I don't understand why changing robots.txt on a site makes them disable (I hope not delete!) all past snapshots of the site. This is contrary to the purpose of robots.txt and anyway they are under no obligation to respect it.
It's because "We're the Internet Archive!" isn't an automatic license for unlimited violation of laws regarding copyright, privacy, child porn, etc.
'
Implying retroactive application of robots.txt is about this - funny, I didn't know that a squatter taking over a domain automatically gave them the rights to all the past contnet that might have been hosted on the domain at one point or another... *facepalm*
Says the one who thinks assuming things about others is actually a logical rebuttal to compensate for the inability to consider the fact that different building densities, and atmospheric conditions affect how a sound is perceived.. I actually have been shooting, at ranges - don't get to do it often, but it is a lot of fun. I go with my brother, he shoots a pistol, I stick to a.22 caliber rifle. I'd have to be literally deaf to not know what a gunshot sounds like. When I did what I did in the story, the sound echoed like crazy, scared the crap out of people (inadvertently, of course) - even this crackhead who was sitting on the steps to the subway, who had previously been cursing off everybody walking near her, shut up. 0_0
I'm not saying it is a good idea, but I am pointing out a potential issue that could arise. Contingencies are something that ought not to be ignored, no matter how trivial.
Take a brown paper bag, the tall ones you get at liquor stores, blow em up as much as you can, then pop - in the right conditions, in a city, sounds like a fucking gunshot going off. I learned this the hard way when I decided to pop such a bag to scare the crap out of my sister once... XD
They don't really care about experiencing the concert.
Wouldn't that, however, assume there being only one way to "experience" a concert, or other event? Considering how little work it takes to use certain recording mediums, you can just aim, while focusing your eyes on the show, and listening/looking at the visuals, so even if there were one way of "experiencing" it, you could still theoretically do it. (ALL strictly IMO, of course).
No, you've failed to account for theft of intellectual property.
You mean a crime that doesn't yet, to my knowledge, actually exist, and seems to only be used by the misinformed, and the intellectually lazy instead of copyright infringement? Where are the people who have been prosecuted for this "theft of IP" law that supposedly exists, versus copyright/patent/trademark infringement, etc? Surely, you can demonstrate it, since you're so sure it exists as a legal tort and/or crime, and is more appropriate than the IP laws that exist in application.
That "law?"
Ha. When people are prosecuted for that exact crime, and not another being mislabeled, OK, but until then, IMO this is BS.
Your arguments are worth nothing if you won't put your name to them.
Your arguments are worth nothing if they fail to use some sort of basic reasoning. (hint: Not putting a name to something in of itself doesn't affect the quality or lack thereof of an argument.)
Stupid, potentially sensitive question: How many of the vulnerabilities, do you think (if it can be ascertained) came from companies who outsourced their work to India-based companies?
I had heard, last year, about efforts to take what little of RadioShack was left, and try to craft it into something resembling its old self (in so far as being focused on the electronics hobbyist, providing reasonably priced components, kits, and tools again). Looks like that isn't happening... bummer, as that would have been so cool to see rise again.
Whoever thought that was a good idea is a moron, full stop.
Different archive copies from when the site was under different ownership should retain their own policies - whether it is fully restricted, not restricted at all, or in between. Yes, that will take up space, holding on different copies of robots.txt files, linking them to websites, etc, but it is better than some archives not being available because of their current policy.
Will I require more vespene gas? Have I enough minerals? Must I construct additional pylons? And what about supply depots, are additional supply depots required?
Not TRYING to be snarky, but can we not be so lazy as to truncate a word that changes the context of a word completely? Climate **CHANGE** - "climate denier" sounds utterly stupid on every level.
As someone who was originally born with weak muscle tone, so severely so that being functional (walking, talking, eating solid foods, etc) was supposed to be doubtful at best, fuck YOU, and your hypersensitivity shit.
*yawns* Point out ANY definition that defines censorship by WHO does it, and not by the specific actions being done.
Seriously, if I had a dollar for every time this ignorant statement was made, I'd be one rich mofo.
Censorship is defined by action, not by who does it. It being acceptable or not is at least partially defined by who does it. It's an elementary difference.
I mean, I've seen the term used in many contexts - towards those who actually deny that global warming is happening, to those who just need clarification on various arguments, and those who ponder how responsible humans actually are. In short, the term has been used and abused so much that it really needs refocus if it is to be taken seriously, IMO.
Of course, I mean the legally obtained files, but the fact that allegation does not automatically equate to being infringing, and there are just so many things where you can draw an analogy to the real physical world, and the rights that come even for example in a case like where you rent an apartment - you don't "own" the space outright, but still have a lot of rights.
Ok, but none of those things are illegal, and shouldn't be. Claiming DMCA infringement is disingenuous.
Why shouldn't Blizzard have a means to deny people from engaging in this conduct on their servers? Do they not have rights?
*facepalms* Um wut? Saying that suing the people making cheats under the DMCA is dangerous is not saying they can't keep people from cheating on their servers. What kind of stupid guff is that?
Also what about cleanliness? Do they get sent out for cleaning, and new ones brought in, like gym towels do? (Well, at leaest that's what they do at the gym I go to).?
If there is a medical emergency, you'd better believe the parent would need to know/want to - maybe there are things about the medical history that the baby sitter does not know that are important, for example. OR maybe the parent just wants to know that their kid(s) are safe, and being treated/handled correctly. Maybe the parent is more assertive about getting the right medication, and the nurse is a dumbass who keeps tying to give them either the wrong dose, or the entirely wrong medication (and it could kill them). That almost happened TO MY DAD last year.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why changing robots.txt on a site makes them disable (I hope not delete!) all past snapshots of the site. This is contrary to the purpose of robots.txt and anyway they are under no obligation to respect it.
It's because "We're the Internet Archive!" isn't an automatic license for unlimited violation of laws regarding copyright, privacy, child porn, etc.
'
Implying retroactive application of robots.txt is about this - funny, I didn't know that a squatter taking over a domain automatically gave them the rights to all the past contnet that might have been hosted on the domain at one point or another... *facepalm*
Says the one who thinks assuming things about others is actually a logical rebuttal to compensate for the inability to consider the fact that different building densities, and atmospheric conditions affect how a sound is perceived.. I actually have been shooting, at ranges - don't get to do it often, but it is a lot of fun. I go with my brother, he shoots a pistol, I stick to a .22 caliber rifle. I'd have to be literally deaf to not know what a gunshot sounds like. When I did what I did in the story, the sound echoed like crazy, scared the crap out of people (inadvertently, of course) - even this crackhead who was sitting on the steps to the subway, who had previously been cursing off everybody walking near her, shut up. 0_0
I'm not saying it is a good idea, but I am pointing out a potential issue that could arise. Contingencies are something that ought not to be ignored, no matter how trivial.
Take a brown paper bag, the tall ones you get at liquor stores, blow em up as much as you can, then pop - in the right conditions, in a city, sounds like a fucking gunshot going off. I learned this the hard way when I decided to pop such a bag to scare the crap out of my sister once... XD
"censorship" by dominant platforms (technically not censorship,
Censorship is defined by the action, not who does it - that merely dictates acceptability, lack thereof, etc.
They don't really care about experiencing the concert.
Wouldn't that, however, assume there being only one way to "experience" a concert, or other event? Considering how little work it takes to use certain recording mediums, you can just aim, while focusing your eyes on the show, and listening/looking at the visuals, so even if there were one way of "experiencing" it, you could still theoretically do it. (ALL strictly IMO, of course).
No, you've failed to account for theft of intellectual property.
You mean a crime that doesn't yet, to my knowledge, actually exist, and seems to only be used by the misinformed, and the intellectually lazy instead of copyright infringement? Where are the people who have been prosecuted for this "theft of IP" law that supposedly exists, versus copyright/patent/trademark infringement, etc? Surely, you can demonstrate it, since you're so sure it exists as a legal tort and/or crime, and is more appropriate than the IP laws that exist in application.
That "law?"
Ha. When people are prosecuted for that exact crime, and not another being mislabeled, OK, but until then, IMO this is BS.
Your arguments are worth nothing if you won't put your name to them.
Your arguments are worth nothing if they fail to use some sort of basic reasoning. (hint: Not putting a name to something in of itself doesn't affect the quality or lack thereof of an argument.)
Stupid, potentially sensitive question: How many of the vulnerabilities, do you think (if it can be ascertained) came from companies who outsourced their work to India-based companies?
I had heard, last year, about efforts to take what little of RadioShack was left, and try to craft it into something resembling its old self (in so far as being focused on the electronics hobbyist, providing reasonably priced components, kits, and tools again). Looks like that isn't happening... bummer, as that would have been so cool to see rise again.
Whoever thought that was a good idea is a moron, full stop.
Different archive copies from when the site was under different ownership should retain their own policies - whether it is fully restricted, not restricted at all, or in between. Yes, that will take up space, holding on different copies of robots.txt files, linking them to websites, etc, but it is better than some archives not being available because of their current policy.
Will I require more vespene gas?
Have I enough minerals?
Must I construct additional pylons?
And what about supply depots, are additional supply depots required?
Not TRYING to be snarky, but can we not be so lazy as to truncate a word that changes the context of a word completely? Climate **CHANGE** - "climate denier" sounds utterly stupid on every level.
As someone who was originally born with weak muscle tone, so severely so that being functional (walking, talking, eating solid foods, etc) was supposed to be doubtful at best, fuck YOU, and your hypersensitivity shit.
Public in which sense of the word though, given the varying level of privacy settings that are available?
*yawns* Point out ANY definition that defines censorship by WHO does it, and not by the specific actions being done.
Seriously, if I had a dollar for every time this ignorant statement was made, I'd be one rich mofo.
Censorship is defined by action, not by who does it. It being acceptable or not is at least partially defined by who does it. It's an elementary difference.
I don't care which candidate you support, which one you hate, etcetera - what a horse's ass level of stupidity to do that.
I mean, I've seen the term used in many contexts - towards those who actually deny that global warming is happening, to those who just need clarification on various arguments, and those who ponder how responsible humans actually are. In short, the term has been used and abused so much that it really needs refocus if it is to be taken seriously, IMO.
Of course, I mean the legally obtained files, but the fact that allegation does not automatically equate to being infringing, and there are just so many things where you can draw an analogy to the real physical world, and the rights that come even for example in a case like where you rent an apartment - you don't "own" the space outright, but still have a lot of rights.
The OS may not be yours, but the non-OS-specific files, and your hard drive sure are.
Also, just disable the game when in moving vehicles. I mean, smartphones can detect motion, right? If something is over 5mph, just stop it.
People can run over 5 MPH, you know.
Ok, but none of those things are illegal, and shouldn't be. Claiming DMCA infringement is disingenuous.
Why shouldn't Blizzard have a means to deny people from engaging in this conduct on their servers? Do they not have rights?
*facepalms* Um wut? Saying that suing the people making cheats under the DMCA is dangerous is not saying they can't keep people from cheating on their servers. What kind of stupid guff is that?
And people would just trust something important like a credit card #s to just any old bouncer, or security personnel? I sure as hell couldn't.
Also what about cleanliness? Do they get sent out for cleaning, and new ones brought in, like gym towels do? (Well, at leaest that's what they do at the gym I go to).?
If there is a medical emergency, you'd better believe the parent would need to know/want to - maybe there are things about the medical history that the baby sitter does not know that are important, for example. OR maybe the parent just wants to know that their kid(s) are safe, and being treated/handled correctly. Maybe the parent is more assertive about getting the right medication, and the nurse is a dumbass who keeps tying to give them either the wrong dose, or the entirely wrong medication (and it could kill them). That almost happened TO MY DAD last year.