Actually there are rights that cannot be sold. A musician keeps the right to "demonstrate" his own music.
Not if he creates it as a Work For Hire, which is almost certain to be the default arrangement for any new musician signing without a sharp enough lawyer.
I'm raised on C-style programming languages, and have always used null pointers/references, but I am having trouble of grokking null-reference free language.
Take a look at C++, in which you can declare methods to be "pass by reference" rather than "pass by pointer". Although the former is actually really just passing a pointer too, the semantics of the construct make it impossible to pass NULL.
Most audio books I've heard are read by celebrities, i.e., voices people recognize. I don't see TTS replacing celebrities anytime soon, considering that normal voice actors can't even do so.
AC needs to settle down and think about 0 years in the future when parents *are* able to read to their children. Parents are essentially licensing a book, and then turning it into an audio book, which has its own licensing scheme. I for one actually agree that you should not be able to buy one and get the other for free -- they are fundamentally different.
That said, what should happen is that each book has two flavors - read-to-your-children-capable and not. The read-to-your-children-capable version costs more to cover both licenses.
Won't somebody please think of the children, exposed to this evil pirating -- in the example of their own parents, no less -- from such a young age?
How very astute of you to notice that all members of a nation share exactly the same traits. Luckily I'm British and therefore love the Queen, so I don't have to waste my time with things like freedom.
People that complain about this stuff would still be complaining even if they rolled out the red carpet and handed them a honey baked ham on the way out.
I'm guessing you don't have a girlfriend. Call it an educated guess.
Would you care to point to the part of RFC2616 that details anything about the length?
That is precisely my point.
Just because other browsers use something larger doesn't change the fact that the spec doesn't dictate the length, and thus this will always be a potential problem, or, at the very least, something where someone at some point will have to decide a limit "randomly".
Nothing random about it. When you're writing a browser, don't impose arbitrary limits. Simply pass on the limit you yourself had imposed upon you, i.e., the limitations of the architecture. If your users want to pass longer URLs, they can buy more memory, get a 64-bit machine, etc.
The shitty part is that they don't raise the limit. Seems like an easy thing to fix. I believe IE8 uses the same restriction.
No, the shitty part is that they impose an arbitrary limit.
That's a mailto: which is not even pointing at the same server (it will go to an smtp server, not the http server).
Are you under the impression that mailto: is to SMTP as http: is to HTTP?
Hint: a mailto URL doesn't "go to" any server at all (unless you count the part of your local operating system which handles URL dispatch as a server).
Would you care to point to the part of RFC2616 that details this restriction?
Or do you mean, Microsoft didn't just pluck the number out of thin air, they got it by adding together some numbers they had, um, plucked out of thin air?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there are rights that cannot be sold. A musician keeps the right to "demonstrate" his own music.
Not if he creates it as a Work For Hire, which is almost certain to be the default arrangement for any new musician signing without a sharp enough lawyer.
Similar, but much more likely to appear in jokes.
You've heard of jokes, right?
I'm raised on C-style programming languages, and have always used null pointers/references, but I am having trouble of grokking null-reference free language.
Take a look at C++, in which you can declare methods to be "pass by reference" rather than "pass by pointer". Although the former is actually really just passing a pointer too, the semantics of the construct make it impossible to pass NULL.
A null terminated String is a misnomer.
True. It should be "NUL-terminated string".
But the use of the word "string" is correct:
5. A series of similar or related acts, events, or items arranged or falling in or as if in a line. See synonyms at series.
Most audio books I've heard are read by celebrities, i.e., voices people recognize. I don't see TTS replacing celebrities anytime soon, considering that normal voice actors can't even do so.
AC needs to settle down and think about 0 years in the future when parents *are* able to read to their children. Parents are essentially licensing a book, and then turning it into an audio book, which has its own licensing scheme. I for one actually agree that you should not be able to buy one and get the other for free -- they are fundamentally different.
That said, what should happen is that each book has two flavors - read-to-your-children-capable and not. The read-to-your-children-capable version costs more to cover both licenses.
Won't somebody please think of the children, exposed to this evil pirating -- in the example of their own parents, no less -- from such a young age?
How very astute of you to notice that all members of a nation share exactly the same traits. Luckily I'm British and therefore love the Queen, so I don't have to waste my time with things like freedom.
My favorite is this one:
http://www.ioccc.org/1996/eldby.c
But modern terminals are too fast for it :)
With only three weeks remaining, I am hesitant to rock the boat by contacting our HR department
Think of it less as "rocking the boat" and more as "making it clear that blackmail will not work".
Or use a toilet as your working surface. Think of the time saved!
Get off my lawn. Shell scripting? What's wrong with machine code? Damned cocky newbies.
It says there's a limit on the display on Windows. Like I said, it's reasonable to pass on the limits imposed upon you.
And what about the other bit you made up, where you said the same was true of all browsers?
I remember that. It was a nice email.
You were a considerably better moderator than your successor is.
People that complain about this stuff would still be complaining even if they rolled out the red carpet and handed them a honey baked ham on the way out.
I'm guessing you don't have a girlfriend. Call it an educated guess.
A simple call would have had him quivering to undo the damage at no charge
Are you being sarcastic, or have you never heard of Terry Childs?
O RLY?
I love it when people call "moron" when they're completely wrong.
The post to which diskis replied is the one that spawned this whole thread. Would you care to point me to another?
Would you care to point to the part of RFC2616 that details anything about the length?
That is precisely my point.
Just because other browsers use something larger doesn't change the fact that the spec doesn't dictate the length, and thus this will always be a potential problem, or, at the very least, something where someone at some point will have to decide a limit "randomly".
Nothing random about it. When you're writing a browser, don't impose arbitrary limits. Simply pass on the limit you yourself had imposed upon you, i.e., the limitations of the architecture. If your users want to pass longer URLs, they can buy more memory, get a 64-bit machine, etc.
The shitty part is that they don't raise the limit. Seems like an easy thing to fix. I believe IE8 uses the same restriction.
No, the shitty part is that they impose an arbitrary limit.
That's a mailto: which is not even pointing at the same server (it will go to an smtp server, not the http server).
Are you under the impression that mailto: is to SMTP as http: is to HTTP?
Hint: a mailto URL doesn't "go to" any server at all (unless you count the part of your local operating system which handles URL dispatch as a server).
Um, the only place he mentioned GET is in the sentence you just quoted, and he mentions mailto in the same sentence.
You "program for browsers", and you don't understand what Rei is trying to tell you? Heaven help you.
And you may want to read up on the difference between a URL and a GET request.
Would you care to point to the part of RFC2616 that details this restriction?
Or do you mean, Microsoft didn't just pluck the number out of thin air, they got it by adding together some numbers they had, um, plucked out of thin air?
If suggesting Firefox for Windows users doesn't "force you to boot Windows" just to test in Firefox, you're not really testing properly, are you?
'unless you have one of the 500 cassettes the band sold in 1994, you've never heard this before'
That's quite a claim, unless they're claiming to have invented an unbreakable ARM scheme for cassette tapes in 1994 ;)