Linked article talks about how more people are moving from Canada to the US than the reverse, so he (there are no women on slashdot, it must be an alias) was correct to say 'southward'.
The first is dynamically allocated, yours is statically allocated. In the case of a string, where you likely don't know how long it will be, it's better to allocate dynamically.
But what's more important, don't forget to clean it up afterwards.
char *post = "ac";
is not dynamically allocated, and trying to free it later is not a good idea.
Incidentally, this thread is one of the reasons I hate C.
That's a great point. Wish you'd gotten in on this earlier, as I could respect this getting modded up more than the guy grumbling about my use of the word 'entitlement'.
Jokes in theory should be entitled to the same protection as any other creative work. In practice they receive a level of protection that seems to be what many on slashdot are looking for -- comedians often buy material from joke writers, and copyright is the only legal protection they have from anyone stealing their material. But once disseminated to a large audience they're effectively fair game for anyone to use. Another comedian using them might be considered infringing, but if not he'd still be considered stale and unoriginal. The usefulness of copyright in that industry is much shorter term than in any other, as people are rarely interested, especially commercially, in old material.
"But the feeling of entitlement, that you should be able to grab whatever is produced at no cost to yourself, regardless of what justification you use.... that one I can't go with you on."
I feel that "I have a right to profit off of my work, via a government enforced monopoly on its use" is a far worse idea of entitlement than anything pirates are physically capable of.
I would argue that the principle is sound, the current implementation is not. I'd personally like to return to the 14 years, renew once for 14 more system, and I believe that would be preferable to complete abolishment of copyright.
Once produced, if the cost to replicate is close enough to zero that it doesn't matter, what do you judge to be the correct value? I hope you pay that toward every open source product you've ever used or you are your own hypocrite.
There's a hole in that thought process -- developers of an open source product have chosen of their own free will to allow myself and others to download their works free of charge. Hypocritical would be to condemn piracy while using GPL code in my closed source product.
If you mean many people, absolute numbers wise, you would be correct.
If you mean many people, percentage wise, you couldn't be more wrong. Less than 25% of the public view downloading music as illegal, and to be fair NONE should. The recording industry is entirely fabricated. Artists get next to nothing out of it and have to tour to make money.
If you feel like the penalties for infringement are too steep, I could back you up. If you feel like the tactics the RIAA and others have used to pursue infringers are deplorable, I could back you up. If you feel like the actual revenue loss due to piracy is grossly overstated, I could back you up.
But the feeling of entitlement, that you should be able to grab whatever is produced at no cost to yourself, regardless of what justification you use.... that one I can't go with you on.
"What are the testable implications of the existence of God?"
The existence of unfathomable quantities of information in all living things is strong evidence for the existence of a mind wherein all this information first arose. All information, whether natural living or nonliving or obviously human works and arts comes from someone's mind. No one, at any time, has demonstrated that information can arise from anywhere other than a mind, either human minds or God's mind. Anyone that can demonstrate the origin of any information from any other source besides a conscious mind, has disproved that a great mind, namely the mind of God is behind the universe. Even in inanimate objects such as the formation of a Crystal of salt or other minerals contain information in the form of the laws of physics. All laws, whether human or natural, require a lawgiver, one or more persons showing forth the activity of their minds. The only way that Hamlet can know of the existence of Shakespeare is if the author has written himself into the play. God has written himself into the design of the universe.
And what in that pile of philosophy is testable? I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God right now, but rather I'm saying that said existence is not a useful scientific theory unless we can point at something observable that is reliant on it.
So I ask again, is there an aspect of God's nature that can be tested? Is there a hypothetical experiment which, if it turns out a particular way, could disprove God's existence? My point was to dispute the claim that
The existance of God is no more provable than the claim that the universe began with a "big bang"
The existance of God is no more provable than the claim that the universe began with a "big bang"
The big bang, or any other theory, has implications that are testable. It doesn't *prove* the theory, but then that's not possible anyway; scientific theories are all pretty much the best guess that we have at a given point in time. You can however disprove it if certain things are observed (hey look! The universe isn't expanding!)
God however, not so much. What are the testable implications of the existence of God? What hypothetical observation could be made to disprove the existence?
I'd also point out that assumptions are called assumptions because they are not testable.
No, they're called assumptions because we haven't gone and verified them. Sometimes people ask me to help them debug something. They tell me that they've checked every possible spot where this thing could break and they all work correctly. I tell them one of their assumptions is wrong and that we need to go figure out which one. We do this by testing their assumptions.
A Cutlass Supreme is a regular Cutlass with tomatoes and sour cream shoved into the transaxle.
I'll get hit with offtopic for this, but that's awesome. Although my first thought was more along the lines of lettuce, tomato, french fries, and/or onion rings.
Bunnicula by James Howe. A story about a possibly vampire bunny, as told by the family dog. My eight year old loves them, we're up to the fifth book in the series.
As a side note: If Matt wanted to he could trump their paltry $20,000 lawsuit. He noted 360 instances of infringement (now taken down after his post-legal-threat blog post). Each instance of copyright infringement could cost FunnyJunk between $750 and $250,000 per infringement - or $270,000 to $90 million. I say Matt should agree to pay their "defamation" settlement fee if they pay for the lowest amount of his copyright infringement fee!
This thought is actually what prompted my original post. It had occurred to me that Matt could potentially sue for an exorbitant amount of money and that would feel like justice. And yet at the same time it wouldn't feel like justice were the RIAA to do the same to YouTube. And I tried to figure out why, and all I could come up with was that the RIAA are assholes while Matt isn't. But that didn't feel like a good enough reason. Hence my original post asking questions.
The $20k, as I understand it, isn't for DMCA notices, it's for the claim that FunnyJunk is engaging in *willful* copyright infringement. I can see where, if any infringement is genuinely accidental rather than willful the guy might have a point. Not a $20k point, but a point.
So my question remains, if someone (such as the RIAA) were to go about accusing YouTube of deliberate infringement, would YouTube have grounds for a suit?
I'm speaking from a legal POV. If FunnyJunk is responsible for the infringement of their users, then so is YouTube.
Just because Inman is a funny guy who only wants to write comics while the RIAA is full of assholes doesn't mean we should have a different set of laws for similar circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
imminent domain
LOOK OUT!
It's about to happen.
What's about to happen you ask?
Domain. It's imminent.
Linked article talks about how more people are moving from Canada to the US than the reverse, so he (there are no women on slashdot, it must be an alias) was correct to say 'southward'.
Because baby meat is delicious.
Also, if I spare one or two and indoctrinate them correctly, I can have my minions go get jobs to support my expensive lifestyle.
And this is particularly relevant in this case, because Slashdot runs on CowboyNeal's microwave oven.
Ovens. You really think it's not a cluster?
The first is dynamically allocated, yours is statically allocated.
In the case of a string, where you likely don't know how long it will be, it's better to allocate dynamically.
But what's more important, don't forget to clean it up afterwards.
char *post = "ac";
is not dynamically allocated, and trying to free it later is not a good idea.
Incidentally, this thread is one of the reasons I hate C.
ever re-told a joke?
That's a great point. Wish you'd gotten in on this earlier, as I could respect this getting modded up more than the guy grumbling about my use of the word 'entitlement'.
Jokes in theory should be entitled to the same protection as any other creative work. In practice they receive a level of protection that seems to be what many on slashdot are looking for -- comedians often buy material from joke writers, and copyright is the only legal protection they have from anyone stealing their material. But once disseminated to a large audience they're effectively fair game for anyone to use. Another comedian using them might be considered infringing, but if not he'd still be considered stale and unoriginal. The usefulness of copyright in that industry is much shorter term than in any other, as people are rarely interested, especially commercially, in old material.
"But the feeling of entitlement, that you should be able to grab whatever is produced at no cost to yourself, regardless of what justification you use.... that one I can't go with you on."
I feel that "I have a right to profit off of my work, via a government enforced monopoly on its use" is a far worse idea of entitlement than anything pirates are physically capable of.
I would argue that the principle is sound, the current implementation is not. I'd personally like to return to the 14 years, renew once for 14 more system, and I believe that would be preferable to complete abolishment of copyright.
Fair enough. I suspect we agree on most aspects but disagree on how the abuses of the RIAA to their artists allow you to respond.
Once produced, if the cost to replicate is close enough to zero that it doesn't matter, what do you judge to be the correct value? I hope you pay that toward every open source product you've ever used or you are your own hypocrite.
There's a hole in that thought process -- developers of an open source product have chosen of their own free will to allow myself and others to download their works free of charge. Hypocritical would be to condemn piracy while using GPL code in my closed source product.
If you mean many people, absolute numbers wise, you would be correct.
If you mean many people, percentage wise, you couldn't be more wrong. Less than 25% of the public view downloading music as illegal, and to be fair NONE should. The recording industry is entirely fabricated. Artists get next to nothing out of it and have to tour to make money.
If you feel like the penalties for infringement are too steep, I could back you up.
If you feel like the tactics the RIAA and others have used to pursue infringers are deplorable, I could back you up.
If you feel like the actual revenue loss due to piracy is grossly overstated, I could back you up.
But the feeling of entitlement, that you should be able to grab whatever is produced at no cost to yourself, regardless of what justification you use.... that one I can't go with you on.
"What are the testable implications of the existence of God?"
The existence of unfathomable quantities of information in all living things is strong evidence for the existence of a mind wherein all this information first arose. All information, whether natural living or nonliving or obviously human works and arts comes from someone's mind. No one, at any time, has demonstrated that information can arise from anywhere other than a mind, either human minds or God's mind. Anyone that can demonstrate the origin of any information from any other source besides a conscious mind, has disproved that a great mind, namely the mind of God is behind the universe. Even in inanimate objects such as the formation of a Crystal of salt or other minerals contain information in the form of the laws of physics. All laws, whether human or natural, require a lawgiver, one or more persons showing forth the activity of their minds. The only way that Hamlet can know of the existence of Shakespeare is if the author has written himself into the play. God has written himself into the design of the universe.
And what in that pile of philosophy is testable? I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God right now, but rather I'm saying that said existence is not a useful scientific theory unless we can point at something observable that is reliant on it.
So I ask again, is there an aspect of God's nature that can be tested? Is there a hypothetical experiment which, if it turns out a particular way, could disprove God's existence? My point was to dispute the claim that
The existance of God is no more provable than the claim that the universe began with a "big bang"
The existance of God is no more provable than the claim that the universe began with a "big bang"
The big bang, or any other theory, has implications that are testable. It doesn't *prove* the theory, but then that's not possible anyway; scientific theories are all pretty much the best guess that we have at a given point in time. You can however disprove it if certain things are observed (hey look! The universe isn't expanding!)
God however, not so much. What are the testable implications of the existence of God? What hypothetical observation could be made to disprove the existence?
I'd also point out that assumptions are called assumptions because they are not testable.
No, they're called assumptions because we haven't gone and verified them. Sometimes people ask me to help them debug something. They tell me that they've checked every possible spot where this thing could break and they all work correctly. I tell them one of their assumptions is wrong and that we need to go figure out which one. We do this by testing their assumptions.
A Cutlass Supreme is a regular Cutlass with tomatoes and sour cream shoved into the transaxle.
I'll get hit with offtopic for this, but that's awesome. Although my first thought was more along the lines of lettuce, tomato, french fries, and/or onion rings.
Pick one and start watching. If it's DS9, from the beginning helps, but most Trek episodes stand alone.
Bunnicula by James Howe. A story about a possibly vampire bunny, as told by the family dog. My eight year old loves them, we're up to the fifth book in the series.
I think GRRM's Game of Thrones might be slightly more kid friendly.
It was a weird enough typo that I actually wanted to make sure my mental correction was the right one.
it artificially inflates market prices and prevents the decimation of technology that was previously only available to the richest few.
emphasis mine. Did you mean dissemination?
One is that the U.S. and China are deeply intertwined through geo-economic interdependence
What's the difference between geo-economic interdependence and the good old garden variety economic interdependence?
As a side note: If Matt wanted to he could trump their paltry $20,000 lawsuit. He noted 360 instances of infringement (now taken down after his post-legal-threat blog post). Each instance of copyright infringement could cost FunnyJunk between $750 and $250,000 per infringement - or $270,000 to $90 million. I say Matt should agree to pay their "defamation" settlement fee if they pay for the lowest amount of his copyright infringement fee!
This thought is actually what prompted my original post. It had occurred to me that Matt could potentially sue for an exorbitant amount of money and that would feel like justice. And yet at the same time it wouldn't feel like justice were the RIAA to do the same to YouTube. And I tried to figure out why, and all I could come up with was that the RIAA are assholes while Matt isn't. But that didn't feel like a good enough reason. Hence my original post asking questions.
The $20k, as I understand it, isn't for DMCA notices, it's for the claim that FunnyJunk is engaging in *willful* copyright infringement. I can see where, if any infringement is genuinely accidental rather than willful the guy might have a point. Not a $20k point, but a point.
So my question remains, if someone (such as the RIAA) were to go about accusing YouTube of deliberate infringement, would YouTube have grounds for a suit?
I'm not claiming that The Oatmeal did any of those things.
I am however saying that we should have roughly equal expectations for FunnyJunk and YouTube to police their own content.
I'm speaking from a legal POV. If FunnyJunk is responsible for the infringement of their users, then so is YouTube.
Just because Inman is a funny guy who only wants to write comics while the RIAA is full of assholes doesn't mean we should have a different set of laws for similar circumstances.
It's an interesting claim.
If we swap out FunnyJunk and Oatmeal for YouTube and RIAA, most of the details stay the same.
Could YouTube sue the RIAA for saying that YouTube encourages piracy?
At what point is a site operator responsible for the content their users upload?
Americans are "used to" the UN and don't realise that it's merely a corrupt money sink which does nothing good.
So... you've never met any Americans I take it?