My main question is this: If he wore a girdle in his teens, would Cadet Kirk still get laid every week?
Re:The participants answered questions
on
ID Theft Made Easy
·
· Score: 1
Most people do not intentionally lie in response to seemingly inane questions. Mother's maiden name, pets' names, and so forth. Birthdate, people may lie to conceal their age, but most people aren't quick enough with math for that and just spit out the real date.
The whole point is that someone who is unsavvy enough to answer these questions without inquiring as to why they're being asked is probably not savvy enough to deliberately lie to foil the thieves asking them.
It depends on how they word the opinion. I think that a lot of the argument centers on whether a particular technology will foreseeably be used primarily for unlawful purposes. For instance, if Grokster's web page had a step-by-step guide that used a copyrighted song as an example for downloading music, it would be pretty obvious what they had in mind with the whole thing.
I wish I could get up to D.C. for the oral argument in this one (which an AC response corrected me on - it's on the morning of March 29, next Tuesday).
The Supreme Court will soon be deciding in the Grokster case (they heard the case on March 22 or so, if I remember correctly) whether the people who make the technology can be sued for contributory copyright infringement. Even if they reverse the Court of Appeals on the issue and decide that Grokster can be held liable for contributory infringement, that doesn't make the technology itself illegal - it just means that, if the technology is used to infringe copyrights, the copyright holders can sue the company that made the technology instead of or as well as (not sure the deal on this minor point) the users who actually download copyrighted material.
I don't know if there is precedent regarding holding a network provider, such as your university, liable for contributory copyright infringement when you use their network services to download copyrighted material without license to do so. My thought is that you bring up that it isn't illegal for the university to allow the traffic, and if they are not going to actively seek a declaratory judgment on the matter in court, they should not block the traffic on legal grounds. Moreover, their terms of service most likely proscribe copyright infringement over their network, so there is no apparent need to block the traffic, too.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Any reliance you take on what I've said is just silly, and you assume the risk of taking any such reliance. I have also not played a lawyer on television or in radio plays. Any resemblance between me and a real lawyer or an actor who plays a lawyer is a mere coincidence, and even though it would be really cool to have you ask for my autograph or offer to pay me for my advice, I am not a lawyer and you are an idiot for thinking I am.
Off-topic note: Your signature line is the lamest thing that has made me laugh out loud (to the level of nasal aspiration of milk) in a while. Thanks.:)
See here for the plot details that got leaked earlier!
(For the moderators who can't be bothered to click on the link before modding me down, the link is to the story about "ripples" explaining the universe and obviating the need for dark energy. It's a joke. Laugh.)
1. Plaintiffs are producers of the TV show Star Trek: Enterprise.
2. Defendants are the class of all scientists in the world.
3. Defendants stole and used as their own a plot device from the Star Trek: Enterprise finale; namely the idea that ripples in space-time explain the universe.
4. Because of defendants' act of plagiarism as described in paragraph 3, plaintiffs suffered gazillions of dollars of damages.
WHEREFORE plaintiffs demand that the court give them gazillions of dollars from the scientists, and rename the universe "Space: The Final Frontier."
Yes, there is space beyond the cosmic horizon. The horizon on Earth is just the farthest you can see because of the curvature of the planet's surface. The planet keeps going beyond the horizon - the horizon is a function of the observer. The same applies to the universe, although I am not knowledgeable enough to tell you if the cosmic horizon is the limit of what we can see because of the distance, because of a higher-dimensional curvature of the universe, or because of something else.
Yes, but it's also a perfect example of a word that doesn't piss me off. Get on a chat room sometime and tell me that "e-mail" is even in the same league as that crap.
Yes, but those are words without a concise equivalent in proper English, so it is proper to use them, at least colloquially, as part of the language. Things like "ever1 nos tht" are corruptions of English that are in no way necessary or proper.
My hope is that it does go both ways, with words like e-mail surviving and misspellings like werd dying. I could go for the death of text the verb and blog as well, though.
This behavior can be observed in humans, too. For instance, my parents were both uncool, unintelligent jerks with no sense of humor whatsoever, and I'm an extremely hip, brilliant jerk with a great sense of humor.
IE doesn't support gopher:// URLs any longer, so assume that demand for Gopher would drive market share of Firefox et al. The problem is driving the demand for Gopher when IE doesn't support it.
Dude - the single biggest difference between Gopher and the web is that Gopher contains far fewer spelling errors. I hear that there are differences regarding interactivity, graphics, layout, and so forth; but those are all immaterial.
This is a placeholder troll. I'll post why you are an idiot and why Google r0x0r5 after you post your rebuttal but before I read it, as well as before I read the argument you are rebutting or the article.
You shouldn't make fun of the dupes, the practice of linking directly to sites running on 286s instead of to caches of those sites, the poor writing quality, the bad sense of humor, or any other problems with Slashdot. After all, some people pay to see this shit before the rest of get it.
Considering the allegations that Slashdot is frequently getting scooped by Fark, I can understand their desire to pay for the Slashdot version rather than wait entire minutes from the time it gets posted on Fark until the time they can read the Slashdot version, which has been filtered by idiots for your reading agony. The dupes just help to ensure that every subscriber gets an adequate chance to get a first-post comment on every story.
Slashdot Mirror
My main question is this: If he wore a girdle in his teens, would Cadet Kirk still get laid every week?
Most people do not intentionally lie in response to seemingly inane questions. Mother's maiden name, pets' names, and so forth. Birthdate, people may lie to conceal their age, but most people aren't quick enough with math for that and just spit out the real date.
The whole point is that someone who is unsavvy enough to answer these questions without inquiring as to why they're being asked is probably not savvy enough to deliberately lie to foil the thieves asking them.
Why is he funding it when the only thing left is the oral argument this Tuesday?
I think the only thing there's left to fund is a reality series.
If their battle flag wasn't a white sheet, they might not surrender as often.
It depends on how they word the opinion. I think that a lot of the argument centers on whether a particular technology will foreseeably be used primarily for unlawful purposes. For instance, if Grokster's web page had a step-by-step guide that used a copyrighted song as an example for downloading music, it would be pretty obvious what they had in mind with the whole thing.
I wish I could get up to D.C. for the oral argument in this one (which an AC response corrected me on - it's on the morning of March 29, next Tuesday).
I'm sorry, what are we talking about, again? :P
Thanks. Off-by-one (week) with my memory. :)
The Supreme Court will soon be deciding in the Grokster case (they heard the case on March 22 or so, if I remember correctly) whether the people who make the technology can be sued for contributory copyright infringement. Even if they reverse the Court of Appeals on the issue and decide that Grokster can be held liable for contributory infringement, that doesn't make the technology itself illegal - it just means that, if the technology is used to infringe copyrights, the copyright holders can sue the company that made the technology instead of or as well as (not sure the deal on this minor point) the users who actually download copyrighted material.
I don't know if there is precedent regarding holding a network provider, such as your university, liable for contributory copyright infringement when you use their network services to download copyrighted material without license to do so. My thought is that you bring up that it isn't illegal for the university to allow the traffic, and if they are not going to actively seek a declaratory judgment on the matter in court, they should not block the traffic on legal grounds. Moreover, their terms of service most likely proscribe copyright infringement over their network, so there is no apparent need to block the traffic, too.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Any reliance you take on what I've said is just silly, and you assume the risk of taking any such reliance. I have also not played a lawyer on television or in radio plays. Any resemblance between me and a real lawyer or an actor who plays a lawyer is a mere coincidence, and even though it would be really cool to have you ask for my autograph or offer to pay me for my advice, I am not a lawyer and you are an idiot for thinking I am.
Off-topic note: Your signature line is the lamest thing that has made me laugh out loud (to the level of nasal aspiration of milk) in a while. Thanks. :)
That's why I got the Informative mod. :P
See here for the plot details that got leaked earlier!
(For the moderators who can't be bothered to click on the link before modding me down, the link is to the story about "ripples" explaining the universe and obviating the need for dark energy. It's a joke. Laugh.)
How about
COMES NOW the plaintiffs, who allege:
1. Plaintiffs are producers of the TV show Star Trek: Enterprise.
2. Defendants are the class of all scientists in the world.
3. Defendants stole and used as their own a plot device from the Star Trek: Enterprise finale; namely the idea that ripples in space-time explain the universe.
4. Because of defendants' act of plagiarism as described in paragraph 3, plaintiffs suffered gazillions of dollars of damages.
WHEREFORE plaintiffs demand that the court give them gazillions of dollars from the scientists, and rename the universe "Space: The Final Frontier."
It also feels like you're writing a comment in a weird pedagogical language or writing some really freaky-deaky Lisp.
Yes, there is space beyond the cosmic horizon. The horizon on Earth is just the farthest you can see because of the curvature of the planet's surface. The planet keeps going beyond the horizon - the horizon is a function of the observer. The same applies to the universe, although I am not knowledgeable enough to tell you if the cosmic horizon is the limit of what we can see because of the distance, because of a higher-dimensional curvature of the universe, or because of something else.
Yes, but it's also a perfect example of a word that doesn't piss me off. Get on a chat room sometime and tell me that "e-mail" is even in the same league as that crap.
Yes, but those are words without a concise equivalent in proper English, so it is proper to use them, at least colloquially, as part of the language. Things like "ever1 nos tht" are corruptions of English that are in no way necessary or proper.
My hope is that it does go both ways, with words like e-mail surviving and misspellings like werd dying. I could go for the death of text the verb and blog as well, though.
Not that I admit to their mothers' husbands. ;)
I truly am the most modest person ever to live.
This behavior can be observed in humans, too. For instance, my parents were both uncool, unintelligent jerks with no sense of humor whatsoever, and I'm an extremely hip, brilliant jerk with a great sense of humor.
Thanks. And remember, identitiy theft is not a joke, unless you steal the identity of a clown.
IE doesn't support gopher:// URLs any longer, so assume that demand for Gopher would drive market share of Firefox et al. The problem is driving the demand for Gopher when IE doesn't support it.
I'm still not seeing any explanation of how it works, only what happens when it does work.
Dude - the single biggest difference between Gopher and the web is that Gopher contains far fewer spelling errors. I hear that there are differences regarding interactivity, graphics, layout, and so forth; but those are all immaterial.
This is a placeholder troll. I'll post why you are an idiot and why Google r0x0r5 after you post your rebuttal but before I read it, as well as before I read the argument you are rebutting or the article.
You shouldn't make fun of the dupes, the practice of linking directly to sites running on 286s instead of to caches of those sites, the poor writing quality, the bad sense of humor, or any other problems with Slashdot. After all, some people pay to see this shit before the rest of get it.
Considering the allegations that Slashdot is frequently getting scooped by Fark, I can understand their desire to pay for the Slashdot version rather than wait entire minutes from the time it gets posted on Fark until the time they can read the Slashdot version, which has been filtered by idiots for your reading agony. The dupes just help to ensure that every subscriber gets an adequate chance to get a first-post comment on every story.