Now, social spamming is mainstream SEO. It's cheaper than running a link farm. It's also safer. There's seldom any retaliation from the search engines for social spamming.
If you're artificially inflating the user counts of Google+, Google is likely on your side, since they're doing that anyway.
I ran into Taco at a con about a month after he retired. He told me that he left because he was sick of holding back the floodgates.
If this is true, why didn't he fire timothy, samzenpus, and the others that were pushing for this sort of expansion and make it his blog again? Did he lose control once it became a part of Geeknet?
I am 100% certain there are members of the community that would do a much better job than some of the current editors.
By the way, if anyone's looking for an alternative site with a good community, check Hacker News. I've been reading it a lot more recently. It's not quite the same thing as Slashdot (less generic / IT geek, more startup / entrepreneur geek) but it's a decent addition or substitute, if it comes to that.
Quick-hit tech items... check. No context... check. Lots of buzzwords... check. Lots of random, cool-looking stock photography having nothing to do with the stories... check.
Why not just call this SlashPHB and be done with it?
'We get a lot more questions about switching to Macs than switching to Linux at this point, even though Macs are more expensive,' one Gartner analyst says.
You mean the operating system with multiple millions of dollars of advertising and marketing behind it has a greater mindshare among the general public than the one put together by volunteers with no such backing? Colour me shocked.
(This is not to say that Linux doesn't have its problems, of course. But to suggest like the top poster here that Linux "consolidate" its distributions into one shows a serious misunderstanding of what Linux is and how it's put together.)
They try to back up in the next paragraph, but it's clear they still get full permission to do anything (emphasis added):
The rights that you grant in this licence are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This licence continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing that you have added to Google Maps).
As a professional web developer, I'm staying far, far away. God help you if you ever upload source code to a product they like.
If the primary source for a link is InfoWars, look for a secondary link from a less biased and/or batshit insane source. If one cannot be found, skip the article please.
Let this be a lesson: If you're sued, even if you think the lawsuit is the dumbest thing on Earth, you should still show up to defend yourself. If you don't, things like this happen.
So now that I've got my initial reaction out of the way...
12.0 Why is there advertising on CBC Music? Advertising is the primary means that allows us to fairly compensate the artists we play on CBC Music. We signed an agreement with the Audio-Video Licensing Agency (AVLA), which represents over 1,000 music labels. We are very excited to report that through this deal, all artists registered via AVLA will be paid for having their work broadcast on CBC Radio 2, CBC Radio 3, and our 40 web radio stations.
Another reason we've decided to pursue advertising on CBC Music is that, in the current economic climate, CBC cannot afford to have a large new service like CBC Music that isn't self-sustaining. This revenue stream not only allows us to survive, but also helps us to grow and continue to expand CBC Music.
Emphasis added.
So I'm not sure of the full legalities of it, but according to the CBC Music FAQ, they have acquired the right to stream all the music on their site.
What's the problem? My guess is that these are companies that refused to sign, and they're bitching about the fact that they couldn't get the price they wanted for their music. Excuse me while I shed a tear or two.
"The only music that you can hear for free is when the birds sing." In other words, if you haven't paid me and my friends to listen to music, you can't listen to it at all. What an asshole.
Ah, yes, so because American companies abuse immigration policies and (in theory) get away with it, everyone should be so allowed. How many wrongs make a right again? I forget.
And I'm saying that for a gigantic foreign company like Infosys with such large amounts of visa-based employees, the feds should come knocking a hell of a lot more.
How are they getting around it? Are these workers completely undocumented? Are they lying at the border? Did they not fill out I-9s? Because if they filled out I-9s, and those were looked at by USCIS, this sort of thing would be picked up pretty goddamn quick.
Given the amount that I've personally spent on legal immigration, this pisses me off a little bit. I'm not exactly surprised, but it seems to be yet another case where breaking the law as an individual would have adverse consequences (e.g. in this case, where one would be banned from the United States between three years and indefinitely, depending on the overstay) while breaking the same law as a corporation is completely overlooked.
To be fair, there are a fair number of completely cross-platform games on Steam now (Humble Bundle has been giving out Steam keys for each bundle since I think HB2). The GP is obviously batshit, but it could probably be done at this point. It's just probably not worth it to Valve.
To understand the latest legal jockeying, substitute the term VCR with Aereo. The upstart, Aereo, opened for business last month and supplies internet streams and a DVR service for over-the-air broadcasts to its New York customers. In other words, Aereo lets those in New York who want to watch on their iPad what they can pull down for free from the public airwaves to their TV with an antenna. For the moment, the service is free, but will soon charge $12 monthly.
This suggests to me the following:
Aereo receives television signals over the public airwaves.
Aereo rebroadcasts the signals through their internet distribution network.
Aereo soon plans to charge for this service.
If I was a TV station, I would have serious problems with steps 2 and 3, and I believe copyright law would agree (with the usual disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and you should not take legal advice from me).
Just because it's broadcast over the public airwaves does not make the broadcast public domain. It's still copyrighted, and by redistributing the signal, it seems to be clear copyright infringement to me. If they want this to be legal, they appear to need new laws.
This is not like a VCR because with a VCR, the distribution of video still happens directly from the copyright owner or their agent. This would be like a company renting a single movie, making copies, then charging for access to the copies, without compensating the original distributor.
By the way, if this practice were legal, what's to prevent Aereo from charging even more to remove the commercials from their rebroadcasts entirely?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It doesn't say citizen. It doesn't say resident. It says person. That's everybody not otherwise exempted by the war clause.
C for Dummies by Dan Gookin is my favorite C book, but it might be a bit beyond the reach of an 11-year-old, what with its two volumes comprising ~1200 pages.
You assume that you are special, and make calculations assuming nobody else can make the choice you made. All of your numbers shoot up as soon as more people start making the same choice you did.
The real travesty is that you can't individually sue the lawmakers who passed an obviously unconstitutional law. If the people who passed laws suffered when they were found unconsititutional we'd see fewer unconstitutional laws passed.
Why couldn't you? It seems to me that at least some liability would fall upon those passing the law allowing the actions of the school...
I am not a lawyer so I'm honestly curious, even though this may be obvious to someone who is a lawyer. Is there some sort of liability shield for lawmakers?
Slashdot Mirror
Ninjas.
Now, social spamming is mainstream SEO. It's cheaper than running a link farm. It's also safer. There's seldom any retaliation from the search engines for social spamming.
If you're artificially inflating the user counts of Google+, Google is likely on your side, since they're doing that anyway.
I ran into Taco at a con about a month after he retired. He told me that he left because he was sick of holding back the floodgates.
If this is true, why didn't he fire timothy, samzenpus, and the others that were pushing for this sort of expansion and make it his blog again? Did he lose control once it became a part of Geeknet?
I am 100% certain there are members of the community that would do a much better job than some of the current editors.
By the way, if anyone's looking for an alternative site with a good community, check Hacker News. I've been reading it a lot more recently. It's not quite the same thing as Slashdot (less generic / IT geek, more startup / entrepreneur geek) but it's a decent addition or substitute, if it comes to that.
Quick-hit tech items... check.
No context... check.
Lots of buzzwords... check.
Lots of random, cool-looking stock photography having nothing to do with the stories... check.
Why not just call this SlashPHB and be done with it?
'We get a lot more questions about switching to Macs than switching to Linux at this point, even though Macs are more expensive,' one Gartner analyst says.
You mean the operating system with multiple millions of dollars of advertising and marketing behind it has a greater mindshare among the general public than the one put together by volunteers with no such backing? Colour me shocked.
(This is not to say that Linux doesn't have its problems, of course. But to suggest like the top poster here that Linux "consolidate" its distributions into one shows a serious misunderstanding of what Linux is and how it's put together.)
They try to back up in the next paragraph, but it's clear they still get full permission to do anything (emphasis added):
The rights that you grant in this licence are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This licence continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing that you have added to Google Maps).
As a professional web developer, I'm staying far, far away. God help you if you ever upload source code to a product they like.
Exact. In short, many laws are broken by design.
The proper response to this is not to accept the situation as inevitable. The proper response is to try to fix them.
Siblings: I wasn't aware they were outside the court's jurisdiction. My apologies.
If the primary source for a link is InfoWars, look for a secondary link from a less biased and/or batshit insane source. If one cannot be found, skip the article please.
Let this be a lesson: If you're sued, even if you think the lawsuit is the dumbest thing on Earth, you should still show up to defend yourself. If you don't, things like this happen.
So now that I've got my initial reaction out of the way...
12.0 Why is there advertising on CBC Music?
Advertising is the primary means that allows us to fairly compensate the artists we play on CBC Music. We signed an agreement with the Audio-Video Licensing Agency (AVLA), which represents over 1,000 music labels. We are very excited to report that through this deal, all artists registered via AVLA will be paid for having their work broadcast on CBC Radio 2, CBC Radio 3, and our 40 web radio stations.
Another reason we've decided to pursue advertising on CBC Music is that, in the current economic climate, CBC cannot afford to have a large new service like CBC Music that isn't self-sustaining. This revenue stream not only allows us to survive, but also helps us to grow and continue to expand CBC Music.
Emphasis added.
So I'm not sure of the full legalities of it, but according to the CBC Music FAQ, they have acquired the right to stream all the music on their site.
What's the problem? My guess is that these are companies that refused to sign, and they're bitching about the fact that they couldn't get the price they wanted for their music. Excuse me while I shed a tear or two.
"The only music that you can hear for free is when the birds sing." In other words, if you haven't paid me and my friends to listen to music, you can't listen to it at all. What an asshole.
You lost me at "Sony".
Ah, yes, so because American companies abuse immigration policies and (in theory) get away with it, everyone should be so allowed. How many wrongs make a right again? I forget.
And I'm saying that for a gigantic foreign company like Infosys with such large amounts of visa-based employees, the feds should come knocking a hell of a lot more.
How are they getting around it? Are these workers completely undocumented? Are they lying at the border? Did they not fill out I-9s? Because if they filled out I-9s, and those were looked at by USCIS, this sort of thing would be picked up pretty goddamn quick.
Given the amount that I've personally spent on legal immigration, this pisses me off a little bit. I'm not exactly surprised, but it seems to be yet another case where breaking the law as an individual would have adverse consequences (e.g. in this case, where one would be banned from the United States between three years and indefinitely, depending on the overstay) while breaking the same law as a corporation is completely overlooked.
To be fair, there are a fair number of completely cross-platform games on Steam now (Humble Bundle has been giving out Steam keys for each bundle since I think HB2). The GP is obviously batshit, but it could probably be done at this point. It's just probably not worth it to Valve.
You can check your eligibility at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They even have a self-assessment test to see if you qualify as a Skilled Worker.
You're not redistributing the video. You're essentially timeshifting, which is legal. Redistribution is not.
To understand the latest legal jockeying, substitute the term VCR with Aereo. The upstart, Aereo, opened for business last month and supplies internet streams and a DVR service for over-the-air broadcasts to its New York customers. In other words, Aereo lets those in New York who want to watch on their iPad what they can pull down for free from the public airwaves to their TV with an antenna. For the moment, the service is free, but will soon charge $12 monthly.
This suggests to me the following:
If I was a TV station, I would have serious problems with steps 2 and 3, and I believe copyright law would agree (with the usual disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and you should not take legal advice from me).
Just because it's broadcast over the public airwaves does not make the broadcast public domain. It's still copyrighted, and by redistributing the signal, it seems to be clear copyright infringement to me. If they want this to be legal, they appear to need new laws.
This is not like a VCR because with a VCR, the distribution of video still happens directly from the copyright owner or their agent. This would be like a company renting a single movie, making copies, then charging for access to the copies, without compensating the original distributor.
By the way, if this practice were legal, what's to prevent Aereo from charging even more to remove the commercials from their rebroadcasts entirely?
5th ammendment applies to US citizens/residents.
Really?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It doesn't say citizen. It doesn't say resident. It says person. That's everybody not otherwise exempted by the war clause.
C for Dummies by Dan Gookin is my favorite C book, but it might be a bit beyond the reach of an 11-year-old, what with its two volumes comprising ~1200 pages.
You assume that you are special, and make calculations assuming nobody else can make the choice you made. All of your numbers shoot up as soon as more people start making the same choice you did.
The real travesty is that you can't individually sue the lawmakers who passed an obviously unconstitutional law. If the people who passed laws suffered when they were found unconsititutional we'd see fewer unconstitutional laws passed.
Why couldn't you? It seems to me that at least some liability would fall upon those passing the law allowing the actions of the school...
I am not a lawyer so I'm honestly curious, even though this may be obvious to someone who is a lawyer. Is there some sort of liability shield for lawmakers?
I'm pretty sure automated funny cat video production is a sign of the apocalypse.