I'm interested - did you pull that bit about Picasso not understanding perspective out of your ass, or is my understanding of "talented draftsman" totally different from reality?
I'm not an expert on how BugTraq works - in fact, I know nothing about it. But his article sure seems to imply that he is comparing the number of vulnerabilities in _all_ Linux distros to the number of vulnerabilities in one Windows distro.
For that matter, he doesn't mention whether any of those vulnerabilities have been resolved. He also doesn't mention the fact that NT 4.0 is, what - 4 years old? How many new vulnerabilities were discovered in RH1.0 last year?
Maybe I'm the only one, but I find when I'm stuck like that, I like to go back to making my way through TAOCP. Then again, I'm probably the only one here who hasn't read them all the way through, yet.
Actually, this is pretty on topic, as far as used cd shops are concerned. I can't find a good link, but there was a big stink a few years ago about how Garth Brooks was wasting away to nothingness because the used cd trade was preventing him from selling so much as a concert ticket, let alone an album.
"Commissioner Gregory L. Rohde asked Richard Schwartz if his image filter could tell the difference between art and pornography. Astoundingly, Schwartz replied that it could."
After giving ClickSafe a briefing on the difference between "expression" and "obscenity" to complement its knowledge of "art" and "pornography", Justice Department officials today installed ClickSafe for its one-month probationary period on the Supreme Court. ClickSafe will be sitting in place of Justice Clarence Thomas, who will be on hiatus. If all goes well, ClickSafe could replace the entire 9-justice panel by the end of the year.
Richard Schwartz noted, "It isn't much of a law-talking-guy, but unlike most of the justices in the past two-hundred years, it has a firm grasp on the difference between art and pornography. We feel the trade-off is well worth it."
I have my cabinet at home for quality listening. Anywhere else I go, the quality of the rest of the system is such that, for the majority of recordings, I can't hear a difference on the equipment I'm using. I don't have a $3k stereo system in my car, and I don't want one - what I have keeps me happy. Why pay for quality I'm not going to use?
This is like saying "The Ford Focus is great and all, but why not just buy a Lexus? I mean, it's better quality than a Focus!" Well, it's like that with more punctuation.
If you can't figure out how using burning CD audio translates into cost, you're a lamer troll than I thought.
Hmm. You're right - why settle for the convenience of carrying a few cds to get 500 or so tracks, when I could lug a fat cd wallet around with me? It's so much easier to flip through 25 cds labeled "Husker Du", "Minor Threat", "Tom Waits", "A3", &c. than it is to pick between "Shit I Like", "Shit My Girlfriend Likes", and "Shit We Both Like". And if I want 10 hours of maintenance-free shuffle play for a party, well, hell - I should just buy a bigger CD changer, for a few hundred dollars, and toss out my POS Apex.
Can you try a little harder with your trolls, in the future?
That would be prohibitively difficult, even if the owners had not signed agreements prohibiting them from doing that. None of the owners of the sequenced DNA know that it was their DNA that was sequenced - only that they submitted their DNA into the pool of candidates.
No, a good touch-typist can type faster than his computer can understand him speaking, or faster than a poor orator can speak. Depending on circumstances and content, intelligible human speech gets up to 300 wpm in the "exceptional" range. 150 wpm is much more comfortable. I think you're going to have a hard time defending the claim that in order to be considered a "good" touch typist, you need to type 150wpm.
Reading the above paragraph, which has about 50 words longer than 3 letters, at a comfortable pace, took me 20 seconds. I know that reading aloud is often faster than speaking, since you don't have to stop to think, but this is not the case for all people, just as not all people can think properly while typing at full speed - even competent touch-typists.
Yes - the correct answer to the "computers don't understand speech" problem is to be part of the 1% or so of the computer-using population who can touch-type original, sensible text at 120+ wpm. Unfortunately, wishing doesn't make it so.
The best I've ever seen was the box for a $15 CompUSA soundcard. The waferboard on the card was trimmed down to the bare minimum to support one chip, all the fingers and the slot. The box was almost big enough to hold an ATX motherboard, and contained nothing else except plastic to hold the card in place and a floppy disk. Woo!
You know, I head over to the big displays, too, because the cheap CD rack is poorly organized, and never has recent software. But every month or so, I check. Because I just bought three games, and I just threw three large cardboard boxes in the trash. I'll tell you, I _love_ paper manuals. But if getting rid of paper manuals is what it would take, I'd be fine with it. That's not the issue, though - paper manuals are already mostly gone, anyway. If no software today shipped in a package larger than 36 cubic inches, i'd be pleased as punch, as long as they didn't ream me if I needed to order a printed manual.
Again - malice only necessarily applies to public figures.
If the person referenced in this case is not famous, and is not a public official, malice is not necessarily relevant, depending on state law.
You are correct that I am assuming that evidence MAY exist which would show that this was reckless, because you initially claimed that in any case, this was not malicious.
I don't see why they would have to CONSISTENTLY behave recklessly in order to EVER behave recklessly.
But that aside, you claimed that because malice was necessary, no mistake was libelous, and that's just not true. And we're CLEARLY not talking about this case, ANYWAY, because THIS WOMAN IS PROBABLY NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR CHER.
Well, you can't waive your right to sue over unspecified future wrongs. So presumably they could have you sign a document saying, "I will not sue you if you claim that I am a convicted felon, despite the fact that I am not." But if they had you sign a document saying, "I will not sue you based on your claims about me in the background report," then that document would be legally meaningless in the U.S. - because you cannot possibly be aware of the depths to which they might sink. Same reason waivers of liability for boat rentals are legally meaningless - most of them, if taken as valid, would prevent civil liability even if the person who rented you the boat were convicted of your murder.
That's interesting. I wonder what sort of public official or public figure this woman is, then? I mean, if she were a private person, it would only be necessary to prove negligence in most states.
Incidentally, you may want to research the courts' interpretation of "malice" further - a mistake as the result of "reckless disregard" of the truth of the statement is malicious.
Whether this case would really make sense in terms of libel or slander, I would personally be appalled if my local paper ran a piece saying "Dallas resident Chris Koeberle has been convicted of arson in the November fire that destroyed his Arizona home" when it was actually the Arizona Chris Koeberle (not that there is such a Chris Koeberle, or that if there is, he is a convicted arsonist) who was convicted. I would think that would be actionable if the extent of their fact checking was making sure that Chris and I had the same name.
I appreciate his argument that the quality of Napster is superior to the quality of audiotape dubs from vinyl. However, I have difficulty paying attention to his argument that the scale is any different - when I think back on my High School days, I can't think of anyone I knew who owned as many honest records, CDs and tapes as they did dubs except me, and that's because I was a vinyl fiend. I still had the dubs, I just had so much vinyl it outstripped it. Nowadays, I'm a CD fiend, so it's pretty much the same. I think it still works out to a tonne of people, maybe not a million in 48 hours, but still hundreds of thousands of people dubbing tapes over the weekend.
Uh... except of course that Linda _does_ have a point - one of the key elements of the eToy(s) case was the fact that eToy had been _using_ their name longer than eToys had, even though eToys had purchased the right to the mark from a company who owned the mark before eToy started using it. There is no question, in my mind, of who has been using "Chunky M(o)(u)nk(e)y" longer.
You are right, however, that the mere fact that a business cannot survive without its trademark does not make that trademark "famous".
If their trademark is "famous", though, I'm afraid they may have exactly the rights they claim to, however much that sucks.
You misunderstood my question if you think post #93 answers it. I know that most, if not all, makers of products which generate code in this fashion do state in their license that that code belongs to the user. I want to know if they have to - that is to say, if it's possible to say "any code generated by this software is the property of Inprise, not the user of the software." or if that section of the license is just thrown in to reassure people.
Are you talking about the source which was authored by Borland, or source authored by a licensed user of Borland C++? Because I can't find the word Borland in any of my Delphi source. Anywhere.
Unlike this article, this post brings up a marginally interesting question.
If I use Delphi or whatever to create an application, who does the AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED code belong to? The VCL belongs to Borland, I know this. But when I hit Ctrl-Shift-C, and Delphi spits out some useful declarations for me, is that source automatically mine (analagous to a paint program) or does Borland have to say something for it to be mine (analagous to copying code from a web page)? The code it is automatically generating is, after all, using _my_ copywrited work.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, wait - I figured out what you meant all on my own. I was just misreading your point, and in a way, proving it. Sorry about that.
I'm interested - did you pull that bit about Picasso not understanding perspective out of your ass, or is my understanding of "talented draftsman" totally different from reality?
I'm not an expert on how BugTraq works - in fact, I know nothing about it. But his article sure seems to imply that he is comparing the number of vulnerabilities in _all_ Linux distros to the number of vulnerabilities in one Windows distro.
For that matter, he doesn't mention whether any of those vulnerabilities have been resolved. He also doesn't mention the fact that NT 4.0 is, what - 4 years old? How many new vulnerabilities were discovered in RH1.0 last year?
Maybe I'm the only one, but I find when I'm stuck like that, I like to go back to making my way through TAOCP. Then again, I'm probably the only one here who hasn't read them all the way through, yet.
Actually, this is pretty on topic, as far as used cd shops are concerned. I can't find a good link, but there was a big stink a few years ago about how Garth Brooks was wasting away to nothingness because the used cd trade was preventing him from selling so much as a concert ticket, let alone an album.
1) Napster is a service. Napster has a web site. The Internet is not the World Wide Web.
2) Mr. Valenti, Scour is not the most obvious example of copyright violation _anyone_ has seen in their life, let alone you.
"Commissioner Gregory L. Rohde asked Richard Schwartz if his image filter could tell the difference between art and pornography. Astoundingly, Schwartz replied that it could."
After giving ClickSafe a briefing on the difference between "expression" and "obscenity" to complement its knowledge of "art" and "pornography", Justice Department officials today installed ClickSafe for its one-month probationary period on the Supreme Court. ClickSafe will be sitting in place of Justice Clarence Thomas, who will be on hiatus. If all goes well, ClickSafe could replace the entire 9-justice panel by the end of the year.
Richard Schwartz noted, "It isn't much of a law-talking-guy, but unlike most of the justices in the past two-hundred years, it has a firm grasp on the difference between art and pornography. We feel the trade-off is well worth it."
Justice Thomas could not be reached for comment.
I have my cabinet at home for quality listening. Anywhere else I go, the quality of the rest of the system is such that, for the majority of recordings, I can't hear a difference on the equipment I'm using. I don't have a $3k stereo system in my car, and I don't want one - what I have keeps me happy. Why pay for quality I'm not going to use?
This is like saying "The Ford Focus is great and all, but why not just buy a Lexus? I mean, it's better quality than a Focus!" Well, it's like that with more punctuation.
If you can't figure out how using burning CD audio translates into cost, you're a lamer troll than I thought.
Hmm. You're right - why settle for the convenience of carrying a few cds to get 500 or so tracks, when I could lug a fat cd wallet around with me? It's so much easier to flip through 25 cds labeled "Husker Du", "Minor Threat", "Tom Waits", "A3", &c. than it is to pick between "Shit I Like", "Shit My Girlfriend Likes", and "Shit We Both Like". And if I want 10 hours of maintenance-free shuffle play for a party, well, hell - I should just buy a bigger CD changer, for a few hundred dollars, and toss out my POS Apex.
Can you try a little harder with your trolls, in the future?
That would be prohibitively difficult, even if the owners had not signed agreements prohibiting them from doing that. None of the owners of the sequenced DNA know that it was their DNA that was sequenced - only that they submitted their DNA into the pool of candidates.
No, a good touch-typist can type faster than his computer can understand him speaking, or faster than a poor orator can speak. Depending on circumstances and content, intelligible human speech gets up to 300 wpm in the "exceptional" range. 150 wpm is much more comfortable. I think you're going to have a hard time defending the claim that in order to be considered a "good" touch typist, you need to type 150wpm.
Reading the above paragraph, which has about 50 words longer than 3 letters, at a comfortable pace, took me 20 seconds. I know that reading aloud is often faster than speaking, since you don't have to stop to think, but this is not the case for all people, just as not all people can think properly while typing at full speed - even competent touch-typists.
Yes - the correct answer to the "computers don't understand speech" problem is to be part of the 1% or so of the computer-using population who can touch-type original, sensible text at 120+ wpm. Unfortunately, wishing doesn't make it so.
The best I've ever seen was the box for a $15 CompUSA soundcard. The waferboard on the card was trimmed down to the bare minimum to support one chip, all the fingers and the slot. The box was almost big enough to hold an ATX motherboard, and contained nothing else except plastic to hold the card in place and a floppy disk. Woo!
I bought Fly2K a week or so ago...
But before that, I'm not sure I can remember.
You know, I head over to the big displays, too, because the cheap CD rack is poorly organized, and never has recent software. But every month or so, I check. Because I just bought three games, and I just threw three large cardboard boxes in the trash. I'll tell you, I _love_ paper manuals. But if getting rid of paper manuals is what it would take, I'd be fine with it. That's not the issue, though - paper manuals are already mostly gone, anyway. If no software today shipped in a package larger than 36 cubic inches, i'd be pleased as punch, as long as they didn't ream me if I needed to order a printed manual.
Again - malice only necessarily applies to public figures.
If the person referenced in this case is not famous, and is not a public official, malice is not necessarily relevant, depending on state law.
You are correct that I am assuming that evidence MAY exist which would show that this was reckless, because you initially claimed that in any case, this was not malicious.
Bleah.
I don't see why they would have to CONSISTENTLY behave recklessly in order to EVER behave recklessly.
But that aside, you claimed that because malice was necessary, no mistake was libelous, and that's just not true. And we're CLEARLY not talking about this case, ANYWAY, because THIS WOMAN IS PROBABLY NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR CHER.
Well, you can't waive your right to sue over unspecified future wrongs. So presumably they could have you sign a document saying, "I will not sue you if you claim that I am a convicted felon, despite the fact that I am not." But if they had you sign a document saying, "I will not sue you based on your claims about me in the background report," then that document would be legally meaningless in the U.S. - because you cannot possibly be aware of the depths to which they might sink. Same reason waivers of liability for boat rentals are legally meaningless - most of them, if taken as valid, would prevent civil liability even if the person who rented you the boat were convicted of your murder.
That's interesting. I wonder what sort of public official or public figure this woman is, then? I mean, if she were a private person, it would only be necessary to prove negligence in most states.
Incidentally, you may want to research the courts' interpretation of "malice" further - a mistake as the result of "reckless disregard" of the truth of the statement is malicious.
Whether this case would really make sense in terms of libel or slander, I would personally be appalled if my local paper ran a piece saying "Dallas resident Chris Koeberle has been convicted of arson in the November fire that destroyed his Arizona home" when it was actually the Arizona Chris Koeberle (not that there is such a Chris Koeberle, or that if there is, he is a convicted arsonist) who was convicted. I would think that would be actionable if the extent of their fact checking was making sure that Chris and I had the same name.
Ok, dude - how many people do you know WHO USE AOL that have PCMCIA cards on a desktop?
Yeah, only theirs, which looks nothing like this:
http://feedback.interplay.c om/fallout/images/back1a.jpg
I appreciate his argument that the quality of Napster is superior to the quality of audiotape dubs from vinyl. However, I have difficulty paying attention to his argument that the scale is any different - when I think back on my High School days, I can't think of anyone I knew who owned as many honest records, CDs and tapes as they did dubs except me, and that's because I was a vinyl fiend. I still had the dubs, I just had so much vinyl it outstripped it. Nowadays, I'm a CD fiend, so it's pretty much the same. I think it still works out to a tonne of people, maybe not a million in 48 hours, but still hundreds of thousands of people dubbing tapes over the weekend.
Uh... except of course that Linda _does_ have a point - one of the key elements of the eToy(s) case was the fact that eToy had been _using_ their name longer than eToys had, even though eToys had purchased the right to the mark from a company who owned the mark before eToy started using it. There is no question, in my mind, of who has been using "Chunky M(o)(u)nk(e)y" longer.
You are right, however, that the mere fact that a business cannot survive without its trademark does not make that trademark "famous".
If their trademark is "famous", though, I'm afraid they may have exactly the rights they claim to, however much that sucks.
You misunderstood my question if you think post #93 answers it. I know that most, if not all, makers of products which generate code in this fashion do state in their license that that code belongs to the user. I want to know if they have to - that is to say, if it's possible to say "any code generated by this software is the property of Inprise, not the user of the software." or if that section of the license is just thrown in to reassure people.
Are you talking about the source which was authored by Borland, or source authored by a licensed user of Borland C++? Because I can't find the word Borland in any of my Delphi source. Anywhere.
Unlike this article, this post brings up a marginally interesting question.
If I use Delphi or whatever to create an application, who does the AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED code belong to? The VCL belongs to Borland, I know this. But when I hit Ctrl-Shift-C, and Delphi spits out some useful declarations for me, is that source automatically mine (analagous to a paint program) or does Borland have to say something for it to be mine (analagous to copying code from a web page)? The code it is automatically generating is, after all, using _my_ copywrited work.
I'm assuming that it's just like using MS Paint.