It's supposed to be a way to identify an article based on keywords. It's not an opinion poll. Keywords like "yes", "no", and "duh", are completely irrelevant!
Whatever the orignal intention, users have noticed that if enough of them use a particular tag, it is displayed under the articles. Thus it's become a way to respond directly to it. It does show, I think, that users want a way to rate articles directly, and have leapt on this as a way to do so.
Anyway, I've not seen any other use for tags yet, so why not? If I want to search for articles, I do so by the words in it in the existing search function. Sucky as that is, it suffices most of the time.
If the editors bothered to read the articles, perhaps they could make sensible tags. Since they can't be bothered to check spelling, links, let alone credibility or dupes, this seems a faint hope.
Now, that's not to say that MS is wholly innocent, obviously (security wholes, bad MS communications protocols, etc.). But they have every right to ensure that 3rd party apps should work with their OS to ensure a minimal amount of problems.
They have no such right to deliberately break competitors's software. They've done it before, and been sued for it. Throw up a warning if you like, but go ahead if the user requests.
As far as I can tell, people who still use 2000 by choice are either ignorant or just dumb.
Or cheap, or just don't see a need to install a more demanding OS for no discernible benefit. I haven't found any software or hardware that refuses to install or run on Win2k, for instance. An OS is just a platform to run apps. If it does that without crashing, why change it?
Anyone who's helped a computer-challenged friend or colleague is tempted to prescribe sweeping changes. The problem is, that no matter how much better the methods, applications or even OS you recommend, you are responsible in their mind for every problem they encounter from then on.
Long ago I helped a guy rationalise his laptop; upgraded DOS, and Wordperfect (shows how long ago this was...). Then weeks later I get a call "I can't save my file! You've messed up my computer! It worked before!!! etc...". Turns out he was trying to use an illegal filename. So a problem he created that had nothing to do with what I had done, had become my problem. And this continued for months. It only takes a few people like that to sour you on the whole idea, and you revert to "Reformat and reinstall; call MS if it doesn't work". Beware those who nod and agree when you make suggestions, often they have no idea what is going on and will come back to you time and time again to ask the same question and drive you insane. Unless you're either a BOFH or Mahatma Gandhi, don't be a suggester.
Exactly. Hasn't anyone heard of the concept of "Fair use"? It hasn;t been revoked (yet) has it? Quoting a source (acknowledged, of course) is specifically allowed for the purposes of scholarship. When it's not acknowledged, it's plagiarism, which might be dubious morally and earn you a failing grade, but still might be "fair use" legally (after all, you don't have to footnote your sources when you do a parody, another fair use).
However, the company is using the essays to build its database and SELLING the service, it does not fall under fair use.
I don't think many people would seriously argue that the person being accused here wasn't illegally sharing files based on this evidence.... so on the balance of probabilities, a person who shows up as having a Metallica album on a p2p program more likely than not does, it's as simple as that.
For one thing, there is no "person who shows up as having a Metallica album on a p2p". There is a node on a P2P network identified by an IP. Connecting that to a particuar computer, let alone human being, is fraught, and though you might feel it likely it belonged to a particular person, that depends on the perfection of the ISP's logs, which were never designed for use as legal evidence, and whether anyone has spoofed it. If you're going to put someone through the hell of the legal process and demand thousands of dollars (for notional, not real) losses, you need a higher standard. That the RIAAA has avoided arguing their cases on their merits and depended on intimidating accused into settling is the point of taking this case to court.
Why does everyone keep saying this doesn't conserve energy and momentum? He's got mains power hooked up to a magnatron, he's expending a whole lot of energy and (he claims) he's getting a tiny output of momentum.
Energy isn't momentum. They're conserved SEPARATELY. You can't convert one into another.
(You use energy to give a rocket upwards momentum, which is balanced by the momentum of the exhaust in the opposite direction.) This invention is basically a black box that just starts accelerating with no exhaust, not even photons. No matter how much handwaving, this breaks a lot of fundamental physical laws and must be regarded with huge scepticism. Anyway, he's got money so let him build it and show us before getting excited about a scientific revolution.
no idea what a Big Red Plenty Pack is, but according to the article (6th paragraph) the box is 35 x 103cm in size.
Probably a slab (24 cans) of some drink like Red Bull, I guess.
(I had to Google to find out WTF "Big Red Plenty" was. For God's sake, if you're going to throw in "colloquial" units of measure, try to be less parochial. And as TFA shows, Americans sadly still have no clue about the metric system.)
would gladly pay $10 extra for getting rid of some of that mess.
A compact battery charger costs less and doubles as a case to keep a spare set of batteries in. You don't need to power up and leave your laptop on all night just to charge your flashlight batteries either.
You're not being "oppressed" because 99% of the road-using populace doesn't cater to the 1% who chooses to put themselves in harm's way.
And those niggers who put themselves in harm's way by going to the wrong part of town were asking for it too.
Being asked to slow down is such an affront to your machismo you'd rather put someone's life at risk; and blame them for "being in harm's (i.e., your vehicle's) way". Amazing.
(...) Privacy can't be an issue if you were in a public place.
I heartily disagree with this as I feel that people have a right to be protected also in public places,
OK, but consider that if your rules were strictly applied, it would be impossible to take, and certainly to publish, a photo of a street scene, a sporting event, etc without incurring legal liability. Photography would return to the early 19th C when 20 minute exposures made landscapes and posed portraits the only forms available.
Meanwhile, government and private surveillance cameras multiply like rabbits and go mostly unremarked, a huge threat to privacy that I do oppose.
I realize this is Slashdot and we have a glorious history here of commenting on articles without reading them but I must ask you how you can reach the conclusion that the volumes that followed the Silmarillion were exploitative and a dilution of the earlier works when you haven't even read them?
Perhaps I'm too cynical, after seeing how Robert E Howard, Frank Herbert's, for example, works have been treated. It seemed to me that JRR covered the entire history of Middle Earth in Silmarillion, I couldn't imagine the succeeding volumes had any more to add. I briefly looked through some and found them impenetrable. But that's just me. There's definitely much worse published.
"Dwarfs" is only the plural form of dwarf stars. The plural for dwarf people is "dwarves". Yes, English major.
Both forms are valid. But "dwarfs" was the more common until Tolkien chose to use the V form. Look in a dictionary. Also, note Disney's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937). Disney isn't an authority on language, but I think they might have noticed if their title was mispelled. See also Snow White bibliography all versions listed use "seven dwarfs", including several 19th C editions which predate the Disney movie.
Tolkien mentioned he had problems with editors over that, and also his use of "Elvish" rather than "Elfin". It seems obvious to us that Middle Earth elves weren't "elfin".
And as for "usual standard" -- Chis Tolkien is going to be able to match or exceed his father's writing in every technical way. Being able to write full time and not having to create the mythology will do that.
No. Have you actually read any of their respective writing? JRRT was a professor of English language and literature at Oxford University. His technical command of the language was pretty damn high.
No, but it does give some indication of motive. If I'm looking to make a quick buck, I sure don't spend 30 years turning it into a rather slow buck.
Chris Tolkien hasn't spent 30 years on this book. He's published dozens of other compilations of his fathers' work in that time. I've only read the Silmarilion, which I thought a worthy addition to the published canon. However sometime after that, the seemingly endless stream of variant versions of the same stories seems to have crossed over the line of honouring his legacy to ruthlessly exploiting, and diluting, it.
Those are the conditions.
The "conditions" being referred to in the statute are clearly not meant to include "riding the bike in general"
Sure. Who is making assumptions now. I don't choose to share a road with assumers like you if there is an alternative. Only when given no option do I use such a road, and if I must, I'm not going to let you force me off it.
Cyclists are worse than Mac users when it comes to adopting elitist, oppressed-minority attitudes. I especially love how drivers are "inconsiderate" for not being super nice to cyclists, but cyclists see it as their divine freakin' right hold up traffic for three miles by going 20mph slower than everyone else, and that's not inconsiderate at all, eh?
The oppression is quite real and sometimes lethal, thanks to attitudes like yours, that a few seconds of your time is worth more than my life. You are willing to put my life at risk because you resent slowing down for a minute.
So you're talking about normal search results, not "news"? If so, these people are idiots, they can easily control that by robots.txt. As they well know.
I find your view intriguing, seeing as this is pretty much the only part of our copyright law that I see any reason to hang on to:-)
But then as part of privacy laws.
Your face is not an artistic creation (pause for Michel Jackson joke), so I don't see how copyright is involved. The photo is the artwork, and that belongs to the photogrpher, whatever the subject. Privacy can't be an issue if you were in a public place.
It does in Norway (to the extent that "IP" is "owned"), so it really boils down to where you're sued and what their laws are. I wouldn't expect this sort of law to be uncommon since there is an obvious need to protect people from their likeness being plastered all over the place without their consent.
If you use someone's face in a commercial campaign, you do need a release. (Though even that is more a matter of custom rather than law, I think, as you imply the person depicted endorses your product.) Otherwise, generally (in Englsih speaking countries I'm fairly confident), no. There have been cases where people have sued when a photo featuring them was used in a prominent photo book or magazine; none have been successful I think, though some may have reached an out-of-court settlement.
Norway obviously has its own laws, but this one sounds a bit idiosyncratic.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you missed the rest of my post, discussing things other than cost.
Whatever the orignal intention, users have noticed that if enough of them use a particular tag, it is displayed under the articles. Thus it's become a way to respond directly to it. It does show, I think, that users want a way to rate articles directly, and have leapt on this as a way to do so.
Anyway, I've not seen any other use for tags yet, so why not? If I want to search for articles, I do so by the words in it in the existing search function. Sucky as that is, it suffices most of the time.
If the editors bothered to read the articles, perhaps they could make sensible tags. Since they can't be bothered to check spelling, links, let alone credibility or dupes, this seems a faint hope.
They have no such right to deliberately break competitors's software. They've done it before, and been sued for it. Throw up a warning if you like, but go ahead if the user requests.
Or cheap, or just don't see a need to install a more demanding OS for no discernible benefit. I haven't found any software or hardware that refuses to install or run on Win2k, for instance. An OS is just a platform to run apps. If it does that without crashing, why change it?
Long ago I helped a guy rationalise his laptop; upgraded DOS, and Wordperfect (shows how long ago this was...). Then weeks later I get a call "I can't save my file! You've messed up my computer! It worked before!!! etc...". Turns out he was trying to use an illegal filename. So a problem he created that had nothing to do with what I had done, had become my problem. And this continued for months. It only takes a few people like that to sour you on the whole idea, and you revert to "Reformat and reinstall; call MS if it doesn't work". Beware those who nod and agree when you make suggestions, often they have no idea what is going on and will come back to you time and time again to ask the same question and drive you insane. Unless you're either a BOFH or Mahatma Gandhi, don't be a suggester.
Exactly. Hasn't anyone heard of the concept of "Fair use"? It hasn;t been revoked (yet) has it? Quoting a source (acknowledged, of course) is specifically allowed for the purposes of scholarship. When it's not acknowledged, it's plagiarism, which might be dubious morally and earn you a failing grade, but still might be "fair use" legally (after all, you don't have to footnote your sources when you do a parody, another fair use).
However, the company is using the essays to build its database and SELLING the service, it does not fall under fair use.
For one thing, there is no "person who shows up as having a Metallica album on a p2p". There is a node on a P2P network identified by an IP. Connecting that to a particuar computer, let alone human being, is fraught, and though you might feel it likely it belonged to a particular person, that depends on the perfection of the ISP's logs, which were never designed for use as legal evidence, and whether anyone has spoofed it. If you're going to put someone through the hell of the legal process and demand thousands of dollars (for notional, not real) losses, you need a higher standard. That the RIAAA has avoided arguing their cases on their merits and depended on intimidating accused into settling is the point of taking this case to court.
Energy isn't momentum. They're conserved SEPARATELY. You can't convert one into another. (You use energy to give a rocket upwards momentum, which is balanced by the momentum of the exhaust in the opposite direction.) This invention is basically a black box that just starts accelerating with no exhaust, not even photons. No matter how much handwaving, this breaks a lot of fundamental physical laws and must be regarded with huge scepticism. Anyway, he's got money so let him build it and show us before getting excited about a scientific revolution.
TFA had cm, not mm, when I read it. It's been corrected since then.
TFA said "device measures 1-3/8 x 4-1/8 inches (35 x 103cm)".
Centimetres, millimetres; only a pretentious asshole would distinguish between those gay units.
Most of us Americans learned how to convert between various units of measure in elementary school
Metric mishap caused loss of NASA orbiter.
Probably a slab (24 cans) of some drink like Red Bull, I guess.
(I had to Google to find out WTF "Big Red Plenty" was. For God's sake, if you're going to throw in "colloquial" units of measure, try to be less parochial. And as TFA shows, Americans sadly still have no clue about the metric system.)
A compact battery charger costs less and doubles as a case to keep a spare set of batteries in. You don't need to power up and leave your laptop on all night just to charge your flashlight batteries either.
Naturally you need a valve amp to plug your turntable into, and hand-wound speakers to make the sound.
And those niggers who put themselves in harm's way by going to the wrong part of town were asking for it too.
Being asked to slow down is such an affront to your machismo you'd rather put someone's life at risk; and blame them for "being in harm's (i.e., your vehicle's) way". Amazing.
I heartily disagree with this as I feel that people have a right to be protected also in public places,
OK, but consider that if your rules were strictly applied, it would be impossible to take, and certainly to publish, a photo of a street scene, a sporting event, etc without incurring legal liability. Photography would return to the early 19th C when 20 minute exposures made landscapes and posed portraits the only forms available.
Meanwhile, government and private surveillance cameras multiply like rabbits and go mostly unremarked, a huge threat to privacy that I do oppose.
Perhaps I'm too cynical, after seeing how Robert E Howard, Frank Herbert's, for example, works have been treated. It seemed to me that JRR covered the entire history of Middle Earth in Silmarillion, I couldn't imagine the succeeding volumes had any more to add. I briefly looked through some and found them impenetrable. But that's just me. There's definitely much worse published.
Both forms are valid. But "dwarfs" was the more common until Tolkien chose to use the V form. Look in a dictionary. Also, note Disney's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937). Disney isn't an authority on language, but I think they might have noticed if their title was mispelled. See also Snow White bibliography all versions listed use "seven dwarfs", including several 19th C editions which predate the Disney movie.
Tolkien mentioned he had problems with editors over that, and also his use of "Elvish" rather than "Elfin". It seems obvious to us that Middle Earth elves weren't "elfin".
No. Have you actually read any of their respective writing? JRRT was a professor of English language and literature at Oxford University. His technical command of the language was pretty damn high.
Chris Tolkien hasn't spent 30 years on this book. He's published dozens of other compilations of his fathers' work in that time. I've only read the Silmarilion, which I thought a worthy addition to the published canon. However sometime after that, the seemingly endless stream of variant versions of the same stories seems to have crossed over the line of honouring his legacy to ruthlessly exploiting, and diluting, it.
The "conditions" being referred to in the statute are clearly not meant to include "riding the bike in general"
Sure. Who is making assumptions now. I don't choose to share a road with assumers like you if there is an alternative. Only when given no option do I use such a road, and if I must, I'm not going to let you force me off it.
Cyclists are worse than Mac users when it comes to adopting elitist, oppressed-minority attitudes. I especially love how drivers are "inconsiderate" for not being super nice to cyclists, but cyclists see it as their divine freakin' right hold up traffic for three miles by going 20mph slower than everyone else, and that's not inconsiderate at all, eh?
The oppression is quite real and sometimes lethal, thanks to attitudes like yours, that a few seconds of your time is worth more than my life. You are willing to put my life at risk because you resent slowing down for a minute.
So you're talking about normal search results, not "news"? If so, these people are idiots, they can easily control that by robots.txt. As they well know.
Your face is not an artistic creation (pause for Michel Jackson joke), so I don't see how copyright is involved. The photo is the artwork, and that belongs to the photogrpher, whatever the subject. Privacy can't be an issue if you were in a public place.
If you use someone's face in a commercial campaign, you do need a release. (Though even that is more a matter of custom rather than law, I think, as you imply the person depicted endorses your product.) Otherwise, generally (in Englsih speaking countries I'm fairly confident), no. There have been cases where people have sued when a photo featuring them was used in a prominent photo book or magazine; none have been successful I think, though some may have reached an out-of-court settlement.
Norway obviously has its own laws, but this one sounds a bit idiosyncratic.
Surely some Americans have heard of Eddy Merckx.
Dr Evil is Belgian (by adoption, not birth).