Another good one would be the Python Cookbook on ASPN. And at a more abstract level, Ward's Wiki has explanations and discussions of a wide range of interesting tools, languages, and techniques.
Whoops, except I meant userContent.css of course. As a mea culpa, here's a version that also takes out their 7-day trial banner and some links to other random crap, and that won't affect other sites that happen to use the same class names for something.
That's just it, though. Being more knowledgable about computers than the average Joe doesn't give me any advantage, since they didn't make any claims for a savvy consumer to see right through. The entire ad is nothing but a series of non-sequiturs. Worse, it's dull. Even when they get around to talking about Windows, nobody's going to be paying attention.
Clearly the OP does not really understand what advertising is usually about. Most mass market advertising does not try to provide information, it is providing associations. It presents something enjoyable (here it is assumed that Seinfeld+Gates==Enjoyable) and then presents the branding that they want to be associated with that enjoyable feeling. The crazy part is that this works, and in a weird way can be suggested as actually improving the product. Since the next time the subject of the advertising uses/sees the product, they will subconsiously access that association with enjoyment... therefore the product is more enjoyable as a result of the advertising.
I am not saying that this is a good thing, but it is how things work in the real world.
Having seen the ad, and thinking of others that have been defended in this way, I've come to suspect that this in fact doesn't work at all, and that what you're repeating actually originated as marketing for marketing. "Don't worry. It's supposed to be horrible!"
I mean, it ended with Bill Gates coyly wiggling his ass for chrissake!
Or the next time he considers committing a crime, his punishment for the last one will have made him completely psychotic. Forcing intense emotional trauma on someone doesn't seem like it'd be greatly successful as a method of rehabilitation.
Aw, go easy on the guy. If we blacklisted every editor around here who habitually posts ridiculously stupid crap, we wouldn't have any articles to not read at all!
Believe me, I tried. If there's a good list out there of species known to be affected by flu, it seems to have been swamped out by all the recent attention bird flu has received.
Yeah, I was actually thinking of a series of particularly devastating strains infecting various species over a relatively short period. I don't know how likely that would actually be, but it seems within the realm of possibility, particularly given that most species would have only the natural defense provided by their immune systems to protect them.
I was a member of a union when I was a teenager. The damn thing nearly fucked me by saying we had to go on strike. I didn't want to, I had rent and a bike to pay for, and the last thing I needed was no pay for a week, or even a few days.
Luckily the strike was averted because the management pretty much said 'sure, go ahead and leave, but you won't get the pay rise anyway, and you put your jobs at risk if the factory closes for long'. Seemed fair to me.
How the heck would a sysadmin strike work, anyway? There's so many systems that more or less take care of themselves, and for the things you have to babysit, how long would you have to stay on strike before one actually broke in a way that would impact business?
You probably can't even get Ghostbusters down at your local "Three DVDs for $20" guy on the corner; his stock is all newer.
You need a better "Three DVDs for $20" guy. Even the Best Buy downtown has it bundled with Ghostbusters II and (for some reason) a book for fifteen clams.
this has nothing to do with gmail. gmail's usefulness to the general public has nothing to do with user contribution. google's gmail service doesn't cease to be useful just because you (or everyone) uses IMAP. their publishing user emails wouldn't make the service more useful either. that's a completely random and nonsensical analogy.
Obviously it wouldn't. But hotlinking material found on Image Search doesn't make Image Search more useful, either. That's just something inconsiderate people with a sense of entitlement do with the images they find. Likewise, privacy aspects aside, Google publishing my email would be a liberty taken with my writing that they are not entitled to.
and i would advise you to research the concept of 'fair use', which i think is relevant to this discussion, rather than pursuing orthogonal comparisons.
Okay, what specific material would you like to suggest? Since you're interested in only the ethical sense of the term, and not its actual definition in copyright law, and since your interpretation clearly extends far beyond the uses that the U.S. Code allows for anyway, what do you consider the authoritative definition to be?
if you want to extrapolate my argument to written works then consider the Google Web Search service. in order for the search results to be useful, google has to display excerpts from listed web pages in the returned search results. most people consider this to fall within fair use. the service helps users find information more easily on the web, and also increases the amount of traffic to listed websites.
I'm afraid I don't follow you. I don't see how Google displaying a dozen words from the page in the search results is anything at all like hotlinking an image. One is a small excerpt from the work as a whole, and one is the wholesale replication of the entire work elsewhere. Do you really consider these to be equivalent?
this search service only works, however, if:
a.) webmasters allow google to grab select portions of the site's written content and display it along with the search results.
b.) the site doesn't serve different versions of a page to google and other visitors.
I don't believe I ever suggested that point A was untrue. In fact, that falls under fair use as I am familiar with the concept. I certainly didn't propose point B, as I have prescribed no countermeasures against this activity of any sort.
now, if you only want the benefit of search engine traffic but don't want people to see any part of your site's content without having paid for it first, then you are a douche. and you should be delisted. because if every site had such policies, then google's web search would cease to work.
This also was not in any of the examples I asked about, but I'll ask now: are you seriously suggesting that it is immoral for a members-only website to be listed by Google?
I really don't see how being indexed by Google implies carte blanche for anyone to use your content in any context they choose without restriction, aside from the frankly completely arbitrary one precluding commercial use. Would you say the same is true of anything I might publish? If I write a story, is it okay to reprint it wherever you like without so much as an attribution, so long as you don't charge anything?
Where do you draw the line? If I write a program and depend on Google to direct customers to it, is it okay for one of them to distribute copies of it? I'm benefiting—in fact commercially benefiting—from the service, but not making any contribution to it there, either.
What about my Gmail? I benefit from that exclusively, and give nothing to them in return. I read it by IMAP, so I don't even see the ads. Is it okay for Google to publish my email? Is it okay if they don't benefit commercially?
Okay, so if you'll indulge me for a moment, I want to make sure I'm not mis-characterizing your position here. You're saying that being annoyed that someone not only decided to use my images without so much as asking permission, but actually went so far as to make me pay for the bandwidth (however minuscule) is being a douche?
More power to you if you don't mind and even prefer that people hotlink your images, but who are you to berate people who can't or even just don't want to do the same? Why is not wanting my bandwidth quota used to support somebody else's site unreasonable? And why should I exclude myself from Google's image search just for that?
They are not making copies of the OS, installing and distributing an unlicensed copy, they are installing a valid, purchased OS and passing their right of first sale onto their customer. It will be an interesting case to watch unfold.
I thought we already watched this case unfold between CleanFlicks and Hollywood. Why would you be able to sell people modified versions of software but not modified versions of films? Aren't both protected by the same laws?
Why not? He didn't misrepresent the product. He didn't fail to deliver it. He didn't even trick anybody into buying something they didn't want. Legal action seems like a pretty reasonable response to a chargeback in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
And for that little public performance, now you owe them royalties. Ask yourself: was the Funny mod really worth it?
Eight opcodes!? Luxury! Real programmers only use subtract and branch if negative.
Another good one would be the Python Cookbook on ASPN. And at a more abstract level, Ward's Wiki has explanations and discussions of a wide range of interesting tools, languages, and techniques.
Whoops, except I meant userContent.css of course. As a mea culpa, here's a version that also takes out their 7-day trial banner and some links to other random crap, and that won't affect other sites that happen to use the same class names for something.
I dread the day somebody makes an ASCII art goatse that is also a valid perl script.
Put this in userChrome.css:
Skip all their cloaking bullshit.
Just as a point of reference, the drivers for the printer I have are a 2MB download.
WELCOME TO HELL, MORTAL.
Aw shit.
EVERYONE HERE HAS FIBER!
Hey, cool.
YOU HAVE TO GET IT FROM COMCAST.
Aw shit.
Leave them in space and declare the experiment a resounding success?
That's just it, though. Being more knowledgable about computers than the average Joe doesn't give me any advantage, since they didn't make any claims for a savvy consumer to see right through. The entire ad is nothing but a series of non-sequiturs. Worse, it's dull. Even when they get around to talking about Windows, nobody's going to be paying attention.
Microsoft basically just wasted $300,000,000.
Having seen the ad, and thinking of others that have been defended in this way, I've come to suspect that this in fact doesn't work at all, and that what you're repeating actually originated as marketing for marketing. "Don't worry. It's supposed to be horrible!"
I mean, it ended with Bill Gates coyly wiggling his ass for chrissake!
Or the next time he considers committing a crime, his punishment for the last one will have made him completely psychotic. Forcing intense emotional trauma on someone doesn't seem like it'd be greatly successful as a method of rehabilitation.
Aw, go easy on the guy. If we blacklisted every editor around here who habitually posts ridiculously stupid crap, we wouldn't have any articles to not read at all!
Believe me, I tried. If there's a good list out there of species known to be affected by flu, it seems to have been swamped out by all the recent attention bird flu has received.
Yeah, I was actually thinking of a series of particularly devastating strains infecting various species over a relatively short period. I don't know how likely that would actually be, but it seems within the realm of possibility, particularly given that most species would have only the natural defense provided by their immune systems to protect them.
How many avian and mammalian species are susceptible to flu?
How the heck would a sysadmin strike work, anyway? There's so many systems that more or less take care of themselves, and for the things you have to babysit, how long would you have to stay on strike before one actually broke in a way that would impact business?
You need a better "Three DVDs for $20" guy. Even the Best Buy downtown has it bundled with Ghostbusters II and (for some reason) a book for fifteen clams.
You can't. It doesn't even respect image.animation_mode. The bug for it is nearly seven years old.
Obviously it wouldn't. But hotlinking material found on Image Search doesn't make Image Search more useful, either. That's just something inconsiderate people with a sense of entitlement do with the images they find. Likewise, privacy aspects aside, Google publishing my email would be a liberty taken with my writing that they are not entitled to.
Okay, what specific material would you like to suggest? Since you're interested in only the ethical sense of the term, and not its actual definition in copyright law, and since your interpretation clearly extends far beyond the uses that the U.S. Code allows for anyway, what do you consider the authoritative definition to be?
I'm afraid I don't follow you. I don't see how Google displaying a dozen words from the page in the search results is anything at all like hotlinking an image. One is a small excerpt from the work as a whole, and one is the wholesale replication of the entire work elsewhere. Do you really consider these to be equivalent?
I don't believe I ever suggested that point A was untrue. In fact, that falls under fair use as I am familiar with the concept. I certainly didn't propose point B, as I have prescribed no countermeasures against this activity of any sort.
This also was not in any of the examples I asked about, but I'll ask now: are you seriously suggesting that it is immoral for a members-only website to be listed by Google?
I really don't see how being indexed by Google implies carte blanche for anyone to use your content in any context they choose without restriction, aside from the frankly completely arbitrary one precluding commercial use. Would you say the same is true of anything I might publish? If I write a story, is it okay to reprint it wherever you like without so much as an attribution, so long as you don't charge anything?
Where do you draw the line? If I write a program and depend on Google to direct customers to it, is it okay for one of them to distribute copies of it? I'm benefiting—in fact commercially benefiting—from the service, but not making any contribution to it there, either.
What about my Gmail? I benefit from that exclusively, and give nothing to them in return. I read it by IMAP, so I don't even see the ads. Is it okay for Google to publish my email? Is it okay if they don't benefit commercially?
Okay, so if you'll indulge me for a moment, I want to make sure I'm not mis-characterizing your position here. You're saying that being annoyed that someone not only decided to use my images without so much as asking permission, but actually went so far as to make me pay for the bandwidth (however minuscule) is being a douche?
More power to you if you don't mind and even prefer that people hotlink your images, but who are you to berate people who can't or even just don't want to do the same? Why is not wanting my bandwidth quota used to support somebody else's site unreasonable? And why should I exclude myself from Google's image search just for that?
I thought we already watched this case unfold between CleanFlicks and Hollywood. Why would you be able to sell people modified versions of software but not modified versions of films? Aren't both protected by the same laws?
Why not? He didn't misrepresent the product. He didn't fail to deliver it. He didn't even trick anybody into buying something they didn't want. Legal action seems like a pretty reasonable response to a chargeback in this case.
6k is equal to 6 for very... very, very, very large values of 6.