For a language that's considered so obtuse and that nobody seems to love, it sure does have a ton of great modules to do practically anything you can think of that needs doing. I can think of a lot of languages that only *WISH* they had such a rich toolkit to offer their proponents.
Absolutely not. We should find these vigilantes and subject them to a full measure of justice-- right after we toss all those wall street fucktards and bastard bankers in the clink for tanking our economy. Oh, and the same for Bush and his scummy neocon buddies for starting two wars, spending this country into oblivion, torturing people with impunity, tarnishing our nation's reputation and mispronouncing the word NUCLEAR! Oh, and toss out all those lazy do-nothing scumbags in Congress, and light a fire under our "Yes we can" (but maybe not today) President in the White House... Vigilantism should absolutely not be tolerated in our society, but neither should child-porn, greedy corporate assholes, who jeopardize all our livelihoods and savings for the future, crony capitalism, corrupt politicians-- oh, and throw in litterbugs, jaywalkers and people spitting on the sidewalk. After we've taken care of all of that stuff, preferably in that order, THEN we can go after the Anonymous vigilantes for taking down child porn web sites.
To be fair, they only lost 1 million out of an original 25 million. I would hardly call that a mass exodus. Unfortunately, investors panicked and their share price did plummet. Shame that we punish Netflix for a 6 dollar increase, and do nothing about the movie studios requiring significantly larger contracts that Netflix needs to find the cash for.
Boy, you can say THAT again. Sheesh.
Mod this guy up to an 11 !! He's got the quote of the day.
Actually, I do both. I file stuff that I want to separate in folders according to a broad category system, but then I just use the 'search' functions to find anything. I don't bother hunting through the folders. That *would* be a waste of time.
It depresses me that some people think whacking away at a keyboard at some random futility is in any way comparable to an achievement along the lines of climbing Everest or inventing the transistor. If I decide to smear myself in feces and shove chopsticks up my ass and run screaming in the street, *just to see if I can*, that's worthy of attention?
""Apple cofounder Steve Jobs was found dead in his Cupertino home this morning. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him — even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.""
I've actually seen director types get almost panicky when I've suggested a solution that bypassed the "officially approved" big vendor. They didn't even want to hear of the possibility of saving money or providing a better solution, because it would break that "special bond" they had with ${BIG_VENDOR}.
There's an old quote with some grains of truth to it-- "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". Which means that as long as you "run with the herd" it's harder to get fingered as the "dipshit responsible for this mess".
Where's the trillion-dollar verdict against the fucktard bankers and wall street yahoos that tanked the US economy, lost everybody their jobs and tossed 'em out of their houses?
Oh Goodie! Lunar archeology from 68,000 feet. We get to look at some footprints and smudges from nearly 50 years ago, back when the U.S. still had balls and wasn't afraid to use 'em.
How convenient. Trading your rights for freedom. Textbook case of compromise.
You mean, textbook case of people repeating cliches they don't understand. The oft-cited cliche is about people "trading liberty for security and ending up with neither". What you said just doesn't make that much sense. Having rights IS what freedom is all about, so how could you "trade your rights for freedom" in any meaningful manner ??
I agree with your assessment, however it is really hard to understand why the investment bankers didn't get the kind of blowback they so richly deserve.
I believe the government is applying the wrong standard with respect to Web Links (URL's) and copyrights. They claim that creating a link creates a copyright. However, I strenuously believe that people are confusing the idea of "creating a copyrightable work" with the "mechanism of indexing and accessing" a work. URL's are no more copyrightable than the Dewey Decimal label is on a book in the public library. The fact that links (URL's) are a little more high-tech than the Dewey Decimal label on a book does not change it's fundamental essence.
The question is, could ICE or any government authority shut down or *confiscate* the Dewey Decimal label on a public library book simply because you referenced that book (or other material) by its *Common Cataloging System INDEX* in some public manner???
Linking to a web site is no different than saying "Go read this book at the public library, here is it's catalog number". An link *in and of itself* does *NOT* provide or imply *ACCESS* to the item, rather simply a pointer to it's location. Likewise, the idea of "Deep Linking" is no different as it is simply saying "Go read book XYZ on page 37".
The notion that the link (URL) itself provides "meaning" is simply ludicrous-- of course it does. And in a manner that's long been established as LEGAL and USEFUL and USED by libraries and media referencing systems all over the world-- for well over a hundred years, and probably longer than that. Even the United States own Library of Congress uses indexing schemes to catalog and reference their materials. The fact that a link contains meaningful information is a fundamental property and the very essence of creating a referencing catalog scheme. You can take the Dewey Decimal label from any book, for instance, and discern meaningful information about the nature of the work referenced simply by knowing the algorithm (naming / numbering conventions) incorporated by the scheme. The fact that web links (URL's) have the ability to be more descriptive is a function of the *INDEXING* mechanism, even if it is somehow technically made available to the author to suggest. It is no different than an author attempting to influence the librarian to catalog the material in one section rather than another.
Moreover, the courts have upheld many times that it is NOT a copyright infringement to publish a REFERENCE work containing even literal quoted passages from the original source as long as it is constructed in the manner of a catalog, all quotations are duly cited, and the work is "transformative". In other words, stands alone apart from the original quoted work in a substantive manner. In the case of linking to a web site, the author (person doing the linking) is not necessarily even quoting anything other than the INDEX of the cataloging method used to house and access the material. However, even if the title, author, etc. of that work were referenced, it is no different than going to the public library and pulling up the "link" to the exact same information stored in their card catalog system. In fact, in many cases, the card catalog even contains a brief synopsis of the source material, quotations, or other direct passages from the original material.
Finally, even if the person who put the links up online and then proceeded to laugh and make jokes or otherwise reference them, *that very act* begins a transformative process which is IN ITSELF a *copyrightable* element! So creating a page and linking to other sites *IS* in and of itself, a copyrightable act! And the more that is said in reference to those links, provided they do not incorporate substantive direct quotation of the material-- the *better* the argument that a new copyrightable work is being derived. There is tons of relevant precedent in the application of "Fair Use", "Derivative Works", "Satire" or "Parody", etc. to give someone an extremely good legal footing to claim that a substantially new work is being created, if incporporated into a larger framework. However, that said, simply claiming "Fair Use" or a
Of course, then you have the fringe cases, like where the perps smash in the synagogue's window and vandalize the place and then spray paint fleur de le's all over the place, or kill a transvestite and carve "FIG" into their chest... do you prosecute them for being terrorists, or for just being plain old retards?
Slashdot Mirror
For a language that's considered so obtuse and that nobody seems to love, it sure does have a ton of great modules to do practically anything you can think of that needs doing. I can think of a lot of languages that only *WISH* they had such a rich toolkit to offer their proponents.
So vigilance actions are ok now?
Absolutely not. We should find these vigilantes and subject them to a full measure of justice-- right after we toss all those wall street fucktards and bastard bankers in the clink for tanking our economy. Oh, and the same for Bush and his scummy neocon buddies for starting two wars, spending this country into oblivion, torturing people with impunity, tarnishing our nation's reputation and mispronouncing the word NUCLEAR! Oh, and toss out all those lazy do-nothing scumbags in Congress, and light a fire under our "Yes we can" (but maybe not today) President in the White House... Vigilantism should absolutely not be tolerated in our society, but neither should child-porn, greedy corporate assholes, who jeopardize all our livelihoods and savings for the future, crony capitalism, corrupt politicians-- oh, and throw in litterbugs, jaywalkers and people spitting on the sidewalk. After we've taken care of all of that stuff, preferably in that order, THEN we can go after the Anonymous vigilantes for taking down child porn web sites.
What you mean is, if the neighbor stops by to tell you your fence is broken and hands you your TV set as proof he was able to access your stuff.
I'd say that's a bit different than all the things you suggested.
How would you feel about it?
To be fair, they only lost 1 million out of an original 25 million. I would hardly call that a mass exodus. Unfortunately, investors panicked and their share price did plummet. Shame that we punish Netflix for a 6 dollar increase, and do nothing about the movie studios requiring significantly larger contracts that Netflix needs to find the cash for.
Boy, you can say THAT again. Sheesh.
Mod this guy up to an 11 !! He's got the quote of the day.
Not to mention, what do you do if a kid just happens to like chartreuse?
Actually, I do both. I file stuff that I want to separate in folders according to a broad category system, but then I just use the 'search' functions to find anything. I don't bother hunting through the folders. That *would* be a waste of time.
It depresses me that some people think whacking away at a keyboard at some random futility is in any way comparable to an achievement along the lines of climbing Everest or inventing the transistor. If I decide to smear myself in feces and shove chopsticks up my ass and run screaming in the street, *just to see if I can*, that's worthy of attention?
Only if you set them on fire.
""Apple cofounder Steve Jobs was found dead in his Cupertino home this morning. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him — even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.""
Bet he doesn't have an app for *that* !!
Rest Peacefully Steve! You did good
I've actually seen director types get almost panicky when I've suggested a solution that bypassed the "officially approved" big vendor. They didn't even want to hear of the possibility of saving money or providing a better solution, because it would break that "special bond" they had with ${BIG_VENDOR}.
There's an old quote with some grains of truth to it-- "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". Which means that as long as you "run with the herd" it's harder to get fingered as the "dipshit responsible for this mess".
90% of all users are idiots.
And the other half are no brainiacs either!
what do you expect, the employment requirements for these guys is a high school diploma and pass a drug test
And generally at least one of those is optional.
Where's the trillion-dollar verdict against the fucktard bankers and wall street yahoos that tanked the US economy, lost everybody their jobs and tossed 'em out of their houses?
Oh Goodie! Lunar archeology from 68,000 feet. We get to look at some footprints and smudges from nearly 50 years ago, back when the U.S. still had balls and wasn't afraid to use 'em.
You know, all you folks posting links to the software and doing the CBS lawyers a favor by pointing out who to send the next takedown letters to.
How convenient. Trading your rights for freedom. Textbook case of compromise.
You mean, textbook case of people repeating cliches they don't understand. The oft-cited cliche is about people "trading liberty for security and ending up with neither". What you said just doesn't make that much sense. Having rights IS what freedom is all about, so how could you "trade your rights for freedom" in any meaningful manner ??
The idiom is "Moot point", not mute point.
That's right, justice is blind, not dumb...
>> Cancer Cluster Possibly Found Among TSA Workers
What a crying shame.
It's probably cancer of the anal sphincter. It's what happens when you assemble a critical mass of assholes.
I agree with your assessment, however it is really hard to understand why the investment bankers didn't get the kind of blowback they so richly deserve.
Maybe she was sucking your EBCDIC...??
Silly Rabbit, the law is *always* different for those who have wealth and power.
I believe the government is applying the wrong standard with respect to Web Links (URL's) and copyrights. They claim that creating a link creates a copyright. However, I strenuously believe that people are confusing the idea of "creating a copyrightable work" with the "mechanism of indexing and accessing" a work. URL's are no more copyrightable than the Dewey Decimal label is on a book in the public library. The fact that links (URL's) are a little more high-tech than the Dewey Decimal label on a book does not change it's fundamental essence.
The question is, could ICE or any government authority shut down or *confiscate* the Dewey Decimal label on a public library book simply because you referenced that book (or other material) by its *Common Cataloging System INDEX* in some public manner???
Linking to a web site is no different than saying "Go read this book at the public library, here is it's catalog number". An link *in and of itself* does *NOT* provide or imply *ACCESS* to the item, rather simply a pointer to it's location. Likewise, the idea of "Deep Linking" is no different as it is simply saying "Go read book XYZ on page 37".
The notion that the link (URL) itself provides "meaning" is simply ludicrous-- of course it does. And in a manner that's long been established as LEGAL and USEFUL and USED by libraries and media referencing systems all over the world-- for well over a hundred years, and probably longer than that. Even the United States own Library of Congress uses indexing schemes to catalog and reference their materials. The fact that a link contains meaningful information is a fundamental property and the very essence of creating a referencing catalog scheme. You can take the Dewey Decimal label from any book, for instance, and discern meaningful information about the nature of the work referenced simply by knowing the algorithm (naming / numbering conventions) incorporated by the scheme. The fact that web links (URL's) have the ability to be more descriptive is a function of the *INDEXING* mechanism, even if it is somehow technically made available to the author to suggest. It is no different than an author attempting to influence the librarian to catalog the material in one section rather than another.
Moreover, the courts have upheld many times that it is NOT a copyright infringement to publish a REFERENCE work containing even literal quoted passages from the original source as long as it is constructed in the manner of a catalog, all quotations are duly cited, and the work is "transformative". In other words, stands alone apart from the original quoted work in a substantive manner. In the case of linking to a web site, the author (person doing the linking) is not necessarily even quoting anything other than the INDEX of the cataloging method used to house and access the material. However, even if the title, author, etc. of that work were referenced, it is no different than going to the public library and pulling up the "link" to the exact same information stored in their card catalog system. In fact, in many cases, the card catalog even contains a brief synopsis of the source material, quotations, or other direct passages from the original material.
Finally, even if the person who put the links up online and then proceeded to laugh and make jokes or otherwise reference them, *that very act* begins a transformative process which is IN ITSELF a *copyrightable* element! So creating a page and linking to other sites *IS* in and of itself, a copyrightable act! And the more that is said in reference to those links, provided they do not incorporate substantive direct quotation of the material-- the *better* the argument that a new copyrightable work is being derived. There is tons of relevant precedent in the application of "Fair Use", "Derivative Works", "Satire" or "Parody", etc. to give someone an extremely good legal footing to claim that a substantially new work is being created, if incporporated into a larger framework. However, that said, simply claiming "Fair Use" or a
Of course, then you have the fringe cases, like where the perps smash in the synagogue's window and vandalize the place and then spray paint fleur de le's all over the place, or kill a transvestite and carve "FIG" into their chest... do you prosecute them for being terrorists, or for just being plain old retards?
Republican, retard-- whatever you wanna call it.
Pretty much the same thing.
Power to the people, man!
Now we have a viable alternative for politicians.
(And they can make their own robo-calls too! :-)