating" system, in which games are rated based on how long it takes to come across a crate to smash or jump on.
> You can't block this address (staff@hotmail.com), and there is no 'opt out' other then to stop using the hotmail service.
You can't block it (sneaky, Microsoft!), but you can sure as shootin' filter it. In Options|Custom Filters, put in a rule that redirects all mail from staff@hotmail.com right inot the trash. Or, if you're afraid of missing out on a valuable deal to get a bigger mailbox, you can always sort Hotmail Services e-mails to some junk mailbox that you only check intermittently.
This article is a misdirected rant. It is beyond dispute that Lexis, Westlaw, et al. do not own any copyright to public records-- i.e. the actual text of the case decisions. What they do own-- and rightly charge for-- are enhancements they provide: case summaries, research aids, and, yes, the text in a searchable electronic database. It costs them money to develop these aids, and there's nothing wrong with charging for them.
The public is not deprived of access to the actual law-- every law school, almost every courthouse, and many large universities have collections of case reporters, statutes, and other legal materials in book form. Are they as easy to search as an electronic database? No. But they are available and can be used without charge, and, in the hands of a knowledgable person, used as effectively (if not more so*) as databases.
Contrary to the author's position, the internet has made the law much more accessible to regular people than it was a decade ago. Free databases may not have all of the old cases that pay services do, but they represent a huge step forward when compared to pre-internet days. Moreover, for most people untrained in the law, old caselaw is of much less use than current decisions.
*Databases like Lexis and Westlaw are, in some ways, harmful to non-lawyers. It is easy to simply plug words into a search query and assume that the result is reflective of the law on a particular issue. In fact, careful analysis of legal precedent is difficult, and to the untrained, legal databases can yield results that are more misleading than traditional book research, where points of law in a particular category were grouped together, allowing a researcher to see the development of trends or dissenting views.
If I built a cool backyard widget and told a few friends, I might be a tad disconcerted when CNN tells a half-million people to check out my house.
Uh... he did put this stuff up on the internet, presumably so people could see it.
Your analogy might work if CNN broke down your fence or peeked in your windows to see your "widget," but you can hardly complain if you built it in your front yard so everyone walking down the street could see it.
I suppose if the submitter got the link from this kid in an e-mail that was just sent around to a few of his friends, you might have a point. But if the submitter found it through a search engine, or through random surfing, well, webmaster emptor
It is allocated per product, not per user, so there should be fewer points needed.
I don't know that this is entirely true. Check out the bar codes at the supermarket-- there are two sets of numbers (plus a check digit). The first set of numbers (I believe it's five digits) will be the same for every product by a given manufacturer. The box of Kraft Mac & Cheese will have the same first five digits as the package of Kraft salad dressing. The second set of digits identifies the particular product and size of that manufacturer.
Thus, as with phone numbers or SSN's, there is a sub-optimal distribution of the finite number of codes. Let's assume Kraft's five digits are 12345. If Kraft has less than 1,00,000 products (assuming the second set of numbers is six digits), some of the set of numbers in 12345XXXXXX are going to be unused. However, because the 12345 is a unique identifier for Kraft, those unused numbers cannot be apportioned to another manufacturer.
Then again, I could be wrong. I shop where they still put price stickers on the cans.
At MIT, a "hacker" is someone who does some sort of interesting and creative work at a high intensity level. This applies to anything from writing computer programs to pulling a clever prank that amuses and delights everyone on campus.
Both definitions fit the Phantom Edit pretty well. (You might also want to take up the issue with michael, who called the Build Your Own Cityscape project a "nice hack job," yet there's not a computer in sight.)
entries are "improvisational," by which I mean that you usually sit down, write it, and post it. There isn't a lot of preparation, hours of editing or things like that. You write it, you post it.
"Preparation" and "hours of editing" are the difference between good writing and bad. Don't be fooled by the medium-- even a good blog entry has lots of thought, preparation, and editing behind it.
Unless you've already sat down and thought about storylines, character development, plotting, and pacing, your story is likely to end up an unreadable, uninteresting mess. Real authors of novels don't just sit down and blurt out whatever comes into their head at any given moment. Don't assume that the immediacy of the blog format will substitute for good preparation and planning.
AS AN AC, I POST AT 0 INSTEAD OF -1. HELLO WORLD!
on
nForce2 Preview
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
In the eyes of the law, it is. The Supreme Court ruled about a hundred years ago that a corporation has almost all the same rights as a natural (i.e. human) person has. Coproations can own property in their names, sue and be sued, engage in political speech, etc. ad nauseum.
You think Skynet and the Matrix were scary-- just wait until the coprorations become sentient...
> The closest thing I've gotten to spam is the hotmail staff constantly bugging me, and I can't block them!!!
Sure you can. Sorta. In your custom filters, filter anything with the "From Name" of "Hotmail" into your junk folder. (You may even be able to filter it into the trash-- I've never tried.)
Voila! The annual missive from "Hotmail Member Services" never darkens your inbox again. And there's a very low risk of false positives.
I don't know abotu Africa, but in a lot of developing countries, the state-owned telco monopoly is also the gatekeeper of internet connectivity.
I've had personal experience with the Republic of Palau in the Western Pacific. Palau National Commuinications Corp. owns the phone system, and also runs Palaunet, the only ISP on the island. (Good luck getting another ISP in when PNCC owns the access to the lines.)
Result: internet telephone calls are prohibited on Palaunet. (It's easy-- watch for bi-directional high-bandwitdth traffic, instead of uni-directional. So simultaneously uploading and downloading on a P2P will get your account a once-over, but that's life in the Third World.) Instead, you're forced to pay the egregiously expensive long distance voice rates.
Internet telephony only works if you've got an open communications industry. That's not true in a lot of developing countries, where the Government is footing the bill for all infrastructure, and wants to keep control of it for economic or political reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations on being the 1 millionth Slashdotter to completely misunderstand the concept of "fair use."
"Fair use" doesn't mean "I think it's only fair that I get to copy and use this." Fair use is a statutory defense to a charge of copyright infringement that is available primarily to those who use a portion of a copyrighted work (not the entire concert, program, etc.) for educational or journalistic purposes, and is especially effective when that use is non-commercial. Fair use protects your local t.v. newscast when they show you a 30 second clip of the band playing at your local arena, or when you quote some of the lyrics to a song in a review. It does not protect you wanting to make copies of CDs for your friends or taping entire concerts without the permission of the artist.
Why can't I buy a bag of just the blue M&M's?
You can. In the future, all foods will be user-customizable.
You'll notice that there's nothing in the box at the top for "date of offense."
A good lawyer could get this thrown out easily. There's no proof that the conduct shown in the picture occurred on any particular day, and thus, no proof that this "crime" occurred within the statute of limitations.
Your program won't work. It'll just keep prining out 1's indefinitely.
(I'm assuming that you forgot or HTML ate your less-than sign in line 130. Even so, it still won't work.)
You never closed your "for" loop with a "next." Instead, you cobbled together two ways of doing the same thing, repeatedly sending the program from line 130 to 100, where i gets re-set to 1 every time. You needed to either:
100 for i=1 to 10; print i; next; end
or:
100 i=1
110 print i; i=i+1
120 if i=11 then end
130 goto 110
The second example is not particularly elegant, but it'll work.
I got the joke, FW.
Fine work, and a first post to boot.
I don't know-- I seem to recall seeing "re-issued" CDs (now "digitally remastered"!) with "bonus tracks" as early as, say, 1994 or so.
Lucas first polished up SW for the "20th Anniversary" release circa 1997.
Really, if somebody has to take the credit (blame) for the practice of dripping out tiny bits of new content to get you to buy the old product, it's the record industry.
Spam is indeed quite popular not only in Hawaii, but throughout the Pacific islands.
Importing food to Hawaii, Micronesia, etc. is expensive and difficult. Fresh foods, like dairy products and breads, come by boat (too bulky to ship by air, for the most part), but that means a delay of several days to several weeks before they wind up on store shelves. Lots of things go bad in that amount of time, even on refrigerated ships.
Spam, and to a lesser extent, canned meats like corned beef from Australia, fill the need for meat nicely. They stay fresh indefinitely and travel easily without the need for refrigeration. As a result, they're much cheaper than "fresh" meat and much more popular.
(Travel writer Paul Theroux joked in "The Happy Isles of Oceania" that islanders liked Spam because it reminded them of their history of cannibalism. Of course, very few islands ever had a history of cannibalism in the first place, and Theroux admits that he threw the idea out there as a cheap joke, not an anthropological theory.)
What would have happened? The patent would have expired 14 years later, that's what (28 years if he bothered to renew it). Net effect on society: probably about zero, because technology didn't spread very quickly.
Gutenberg invented the moveable type press in 1455. The first printing press didn't appear in England until 1476, more than 20 years later. Printing didn't become regularly established in Europe until the turn of the century, and even then, printing presses only managed to churn out a handful of books per year.
The requirement at issue is found in the Equal Employment Oppoertunity Commission's regulations interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Title VII prohibits employers of 15 or more persons from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion, etc.
The EEOC has issued regulations that interpret the law. Among those regulations are recommendations as to how long employers should retain various items of paperwork. The article stems from a misunderstanding as to the meaning of 29 C.F.R. s. 1602.14, which states:
What the article fails to acknowledge is that the EEOC's regulations are nothing more than recommendations, and are neither specifically enforcible by the EEOC nor binding on the Courts. Note 29 C.F.R. s. 1602.12: In other words, the article is pure FUD: the EEOC recommends that you keep applications and resumes for at least a year, but doing so is neither required nor something that you can be punished for. (As a matter of corporate policy, it makes sense to retain bona fide resumes for at least that long in case of litigation, but what is "smart" and what is "required by law" are often two very different things.)... has a well-considered, well-written piece (Google cache link, since I can't get the real VGN page to come up) on this subject.
Kevin is one of the authors of the (tongue-in-cheek, in case you're an idiot) "crate rating" system, in which games are rated based on how long it takes to come across a crate to smash or jump on.
The short answer: don't trust reviews.
Now all their monitors will get burn-in!
Wait-- I misread that, didn't I?
> You can't block this address (staff@hotmail.com), and there is no 'opt out' other then to stop using the hotmail service.
You can't block it (sneaky, Microsoft!), but you can sure as shootin' filter it. In Options|Custom Filters, put in a rule that redirects all mail from staff@hotmail.com right inot the trash. Or, if you're afraid of missing out on a valuable deal to get a bigger mailbox, you can always sort Hotmail Services e-mails to some junk mailbox that you only check intermittently.
This article is a misdirected rant. It is beyond dispute that Lexis, Westlaw, et al. do not own any copyright to public records-- i.e. the actual text of the case decisions. What they do own-- and rightly charge for-- are enhancements they provide: case summaries, research aids, and, yes, the text in a searchable electronic database. It costs them money to develop these aids, and there's nothing wrong with charging for them.
The public is not deprived of access to the actual law-- every law school, almost every courthouse, and many large universities have collections of case reporters, statutes, and other legal materials in book form. Are they as easy to search as an electronic database? No. But they are available and can be used without charge, and, in the hands of a knowledgable person, used as effectively (if not more so*) as databases.
Contrary to the author's position, the internet has made the law much more accessible to regular people than it was a decade ago. Free databases may not have all of the old cases that pay services do, but they represent a huge step forward when compared to pre-internet days. Moreover, for most people untrained in the law, old caselaw is of much less use than current decisions.
*Databases like Lexis and Westlaw are, in some ways, harmful to non-lawyers. It is easy to simply plug words into a search query and assume that the result is reflective of the law on a particular issue. In fact, careful analysis of legal precedent is difficult, and to the untrained, legal databases can yield results that are more misleading than traditional book research, where points of law in a particular category were grouped together, allowing a researcher to see the development of trends or dissenting views.
AMIBIOS or NOT?
Unless he's had a banner day on other stories, getting modded from 1 to -1 twice in one day has probably gotten him IP banned for the next 72 hours.
Happy New Year indeed.
Uh... he did put this stuff up on the internet, presumably so people could see it.
Your analogy might work if CNN broke down your fence or peeked in your windows to see your "widget," but you can hardly complain if you built it in your front yard so everyone walking down the street could see it.
I suppose if the submitter got the link from this kid in an e-mail that was just sent around to a few of his friends, you might have a point. But if the submitter found it through a search engine, or through random surfing, well, webmaster emptor
I don't know that this is entirely true. Check out the bar codes at the supermarket-- there are two sets of numbers (plus a check digit). The first set of numbers (I believe it's five digits) will be the same for every product by a given manufacturer. The box of Kraft Mac & Cheese will have the same first five digits as the package of Kraft salad dressing. The second set of digits identifies the particular product and size of that manufacturer.
Thus, as with phone numbers or SSN's, there is a sub-optimal distribution of the finite number of codes. Let's assume Kraft's five digits are 12345. If Kraft has less than 1,00,000 products (assuming the second set of numbers is six digits), some of the set of numbers in 12345XXXXXX are going to be unused. However, because the 12345 is a unique identifier for Kraft, those unused numbers cannot be apportioned to another manufacturer.
Then again, I could be wrong. I shop where they still put price stickers on the cans.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
Or perhaps the M.I.T. definition fits:
At MIT, a "hacker" is someone who does some sort of interesting and creative work at a high intensity level. This applies to anything from writing computer programs to pulling a clever prank that amuses and delights everyone on campus.
Both definitions fit the Phantom Edit pretty well. (You might also want to take up the issue with michael, who called the Build Your Own Cityscape project a "nice hack job," yet there's not a computer in sight.)
Hackers like the Phantom Edit(or) are engaging in fair use and/or creating derivative works by modifying the film/song/etc.
Blockbuster is not within its right to edit the film it offers to its customers, because that interferes with the creator's artistic vision.
Got it.
entries are "improvisational," by which I mean that you usually sit down, write it, and post it. There isn't a lot of preparation, hours of editing or things like that. You write it, you post it.
"Preparation" and "hours of editing" are the difference between good writing and bad. Don't be fooled by the medium-- even a good blog entry has lots of thought, preparation, and editing behind it.
Unless you've already sat down and thought about storylines, character development, plotting, and pacing, your story is likely to end up an unreadable, uninteresting mess. Real authors of novels don't just sit down and blurt out whatever comes into their head at any given moment. Don't assume that the immediacy of the blog format will substitute for good preparation and planning.
In the eyes of the law, it is. The Supreme Court ruled about a hundred years ago that a corporation has almost all the same rights as a natural (i.e. human) person has. Coproations can own property in their names, sue and be sued, engage in political speech, etc. ad nauseum.
You think Skynet and the Matrix were scary-- just wait until the coprorations become sentient...
Sure you can. Sorta. In your custom filters, filter anything with the "From Name" of "Hotmail" into your junk folder. (You may even be able to filter it into the trash-- I've never tried.)
Voila! The annual missive from "Hotmail Member Services" never darkens your inbox again. And there's a very low risk of false positives.
I don't know abotu Africa, but in a lot of developing countries, the state-owned telco monopoly is also the gatekeeper of internet connectivity.
I've had personal experience with the Republic of Palau in the Western Pacific. Palau National Commuinications Corp. owns the phone system, and also runs Palaunet, the only ISP on the island. (Good luck getting another ISP in when PNCC owns the access to the lines.)
Result: internet telephone calls are prohibited on Palaunet. (It's easy-- watch for bi-directional high-bandwitdth traffic, instead of uni-directional. So simultaneously uploading and downloading on a P2P will get your account a once-over, but that's life in the Third World.) Instead, you're forced to pay the egregiously expensive long distance voice rates.
Internet telephony only works if you've got an open communications industry. That's not true in a lot of developing countries, where the Government is footing the bill for all infrastructure, and wants to keep control of it for economic or political reasons.