Modern language does not mean interpreted, and especially doesn't mean Java. There are plenty of open source modern languages - Ada (GNAT), ML (SML, O'Caml), Eiffel (SmallEiffel). All compile to executables, and produce efficent executables.
They do not allow sufficent control over program behavior to make the kind of assurances that high-performance applications need to make.
If you're worried about that, why do you use the inefficent language known as C? There's no better way to get efficency and low-level control than Assembly.
Sit down and try to write tens of thousands of lines in a so-called "modern language" and you'll be back to C.
Really. I haven't reached the tens of thousands mark yet, but I've written thousands, and when I curse Ada, it's because it doesn't have garbage collection and because it encourages fixed length, single-byte strings over unbounded Unicode strings. Both C problems.
Well maybe, just maybe, that self same family worked for the author for "free".
Well, maybe, just maybe, engineer's families work for them for free, as do professors, and teachers, and bartenders. Where do they get cash for the rest of their life?
The small allowed character set means that the urls stay accessible for all languages
Typeable, maybe. Understandable, no.
how am I going to go to a chinese site if I am on an american keyboard? Suppose I know how to read german, but don't know how to type an umlaut?
Ever heard of cut and paste? You're welcome to start up an IM or switch keyboards - most modern operating systems let you do that easily.
Why shouldn't a computer shop in Tehran be www..com? You aren't part of his audience, so why should he have to mangle his shop name so you can access it easier? If you want to attract international customers, you use English names. If your site's only in Farsi, and your audience all speaks Farsi, why shouldn't you have a Farsi name?
you break the internet into cliques based on language, even more so than they already are.
Why? I entered www..com from a standard American keyboard. I won't be able to read that page, though, because it will most likely be Arabic or some other language using the Arabic script. Sure, I may be able to run it though Babelfish, and get some meaning out of it, but how did the name stop me from doing that?
Yes, I won't understand the page, but I can sometimes translate it using tech found on the web; but if I can't even type in the address, it is lost to me.
Ever heard of cut and paste?
And there is no way I can have all of the characters of all the character sets active at once.
Welcome to the 21st Century! It's called Unicode (UTF-8 being one encoding thereof that was mentioned in post you responded to), and Windows NT and BeOS supported it inherently, and MacOS and Linux have been getting increasingly better support of it.
What's more, I couldn't remember what those characters were.
Then you probably weren't their audience. Yes, if you want an international audience, then you don't have a name that most people can't enter. But if you are a small computer shop in downtown Tehran, and the last time you had a customer that didn't speak Farsi was 1973, then why not get www..com?
Never going to happen. Besides the fact that copyright owners aren't going to want to spend the time converting their material to electronic forms (and many are just going to run it through a scanner without OCR'ing it and send in the pictures), and that it violates international treaty to require deposition, the problem is the foreign newspapers and foreign reports are going untranslated and unread, a problem that won't be solved by copyright registration tricks.
Most of my Engineering classes were graded on a curve... so if you can cheat your way to setting the curve, then you ARE hurting other people.
But if you cheat your way to setting the curve, you're standing out. If it's a small class and a good teacher, the teacher will instantly know something's wrong; even if you're in a larger class, you'll still get caught sooner or later.
I never said that atlantis is a continent, or that it was in any one location. I actually believe that atlantis is a conglomeration of myths about many previous advanced civilizations that streach back into the mists of time.
Nice. Completely undisprovable - it's clear that a mere lack of evidence isn't going to stop this one. And you can claim any new evidence about any civilization as proof of your claim!
Bottom line is that I doubt you'll find any MS software where CP-1252 is not labeled as such.
_Any_ MS software that spit out CP-1252 to the net prior to 2000 was buggy, as it wasn't registered as a valid Internet characater set with IANA until then, and even then anything that didn't use windows-1252 (i.e. used cp1252 or the like) was invalid, as those aren't valid aliases for windows-1252.
Furthermore, you may not believe it, but there is a lot of CP-1252 out there mismarked as ISO-8859-1. Recent versions may not spit out mismarked CP-1252, but older versions did all the time.
Furthermore, if you want to communicate with the rest of the English speaking world, use ASCII, or barring that, ISO-8859-1, because those are the standard character sets for English. If you feel that windows-1252 is standard enough, I hope you won't mind me responding in hp-roman8 or ibm285, equally "standard" character sets, and blaming any failure to understand on your side.
And we killed hundreds of people building boulder dam and the golden gate bridge.
Actually about 130, not really hundreds. (See my other post for the source.)
Not to mention the 50,000 people who die on our highways every year, just transporting themselves from one place to another.
Do you have statistics on how safe Egyptian travel was? What were the odds that you would get attacked on the roads if you were an Egyptian travelling from Alexandria to Thebes? How would that have changed if the average Egyptian had had a chance to travel from Alexandria to Thebes? Or is this just another meaningless geewiz statistic?
First we would have to be smart enough to actually figure out _how_ the pyramids were built. We don't know that yet.
So we don't know how they were built, but we know exactly how many people died building them, because you pointed out elsewhere that very few people died in the making. Did the Egyptians put up a sign saying "Only four people died in the making of this pyramid"? (You also claim hundreds died in the building of Hoover Dam and Brooklyn Bridge. Actually, 96 died in the building of the Dam, and 27 for the Bridge, making not quite hundreds of deaths.)
It is several orders of magnitude larger than anything else ever made.
A 450 foot tall pyramid is several orders of magnitude larger than a 700 foot tall dam, or a thousand mile long wall. Right.
We would have to design a whole new class of cranes in order to lift the 100 ton rocks that were used to build the pyramids. The millions of 100 ton rocks.
Actually, they were between 2 and 15 tons, and we have cranes that can easily lift that much. Even if they did weigh 100 tons, we still have cranes that can lift that much.
Velum lasts easily for centuries, but our modern paper wont last 50 years... take a look at the old 50s pulp mags in a second hand bookstore or whatever.. if you can find them they brown and crumble very easily.
But that's pulp mags. I've dug through OSU's stacks in search of old books, and while a lot of them are fragile, I worry more about the bindings than the pages. A lot of the hundred year old books aren't in any dangers of falling apart, and I don't see any difference between them and the newer books (that were actually printed on quality), except that we know enough about acidic paper to avoid it.
Unicode fails the 'can I read it in notepad' test, so I wouldn't call it legacy yet.
What version of of Windows are you using? NT and I believe recent versions of 95+ will read Unicode.
Unicode has yet to settle down as a format
UTF-8 is pretty universally accepted, and all formats can be interconverted. In practice, you'll see UTF-16 from Windows systems and UTF-8 for Unix systems. It's pretty unlikely you'll mistake one for the other.
ASCII's all well and good, but not everyone uses the roman alphabet.
Then try UTF-8, which is also plain-text, and shows no signs of being obsoleted. (The Unicode Consortium is honestly trying for a standard to last a thousand years, or at least as long as we use digital computers.)
Also, what about text data which is unable to be displayed in ASCII such as scientific equations or charts?
You may not be able to display them, but you can store them in ASCII. For long term data storage, it's more important that they be recreatable with a little work than they be instantly displayable.
And am I the only person fed up of getting apostrophes converted to little boxes when put through various emailers?
Then stop using a proprietary encoding. If you used an encoding that was an open standard, like ASCII or Latin 1, then it would get through without problem. If you use a Windows codepage, well, then of course other people will have problems displaying it correctly. When you use a media proprietary to one company, like Betamax or DivX or CP1252, then you will have problems working with everyone else.
For example, there's a world of difference between "I think he's a child molester" and "He's a child molester."
Yes, but "He's a child molester" is a statement of fact. "He would be working at fast food" (paraphrase) is not, as no one can know whether or not that's true.
The only thing the plaintiff has to prove is that the speech in question is untrue.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) ruled that "The evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent, since it failed to support a finding that the statements were made with actual malice..."
"I have been dealing with the Newmans and XYBR and they are the most incompetent management I have ever seen,"
How many managements has he seen in order to make this comparison?
Who cares? I hardly see how that changes whether it's libel or not.
"If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of... 'Would you like fries with that?'"
Has he seen Newman's resume? Has he even met Steve Newman face-to-face? [...] the fact that Steve Newman has a doctorate suggests that Whatley's claims of his lack of education might be just a tad unfounded.
Most of us have written wild screeds while annoyed. I haven't seen anyone arguing that Whatley wrote a calm, objective analysis of the company. But what a man would be doing if it did not have his current job is impossible to know, and hence merely an opinion, and not libel.
Even if some of the factual information is wrong, there's a serious about whether it was maliciously wrong and hence libel, or if he just went off on a rant and didn't bother checking all his assumptions.
If you simply believe everything you're told by the media, whether it be AOL/TW or Slasdot, you're no better than the mindless sheep you claim to despise.
Wisdom doesn't come from simple contrairness either; it comes from actual thought and contemplation of the information coming in, including that from AOL/TW and Slashdot.
I suppose the TLA agengies don't really need strong crypto to invade on my privacy. They just need a court order.
It's interesting. The TLA agencies which most likely can crack large encryption (NSA, CIA) have no authority to get a court order - they have no authority within the US. Also, it seems unlikely they'd reveal that they have this advanced technology for a mere murder trial or the like - more important to keep it hidden from their foreign enemies.
will that really stop them from making me give up the goods if faced with jail when they come asking for my data?
The US can't force you to give up your encryption keys - it would be a violation of your 5th amendment rights to keep silent, or at least your 1st amendment rights. Unless it was evidence to be used to convict someone else, then they could subpoena it.
Languages are never truely secure.... programming methods are. People are people and will make mistakes that cause security problems.
Why do you think programming methods are truely secure? People are people and will make mistakes that cause security problems. But in few languages besides C/C++ will you ever have a buffer overflow. Languages are not panceas; they will not solve every problem, but they are one step to producing more secure code.
As if they'd pay attention. And before you mod that as flamebait, ask yourself why strlcpy() still isn't part of glibc..
There's a few huge winding threads in libc-alpha <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha> on this. One answer is:
These words make sense. The problem with strlcat and strlcpy is that they assume that it's okay to arbitrarily discard data for the sake of preventing a buffer overflow. The buffer overflow may be prevented, but because data may have been discarded, the program is still incorrect. This is roughly analogous to clamping floating point overflow to DBL_MAX and merrily continuing in the calculation.;)
Agree or disagree, the developers of glibc don't find strlcpy to be an appropriate function based on its merits. Trying to claim otherwise is just trying to stir up trouble.
Therefore if you take a Penguin Classics copy of Plato's Republic , photocopy it and sell it you are in breach of penguin's copyright (not Plato's). You can however take the text reformat it ect and print it
Well, not exactly. Not unless Penguin published the original Greek manuscript. I believe that translations of works are protected under copyright as well, so even if you were to take the text and reformat it and such, you would still be violating the translator's copyright.
I'm not sure you understand Penguin's strategy here. They aren't going to pay a translator - the translations they use are in the public domain. Heck, they sometimes don't even reset the material; I've compared one of their books to a very old library copy, and it was clear they had just photocopied it and changed the page numbers.
In any case, I don't believe typesetting is copyrighted. US copyright only applies to creative works, not a bunch of text dumped into FrameMaker and printed.
Re:Optionally publish valid mail servers for domai
on
Spam Slows AT&T Email
·
· Score: 2
Do an RDNS lookup on the IP of the server and reject it if the domain in the 'from' doesn't match.
Which, of course, drops some valid mail, like mine, which has a from: okstate.edu and IP of x8b....dhcp.okstate.edu.
the spam I receive from there is usually written in the ks_c_5601-1987 character set.
Interestingly enough, I've been told that ks_c_5601-1987 is primarily a spam charset. Most Koreans who actually want to communicate with you would use ISO-2022-KR or EUC-KR. Though using any non-Latin charset in the subject is usually a bad sign. (Body's different, as that may just mean the signature.)
I agree completely. Anyway who can blame them? They set up a mail server for their users, some westerners misuse it to send spam, then more westerners start yelling at them to fix it.
Um, the spam I get from that part of the world is written in either Chinese or Korean. I doubt it's Westerners sending that out. And if you want to be part of the net, you've got to take responsiblity, which includes proper care of your email server.
The US Peter Pan copyright was originally set to expire in 1987. But because of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, the copyright was extended to 2007.
I'm not sure when the US Peter Pan copyright expired, but I would guess it was by the mid 30's, since Peter Pan was made in 1904, and US copyright of the time was for 25 years IIRC. It's definetly in the public domain now - Project Gutenberg has a copy, and they're anal about that.
(In the UK, parliament passed a special act [hmso.gov.uk] giving the hospital an eternal copyright in Peter Pan. It's debatable whether the Berne convention extended this ininite protection to all Berne convention countries.)
It's not a copyright, if you read the link. It's a royalty on performances.
Slashdot Mirror
Modern language does not mean interpreted, and especially doesn't mean Java. There are plenty of open source modern languages - Ada (GNAT), ML (SML, O'Caml), Eiffel (SmallEiffel). All compile to executables, and produce efficent executables.
They do not allow sufficent control over program behavior to make the kind of assurances that high-performance applications need to make.
If you're worried about that, why do you use the inefficent language known as C? There's no better way to get efficency and low-level control than Assembly.
Sit down and try to write tens of thousands of lines in a so-called "modern language" and you'll be back to C.
Really. I haven't reached the tens of thousands mark yet, but I've written thousands, and when I curse Ada, it's because it doesn't have garbage collection and because it encourages fixed length, single-byte strings over unbounded Unicode strings. Both C problems.
Well maybe, just maybe, that self same family worked for the author for "free".
Well, maybe, just maybe, engineer's families work for them for free, as do professors, and teachers, and bartenders. Where do they get cash for the rest of their life?
The small allowed character set means that the urls stay accessible for all languages
Typeable, maybe. Understandable, no.
how am I going to go to a chinese site if I am on an american keyboard? Suppose I know how to read german, but don't know how to type an umlaut?
Ever heard of cut and paste? You're welcome to start up an IM or switch keyboards - most modern operating systems let you do that easily.
Why shouldn't a computer shop in Tehran be www..com? You aren't part of his audience, so why should he have to mangle his shop name so you can access it easier? If you want to attract international customers, you use English names. If your site's only in Farsi, and your audience all speaks Farsi, why shouldn't you have a Farsi name?
you break the internet into cliques based on language, even more so than they already are.
Why? I entered www..com from a standard American keyboard. I won't be able to read that page, though, because it will most likely be Arabic or some other language using the Arabic script. Sure, I may be able to run it though Babelfish, and get some meaning out of it, but how did the name stop me from doing that?
Yes, I won't understand the page, but I can sometimes translate it using tech found on the web; but if I can't even type in the address, it is lost to me.
Ever heard of cut and paste?
And there is no way I can have all of the characters of all the character sets active at once.
Welcome to the 21st Century! It's called Unicode (UTF-8 being one encoding thereof that was mentioned in post you responded to), and Windows NT and BeOS supported it inherently, and MacOS and Linux have been getting increasingly better support of it.
What's more, I couldn't remember what those characters were.
Then you probably weren't their audience. Yes, if you want an international audience, then you don't have a name that most people can't enter. But if you are a small computer shop in downtown Tehran, and the last time you had a customer that didn't speak Farsi was 1973, then why not get www..com?
Never going to happen. Besides the fact that copyright owners aren't going to want to spend the time converting their material to electronic forms (and many are just going to run it through a scanner without OCR'ing it and send in the pictures), and that it violates international treaty to require deposition, the problem is the foreign newspapers and foreign reports are going untranslated and unread, a problem that won't be solved by copyright registration tricks.
Most of my Engineering classes were graded on a curve... so if you can cheat your way to setting the curve, then you ARE hurting other people.
But if you cheat your way to setting the curve, you're standing out. If it's a small class and a good teacher, the teacher will instantly know something's wrong; even if you're in a larger class, you'll still get caught sooner or later.
I never said that atlantis is a continent, or that it was in any one location. I actually believe that atlantis is a conglomeration of myths about many previous advanced civilizations that streach back into the mists of time.
Nice. Completely undisprovable - it's clear that a mere lack of evidence isn't going to stop this one. And you can claim any new evidence about any civilization as proof of your claim!
Bottom line is that I doubt you'll find any MS software where CP-1252 is not labeled as such.
_Any_ MS software that spit out CP-1252 to the net prior to 2000 was buggy, as it wasn't registered as a valid Internet characater set with IANA until then, and even then anything that didn't use windows-1252 (i.e. used cp1252 or the like) was invalid, as those aren't valid aliases for windows-1252.
Furthermore, you may not believe it, but there is a lot of CP-1252 out there mismarked as ISO-8859-1. Recent versions may not spit out mismarked CP-1252, but older versions did all the time.
Furthermore, if you want to communicate with the rest of the English speaking world, use ASCII, or barring that, ISO-8859-1, because those are the standard character sets for English. If you feel that windows-1252 is standard enough, I hope you won't mind me responding in hp-roman8 or ibm285, equally "standard" character sets, and blaming any failure to understand on your side.
Very few people died building the pyramids.
And we know this how?
And we killed hundreds of people building boulder dam and the golden gate bridge.
Actually about 130, not really hundreds. (See my other post for the source.)
Not to mention the 50,000 people who die on our highways every year, just transporting themselves from one place to another.
Do you have statistics on how safe Egyptian travel was? What were the odds that you would get attacked on the roads if you were an Egyptian travelling from Alexandria to Thebes? How would that have changed if the average Egyptian had had a chance to travel from Alexandria to Thebes? Or is this just another meaningless geewiz statistic?
First we would have to be smart enough to actually figure out _how_ the pyramids were built. We don't know that yet.
: //www.snopes2.com/spoons/fracture/hoover.htmp ://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmnh/pyramid.htm: //www.manitowoccranes.com/
So we don't know how they were built, but we know exactly how many people died building them, because you pointed out elsewhere that very few people died in the making. Did the Egyptians put up a sign saying "Only four people died in the making of this pyramid"? (You also claim hundreds died in the building of Hoover Dam and Brooklyn Bridge. Actually, 96 died in the building of the Dam, and 27 for the Bridge, making not quite hundreds of deaths.)
It is several orders of magnitude larger than anything else ever made.
A 450 foot tall pyramid is several orders of magnitude larger than a 700 foot tall dam, or a thousand mile long wall. Right.
We would have to design a whole new class of cranes in order to lift the 100 ton rocks that were used to build the pyramids. The millions of 100 ton rocks.
Actually, they were between 2 and 15 tons, and we have cranes that can easily lift that much. Even if they did weigh 100 tons, we still have cranes that can lift that much.
Sources:
http://www.lvdi.net/~iceman/hooverdam.htm
http
htt
http
Misplaced a whole city.
It's easy to misplace a city. It's physically almost impossible that there was a continent between Europe and America, or even a large island.
Velum lasts easily for centuries, but our modern paper wont last 50 years ... take a look at the old 50s pulp mags in a second hand bookstore or whatever .. if you can find them they brown and crumble very easily.
But that's pulp mags. I've dug through OSU's stacks in search of old books, and while a lot of them are fragile, I worry more about the bindings than the pages. A lot of the hundred year old books aren't in any dangers of falling apart, and I don't see any difference between them and the newer books (that were actually printed on quality), except that we know enough about acidic paper to avoid it.
Unicode fails the 'can I read it in notepad' test, so I wouldn't call it legacy yet.
What version of of Windows are you using? NT and I believe recent versions of 95+ will read Unicode.
Unicode has yet to settle down as a format
UTF-8 is pretty universally accepted, and all formats can be interconverted. In practice, you'll see UTF-16 from Windows systems and UTF-8 for Unix systems. It's pretty unlikely you'll mistake one for the other.
ASCII's all well and good, but not everyone uses the roman alphabet.
Then try UTF-8, which is also plain-text, and shows no signs of being obsoleted. (The Unicode Consortium is honestly trying for a standard to last a thousand years, or at least as long as we use digital computers.)
Also, what about text data which is unable to be displayed in ASCII such as scientific equations or charts?
You may not be able to display them, but you can store them in ASCII. For long term data storage, it's more important that they be recreatable with a little work than they be instantly displayable.
And am I the only person fed up of getting apostrophes converted to little boxes when put through various emailers?
Then stop using a proprietary encoding. If you used an encoding that was an open standard, like ASCII or Latin 1, then it would get through without problem. If you use a Windows codepage, well, then of course other people will have problems displaying it correctly. When you use a media proprietary to one company, like Betamax or DivX or CP1252, then you will have problems working with everyone else.
For example, there's a world of difference between "I think he's a child molester" and "He's a child molester."
..."
Yes, but "He's a child molester" is a statement of fact. "He would be working at fast food" (paraphrase) is not, as no one can know whether or not that's true.
The only thing the plaintiff has to prove is that the speech in question is untrue.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) ruled that "The evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent, since it failed to support a finding that the statements were made with actual malice
"I have been dealing with the Newmans and XYBR and they are the most incompetent management I have ever seen,"
... 'Would you like fries with that?'"
How many managements has he seen in order to make this comparison?
Who cares? I hardly see how that changes whether it's libel or not.
"If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of
Has he seen Newman's resume? Has he even met Steve Newman face-to-face? [...] the fact that Steve Newman has a doctorate suggests that Whatley's claims of his lack of education might be just a tad unfounded.
Most of us have written wild screeds while annoyed. I haven't seen anyone arguing that Whatley wrote a calm, objective analysis of the company. But what a man would be doing if it did not have his current job is impossible to know, and hence merely an opinion, and not libel.
Even if some of the factual information is wrong, there's a serious about whether it was maliciously wrong and hence libel, or if he just went off on a rant and didn't bother checking all his assumptions.
If you simply believe everything you're told by the media, whether it be AOL/TW or Slasdot, you're no better than the mindless sheep you claim to despise.
Wisdom doesn't come from simple contrairness either; it comes from actual thought and contemplation of the information coming in, including that from AOL/TW and Slashdot.
I suppose the TLA agengies don't really need strong crypto to invade on my privacy. They just need a court order.
It's interesting. The TLA agencies which most likely can crack large encryption (NSA, CIA) have no authority to get a court order - they have no authority within the US. Also, it seems unlikely they'd reveal that they have this advanced technology for a mere murder trial or the like - more important to keep it hidden from their foreign enemies.
will that really stop them from making me give up the goods if faced with jail when they come asking for my data?
The US can't force you to give up your encryption keys - it would be a violation of your 5th amendment rights to keep silent, or at least your 1st amendment rights. Unless it was evidence to be used to convict someone else, then they could subpoena it.
Languages are never truely secure.... programming methods are. People are people and will make mistakes that cause security problems.
Why do you think programming methods are truely secure? People are people and will make mistakes that cause security problems. But in few languages besides C/C++ will you ever have a buffer overflow. Languages are not panceas; they will not solve every problem, but they are one step to producing more secure code.
As if they'd pay attention. And before you mod that as flamebait, ask yourself why strlcpy() still isn't part of glibc..
;)
There's a few huge winding threads in libc-alpha <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha> on this. One answer is:
These words make sense. The problem with strlcat and strlcpy is that they
assume that it's okay to arbitrarily discard data for the sake of preventing a
buffer overflow. The buffer overflow may be prevented, but because data may
have been discarded, the program is still incorrect. This is roughly analogous
to clamping floating point overflow to DBL_MAX and merrily continuing
in the calculation.
Agree or disagree, the developers of glibc don't find strlcpy to be an appropriate function based on its merits. Trying to claim otherwise is just trying to stir up trouble.
Therefore if you take a Penguin Classics copy of Plato's Republic , photocopy it and sell it you are in breach of penguin's copyright (not Plato's). You can however take the text reformat it ect and print it
Well, not exactly. Not unless Penguin published the original Greek manuscript. I believe that translations of works are protected under copyright as well, so even if you were to take the text and reformat it and such, you would still be violating the translator's copyright.
I'm not sure you understand Penguin's strategy here. They aren't going to pay a translator - the translations they use are in the public domain. Heck, they sometimes don't even reset the material; I've compared one of their books to a very old library copy, and it was clear they had just photocopied it and changed the page numbers.
In any case, I don't believe typesetting is copyrighted. US copyright only applies to creative works, not a bunch of text dumped into FrameMaker and printed.
Do an RDNS lookup on the IP of the server and reject it if the domain in the 'from' doesn't match.
Which, of course, drops some valid mail, like mine, which has a from: okstate.edu and IP of x8b....dhcp.okstate.edu.
If you're over about 30, some stuff has dropped into the public domain, due to failure to properly renew.
the spam I receive from there is usually written in the ks_c_5601-1987 character set.
Interestingly enough, I've been told that ks_c_5601-1987 is primarily a spam charset. Most Koreans who actually want to communicate with you would use ISO-2022-KR or EUC-KR. Though using any non-Latin charset in the subject is usually a bad sign. (Body's different, as that may just mean the signature.)
I agree completely. Anyway who can blame them? They set up a mail server for their users, some westerners misuse it to send spam, then more westerners start yelling at them to fix it.
Um, the spam I get from that part of the world is written in either Chinese or Korean. I doubt it's Westerners sending that out. And if you want to be part of the net, you've got to take responsiblity, which includes proper care of your email server.
The US Peter Pan copyright was originally set to expire in 1987. But because of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, the copyright was extended to 2007.
I'm not sure when the US Peter Pan copyright expired, but I would guess it was by the mid 30's, since Peter Pan was made in 1904, and US copyright of the time was for 25 years IIRC. It's definetly in the public domain now - Project Gutenberg has a copy, and they're anal about that.
(In the UK, parliament passed a special act [hmso.gov.uk] giving the hospital an eternal copyright in Peter Pan. It's debatable whether the Berne convention extended this ininite protection to all Berne convention countries.)
It's not a copyright, if you read the link. It's a royalty on performances.