There's no denying it, Perl is the basis of everything in computing. Anyone who has studied or done any professional work in computing has had contact with the Perl language at some time. A programmer who never had at least the curiosity to learn Perl, if only to understand some function he downloaded from the web, will never, ever, be a competent programmer.
FTFY.
Whether the first "F" in "FTFY" actually stands for "Fixed" is left as an exercise to the reader.
That's the closest thing I've heard to a sensible approach (other than "leave the damn thing alone, it's not doing any real harm.")
Barring extensive magical thinking, the only thing which can get up to geosync orbit is another geosync vehicle, using an appropriate heavy-lift booster programmed and sequenced to insert SOMETHING into a not-quite-rendezvous geosync orbit. Then the SOMETHING has to maneuver into rendezvous and do its thing. (Fix the broken satellite, grappel and do a de-orbit burn, whatever.)
So, the problem isn't repurposing the delivery system. The problem is what to deliver. The rendezvous-and-deorbit spacecraft doesn't exist. There's nothing helpful to deliver.
The only interactions the "many little bits" are likely to participate in would have unpredictable orbital effects (like boosting fragments into more elliptical but semi-stable orbits, threatening more orbital space), and also more likely to have cause high-velocity collision damage to other spacecraft at the same orbital altitude and node.
Well, "not broadcasting" as in "not broadcasting its SSID", sure. "Not broadcasting" as in "Not emitting any RF signals in the 2.4, 3.6 or 5 GHz frequency bands", not so much, since that means the router is switched off.
So a non-SSID-broadcasting router is a gun shouting "I'm a gun!". An SSID-broadcasting router is a gun shouting "I'm a gun, and my serial number is...."
I'm still getting the sense we're not really addressing all aspects of this issue. Maybe if we reformulated this into a pizza analogy...
Well, except for the fact that the user submits the query to the anonymizing proxy, and the proxy (using the API) submits the query and returns the response. Which is all the webscraper approach ever did.
Maybe you're getting confused by the use of AJAX? Think anonymizing server running server-side Javascript, not client browser directly executing Javascript.
Scraping is inherently unreliable. Particularly if you're scraping without the data source's permission or cooperation. It's what you do with the bottom of the barrel.
If you want reliable, you won't be doing any scraping. If you're doing scraping, don't get bent out of shape with it suddenly stops working. By choosing a scraping solution, you've committed yourself to intermittent service and a continual race to keep up with target interface changes.
Of you can use the provided API? Yes, it has limitations. But one of them isn't "brittle, unreliable, and subject to complete failure without notice".
I don't know what you're thinking of when you say "most jurisdictions", but in the U.S., in an employer-employee relationship, a work for hire is "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment". That's a quote from Section 101 of the Copyright Law of the United States. That's it. No extra "if it's in the contract" or other weasel words. Explicit, succinct, and definitive.
OTOH, in a contractor or collaborator relationship, the definition of "work for hire" is a multi-part test. But in this case, I don't think that applies. Assuming the Anonymous Question Submitter is being literally accurate in his wording, he (she?) said "Later a university department hired me, on a part-time basis, to develop this project into a solution that they needed." (emphasis mine).
So, of the two-part definiton of an employer-employee work for hire, "hired me" establishes the "employee" part of the equation*, and "to develop this project" is the "in the course of his or her employment" part.
IANAL, but I can read. If the facts presented are accurate and complete, it's as cut and dried as the literal word of the law can be. (i.e., subject to interpretive modification by courts as their whim allows, but until the lawsuit is decided I have to assume the letter of the law is the law.)
*maybe. The words "hired me" are occasionally used to described the contractor relationship as well. The distinction is itself an interesting body of rules and lawsuits, but I think the Internal Revenue Service guidance is illustrative. Interestingly, the burden of proof is on proving someone working for you is, in fact, an independent contractor. Lacking that, the default case is an employee.
Well, let's see. The salt falls back down. A proportion of it falls to the ground, slowly salting farmland. Famine sets in, and after the temporary greenhouse impact of a few hundreds of millions of corpses decaying, anthropogenic global warming reduces by virtue of less "anthropo" to "genic" that carbon dioxide.
Problem solved.
Re:You know you're doing something wrong when
on
Hacking Vim 7.2
·
· Score: 1
You know you're doing something right when you can hack your editor.
You know there's something terribly wrong with you when you don't feel the urge to hack your editor.
Sure, if the signs had been 20 feet tall and made of 4"* thick armor plate. And been put in place around the building before the Columbine shooters got there. And maybe had embedded remote-controlled Taser turrets. And surrounded by moats. With sharks. With lasers.
*102 mm for the rest of you out there in the world
Well, other than the fact that a PS3 isn't completely blank out of the box, that's precisely how a PS3 works. You bought the hardware. You license the software, and SCE can (and will) change it any time they want--because it's still their software. The recent "Other OS" debacle is the logical extreme of the "software as service" approach, as well as the typical disclaimers of warranty you've seen in EULAs (not that those would fare so well in court, IMHO... the serviceability and suitability for purposes of use of the hardware being completely dependent on the software, after all.)
You have your opinion. The judge has his opinion. Guess whose opinion is actually law?
Just because it's clear and obvious to you, doesn't make it so in the real world.
IANAL. You neither, I'm sure.
Your intuitive sense that intangible goods are still goods will probably win the day, but right now law hasn't caught up to that perspective. And this is not about right or wrong, this is about law. The judge himself indicated that he agrees with you, intuitively, but he only interprets law, not creates it. That's why he calls for the legislature to change it.
As it stands, it appears that "intangible goods" seems to be intimately tied up with and generally conflated with "services". Google hasn't helped me find any concrete examples to the contrary. (This is where not being a lawyer is unfortunate, since Google is not that good of a legal research department.) If you can cite any valid example of where the law recognizes software as a good rather than a service, please, point it out. That might redeem the reputation you're building for yourself as a ad-hominem flame-mongering idealist with impulse control issues and no idea how law actually works.
That's fine, except that in many jurisdictions, services are taxed at sale just like goods. So that "right" is more hypothetical than real.
Licensed software means, effectively, you (the licensee) have only the rights the license concedes to you (in worst cases, almost none) plus any rights enforced by your jurisdiction's commerce codes and contract laws. And the latter may be available to you only after a court fight.
No, IANAL. This is not legal advice. Just an outsider's observations.
The only way to parse "PC-Only" in the original context (without stipulating that TFA's author is a flaming moron) is that it means "Real PCs, not tablet devices". In other words, "this plays on computers, but not tablets".
Which is not entirely true; a full Windows tablet would probably run WoW. (A OS X tablet too, but those don't exist. Not in any meaningful sense. The iPad may be OS X under its bondage-and-domination wrappings, but unless you jailbreak and install full OS capabilities like application-level multitasking, it really isn't OS X.)
An option which combines the convenience of driving down to the neighborhood video store with the savings of renting an additional mailbox ON TOP OF renting the video.
Slashdot Mirror
Poul Anderson, is that you?
If you can read "The Voortrekkers", do so. A wonderful short story with an extremely similar premise.
FTFY.
Whether the first "F" in "FTFY" actually stands for "Fixed" is left as an exercise to the reader.
Brilliant! Except to my knowledge, there aren't any in the inventory.
And... you'll have to bring the satellite a bit closer to Earth first.
But tell you what. Go ahead and lower the orbit of the defective satellite by 98 2/3% and the US Air Force will handle the rest.
That's the closest thing I've heard to a sensible approach (other than "leave the damn thing alone, it's not doing any real harm.")
Barring extensive magical thinking, the only thing which can get up to geosync orbit is another geosync vehicle, using an appropriate heavy-lift booster programmed and sequenced to insert SOMETHING into a not-quite-rendezvous geosync orbit. Then the SOMETHING has to maneuver into rendezvous and do its thing. (Fix the broken satellite, grappel and do a de-orbit burn, whatever.)
So, the problem isn't repurposing the delivery system. The problem is what to deliver. The rendezvous-and-deorbit spacecraft doesn't exist. There's nothing helpful to deliver.
Friction? In a Clarke orbit?
The only interactions the "many little bits" are likely to participate in would have unpredictable orbital effects (like boosting fragments into more elliptical but semi-stable orbits, threatening more orbital space), and also more likely to have cause high-velocity collision damage to other spacecraft at the same orbital altitude and node.
Well, "not broadcasting" as in "not broadcasting its SSID", sure. "Not broadcasting" as in "Not emitting any RF signals in the 2.4, 3.6 or 5 GHz frequency bands", not so much, since that means the router is switched off.
So a non-SSID-broadcasting router is a gun shouting "I'm a gun!". An SSID-broadcasting router is a gun shouting "I'm a gun, and my serial number is...."
I'm still getting the sense we're not really addressing all aspects of this issue. Maybe if we reformulated this into a pizza analogy...
Well, except for the fact that the user submits the query to the anonymizing proxy, and the proxy (using the API) submits the query and returns the response. Which is all the webscraper approach ever did.
Maybe you're getting confused by the use of AJAX? Think anonymizing server running server-side Javascript, not client browser directly executing Javascript.
break scraping.
Scraping is inherently unreliable. Particularly if you're scraping without the data source's permission or cooperation. It's what you do with the bottom of the barrel.
If you want reliable, you won't be doing any scraping. If you're doing scraping, don't get bent out of shape with it suddenly stops working. By choosing a scraping solution, you've committed yourself to intermittent service and a continual race to keep up with target interface changes.
Of you can use the provided API? Yes, it has limitations. But one of them isn't "brittle, unreliable, and subject to complete failure without notice".
I don't know what you're thinking of when you say "most jurisdictions", but in the U.S., in an employer-employee relationship, a work for hire is "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment". That's a quote from Section 101 of the Copyright Law of the United States. That's it. No extra "if it's in the contract" or other weasel words. Explicit, succinct, and definitive.
OTOH, in a contractor or collaborator relationship, the definition of "work for hire" is a multi-part test. But in this case, I don't think that applies. Assuming the Anonymous Question Submitter is being literally accurate in his wording, he (she?) said "Later a university department hired me, on a part-time basis, to develop this project into a solution that they needed." (emphasis mine).
So, of the two-part definiton of an employer-employee work for hire, "hired me" establishes the "employee" part of the equation*, and "to develop this project" is the "in the course of his or her employment" part.
IANAL, but I can read. If the facts presented are accurate and complete, it's as cut and dried as the literal word of the law can be. (i.e., subject to interpretive modification by courts as their whim allows, but until the lawsuit is decided I have to assume the letter of the law is the law.)
*maybe. The words "hired me" are occasionally used to described the contractor relationship as well. The distinction is itself an interesting body of rules and lawsuits, but I think the Internal Revenue Service guidance is illustrative. Interestingly, the burden of proof is on proving someone working for you is, in fact, an independent contractor. Lacking that, the default case is an employee.
Well, let's see. The salt falls back down. A proportion of it falls to the ground, slowly salting farmland. Famine sets in, and after the temporary greenhouse impact of a few hundreds of millions of corpses decaying, anthropogenic global warming reduces by virtue of less "anthropo" to "genic" that carbon dioxide.
Problem solved.
You know you're doing something right when you can hack your editor.
You know there's something terribly wrong with you when you don't feel the urge to hack your editor.
Don't confuse those.
Sure, if the signs had been 20 feet tall and made of 4"* thick armor plate. And been put in place around the building before the Columbine shooters got there. And maybe had embedded remote-controlled Taser turrets. And surrounded by moats. With sharks. With lasers.
*102 mm for the rest of you out there in the world
Well, other than the fact that a PS3 isn't completely blank out of the box, that's precisely how a PS3 works. You bought the hardware. You license the software, and SCE can (and will) change it any time they want--because it's still their software. The recent "Other OS" debacle is the logical extreme of the "software as service" approach, as well as the typical disclaimers of warranty you've seen in EULAs (not that those would fare so well in court, IMHO... the serviceability and suitability for purposes of use of the hardware being completely dependent on the software, after all.)
My, my, so angry.
You have your opinion. The judge has his opinion. Guess whose opinion is actually law?
Just because it's clear and obvious to you, doesn't make it so in the real world.
IANAL. You neither, I'm sure.
Your intuitive sense that intangible goods are still goods will probably win the day, but right now law hasn't caught up to that perspective. And this is not about right or wrong, this is about law. The judge himself indicated that he agrees with you, intuitively, but he only interprets law, not creates it. That's why he calls for the legislature to change it.
As it stands, it appears that "intangible goods" seems to be intimately tied up with and generally conflated with "services". Google hasn't helped me find any concrete examples to the contrary. (This is where not being a lawyer is unfortunate, since Google is not that good of a legal research department.) If you can cite any valid example of where the law recognizes software as a good rather than a service, please, point it out. That might redeem the reputation you're building for yourself as a ad-hominem flame-mongering idealist with impulse control issues and no idea how law actually works.
In the case of downloaded software, not only is most of clearly not "goods", a great deal of it must be characterized as "terribles".
For example, you won't have to pay Taxes.
That's fine, except that in many jurisdictions, services are taxed at sale just like goods. So that "right" is more hypothetical than real.
Licensed software means, effectively, you (the licensee) have only the rights the license concedes to you (in worst cases, almost none) plus any rights enforced by your jurisdiction's commerce codes and contract laws. And the latter may be available to you only after a court fight.
No, IANAL. This is not legal advice. Just an outsider's observations.
So, in this specific case, you're advocating Scribd replace Flash with HTML5, Javascript, and Flash?
"Waitress: Well, there's Flash egg sausage and Flash, that's not got much Flash in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY Flash!"
Ironically, personal testimony is worse then 90%. A lot worse.
Are you personally testifying to this? If we are to believe you, you're saying there's a 90% chance you're wrong. So we can't believe you.
Damn you for introducing a Liar's Paradox to a perfectly good Slashdot discussion.
"Damn raid wiped repeatedly because main raid healer was running WoW through his iPad. So we kicked him out of the guild."
Wow; condescending, flaming, and wrong. And not anonymous, either. Nice work.
The only way to parse "PC-Only" in the original context (without stipulating that TFA's author is a flaming moron) is that it means "Real PCs, not tablet devices". In other words, "this plays on computers, but not tablets".
Which is not entirely true; a full Windows tablet would probably run WoW. (A OS X tablet too, but those don't exist. Not in any meaningful sense. The iPad may be OS X under its bondage-and-domination wrappings, but unless you jailbreak and install full OS capabilities like application-level multitasking, it really isn't OS X.)
Well cited, Mostly. Although the particular part you cite is actually the "Camembert" portion of the skit.
However, the names of the customer (Mousebender) and the proprietor (Wensleydale) are known. As, apparently, all the cheeses named in the sketch.
Which, if you think about it, says as much about Wikipedia as it does about Monty Python or the Jarlsberg web app.
I prefer using a lathe.
You're jutht being lathey.
Yeah, this technical approach is firm evidence that XML is like violence: if using it isn't solving your problem, you're not using enough.
An option which combines the convenience of driving down to the neighborhood video store with the savings of renting an additional mailbox ON TOP OF renting the video.
Also known as "giving up".