Well, you never know--in the 70s, the Pentagon Papers case went from lowest state courts to the Supreme Court in about two weeks. If the courts really saw this as an egregious act, I'm sure the case could work through very quickly.
Oh, and for future reference, almost every court in the previously cited case(s) found against the government.
The character that I think Rowling meant was Aberforth (spelling please?), Albus' brother. No one has ever seen him do magic, at least not that I can remember from the first book.
I'm not sure about that. I seem to remember that she said it would be a person doing magic who we wouldn't expect could to magic. However, we already knew Aberforth had been in the original Order. But you could be right. It's the best candidate I can think of.
As for Molly, I always suspected she had a lot of powerful magic hiding up her sleeve. Similar to Arthur, whom we are repeatedly told could have been promoted if he had the desire, I always figured Molly was an extremely powerful witch in her own right. That being said, I was a little disappointed that Neville didn't take out Bellatrix as revenge.
Snape's patronus is a doe. I understand that Snape loved Lily, but why does a doe represent Lily? Sure, James (secret!) animagus form was a stag, but that would imply that Snape cared about James. Lily's patronus was a doe, but why would Snape's be the same? I assume Lily's was a doe to represent James (even though a stag would make more sense), but again, that implies that Snape cared about James.
I think that Tonks's Patronus explains Snape's. Tonks loved Lupin, and so her Patronus, as she grew to love him, became a wolf.
I read the Snape-Lily situation as Lily's Patronus was a doe. But that's just my interpretation. Maybe she, like James, became an Animagus or something?
The Taboo. So the Ministry can detect when and where a certain word is said throughout the whole country? Why didn't they use it before to find out when someone used the Unforgivables? Or when someone mentioned Death Eaters? Or plenty of other ways it could have been used.
Probably because the Wizarding World would have been even worse than the camera-laden Britain we hear about? I mean, talk about invasion of privacy and abridging the freedom of speech! I thought the book painted a very clear picture of how dispicable it was to use "Taboo Tracing" or whatever you want to call it.
Harry not moving when Voldemort cast a Crucio on him? I understand not screaming, since the pain can be resisted somewhat. But not even twitching?
I really liked that part. To me, it seemed to indicate that the Cruciatus Curse can only hurt someone who is afraid of pain. Similarly, can one not resist the Imperius Curse with a strong enough will? We also have precedent in that the AK always makes the victim crumple to the ground (it is described this way all throughout the books). However, when Dumbledore, someone who is accepting of death and unafraid, is AKed, he is blasted back and flies out a window. I read Harry's reaction to the Cruciatus Curse as a reference to all these things, without explicitly saying it. You know, one of those things where the reader has to "think for himself." I thought mature people liked that sort of thing!;)
It mentioned that Ted Lupin wasn't living with Harry, but where else would he live if not his godfather?
Exactly. This is one of my only gripes with the book. I mean, once Lupin has Harry be Ted's godfather, and Lupin's and Tonks's deaths get foreshadowed, I expected the series to fulfill Harry's relationship with Sirius, with Harry living to raise Ted as his own son. Then Harry died and I figured that instead, it paralleled Sirius's death and Harry's loss of his godfather. Then Harry came back I expected Ted to end up with Harry and Ginny.
Gatto says that he found that most his students didn't 'make pictures' to go along with the words comprising book's stories.
Amen. I started forcing myself to consciously visualize what I was reading after an English test in high school. We read Lord of the Flies, and I understood the fuck out of the symbolism and the "deep" literary stuff. ("Stuff" is a technical term.) Notes all over my book, etc. It was like a fundie's Bible, the amount of work that had gone in to it.
It still remains one of my favorite books of all time.
That being said, the test focused so much on, "Waht was the shape of the island?" and "Where did the parachutist die?" and "Who was the first boy to die?" You know, the stuff that doesn't matter in the course of understanding the novel to its core. Who cares if Piggy was killed by a rock or a spear. What's important is why he was killed, and what his death signified (it signified, at a minimum, the death of scientific inquiry and rational thought during wartime).
Thus, when I read book 7, it was so enjoyable to be able to actually see the events like a movie. Of course, I've had 6 years of practice at this since I changed my ways.
More Americans need to be taught to read this way. To visualize what is happening.
but I just wish it had some more depth than the usual good vs. evil tale
Well, there were definitely shades of gray in the book and series--the revelation of how truly great a man Snape was, the surprising turn of Draco, the loss of Dumbledore as a faultless character, Harry doing a lot of wrong shit through all 7 books, Sirius trying to murder Snape while he was in high school (which is somehow forgiven by most readers--although Orson Scot Card said he could not accept Sirius as a good guy after that revelation). What about Harry's bitchfest with Lupin about abandoning his kid. There was a lot of moral gray area in the series, and especially a lot in the seventh book. Oh, and don't get me started on the revelation through book 7 (and a little of book 6) that the Malfoys were not as evil as they seemed (they at least really loved their son, which, honestly, was unexpected on my part).
Harry tossing unforgiveable curses around like nobody's business, the nice touch with Petunia as she left, Dudley's unexpected humanization, etc.
Almost every significant character in the series ended up having both redeeming and problematic qualities about them. Ginny may have been the only one who emerged from the books a "perfect" character.
To say the book was a clear black-vs-white tale is to discard a lot of the stories. It raises many issues about when is it acceptable to kill. I mean, holy shit. Harry fucking tortures people in this book.
Tell me about it! Leading up to this book, I had been railing on and on about how, if it turned out that (1) Harry had no knowledge of magic beyond what we see in the books (I've always had the theory that, during OotP, he had to learn tons of advanced magic just to stay ahead of his students in Dumbledore's Army, but we just never saw any of it), or (2) he didn't go study magic in the restricted section of the Hogwarts library, then the final battle between him and Voldemort would be ultra-lame and unbelievable. The anti-intellectualism of the hero in the previous 6 books has always been my one gripe. Harry doesn't care one iota about most of his classes, despite the fact that, since at least the end of Book 5, he's known he has to fight Voldemort one-on-one in the end. That was supremely stupid on his part.
However, Hermione shows up kicking so much ass that the first half of the book was practically Hermione Granger and the Deathly Hallows. Also, I think (1) turned out to be true, because we do see Harry kicking a ton of ass in his escape from Privet Drive. I also think the final duel between Harry and Voldemort was pretty good. I didn't follow the logic at first and so had to reread it. I still need to reread how exactly it was that the new master of the Elder Sword was Draco. He didn't defeat Dumbledore in combat, so I don't know how the wand would have sworn to his command.
However, it was ultimately believable and satisfying. I almost would go so far as to say that the Epilogue was unnecessary. Of course, it was nice to see what happened to many of the characters, but the end of the previous chapter was satisfying enough that I didn't feel I needed it for resolution.
I expected to want more Harry Potter after I was done, and I suppose I will always hope that another book will come out, but I don't feel as strongly as I expected to that I need another. Harry's story really does come to an end with book 7.
Still, I have one question: Rowling had said that there would be someone who does magic at an old age who had not previously done magic. Who was this character?? I don't remember anything about it in the book.
Whatever, this is so long because I haven't had anyone to talk to about the books yet, and this is my first real outlet.
You're right, they are CSS properties, and not tags. Also, hand coding each web page wouldn't work for that reason. Also, you're right--on an uncontrollable population of web browsers, hand coding web pages wouldn't work either. JS would be necessary. I wasn't really paying attention to what I wrote there, and was careless in word usage.
However, I disagree with your assertion that text spilling over into a new column is not a good idea. It may not be often-requested, but how often would PRE or DFN or INS or SAMP be requested, yet they still exist in the HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 standards? Also, CSS and HTML are not just for web design. If they were, there would be no need for this: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="print.css">. Being able to print webpages I've designed (without having to go to a "printer-friendly version") and have it come out formatted properly is very nice if I want to show my content to someone without having my content look unreadable on the page.
And, as history has shown us, multiple-column layouts in print are very powerful and good in many instances. The first that comes to mind is when you are using a small font size because you only want a certain number of characters of width per line, so a small font size requires lines with a shorter absolute width (in inches or cm, take your pick). Therefore, with a smaller font size, you will end up with many pages of text with lots of wasted paper--unless you add columns. Now we see why columns are useful in HTML+CSS.
Aside from DB calls and writing to files, I'm having trouble thinking of anything you'd want that doesn't already exist in the standardized JavaScript DOM. And obviously if you don't want to run a server, you don't want to run a DB app. That leaves write-and-read-to-file. Is there something in particular you'd like to do that JavaScript doesn't allow?
JavaScript is not a kludge. What is it about PHP that you want to use on webpages that doesn't exist in JavaScript already? I just recently inherited a web-site governed by templates. It uses only HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. There are calls within an init() function such as contentColumn(TITLE, CONTENT). With this, you change your external JavaScript file to decide the structure of the content column.
Also, what does "JavaScript for one!" mean?
And if you thought standardized JavaScript was a problem, wait until you see the lack of support for a new client-side standard. Just design your page in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, and distribute it with a copy of Firefox that doesn't need to be installed to run. If the user is on Linux or OS X, it's highly likely that they have Firefox installed already. If they're running Windows, you can have the site autolaunch by placing an autorun.ini file in the root directory of the CD, and have its contents be something like run=.\firefox.exe index.html or whatever the syntax for autorun is in Windows.
Also look how hard and painful it is to implement a 3 column liquid layout with just HTML and CSS.
It's trivial. It's a bit more complicated if you are talking about the subset of HTML and CSS that Internet Explorer supports, but there have been established techniques for years.
It's not really trivial. He said he wanted a 3-column liquid layout, which, IIRC, means a 3-column layout where you merely define the content, and the browser spills the overflow from column 1 into column 2. Any overflow from there would spill into column 3 (of course, given heights for the columns).
This is not trivial with HTML and CSS. With JavaScript, you'd have to keep making DOM calls until it overflowed properly. You'd have to hand-code every page (since you don't know at what point content would fill up column 1 until you've calculated it yourself at this point.
However, hopefully CSS3 will make this all easy. Right now, there are proprietary Mozilla tags that do this (-moz-column-count and -moz-column -width).
Of course, if I'm misunderstanding what "liquid layout" means, then remove my first paragraph and just leave the discussion about a column system that CSS really needs.
HTML5 is the result of the hard work done by the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG).
That reminds me of a joke. So Håkon Wium Lie and Bill Gates are sitting around talking about the future of the web. Bill Gates grasps at his scalp and screams, "What wig!?"
And Slashdot really needs to allow the interrobang character.
There are court decisions that might disagree: if you open your private property to enough of the public, then it is treated like a public forum. I doubt any court would see the argument like that right now, but give the courts 50 years to get a bunch of netizens benched, and we'll probably see developments like that.
But only if your server is analogous to an old world bazaar or a mall. When a case comes down to private property rights v. free speech rights, free speech can win occasionally. There's a case (too lazy to look it up right now) where a mall prevented someone from handing out pamphlets, and the Supreme Court ruled that the mall could not do that because it stifled the pamphleteer's speech rights.
Can you imagine if Duke locked down APs with MAC filtering?
Sadly, the Japanese university I attended did precisely this. Oh, and only allowed port 80 traffic. I couldn't use POP for SMTP for months (until I got my own bloggotubes connection at my house).
Herein heretoforth quid pro quo follows a short grammar gripe targeted at someone who is allegedly paid to write well (i.e., the author of the article), or maybe just at the Slashdot editor who included such a crappily-written sentence in the summary of the article. Keep in mind that any errors made here are excusable because my job is not to make my Slashdot writings flawless. Slashdot editors or authors or both, however, are paid to do this, and ought to do it well.
It's my opinion that summaries should be educational for those who are not familiar with the topic.
By its own admission, Google's request is intended to diminish the value of those licenses, thus preventing wireless service providers such as AT&T from bidding on them and clearing the path for Google to obtain them at below-market rates.
Now, does that mean that AT&T is prevented from clearing the path for Google, or does that mean that, because AT&T is prevented from bidding, Google's path is cleared? The confusion comes from the use of "By its own admission," which sets up a "hey you guys, something completely unexpected is coming up," which tends to the first interpretation of the sentence, but the rest of the summary setting up AT&T and Google as opponents tends to the second interpretation. The confusion is also enhanced by the use of three gerunds in the sentence in pseudo-parallel structure: We have three parallel elements, all gerunds--preventing (A) bidding (B) clearing (C). A || B || C is confusing.
How to fix the sentence: If Case 1 is desired:
By its own admission, Google's request is intended to diminish the value of those licenses; this would prevent wireless service providers such as AT&T from bidding on them and clearing the path for Google to obtain them at below-market rates.
This cleans up the confusing parallelism by shaping it as B || C If Case 2 is desired:
By its own admission, Google's request is intended to diminish the value of those licenses; this would prevent wireless service providers such as AT&T from bidding on them and would clear the path for Google to obtain them at below-market rates.
This cleans up the confusing parallelism by shaping it as A || C
Yeah, I need to just replace it. It is supposed to say something like, "Calling the legal system a 'lawyers always win' system is like calling civil engineering an 'engineers always win' system."
A more appropriate (cynical) criticism (albeit an inaccurate one in my opinion) would be to call the legal system an 'only lawyers win' system. After all, if only lawyers won, then no one would ever go to a lawyer.
Although he's right that merely digitizing or copying a public domain work does not result in a new copyright, creating a collection of public domain works does. The individual works remain in the public domain, but you can't copy the "collection" as a whole (eg. scan and upload the book as a whole to the internet) because the creativity of selecting and assembling the work is a new copyright.
This is only partially true, from what I can remember. There's a Supreme Court case used by Wikipedia folks (name escapes me now) that says a compilation of public domain information has to display some sort of creative spark to be copyrightable. For example, compiling "all of Shakespeare's works" is not copyrightable, because it shows no creative spark.
However, the specific work entitled "TheoMurpse's Collection of Shakespeare's Best Plays" would be copyrightable, even if each piece within the work were in the public domain.
I'm reading up on this in 88 A.L.R. Fed. 151 right now, and I see that "compilation" is restricted to those works which are works "formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting [works] . . . constitute[] . . . original work[s] of authorship."
Here are some requirements:
an original work of authorship
fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed from which it
can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device and
it may not be an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in a work.
I think the choice quote from the ALR work is:
The contribution made by the compiler of the pre-existing material must be more than minimal or trivial. There is authority that only "industrious collection," not originality in the sense of novelty, is sufficient to entitle a compilation to copyright protection. Originality in the context of compilations can consist of selectivity, or independent original effort in collecting, assembling, selecting, organizing, arranging, and compiling the pre-existing materials.
Law school casebooks are like this--aside from the obvious editing of the cases the authors use, most of the materials in the casebooks are public domain (because they are opinions authored by federal judges), so even if you cut out the comments, they casebook would still be copyrightable since it shows a tremendous creative spark as to which cases are significant enough and valuable enough to include in the casebook.
This is sort of OT, but I've recently been playing X-Men: Legends on the original Xbox. It's really fun, doesn't require a lot of dexterity (but has combos you can learn if you want), and you can pick it up and play for just a short period of time. Why, just yesterday I played for 20 minutes then went back to studying. It's a really fun game.
Sorry, what I meant was that there's no place that explains what the "PAQ" in PAQ8H means. Obviously 8H would have been versioning. However, after reading the article, I'm still at a loss as to what PAQ stands for. If it is in the article, it's buried somewhere I cannot find.
I can do you one better: What the fuck->wtf That's over 400% compressioooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo234 235184351fejf asfj$#^%@ $ 2=0 9v124tKABOOOOM in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth...
What he should have said was one of the criteria for fair use is commerciality (commercial-ness?). Others include portion of the work used, educational value, etc. These criteria are all taken into account to determine if fair use applies.
You know, I don't like football. However, that's all the people I'm around all day talk about. Thus, I have to watch football in order to talk to my colleagues. I really don't like it, but it's the truth. There is no "then you should get other colleagues" for me. How many other people are in this situation?
I think movies and especially TV are the same--you either (sometimes unwillingly) see the film or get left out of the socialization. When your choices are (1) pay 10 bucks you don't want to spend and only are spending to be able to talk to the people you're surrounded by all day, or (2) pirate in order to have something to talk about, then the choice is obvious. It's almost "society-forced spending." It's the whole cooler talk thing:
A: Hey, man, did you see Spiderman? B: No, I didn't want to see it. A: Oh, OK. *walks away thinking that B is boring*
VERSUS
A: Hey, man, did you see Spiderman? B: Yeah. That $SCENE was $EVALUATION *escapes having to do 8 hours straight of work with no socialization*
I don't know what games have battery backups, so either (1) I don't have any of those games, or (2) the batteries still work.
That being said, replacing the battery backup should be as easy as unscrewing and opening the cartridge and popping a new battery in. I don't think those batteries are soldered in.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you never know--in the 70s, the Pentagon Papers case went from lowest state courts to the Supreme Court in about two weeks. If the courts really saw this as an egregious act, I'm sure the case could work through very quickly.
Oh, and for future reference, almost every court in the previously cited case(s) found against the government.
I read the Snape-Lily situation as Lily's Patronus was a doe. But that's just my interpretation. Maybe she, like James, became an Animagus or something?Probably because the Wizarding World would have been even worse than the camera-laden Britain we hear about? I mean, talk about invasion of privacy and abridging the freedom of speech! I thought the book painted a very clear picture of how dispicable it was to use "Taboo Tracing" or whatever you want to call it.I really liked that part. To me, it seemed to indicate that the Cruciatus Curse can only hurt someone who is afraid of pain. Similarly, can one not resist the Imperius Curse with a strong enough will? We also have precedent in that the AK always makes the victim crumple to the ground (it is described this way all throughout the books). However, when Dumbledore, someone who is accepting of death and unafraid, is AKed, he is blasted back and flies out a window. I read Harry's reaction to the Cruciatus Curse as a reference to all these things, without explicitly saying it. You know, one of those things where the reader has to "think for himself." I thought mature people liked that sort of thing!
It still remains one of my favorite books of all time.
That being said, the test focused so much on, "Waht was the shape of the island?" and "Where did the parachutist die?" and "Who was the first boy to die?" You know, the stuff that doesn't matter in the course of understanding the novel to its core. Who cares if Piggy was killed by a rock or a spear. What's important is why he was killed, and what his death signified (it signified, at a minimum, the death of scientific inquiry and rational thought during wartime).
Thus, when I read book 7, it was so enjoyable to be able to actually see the events like a movie. Of course, I've had 6 years of practice at this since I changed my ways.
More Americans need to be taught to read this way. To visualize what is happening.
Harry tossing unforgiveable curses around like nobody's business, the nice touch with Petunia as she left, Dudley's unexpected humanization, etc.
Almost every significant character in the series ended up having both redeeming and problematic qualities about them. Ginny may have been the only one who emerged from the books a "perfect" character.
To say the book was a clear black-vs-white tale is to discard a lot of the stories. It raises many issues about when is it acceptable to kill. I mean, holy shit. Harry fucking tortures people in this book.
Book 7 Spoilers
Tell me about it! Leading up to this book, I had been railing on and on about how, if it turned out that (1) Harry had no knowledge of magic beyond what we see in the books (I've always had the theory that, during OotP, he had to learn tons of advanced magic just to stay ahead of his students in Dumbledore's Army, but we just never saw any of it), or (2) he didn't go study magic in the restricted section of the Hogwarts library, then the final battle between him and Voldemort would be ultra-lame and unbelievable. The anti-intellectualism of the hero in the previous 6 books has always been my one gripe. Harry doesn't care one iota about most of his classes, despite the fact that, since at least the end of Book 5, he's known he has to fight Voldemort one-on-one in the end. That was supremely stupid on his part.
However, Hermione shows up kicking so much ass that the first half of the book was practically Hermione Granger and the Deathly Hallows. Also, I think (1) turned out to be true, because we do see Harry kicking a ton of ass in his escape from Privet Drive. I also think the final duel between Harry and Voldemort was pretty good. I didn't follow the logic at first and so had to reread it. I still need to reread how exactly it was that the new master of the Elder Sword was Draco. He didn't defeat Dumbledore in combat, so I don't know how the wand would have sworn to his command.
However, it was ultimately believable and satisfying. I almost would go so far as to say that the Epilogue was unnecessary. Of course, it was nice to see what happened to many of the characters, but the end of the previous chapter was satisfying enough that I didn't feel I needed it for resolution.
I expected to want more Harry Potter after I was done, and I suppose I will always hope that another book will come out, but I don't feel as strongly as I expected to that I need another. Harry's story really does come to an end with book 7.
Still, I have one question: Rowling had said that there would be someone who does magic at an old age who had not previously done magic. Who was this character?? I don't remember anything about it in the book.
Whatever, this is so long because I haven't had anyone to talk to about the books yet, and this is my first real outlet.
You're right, they are CSS properties, and not tags. Also, hand coding each web page wouldn't work for that reason. Also, you're right--on an uncontrollable population of web browsers, hand coding web pages wouldn't work either. JS would be necessary. I wasn't really paying attention to what I wrote there, and was careless in word usage.
However, I disagree with your assertion that text spilling over into a new column is not a good idea. It may not be often-requested, but how often would PRE or DFN or INS or SAMP be requested, yet they still exist in the HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 standards? Also, CSS and HTML are not just for web design. If they were, there would be no need for this: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="print.css">. Being able to print webpages I've designed (without having to go to a "printer-friendly version") and have it come out formatted properly is very nice if I want to show my content to someone without having my content look unreadable on the page.
And, as history has shown us, multiple-column layouts in print are very powerful and good in many instances. The first that comes to mind is when you are using a small font size because you only want a certain number of characters of width per line, so a small font size requires lines with a shorter absolute width (in inches or cm, take your pick). Therefore, with a smaller font size, you will end up with many pages of text with lots of wasted paper--unless you add columns. Now we see why columns are useful in HTML+CSS.
Aside from DB calls and writing to files, I'm having trouble thinking of anything you'd want that doesn't already exist in the standardized JavaScript DOM. And obviously if you don't want to run a server, you don't want to run a DB app. That leaves write-and-read-to-file. Is there something in particular you'd like to do that JavaScript doesn't allow?
JavaScript is not a kludge. What is it about PHP that you want to use on webpages that doesn't exist in JavaScript already? I just recently inherited a web-site governed by templates. It uses only HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. There are calls within an init() function such as contentColumn(TITLE, CONTENT). With this, you change your external JavaScript file to decide the structure of the content column.
Also, what does "JavaScript for one!" mean?
And if you thought standardized JavaScript was a problem, wait until you see the lack of support for a new client-side standard. Just design your page in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, and distribute it with a copy of Firefox that doesn't need to be installed to run. If the user is on Linux or OS X, it's highly likely that they have Firefox installed already. If they're running Windows, you can have the site autolaunch by placing an autorun.ini file in the root directory of the CD, and have its contents be something like run=.\firefox.exe index.html or whatever the syntax for autorun is in Windows.
This is not trivial with HTML and CSS. With JavaScript, you'd have to keep making DOM calls until it overflowed properly. You'd have to hand-code every page (since you don't know at what point content would fill up column 1 until you've calculated it yourself at this point.
However, hopefully CSS3 will make this all easy. Right now, there are proprietary Mozilla tags that do this (-moz-column-count and -moz-column -width).
Of course, if I'm misunderstanding what "liquid layout" means, then remove my first paragraph and just leave the discussion about a column system that CSS really needs.
And Slashdot really needs to allow the interrobang character.
There are court decisions that might disagree: if you open your private property to enough of the public, then it is treated like a public forum. I doubt any court would see the argument like that right now, but give the courts 50 years to get a bunch of netizens benched, and we'll probably see developments like that.
But only if your server is analogous to an old world bazaar or a mall. When a case comes down to private property rights v. free speech rights, free speech can win occasionally. There's a case (too lazy to look it up right now) where a mall prevented someone from handing out pamphlets, and the Supreme Court ruled that the mall could not do that because it stifled the pamphleteer's speech rights.
It's my opinion that summaries should be educational for those who are not familiar with the topic.
Now, does that mean that AT&T is prevented from clearing the path for Google, or does that mean that, because AT&T is prevented from bidding, Google's path is cleared? The confusion comes from the use of "By its own admission," which sets up a "hey you guys, something completely unexpected is coming up," which tends to the first interpretation of the sentence, but the rest of the summary setting up AT&T and Google as opponents tends to the second interpretation. The confusion is also enhanced by the use of three gerunds in the sentence in pseudo-parallel structure:
We have three parallel elements, all gerunds--preventing (A) bidding (B) clearing (C). A || B || C is confusing.
How to fix the sentence:
If Case 1 is desired:This cleans up the confusing parallelism by shaping it as B || C
If Case 2 is desired:This cleans up the confusing parallelism by shaping it as A || C
Yeah, I need to just replace it. It is supposed to say something like, "Calling the legal system a 'lawyers always win' system is like calling civil engineering an 'engineers always win' system."
A more appropriate (cynical) criticism (albeit an inaccurate one in my opinion) would be to call the legal system an 'only lawyers win' system. After all, if only lawyers won, then no one would ever go to a lawyer.
However, the specific work entitled "TheoMurpse's Collection of Shakespeare's Best Plays" would be copyrightable, even if each piece within the work were in the public domain.
I'm reading up on this in 88 A.L.R. Fed. 151 right now, and I see that "compilation" is restricted to those works which are works "formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting [works] . . . constitute[] . . . original work[s] of authorship."
Here are some requirements:
I think the choice quote from the ALR work is:
Law school casebooks are like this--aside from the obvious editing of the cases the authors use, most of the materials in the casebooks are public domain (because they are opinions authored by federal judges), so even if you cut out the comments, they casebook would still be copyrightable since it shows a tremendous creative spark as to which cases are significant enough and valuable enough to include in the casebook.
This is sort of OT, but I've recently been playing X-Men: Legends on the original Xbox. It's really fun, doesn't require a lot of dexterity (but has combos you can learn if you want), and you can pick it up and play for just a short period of time. Why, just yesterday I played for 20 minutes then went back to studying. It's a really fun game.
Sorry, what I meant was that there's no place that explains what the "PAQ" in PAQ8H means. Obviously 8H would have been versioning. However, after reading the article, I'm still at a loss as to what PAQ stands for. If it is in the article, it's buried somewhere I cannot find.
I can do you one better:4 235184351fejf asfj$#^%@ $ 2=0 9v124tKABOOOOM in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth...
What the fuck->wtf
That's over 400% compressioooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo23
Three revisions of the text and not a single one made the simple Noobs->Nubs transformation!
I didn't see an explanation for the weird naming scheme anywhere in the wiki article.
What he should have said was one of the criteria for fair use is commerciality (commercial-ness?). Others include portion of the work used, educational value, etc. These criteria are all taken into account to determine if fair use applies.
Let's try this argument just for the hell of it:
You know, I don't like football. However, that's all the people I'm around all day talk about. Thus, I have to watch football in order to talk to my colleagues. I really don't like it, but it's the truth. There is no "then you should get other colleagues" for me. How many other people are in this situation?
I think movies and especially TV are the same--you either (sometimes unwillingly) see the film or get left out of the socialization. When your choices are (1) pay 10 bucks you don't want to spend and only are spending to be able to talk to the people you're surrounded by all day, or (2) pirate in order to have something to talk about, then the choice is obvious. It's almost "society-forced spending." It's the whole cooler talk thing:
A: Hey, man, did you see Spiderman?
B: No, I didn't want to see it.
A: Oh, OK. *walks away thinking that B is boring*
VERSUS
A: Hey, man, did you see Spiderman?
B: Yeah. That $SCENE was $EVALUATION *escapes having to do 8 hours straight of work with no socialization*
I don't know what games have battery backups, so either (1) I don't have any of those games, or (2) the batteries still work.
;)
That being said, replacing the battery backup should be as easy as unscrewing and opening the cartridge and popping a new battery in. I don't think those batteries are soldered in.