i assumed that the OP was talking about TinyURL blocking submissions from someone that submits multiple bad IPs, so it wouldn't be just 10% resubmitted (or 11.1% repeating:P) you'd actually have to walk carefully.
"Yet again scientist realize that Hollywood movies don't always get their facts right."
since it was based on a book, i think you mean that authors don't always get it right. which is interesting, because that same author is testifying to congress right about now, on the other side of the debate from most scientists
Oh, but oil and gas are contributing to the greenhouse effect!
and the Exxon Valdeez effect, and the Saddam's Burning Wells effect. a little smoke in the air isn't the worst case for oil, and one could list the enrichment of Saudis as one of the bad cases
your point is no more relevant to this story than any other story here on Slashdot. i mean so far today we've seen a chat with Sid Meier about video games ("we're spending how much money on entertainment when people are starving?"), poorly made UK ATM systems ("at least they have money at all!"), organizational practices in IT ("be happy you get any benefits, you could be working in a sweatshop making shoes"), and yet another flip-flop on Blu-Ray. on each of those, we could have stepped in and made a similar statement that the topic is a huge waste of time compared to "the real issues" in society today.
are we supposed to stop discussing anything else until those problems are solved? are the poor people in the world better served by Apple making a faulty product and not being sued? if neither of those questions earns a "yes", than we're way off-topic.
A little historical note: monarchs, being able to personally pocket the tax revenue, and thus historically had very strong incentives to maximize tax revenue, generally taxed about 8-15% of GDP according to most estimates. Just something to think about.
that doesn't really put anything in perspective though. to get the full picture, you'd have to see how much the monarchs were spending to support their citizens (monarchs didn't offer a lot of social services), any non-tax income (they tended to own a lot of the land that they lived on, is the money they made off the farming of that land included in that figure?), and their own personal risk from their own people rising up if the taxes were too high
i don't see why the profession of the person who is writing the story is more important than the purpose of the story whose sources are being sought. the intent of the shield law is to protect whistleblowers from being unmasked after they give information to a third party, that's right it's really there to protect the people that are giving the journalist the information. so isn't the fact that the information came from someone who believed themselves to be whistleblowing more important than the fact that they gave that information to someone who is or isn't a journalist?
i realize that this creates newer, sticky issues as to what is whistleblowing and what isn't, but it seems to me that these new issues are more at the heart of the matter than this journalist vs. blogger one. correct me if i'm wrong but as it stands now (even assuming we arrive at an agreement on the definition of journalist), the whistleblowing laws seem to make no distinction between someone giving that person the plans to a nuclear bomb and giving them information about stifled nuclear leaks.
I know I spend a lot more time these days watching [[Special:Recentchanges]] than I do reading slashdot. I'd almost forgotten I had an account here
until someone posted something on Slashdot that could be construed as even slightly critical of Wiki, and then the hordes of Wiki people come rushing over:P
So your saying that WOW2 will only play on windows vista?
the same installation discs for WoW that installed it on your PC will work on your Mac, and i believe that has been the case for all of Blizzard's products going back a bit
it's also worth considering that since Google didn't buy the books (the library did), there's already one level of distribution in the act of copying it for their own archive.
well, there's also the implication that Google is going to be distributing the copied items (through making their book searching tool publically available)
if distribute alone were illegal, used book sellers would be out of business because i know that i don't have special overriding permission to sell them my old copies of books. as someone else pointed out, distribution of items that you [legally] purchased is granted by default by the doctrine of first sale
thus begins the hijack alert arms race. first the hijackers try to jam it. then the device is changed to always send a "ok" signal, so that even a lack of signal means "not ok!" then the hijackers try to jam it and simultaneously send an "ok" signal, so the device manufacturers add various levels of encryption to the signal to try to make it unforgeable. if this all sounds familiar, it's because it's been done before:)
Slashdot Mirror
that's interesting that you've singled him out, because Leroy Jenkins is the only paladin that i like
on the other hand, anyone who watched Daredevil probably felt that someone should have done some time for it
luckily there are no such provisions in my new SlashDisk...
d fhassdfhejdsk3 26171372348734 8735845843946h ejdsk@!!#13263 5845843946949
@!!#13261713723487358458439469494946090721ufhdfhs
58458439469494946090721ufhdfhsdfhassdfhejdsk@!!#1
9494946090721ufhdfhsdfhassdfhejdsk@!!#13261713723
1713723487358458439469494946090721ufhdfhsdfhassdf
4946090721ufhdfhsdfhassdfhejdsk@!!#13261713723487
i assumed that the OP was talking about TinyURL blocking submissions from someone that submits multiple bad IPs, so it wouldn't be just 10% resubmitted (or 11.1% repeating :P) you'd actually have to walk carefully.
your point is no more relevant to this story than any other story here on Slashdot. i mean so far today we've seen a chat with Sid Meier about video games ("we're spending how much money on entertainment when people are starving?"), poorly made UK ATM systems ("at least they have money at all!"), organizational practices in IT ("be happy you get any benefits, you could be working in a sweatshop making shoes"), and yet another flip-flop on Blu-Ray. on each of those, we could have stepped in and made a similar statement that the topic is a huge waste of time compared to "the real issues" in society today.
are we supposed to stop discussing anything else until those problems are solved? are the poor people in the world better served by Apple making a faulty product and not being sued? if neither of those questions earns a "yes", than we're way off-topic.
every so often they like to throw us a bone and give us an article for which we don't have to feel guilty for not reading TFA
the damned things wouldn't stand still long enough to be milked!
i don't see why the profession of the person who is writing the story is more important than the purpose of the story whose sources are being sought. the intent of the shield law is to protect whistleblowers from being unmasked after they give information to a third party, that's right it's really there to protect the people that are giving the journalist the information. so isn't the fact that the information came from someone who believed themselves to be whistleblowing more important than the fact that they gave that information to someone who is or isn't a journalist? i realize that this creates newer, sticky issues as to what is whistleblowing and what isn't, but it seems to me that these new issues are more at the heart of the matter than this journalist vs. blogger one. correct me if i'm wrong but as it stands now (even assuming we arrive at an agreement on the definition of journalist), the whistleblowing laws seem to make no distinction between someone giving that person the plans to a nuclear bomb and giving them information about stifled nuclear leaks.
productivity in Australia skyrockets, health improves as children receive larger doses of sunshine and exercise, popularity of "hot coffee" diminishes
i'm not sure they'd be able to register a domain name for the more generic "f---load of mail"
it's also worth considering that since Google didn't buy the books (the library did), there's already one level of distribution in the act of copying it for their own archive.
well, there's also the implication that Google is going to be distributing the copied items (through making their book searching tool publically available)
if distribute alone were illegal, used book sellers would be out of business because i know that i don't have special overriding permission to sell them my old copies of books. as someone else pointed out, distribution of items that you [legally] purchased is granted by default by the doctrine of first sale
thus begins the hijack alert arms race. first the hijackers try to jam it. then the device is changed to always send a "ok" signal, so that even a lack of signal means "not ok!" then the hijackers try to jam it and simultaneously send an "ok" signal, so the device manufacturers add various levels of encryption to the signal to try to make it unforgeable. if this all sounds familiar, it's because it's been done before :)