Although the orignal malformed URL gives an interesting result what I was describing as interesting is that a search from the nonsense num=-1 page results in a null search result again, but this time with a num=0, it must have something to do with how searches are conducted from results pages.
Doing a bit more research it seems that the num parameter is used when you make a search from a result page , but not in a search from the homepage (suggesting that searchs from results pages create a different url than one from the homepage -- this is the somewhat interesting bit).
It further seems that it takes the negative number (num=-1) and rejects it but replaces it with an equally useless num=0 (normally it returns the same number of results that occurred on the original search page -- this bit isn't quite as interesting since it probably is just fixing a bad input making it 0 rather than negative, though 0 doesn't really fix the problem created).
Interesting behavior, but only really relevant when you create a badly formed URL on purpose to mess with the system.
Re:Hello, editors??!
on
Google Turns 5
·
· Score: 5, Informative
One thing I'm not sure of is why new searches in the search box from the original URL return a num=0 instead of whatever number you have set as the number of results you wish to see on google, but it seems like a small bug because of the original badly formed url given to it.
File trading -- and copyright infringement in general -- isn't criminal conduct (yet).
In the original post.
Whether or not the RIAA attempts to get prosecutors to enforce the law through reporting or other means and whether those prosecutors pursue charges independently is immaterial to the truth of that statement.
Hate to break it to you but there are criminal penalties for copyright infringement as long as its above a (very low IMHO thanks to the NET act) threshold.
Now companies expect you to do these inane things (from what I've read about Wal-Mart, Best Buy and others), give them your undying loyalty -- until they decide to lay you off to increase profits.
But generally academic work is for reputation and peer accolades, if someone is going to the point of actually producing final code and publishing it either in a peer reviewed paper or a thesis, I would guess it would be quite well written and thought out to give the best impression of the author possible.
Additionally, though there are time constraints on academics they are far less demanding than those of industry, IMHO.
So together the motivation of acedemic researchers coupled with slightly more lax time constraints in a project where the code is what you are going to actually deliver to the public/your peers should promote good practices and be on the cutting edge as well since theres no reason to be researching unless thats where you are.
Thus your personal experience in a lab where the code was not as robust clean usable or commented - the main question is was that the final product of the lab or mearly a byproduct of their research which while important in utility, wouldn't be very important as a final product.
If mearly for utility in a research area not related to coding then the quality only needs to be sufficient for relatively efficient usage in the lab.
One interesting thing not mentioned in the Rueter's report but expounded upon in detail in the pre-decision Cringely article is that winning this lawsuit may allow Eolas to prevent Microsoft fom any infringing behavior through a court injunction -- ie. they can't use the technology covered under the patent upheld by the court at any price if Eolas decides to do that (since by holding the patent they are not required to license the right to use it to anyone). And they may decide to sell to someone other than Microsoft exclusively the rights to develop software including the patented methods.
This is one of the places software patents are really bad (though in Microsoft's case its a bit of being hoist by their own petard), the exclusivity without compulsory licensing allows Eolas (or any other company with a patented process/method/device) to use their patent as a club to force Microsoft (or anyone else) to do whatever Eolas wants if they need/want to license the patented technology.
Mine died the same way unfortunately. After a few calls to HP I eventually got a hold of an engineer who sent me a couple of battery cover doors (they still use the same ones on one of their business calculators, or did at the time) unfortunately by that time the case had become damaged by my jury rigging of the door to allow me to still use it.
I have a 48GX now, and while i still like it better than any of the other calcs out there (the buttons on it are so much better than anything else out there I don't know why anyone who uses a calculator even somewhat seriously would use anything else) I still miss my 28S with its much simpler keyboard layout and clamshell case.
The problem is all the first time dirvers wanting to rip out the difficult clutch and put in an easier automatic transmission and want to make the steering 'better' so it isn't so hard to use.
If they want to do that, they should just make their own version of the Porche and call it a Toyota or something.
That said there is room for improvement, but that doesn' mean a wholesale change to the UI is needed.
Then heres a better argument. If it isn't illegal to listen to music with multiple people when youre close, is it illegal to listen when youre separated by longer distances.
Say for example a phone line -- what if you got a CD and wanted someone you know to hear it as well and called them up and let them listen to it, this is very similar to a very long headphone cord.
Of course if those shortages become significant it will become cost effective to remove those materials from landfill sites. Get in on the ground floor of a new industry - Landfill Mining.
The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. - Letter to George Bainton, 10/15/1888
The kits on the site you linked to all come from MIS which sells them directly.
The additional inks they have available also seem interesting.
I don't know if the ink comes out less expensive in the end (probably does) with the CFS and it seems a bit of a hassle, but it seems very useful for high volume printing.
Its also bullshit because it is possible, but much more annoying and difficult to do a cleanroom reverse engineering of the bit-keeper protocol.
In that case no one has violated the BK license since the developers developing the specification don't interact with the developers coding the project.
Although I don't know of any examples of anyone having ever done this kind of reverse engineering in the open source community it should be possible.
There's a lot more out there on the subject as well.
It's interesting because this could be viewed as an internet riot of sorts (although relatively low intensity and chronic) as the people involved are breaking the law.
The question is are most people doing this fully informed and opposing the issues involved or is it just an issueless excuse to 'loot', or are they not even aware that they're 'rioting' or are just going along with the crowd.
I would put forth that there are all of those different groups involved, and possibly there are in any crowd or mob action.
Good point, but it isn't only campaign contributions. The sitting parties also decide the congressional district outlines and have slowly been dividing up states into areas where there is a clear majority for one party or the other in a particular district with only a few close enough that they are truely in dispute.
I'm guessing that there is a large democrat majority in both of these districts and they aren't really in fear of losing their jobs no matter what they do as long as the party apparatus approves of it so they don't have an in party challenger in their district.
Interstingly those clauses of the code were modified to include non-comercial distribution only very recently with the NET act, one of the earlier pieces of legislation that the copyright lobby succeeded in getting passed.
Some large copyright holders have also tried to go beyond even this somewhat egregious code by trying to strech the meaning of commercial advantage and private financial gain, or by the inflating the retail value of their goods.
Slashdot Mirror
Although the orignal malformed URL gives an interesting result what I was describing as interesting is that a search from the nonsense num=-1 page results in a null search result again, but this time with a num=0, it must have something to do with how searches are conducted from results pages.
Doing a bit more research it seems that the num parameter is used when you make a search from a result page , but not in a search from the homepage (suggesting that searchs from results pages create a different url than one from the homepage -- this is the somewhat interesting bit).
It further seems that it takes the negative number (num=-1) and rejects it but replaces it with an equally useless num=0 (normally it returns the same number of results that occurred on the original search page -- this bit isn't quite as interesting since it probably is just fixing a bad input making it 0 rather than negative, though 0 doesn't really fix the problem created).
Interesting behavior, but only really relevant when you create a badly formed URL on purpose to mess with the system.
It's a hack of the URL.
e =UTF-8&q=msn&num=-1&btnG=Google+Search
F -8&q=msn&btnG=Google+Search
Original posts URL:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
A URL returned from a query from the google homepage:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UT
note the num=-1 in the original post URL.
One thing I'm not sure of is why new searches in the search box from the original URL return a num=0 instead of whatever number you have set as the number of results you wish to see on google, but it seems like a small bug because of the original badly formed url given to it.
Wasn't that the plot of Superman 3?
Except I was responding to this --
File trading -- and copyright infringement in general -- isn't criminal conduct (yet).
In the original post.
Whether or not the RIAA attempts to get prosecutors to enforce the law through reporting or other means and whether those prosecutors pursue charges independently is immaterial to the truth of that statement.
Hate to break it to you but there are criminal penalties for copyright infringement as long as its above a (very low IMHO thanks to the NET act) threshold.
A relevant section of the US Code is here
However, IANAL and this is not legal advice.
Now companies expect you to do these inane things (from what I've read about Wal-Mart, Best Buy and others), give them your undying loyalty -- until they decide to lay you off to increase profits.
But generally academic work is for reputation and peer accolades, if someone is going to the point of actually producing final code and publishing it either in a peer reviewed paper or a thesis, I would guess it would be quite well written and thought out to give the best impression of the author possible.
Additionally, though there are time constraints on academics they are far less demanding than those of industry, IMHO.
So together the motivation of acedemic researchers coupled with slightly more lax time constraints in a project where the code is what you are going to actually deliver to the public/your peers should promote good practices and be on the cutting edge as well since theres no reason to be researching unless thats where you are.
Thus your personal experience in a lab where the code was not as robust clean usable or commented - the main question is was that the final product of the lab or mearly a byproduct of their research which while important in utility, wouldn't be very important as a final product.
If mearly for utility in a research area not related to coding then the quality only needs to be sufficient for relatively efficient usage in the lab.
and a legal system that allows that is surely in a mess
I think you have a crystal clear grasp of the issue.
In this article.
One interesting thing not mentioned in the Rueter's report but expounded upon in detail in the pre-decision Cringely article is that winning this lawsuit may allow Eolas to prevent Microsoft fom any infringing behavior through a court injunction -- ie. they can't use the technology covered under the patent upheld by the court at any price if Eolas decides to do that (since by holding the patent they are not required to license the right to use it to anyone). And they may decide to sell to someone other than Microsoft exclusively the rights to develop software including the patented methods.
This is one of the places software patents are really bad (though in Microsoft's case its a bit of being hoist by their own petard), the exclusivity without compulsory licensing allows Eolas (or any other company with a patented process/method/device) to use their patent as a club to force Microsoft (or anyone else) to do whatever Eolas wants if they need/want to license the patented technology.
Or you could have just said--
"Simpsons did it."
Mine died the same way unfortunately. After a few calls to HP I eventually got a hold of an engineer who sent me a couple of battery cover doors (they still use the same ones on one of their business calculators, or did at the time) unfortunately by that time the case had become damaged by my jury rigging of the door to allow me to still use it.
I have a 48GX now, and while i still like it better than any of the other calcs out there (the buttons on it are so much better than anything else out there I don't know why anyone who uses a calculator even somewhat seriously would use anything else) I still miss my 28S with its much simpler keyboard layout and clamshell case.
The problem is all the first time dirvers wanting to rip out the difficult clutch and put in an easier automatic transmission and want to make the steering 'better' so it isn't so hard to use.
If they want to do that, they should just make their own version of the Porche and call it a Toyota or something.
That said there is room for improvement, but that doesn' mean a wholesale change to the UI is needed.
Yeah the entire class could consist of a 20something yelling RTFM at the students. ;>
Then heres a better argument. If it isn't illegal to listen to music with multiple people when youre close, is it illegal to listen when youre separated by longer distances.
Say for example a phone line -- what if you got a CD and wanted someone you know to hear it as well and called them up and let them listen to it, this is very similar to a very long headphone cord.
If so, they'll eventually fall on their faces.
Its probably not bad to fall on your face into the mighty nice cushion of $28 million plus stock options.
Of course if those shortages become significant it will become cost effective to remove those materials from landfill sites. Get in on the ground floor of a new industry - Landfill Mining.
The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
- Letter to George Bainton, 10/15/1888
Twain Quotes
The kits on the site you linked to all come from MIS which sells them directly.
The additional inks they have available also seem interesting.
I don't know if the ink comes out less expensive in the end (probably does) with the CFS and it seems a bit of a hassle, but it seems very useful for high volume printing.
Most commercial propreitary software disclaims all liability as well.
Its also bullshit because it is possible, but much more annoying and difficult to do a cleanroom reverse engineering of the bit-keeper protocol.
In that case no one has violated the BK license since the developers developing the specification don't interact with the developers coding the project.
Although I don't know of any examples of anyone having ever done this kind of reverse engineering in the open source community it should be possible.
It's the mob mentality: democracy at its very worst.
Actually non-violent civil disobedience as a riot or mob has a long history in promoting social change in democracies (and non-democracies).
Here's some info on it.
There's a lot more out there on the subject as well.
It's interesting because this could be viewed as an internet riot of sorts (although relatively low intensity and chronic) as the people involved are breaking the law.
The question is are most people doing this fully informed and opposing the issues involved or is it just an issueless excuse to 'loot', or are they not even aware that they're 'rioting' or are just going along with the crowd.
I would put forth that there are all of those different groups involved, and possibly there are in any crowd or mob action.
Good point, but it isn't only campaign contributions. The sitting parties also decide the congressional district outlines and have slowly been dividing up states into areas where there is a clear majority for one party or the other in a particular district with only a few close enough that they are truely in dispute.
I'm guessing that there is a large democrat majority in both of these districts and they aren't really in fear of losing their jobs no matter what they do as long as the party apparatus approves of it so they don't have an in party challenger in their district.
Interstingly those clauses of the code were modified to include non-comercial distribution only very recently with the NET act, one of the earlier pieces of legislation that the copyright lobby succeeded in getting passed.
Some large copyright holders have also tried to go beyond even this somewhat egregious code by trying to strech the meaning of commercial advantage and private financial gain, or by the inflating the retail value of their goods.
i wondered why it seemed kind of sucky the last time i went (i hadnt been to it for a while). figures
Which extended previews? You mean the books?