And they'll only grant you powers with respect to a particular class of works (e.g. audio-visual works on CD) not something nice and broad like "any copyrighted work."
I was wondering about this. What exactly is the source of the rule that says they can't make an exception for "any noninfringing use of any work; or any action which does not involve any copyrighted work"?
Wow. I have always been one of the smug people who replies to people's complaints about Wikipedia with "show me the diffs", and frankly those diffs stun me. I have not the words for how much TTN's behavior upsets me.
It's clear to me that I don't have the resources to do anything about him and his ilk directly; even though he's made some clear policy violations, I just don't have the time to wikilawyer against him singlehandedly, and I'm sure he has friends.
I'm contemplating what larger moves I could make that might help... it shouldn't be hard to "skin" Wikipedia to produce non-official versions, with reduced notability requirements. In the meantime, all I can say is that I feel your pain. I still think Wikipedia is the best Wikipedia we have, as it were, even if it's not the best Wikipedia it can be.
If you can't find where this shit's getting added to your bash startup files, just do what I did -- add 'complete -r' to the end of your.bash_profile to nuke all custom completions.
Ok, here's a question you might be able to answer.
How is it that Cogent was visible through XO, despite the fact that Cogent claims to be "transit-free"? If Cogent wasn't paying XO for transit, shouldn't XO have been filtering Cogent's routes rather than advertising them?
Thanks for clearing up this point of confusion for me, if you can.
Seriously! No wonder people can't get along on the Internet these days. I've got the thinnest skin of anyone I know, and I could barely find something to be offended by in that thread.
Was the OP being disingenuous in thanking the complainer for his input? As far as I could tell the whole exchange seemed rather cordial. Sure the complainer was mocking a little, but the useful content-to-mocking ratio in each post seemed very high to be calling him a bully.
Plus, now he's going to read your slashdot thread and hate you, and probably end up driving all your users out of your forum.
Honestly I think that's a pretty bad comparison. I personally found the lack of dialogue in 2001 strange and annoying. By contrast, I didn't even really consciously _notice_ that Wall-E completely lacked dialogue until someone pointed it out to me.
Very mild spoiler, for those who don't see how this could be true: The robots in the movie speak in "pokemon-style" -- they basically just make noises and say their own names, but they convey the impression of dialogue by using tone and body language.
Completely offtopic, I find it strange that I had to go to the Spanish Wikipedia to find information about Dolcett, because the English article was speedied in 2007, apparently after some argument (though of course it's impossible to tell.)
Having open season on TLD's is computationally equivalent to eliminating TLD's and just saying there's only.COM.
Well, that's how I thought about it at first too.
But it sounds like the market is going to be very different from the one we're accustomed to in second-level domains. It sounds like these will be 1) much more expensive; 2) sold to the highest bidder. That will have the positive effect of likely eliminating squatters, and the negative effect of likely eliminating casual/amateur owners. But as long as the market in second-level domains remains open and useful (i.e. most people still have only second-level domains) I can see how this might be a positive development.
It warms my heart to see someone helping tear down the old "but-corporations-are-just-groups-of-people" nonsense. Particularly someone well-liked around Slashdot. Thanks Ray.:-)
I'm a leftist, and I see nothing wrong with your proposal. But if you think what you are proposing is the Republican or "conservative" position, you should think again -- you're suggesting to penalize corporations, PACs, and other legal entities that aren't individuals, and no good Republican would ever stand for that -- obviously such entities are legally entitled to all the same rights as people.
This is exactly what I do. I have heard people complain about this practice (i.e. jwz wrote an angsty Livejournal post about it once), but frankly I don't care about their opinions.:-)
"regarding the unlawful posting of stolen and forged bank records."
This very much reminds me of the scene in Firefly where River reads the town elder's mind and correctly implies that he killed the previous elder. His response? "The witch reads minds and spins falsehoods!" Gotta get that second part in there for deniability...
Nor should we stop other voluntary practices just because there are accidents
We're not talking about a voluntary practice though, unless you believe that parents have complete dominion over their children's bodies. I don't know if you're one of the people from the thread above who was claiming this is a bad analogy, but I think it's an excellent one: Would you think it okay, or consider it "voluntary", if a parent had their child's left (or off-hand) pinky sliced off shortly after birth? If anything it probably has less useful function (and I say that as someone who types on a keyboard for a living.)
Or if you think the pinky has too much utility to be a good analogy (and I'll happily argue the utility of the foreskin, but not just at this moment), what about the little toe, or the earlobe? Completely useless bits of flesh. I think the word "mutilation" would be appropriate if a parent cut one of _those_ off.
Consider those things both 1) in the context of a society where it's considered normal, and everybody does it, and 2) in the context of a society where it would be an aberration, such as ours. I think in (2), such a thing would be rightly called mutilation and battery, and those doing it would be sent to prison. In the case of (1), the issue is much less clear: for cultural reasons, I think you can probably excuse the parents for not knowing any better; but I _don't_ think that makes it good! I think even in (1), the globally best thing would be to try to transition to (2), even though I wouldn't blame individual parents in (1) for their actions.
I feel like we're in (1) with respect to male circumcision, and we should be trying to move to (2). Because while I think cultural reasons prevent condemning parents who practice it currently, I think the only morally acceptable outcome is to try as hard as we can to bring about (2), by trying to change the culture which makes people think this is okay. There's just no good reason to cut bits off a child, no matter how much your culture tells you it's a good idea!
And to those people who cite cleanliness reasons, I say this: If you really think performing elective surgery on a small child is the appropriate response to a personal hygiene issue? Kill yourself. (I shouldn't tack this on to this comment, because it's not directed at you, it's just a pet peeve I'm venting; but I'm not going to start any more threads on this, because I have work to do, so I'm putting it here. Sorry for the bile.)
Slashdot Mirror
badblocks has a non-destructive read-write testing mode. You can't run it while mounted, though, for obvious reasons; with SMART you probably can.
And they'll only grant you powers with respect to a particular class of works (e.g. audio-visual works on CD) not something nice and broad like "any copyrighted work."
I was wondering about this. What exactly is the source of the rule that says they can't make an exception for "any noninfringing use of any work; or any action which does not involve any copyrighted work"?
Wow. I have always been one of the smug people who replies to people's complaints about Wikipedia with "show me the diffs", and frankly those diffs stun me. I have not the words for how much TTN's behavior upsets me.
It's clear to me that I don't have the resources to do anything about him and his ilk directly; even though he's made some clear policy violations, I just don't have the time to wikilawyer against him singlehandedly, and I'm sure he has friends.
I'm contemplating what larger moves I could make that might help... it shouldn't be hard to "skin" Wikipedia to produce non-official versions, with reduced notability requirements. In the meantime, all I can say is that I feel your pain. I still think Wikipedia is the best Wikipedia we have, as it were, even if it's not the best Wikipedia it can be.
If you can't find where this shit's getting added to your bash startup files, just do what I did -- add 'complete -r' to the end of your .bash_profile to nuke all custom completions.
Ok, here's a question you might be able to answer.
How is it that Cogent was visible through XO, despite the fact that Cogent claims to be "transit-free"? If Cogent wasn't paying XO for transit, shouldn't XO have been filtering Cogent's routes rather than advertising them?
Thanks for clearing up this point of confusion for me, if you can.
Seriously! No wonder people can't get along on the Internet these days. I've got the thinnest skin of anyone I know, and I could barely find something to be offended by in that thread.
Was the OP being disingenuous in thanking the complainer for his input? As far as I could tell the whole exchange seemed rather cordial. Sure the complainer was mocking a little, but the useful content-to-mocking ratio in each post seemed very high to be calling him a bully.
Plus, now he's going to read your slashdot thread and hate you, and probably end up driving all your users out of your forum.
Good job.
Honestly I think that's a pretty bad comparison. I personally found the lack of dialogue in 2001 strange and annoying. By contrast, I didn't even really consciously _notice_ that Wall-E completely lacked dialogue until someone pointed it out to me.
Very mild spoiler, for those who don't see how this could be true: The robots in the movie speak in "pokemon-style" -- they basically just make noises and say their own names, but they convey the impression of dialogue by using tone and body language.
Completely offtopic, I find it strange that I had to go to the Spanish Wikipedia to find information about Dolcett, because the English article was speedied in 2007, apparently after some argument (though of course it's impossible to tell.)
Way the hell up.
For an excellent explanation of why this is legally stupid, see What Colour Are Your Bits?
Well, that's how I thought about it at first too.
But it sounds like the market is going to be very different from the one we're accustomed to in second-level domains. It sounds like these will be 1) much more expensive; 2) sold to the highest bidder. That will have the positive effect of likely eliminating squatters, and the negative effect of likely eliminating casual/amateur owners. But as long as the market in second-level domains remains open and useful (i.e. most people still have only second-level domains) I can see how this might be a positive development.
How often do people actually catch that reference? :-D
Click any of the links, laugh a minute, then please mod down.
IF you malloc, SET it free!"
Sigh. False. RTFL.
+5! This is the best suggestion I've heard yet in the War On Sharing.
gb24chan.
It warms my heart to see someone helping tear down the old "but-corporations-are-just-groups-of-people" nonsense. Particularly someone well-liked around Slashdot. Thanks Ray. :-)
I'm a leftist, and I see nothing wrong with your proposal. But if you think what you are proposing is the Republican or "conservative" position, you should think again -- you're suggesting to penalize corporations, PACs, and other legal entities that aren't individuals, and no good Republican would ever stand for that -- obviously such entities are legally entitled to all the same rights as people.
Jesus, we've hit 7 digits? o_O'
This is exactly what I do. I have heard people complain about this practice (i.e. jwz wrote an angsty Livejournal post about it once), but frankly I don't care about their opinions. :-)
Yes. It got me too. XD
Seriously. Once you can fake authenticity, you've got it made.
(Apologies to George Burns.)
This very much reminds me of the scene in Firefly where River reads the town elder's mind and correctly implies that he killed the previous elder. His response? "The witch reads minds and spins falsehoods!" Gotta get that second part in there for deniability...
We're not talking about a voluntary practice though, unless you believe that parents have complete dominion over their children's bodies. I don't know if you're one of the people from the thread above who was claiming this is a bad analogy, but I think it's an excellent one: Would you think it okay, or consider it "voluntary", if a parent had their child's left (or off-hand) pinky sliced off shortly after birth? If anything it probably has less useful function (and I say that as someone who types on a keyboard for a living.)
Or if you think the pinky has too much utility to be a good analogy (and I'll happily argue the utility of the foreskin, but not just at this moment), what about the little toe, or the earlobe? Completely useless bits of flesh. I think the word "mutilation" would be appropriate if a parent cut one of _those_ off.
Consider those things both 1) in the context of a society where it's considered normal, and everybody does it, and 2) in the context of a society where it would be an aberration, such as ours. I think in (2), such a thing would be rightly called mutilation and battery, and those doing it would be sent to prison. In the case of (1), the issue is much less clear: for cultural reasons, I think you can probably excuse the parents for not knowing any better; but I _don't_ think that makes it good! I think even in (1), the globally best thing would be to try to transition to (2), even though I wouldn't blame individual parents in (1) for their actions.
I feel like we're in (1) with respect to male circumcision, and we should be trying to move to (2). Because while I think cultural reasons prevent condemning parents who practice it currently, I think the only morally acceptable outcome is to try as hard as we can to bring about (2), by trying to change the culture which makes people think this is okay. There's just no good reason to cut bits off a child, no matter how much your culture tells you it's a good idea! And to those people who cite cleanliness reasons, I say this: If you really think performing elective surgery on a small child is the appropriate response to a personal hygiene issue? Kill yourself. (I shouldn't tack this on to this comment, because it's not directed at you, it's just a pet peeve I'm venting; but I'm not going to start any more threads on this, because I have work to do, so I'm putting it here. Sorry for the bile.)