This is a common problem with articles posted to/., but one that should be addressed. Even though the article is posted on CNN, the story itself is from the Associated Press. That's why it says "AP" at the top of the story. Wouldn't it be better to cite the story as being from the organization that actually created it?
Additionally, wouldn't it be nice to name the organization that sponsored the study that the AP (not CNN!) is reporting about? (I know there's a link, but why can't we have it in the description too?!)
It's an easy thing to fix, and it would make Slashdot seem more trustworthy...
Here's the lesson I learned the hard way--through two cease and desist DMCA notices forwarded from my university ISP with the threat of internet disconnection. I used to think sharing TV shows not released on DVD via suprnova.org/BitTorrent was OK legally.
Even though it's a TV show, you have NO RIGHT to rebroadcast that episode. Even if it hasn't been released on DVD! This means that if you're using BitTorrent, and you are uploading, then you are breaking US copyright law. Unless what you are transmitting is in the public domain or you have the express written consent of the copyright holder, you have no right to transmit or broadcast that show and the copyright holder (in this case represented by the MPAA) has every right to pursue you and stop you from sharing that media file. Here's Section 106 of Title 17 of the USC:
106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
So, unless you are the copyright holder, you don't get any of these rights. For the most part, this has been completely clearcut all through our history
"The flaw affects versions of IE up to 6.0.2800.1106 - which includes systems that haven't yet installed Windows XP SP2, but are current on all other critical updates from Windows Update - as well as the Safari browser for Macs."
Is it just me, or is that a typo?
My version of Safari (1.2.3 v125.9) seems to handle their sample malformed tag just fine, displaying www.google.com as it should. Can anyone confirm or deny whether Safari is affected by this problem?
They're profitting by this e-mail (paid if elected), so it's spam.
Let's get real. People don't run for president because of the salary and benefit package. They do it for power. Now, in an ideal world the Presidency would be a selfless job (I'd still like to believe it is), but it's not about "paid if elected."
If you're idealistic, it's about upholding the Constitution and enforcing laws enacted by Congress. If you're cynical, it's about cronyism, nepotism and using the people of the United States for fun and profit. Whatever way you slice it, it's not about the $250K salary.
Would they be more likely to get your vote if they sent you a piece of cardstock in the mail with some witty slogans and a pretty photo?
I think email campaign ads are a great idea from an environmental perspective. Imagine if your candidate of choice could say that he had saved 10,000 more trees than Pres. Bush--and all because of email.
While I hate spam as much as the next guy, a nice, polite email from a candidate sent from a valid address would be great. I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who spammed me (and let's be honest, this isn't really spam) than one who wasted paper on mass-mailings.
Email costs significantly less than physical mailings and is a heck of a lot easier on the environment. Seriously? Would you *rather* get a piece of card stock over an email? As an added plus, maybe this could even out unbalanced campaign contributions?
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, wouldn't it be nice to name the organization that sponsored the study that the AP (not CNN!) is reporting about? (I know there's a link, but why can't we have it in the description too?!)
It's an easy thing to fix, and it would make Slashdot seem more trustworthy...
Even though it's a TV show, you have NO RIGHT to rebroadcast that episode. Even if it hasn't been released on DVD! This means that if you're using BitTorrent, and you are uploading, then you are breaking US copyright law. Unless what you are transmitting is in the public domain or you have the express written consent of the copyright holder, you have no right to transmit or broadcast that show and the copyright holder (in this case represented by the MPAA) has every right to pursue you and stop you from sharing that media file. Here's Section 106 of Title 17 of the USC:
106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
So, unless you are the copyright holder, you don't get any of these rights. For the most part, this has been completely clearcut all through our history
"The flaw affects versions of IE up to 6.0.2800.1106 - which includes systems that haven't yet installed Windows XP SP2, but are current on all other critical updates from Windows Update - as well as the Safari browser for Macs."
Is it just me, or is that a typo? My version of Safari (1.2.3 v125.9) seems to handle their sample malformed tag just fine, displaying www.google.com as it should. Can anyone confirm or deny whether Safari is affected by this problem?
Let's get real. People don't run for president because of the salary and benefit package. They do it for power. Now, in an ideal world the Presidency would be a selfless job (I'd still like to believe it is), but it's not about "paid if elected."
If you're idealistic, it's about upholding the Constitution and enforcing laws enacted by Congress. If you're cynical, it's about cronyism, nepotism and using the people of the United States for fun and profit. Whatever way you slice it, it's not about the $250K salary.
I think email campaign ads are a great idea from an environmental perspective. Imagine if your candidate of choice could say that he had saved 10,000 more trees than Pres. Bush--and all because of email. While I hate spam as much as the next guy, a nice, polite email from a candidate sent from a valid address would be great. I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who spammed me (and let's be honest, this isn't really spam) than one who wasted paper on mass-mailings.
Email costs significantly less than physical mailings and is a heck of a lot easier on the environment. Seriously? Would you *rather* get a piece of card stock over an email? As an added plus, maybe this could even out unbalanced campaign contributions?