I like to look up relevant articles in encyclopedias and see how biased/incorrect they are -- and I find that they are considerbly more biased and wrong than Wikipedia's.
Science is always going to be behind the times in an encyclopedia. And you're able to judge the worth of articles in your own field, but for any random subject, I'd trust Brittanica more than a Wiki by whoever elected themselves to write or rewrite the article.
Do a lot of people even use these anymore?
I figured by now, the internet would have overtaken these completely.
I do, but not Encarta. Brittanica is the gold standard. As for the Internet; sure, it's what I use for 99% of my fact checking, but if I actually need some background and something I can feel is authoritative (rather than a say a Wiki that anyone with an axe to grind can distort), I use a real encyclopedia.
If it worked. But the fucking idiots still post your address to usenet, where it can be harvested, though they hide it in their web interface. I remember how good dejanews was, then how much it sucked when they tried to make it into a portal, then how happy I was when Google took it over, though they fucked up a few things. Now they really look like they're trying to do an "embrace, extend and extinguish" on the whole usenet, to make it into the Google Web BBS. Fuckers.
so is there a mirror of the article somewhere for us to read?
No, the site is hosted on a dynamic IP, so after the first dozen hits it disappeared. No ne can read it for the next day or more. So there's nothing to discuss except the stupid Al Gore misquote.
Now reporters saying that "Gore said he invented the internet" is not too far fetched. Sure, created might have been better but so what (not nearly the worst summary I have ever seen by a reporter....)
It IS far-fetched; as well as being a lie. Gore made one ambiguously worded statement, that is arguably true, and it was rewritten to make him sound like an idiot (by conservatives with an axe to grind) and repeated and headlined till it became a label. The word "invented" is the one that draws blood, and he never said it.
BTW, the REAL history of the internet is in the Google Cache!
No, because that's purged every time they revisit a page. You only get a few months' history, if that. (Google Groups has a lot of usenet back to the 80s though.) Try the Wayback Machine for back to about 1996.
I can get the first page on mirrordot.org, but teh rest of the links are to "http://mybento.dynalias.net/ioih/", whihc probbaly means somebody's home PC. SO forget about it for the next 24 hours.
And to compound the idiocy of linking to a dynamic host, what's with repeating the "Gore invented the Internet" bullshit -- he never said that, as has been discussed here ad nauseaum. (See Snopes)
It makes sense to have new actors in Bond. 007 is a codename, therefore, it's possible to have new agents with the same codename. Indiana Jones however, is a person. To have a different actor in the same role just doesn't make sense.
"James Bond" was, in the books and movies, a particular person, not a code name, with a personal history (though it got a bit unlikely after a few decades, given his WWII service). From You Only Live Twice: "James Bond was born of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond of Glencoe, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix, from the Canton de Vaud..."
Dozens of actors have played such characters as Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, Superman, Batman, Dick Tracy, etc; not to mention Hamlet, Macbeth, etc. And good as he is at what he does, Ford doesn't do anything that any number of younger actors could do given the chance.
Pierce Brosnan. A good balance, but just doesn't pull it off as well in my opinion as Connery did, if only because the scripts he works with tend to be god awful.
I think none of his movies had more than the slightest connection with anything Ian Fleming had written. At least all the Connery movies were actually based on the novels, and Fleming was around to have something to do with the scripts. Since then they've become more and more asinine. I'm content to wait a few years till they turn up on broadcast TV.
Ford says "No doubt about it", and this "confirms" the movie is being made? How naive is everyone here? He's been saying that ever since they wrapped the last one. When he says "We start principal photography next week", then you can believe it actually means something more than "Next question". A movie of this scale must be scheduled a year in advance; it's still in development hell.
Go ahead and keep your junk car, fishing rods, and unused softweare locked up till 95 years after your death. Have them all interred in your mausoleum. God forbid anyone should get any benefit from them.
The fact of the matter is, most of the time fansubers, abandonware sites, and other gray area copyright violators who aren't stealing out of a desire to not pay but out of a lack of any other avenue to get the product, end up hurting themselves in the end.
Typically what happens is that instead of reviving the product, they hammer the last nail into the coffin by removing ANY hope of the company seeing any finiacial viablity out of bringing the product back on their own.
But with old software, quite often the company owning the copyright has disappeared, and even if it changed hands, very likely the old software is nothing more than dusty files in a warehouse that will never be referred to again. No one who worked on it (the real creators) works for the "owners", there is no chance of it being revived. It will just disappear if the letter of the law is followed.
Very simply, copyright deals with whether the material is owned, not with whether it is distributed or not.
The car in my garage that I haven't driven in 10 years is still mine, and you can't take it just because you need a car and I'm not using it.
Though I hate car analogies (why do people always make car analogies when trying to make a point about IP?), a better illustration of abandonware would be a car parked on a country roadside for ten years, with flat tyres and number plates that if tracked down would give an address you left years ago. Legally it probably still belongs to you, but a normal person could be forgiven for assuming that you had effectively, if not formally, discarded it and had no interest in what happened to it, and thus would see no problem in towing it away to use for parts.
People would not be at this position if Asia did something to help itself.
That's the problem. With you. "Asia" is not a single jurisdiction. How would you like to be sanctioned because of the actions of spammers in Patagonia? That's what you advocate.
Regions can police themselves. America is enacting and enforcing TOUGH laws. Canada is, England is, Australia is.
Australia is part of APNIC. Under your policy they'd still be banned regardless, because some dipshits in Seoul are sending you spam. As for America's "TOUGH laws", give me a break. NO spammers have been convicted of spamming. A handful have been charged with fraud related to spam. Spammers are interviewed in the NYT and cheerfully discuss their methods and profits.
This is no different than driving around bad neighborhoods.
It's nothing like it. The salient difference being that if you are 10 feet away from a "dangerous" area, you're still in danger, If you're one IP number off from a spammer, you are unaffected. The basic objection is that you are absurdly indiscriminate. You can block on an ISP level, which while often still unjust, at least gives some incentive for ISPs to clean up their acts. Blocking a whole continent does nothing but breed resentment, especially when most of the spam really originates in the USA, and your "TOUGH laws" do nothing to stop companies using it.
Jesus Christ, last try. Answer the question. I will restate: What will Westerners be missing out on by blocking APNIC? google.cn?
If you can't give any good answers, and lots of spam comes from them, explain why it's not a good idea to block.
Me. I live in APNIC. OK?
Spam? 90% of my spam is in English, selling Rolex watches, Viagra, cable decoders, etc, etc. Most of them are obviously on behalf of American sleazebags whatever mail server they used. As I said, as everyone with a clue knows, most spam originates in America. That your spammers abuse resources elsewhere to send it is part of the problem. Cutting off WHOLE CONTINENTS isn't going to solve that. Same as poisoning crops in Colombia isn't going to help your drug problem. If not Colombia it'll just pop up spomewhere else. The problem is in America.
And if you're blocking your personal email, fine, have a nice life. I couldn't care less. If you're blocking on behalf of a company or an ISP, words cannot express how much I despise people like you.
-- premature send, sorry for typos and incomplete sentences. Should have been:
If all the world's energy is coming through one "pipeline" however
Obviously that's never going to happen -- oil isn't going to disappear, hydro-electricity isn't, etc, etc. Anyway, even discounting a military threat, space transport is going to be risky enough not trust a year's supply of an incredibly valuable resource to a single shipment. And surely there will be lost of other stuff worth mining and sending back (assuming a massdriver is set up on the Moon to launch) and so ther will be a stream of cargo, making it sensible to spread the He3 over many shipments along with metals, dilithium crystals, etc.
If you still see warfare as being about blowing each other up then you have a lot to learn. War is waged for profit or defence. If the US were the agressor then profit could be the only motive. Control of the energy supply is compatible with this purpose. Blowing up bits of other countries with ICBMs is not.
You (or whoever I was replying to) was talking about "blowing up" the shuttle with He3. I was pointing out that this is no different to what could be done today; and the reason ICBM attacks haven't happened is the same that no one would attack a He3 shuttle, it would be an act of war and lead to massive retaliation.
If all the world's energy is coming through one "pipeline" however
Obviously that's nver going to happen -- oil isn't going to disappear, hydro-electricity isn't, etc, etc. Anyway, even discounting a military threat, space transport is going to be risky enough not not trust a year's supply of an incredibly valuable resource to a single shipment. And surely ther will be lost of other stuff worth mining and sending back (Assuming
If you still see warfare as being about blowing each other up then you have a lot to learn. War is waged for profit or defence. If the US were the agressor then profit could be the only motive. Control of the energy supply is compatible with this purpose. Blowing up bits of other countries with ICBMs is not.
You (or whoever I was replying to) was talking about "blowing up" the shuttle with He3. I was pointing out that this is no different to what could could be done today; and the reason ICBM attacks haven't happened is the same that no one would attack a He3 shuttle, it would be an act of war and lead to massive retaliation.
There is a distinct qualitative difference between duplicating digital content for your own private use/entertainment and duplicating IP to create goods and services to sell
Exactly. Could you give an example of a HK company doing this in the last five years? If not, what was your point?
The BBC story exclusively quoted govt spokesmen and boosters of Cyberport. Cyberport is an admitted huge white elephant and example of crony capitalism and what's wrong with the HK government -- just Google for [cyberport "white elephant"]. Every big new project now routinely has to face the question "Will this be another Cyberport?" It's basically a big sweetheart deal with billionaire property developers, the Li family, who got a dirt cheap deal on prime land to build luxury housing, without having to put up tenders, by allocating some area to "hi tech", and installing the aforementioned network and such (not a big deal for a new development here or most other places I'd imagine). Since Richard Li also runs the local Telecom PCCW, this was actually a money earner for him.
Slashdot Mirror
Science is always going to be behind the times in an encyclopedia. And you're able to judge the worth of articles in your own field, but for any random subject, I'd trust Brittanica more than a Wiki by whoever elected themselves to write or rewrite the article.
Until the RIAA et al subpoenas the databases these spyware companies make of every file you've downloaded or shared.
I do, but not Encarta. Brittanica is the gold standard. As for the Internet; sure, it's what I use for 99% of my fact checking, but if I actually need some background and something I can feel is authoritative (rather than a say a Wiki that anyone with an axe to grind can distort), I use a real encyclopedia.
Sure, but for how long? After they've settled down with the American version, they'll translate it and fuck up the others too.
And people keep saying "Click on options" to do this or that. IT DOESN'T WORK IN MY BROWSER.
If it worked. But the fucking idiots still post your address to usenet, where it can be harvested, though they hide it in their web interface. I remember how good dejanews was, then how much it sucked when they tried to make it into a portal, then how happy I was when Google took it over, though they fucked up a few things. Now they really look like they're trying to do an "embrace, extend and extinguish" on the whole usenet, to make it into the Google Web BBS. Fuckers.
No, the site is hosted on a dynamic IP, so after the first dozen hits it disappeared. No ne can read it for the next day or more. So there's nothing to discuss except the stupid Al Gore misquote.
It IS far-fetched; as well as being a lie. Gore made one ambiguously worded statement, that is arguably true, and it was rewritten to make him sound like an idiot (by conservatives with an axe to grind) and repeated and headlined till it became a label. The word "invented" is the one that draws blood, and he never said it.
No, because that's purged every time they revisit a page. You only get a few months' history, if that. (Google Groups has a lot of usenet back to the 80s though.) Try the Wayback Machine for back to about 1996.
And to compound the idiocy of linking to a dynamic host, what's with repeating the "Gore invented the Internet" bullshit -- he never said that, as has been discussed here ad nauseaum. (See Snopes)
I'd expect tehm to bounce a few times, but not break. They don;t have foundations, but are ballasted by water tanks, if you RTFA.
And heaven help you if you build one in a hurricane or tornado area.
Might have a point there.
Or anywhere that has heavy rain or snow.
It's got a sharp peaked roof with a plastic cover, so should be fine in rain or snow.
"James Bond" was, in the books and movies, a particular person, not a code name, with a personal history (though it got a bit unlikely after a few decades, given his WWII service). From You Only Live Twice: "James Bond was born of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond of Glencoe, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix, from the Canton de Vaud..."
Dozens of actors have played such characters as Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, Superman, Batman, Dick Tracy, etc; not to mention Hamlet, Macbeth, etc. And good as he is at what he does, Ford doesn't do anything that any number of younger actors could do given the chance.
I think none of his movies had more than the slightest connection with anything Ian Fleming had written. At least all the Connery movies were actually based on the novels, and Fleming was around to have something to do with the scripts. Since then they've become more and more asinine. I'm content to wait a few years till they turn up on broadcast TV.
Ford says "No doubt about it", and this "confirms" the movie is being made? How naive is everyone here? He's been saying that ever since they wrapped the last one. When he says "We start principal photography next week", then you can believe it actually means something more than "Next question". A movie of this scale must be scheduled a year in advance; it's still in development hell.
I am not => I'm not
I NEVER SAID IT WAS. That's NOT the point
Go ahead and keep your junk car, fishing rods, and unused softweare locked up till 95 years after your death. Have them all interred in your mausoleum. God forbid anyone should get any benefit from them.
Since that's from an American case, and this is in Australia, yes, it has no relevance.
But with old software, quite often the company owning the copyright has disappeared, and even if it changed hands, very likely the old software is nothing more than dusty files in a warehouse that will never be referred to again. No one who worked on it (the real creators) works for the "owners", there is no chance of it being revived. It will just disappear if the letter of the law is followed.
Though I hate car analogies (why do people always make car analogies when trying to make a point about IP?), a better illustration of abandonware would be a car parked on a country roadside for ten years, with flat tyres and number plates that if tracked down would give an address you left years ago. Legally it probably still belongs to you, but a normal person could be forgiven for assuming that you had effectively, if not formally, discarded it and had no interest in what happened to it, and thus would see no problem in towing it away to use for parts.
That's the problem. With you. "Asia" is not a single jurisdiction. How would you like to be sanctioned because of the actions of spammers in Patagonia? That's what you advocate.
Regions can police themselves. America is enacting and enforcing TOUGH laws. Canada is, England is, Australia is.
Australia is part of APNIC. Under your policy they'd still be banned regardless, because some dipshits in Seoul are sending you spam. As for America's "TOUGH laws", give me a break. NO spammers have been convicted of spamming. A handful have been charged with fraud related to spam. Spammers are interviewed in the NYT and cheerfully discuss their methods and profits.
This is no different than driving around bad neighborhoods.
It's nothing like it. The salient difference being that if you are 10 feet away from a "dangerous" area, you're still in danger, If you're one IP number off from a spammer, you are unaffected. The basic objection is that you are absurdly indiscriminate. You can block on an ISP level, which while often still unjust, at least gives some incentive for ISPs to clean up their acts. Blocking a whole continent does nothing but breed resentment, especially when most of the spam really originates in the USA, and your "TOUGH laws" do nothing to stop companies using it.
Me. I live in APNIC. OK?
Spam? 90% of my spam is in English, selling Rolex watches, Viagra, cable decoders, etc, etc. Most of them are obviously on behalf of American sleazebags whatever mail server they used. As I said, as everyone with a clue knows, most spam originates in America. That your spammers abuse resources elsewhere to send it is part of the problem. Cutting off WHOLE CONTINENTS isn't going to solve that. Same as poisoning crops in Colombia isn't going to help your drug problem. If not Colombia it'll just pop up spomewhere else. The problem is in America.
And if you're blocking your personal email, fine, have a nice life. I couldn't care less. If you're blocking on behalf of a company or an ISP, words cannot express how much I despise people like you.
If all the world's energy is coming through one "pipeline" however
Obviously that's never going to happen -- oil isn't going to disappear, hydro-electricity isn't, etc, etc. Anyway, even discounting a military threat, space transport is going to be risky enough not trust a year's supply of an incredibly valuable resource to a single shipment. And surely there will be lost of other stuff worth mining and sending back (assuming a massdriver is set up on the Moon to launch) and so ther will be a stream of cargo, making it sensible to spread the He3 over many shipments along with metals, dilithium crystals, etc.
If you still see warfare as being about blowing each other up then you have a lot to learn. War is waged for profit or defence. If the US were the agressor then profit could be the only motive. Control of the energy supply is compatible with this purpose. Blowing up bits of other countries with ICBMs is not.
You (or whoever I was replying to) was talking about "blowing up" the shuttle with He3. I was pointing out that this is no different to what could be done today; and the reason ICBM attacks haven't happened is the same that no one would attack a He3 shuttle, it would be an act of war and lead to massive retaliation.
Obviously that's nver going to happen -- oil isn't going to disappear, hydro-electricity isn't, etc, etc. Anyway, even discounting a military threat, space transport is going to be risky enough not not trust a year's supply of an incredibly valuable resource to a single shipment. And surely ther will be lost of other stuff worth mining and sending back (Assuming
If you still see warfare as being about blowing each other up then you have a lot to learn. War is waged for profit or defence. If the US were the agressor then profit could be the only motive. Control of the energy supply is compatible with this purpose. Blowing up bits of other countries with ICBMs is not.
You (or whoever I was replying to) was talking about "blowing up" the shuttle with He3. I was pointing out that this is no different to what could could be done today; and the reason ICBM attacks haven't happened is the same that no one would attack a He3 shuttle, it would be an act of war and lead to massive retaliation.
As the rest of your comment followed on from that mistake, addressing the rest seemed pointless.
Exactly. Could you give an example of a HK company doing this in the last five years? If not, what was your point?
The BBC story exclusively quoted govt spokesmen and boosters of Cyberport. Cyberport is an admitted huge white elephant and example of crony capitalism and what's wrong with the HK government -- just Google for [cyberport "white elephant"]. Every big new project now routinely has to face the question "Will this be another Cyberport?" It's basically a big sweetheart deal with billionaire property developers, the Li family, who got a dirt cheap deal on prime land to build luxury housing, without having to put up tenders, by allocating some area to "hi tech", and installing the aforementioned network and such (not a big deal for a new development here or most other places I'd imagine). Since Richard Li also runs the local Telecom PCCW, this was actually a money earner for him.