What's wrong with South Park? They are far more fair and balanced than Fox could ever dream to be; they are an equal-opportunity offender. They make fun of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. They make fun of conservative and liberal extremists equally. Serially!
So they went with Al Gore's misspoken "Serial" and went to an extreme in poking fun at him. Big deal. They've made fun of Bush as well. Is making fun of Bush okay but not Saddam? What is your problem with it? If you can't stand the profanity and crassness of their style of satire, that's understandable and I somewhat agree with you. To cite "manbearpig" as being a turning point for South Park changing it from brilliant to decidedly unfunny simply because you disagree with the point of that episode, well, it's hypocritical if you are a Gore fan and a liberal. (as for me, I am more of a libertarian myself and dislike both extremes and the end result which is borne of each; huge government and excess interference in private lives)
Are you one of those liberals who preaches tolerance, except you hate everyone who disagrees with you? Here's the deal: tolerance is simply being mature enough to know to agree to disagree, and you know what, sometimes people may make fun of your point of view or you yourself. It's no big deal, and when you're a public goof like Al Gore is, you expect that sort of treatment. Hell, he has even made fun of himself by guest starring on one of his favorite shows (Futurama) so if he doesn't mind being roasted, why should you be offended?
Good god, learn to laugh a bit and see the other side's perspective.
Besides, ManBearPig was freaking hilarious. I'm super-serial!
1. DVDs, software are commodity goods (except for works for hire). Right of first sale applies 2. On top of right of first sale, you have Fair Use rights
3. Open a software package, DVD, or CD. Try to return it. They deny you a refund. So, you are refusing the "license" but still have the commodity good in hand. You have the right to do whatever you want with it (except violate Copyright Law)
It is more akin to "stealing" trade secrets than typical copyright infringement. As much as I think copyright is abused to the point where "they" want us to believe Fair Use does not exist and we cannot legally trade timeshifted content with one another, I think Fox is 100% in the right on this. They have not yet received advertising revenue the airing generates, and if 24 addicts get their fix a week early from advert-free episodes, the advertising value for 24's timeslot has been diluted. So, in effect, that user HAS stolen from Fox because the potential advertising value is now lower.
Plenty of sites do it already, particularly sites which employ cloaking to get indexed (including many news sites).
Caching is normal on the world wide web and should be expected by default. In fact, it is desirable, because in the event that your web host goes down for a short while, the google/yahoo/msn cache enables you to STILL reach your target customers, and furthermore, the search engines clearly indicate that the page is a snapshot of the original, so they are not plagarising or otherwise trying to pass off the content as their own. They are performing a valuable service for you, the site owner, for free.
If you're putting a web site up, or hiring someone to do it, it is your responsibility to know your craft, just as if I were a journalist, It would be my responsibility to know to use terms such as "alleged" to avoid libel or portraying something as fact which is not fact. Negligence on your (web designer/web master/web owner) part should not place undue responsibility on another's (Google/Yahoo/MSN/etc) part. NOARCHIVE is part of that craft and is hardly obscure or undocumented. So Frontpage won't insert it by default, you'll argue? whoop de shit. You shouldn't be using Frontpage in the first place. Learn your craft, and in the case of the web, one of the subjects you need to be familiar with is different types of caching (browser, proxy, and search engine).
Now, if Google IGNORED the NOARCHIVE or robots directive, then it would be their negligence and their responsibility to fix this. This is not the case here.
I hope Google is responding to such frivilous complaints and lawsuits by completely removing those sites from their index. If they do not remove those companies, they are doing evil through omission by allowing other companies to do evil to remain in business.
I'd like to see what happens if that article is translated to Chinese then back to English, using folks who usually translate stereo manuals for the American market.:)
Does this mean that if elected President, he will provide hundreds of billions of dollars worth subsidies to telephone companies to roll out fiber to every address in America, with the end result being the telephone companies' accepting the subsidies but not delivering to suburban or rural areas because "it's not cost effective" to do so?
Wait, hasn't this happened before? Or is it just deja vu?
Which prompts a great question: does this make mounting "lasers" on sharks any easier? My boss is demanding fricken sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.
1. Toss all politician into the sea 2. Encourage everyone to use solar heat and solar or wind power on their homes 3. Plant more trees 4. Stop wasting gasoline on mowing lawns
Oh, sure, Apple has a $500-$700 model to choose from now, but that's without monitor, mouse, keyboard, etc. plus expansion is severely limited. Who wants that except people who do nothing but surf the web, play solitaire, and check email?
When I buy a Mac (and I decided I'm going to) I'm going to get a dual-processor dual (or quad by then) core Xeon, then I can actually install PCI cards. It will probably run Linux 90% of the time,
Why would I buy a Mac for that?
Because their towers are QUIET. For me to build a dual Xeon which runs just as cool, and just as quiet, I'd have to spend what would match list price of an equivalent Mac, or hack together ugly components with outboard cooling. Supermicro chassis may be wonderful and well-built, but quiet is not a term I would use to describe them.
Oh sure I'd run OS X now and then, but truthfully, I can't stand the dock and I can't stand finder. Oh, and why is the ONLY place I can grab a window to resize it in the lower right? In both Windows and most X window managers, I can grab any edge or corner to resize a window. Also, with a keystroke (either win or alt depending on keyboard config) I can click anywhere on a window to move it where I want in X.
Vista? I may actually end up taking it home and installing it, but that's only because it comes with MSDN.
"Two years ago we slowed it down to 38 miles an hour; now we've been able to park it then bring it back up to full speed."
Well, if the 38 miles per hour development was in 1999 and the article states that development occurred two years ago, I would guess that this is a really, really old article.
No kidding. I'm shocked -- shocked that Microsoft execs would lie about anything like this.
Now I wonder about Vista - will it really rock my world? Is it really more secure than Linux? Now I'm not so sure Microsoft was telling the truth about that either.;)
Funny (not as in ha ha) because as I recall back in 1983 the record companies acknowledging that CDs *were* expensive but that the price would come down as the number of CD sales went up.
They were still saying that in 1991-1992 when record stores were knocking vinyl down to 80% to 90% off to clear space for CDs.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with South Park? They are far more fair and balanced than Fox could ever dream to be; they are an equal-opportunity offender. They make fun of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. They make fun of conservative and liberal extremists equally. Serially!
So they went with Al Gore's misspoken "Serial" and went to an extreme in poking fun at him. Big deal. They've made fun of Bush as well. Is making fun of Bush okay but not Saddam? What is your problem with it? If you can't stand the profanity and crassness of their style of satire, that's understandable and I somewhat agree with you. To cite "manbearpig" as being a turning point for South Park changing it from brilliant to decidedly unfunny simply because you disagree with the point of that episode, well, it's hypocritical if you are a Gore fan and a liberal. (as for me, I am more of a libertarian myself and dislike both extremes and the end result which is borne of each; huge government and excess interference in private lives)
Are you one of those liberals who preaches tolerance, except you hate everyone who disagrees with you? Here's the deal: tolerance is simply being mature enough to know to agree to disagree, and you know what, sometimes people may make fun of your point of view or you yourself. It's no big deal, and when you're a public goof like Al Gore is, you expect that sort of treatment. Hell, he has even made fun of himself by guest starring on one of his favorite shows (Futurama) so if he doesn't mind being roasted, why should you be offended?
Good god, learn to laugh a bit and see the other side's perspective.
Besides, ManBearPig was freaking hilarious. I'm super-serial!
If Canada is willing to restrict Fair Use, is the MPAA and RIAA each willing to relinquish the levies on blank media?
No?
Well then!
1. DVDs, software are commodity goods (except for works for hire). Right of first sale applies
2. On top of right of first sale, you have Fair Use rights
3. Open a software package, DVD, or CD. Try to return it. They deny you a refund. So, you are refusing the "license" but still have the commodity good in hand. You have the right to do whatever you want with it (except violate Copyright Law)
It is more akin to "stealing" trade secrets than typical copyright infringement. As much as I think copyright is abused to the point where "they" want us to believe Fair Use does not exist and we cannot legally trade timeshifted content with one another, I think Fox is 100% in the right on this. They have not yet received advertising revenue the airing generates, and if 24 addicts get their fix a week early from advert-free episodes, the advertising value for 24's timeslot has been diluted. So, in effect, that user HAS stolen from Fox because the potential advertising value is now lower.
Works are copyrighted automagically, including goatse, your post, my post, etc.
The difference is: if you were the goatse guy, would you really want to claim ownership of that "work?"
Plenty of sites do it already, particularly sites which employ cloaking to get indexed (including many news sites).
Caching is normal on the world wide web and should be expected by default. In fact, it is desirable, because in the event that your web host goes down for a short while, the google/yahoo/msn cache enables you to STILL reach your target customers, and furthermore, the search engines clearly indicate that the page is a snapshot of the original, so they are not plagarising or otherwise trying to pass off the content as their own. They are performing a valuable service for you, the site owner, for free.
If you're putting a web site up, or hiring someone to do it, it is your responsibility to know your craft, just as if I were a journalist, It would be my responsibility to know to use terms such as "alleged" to avoid libel or portraying something as fact which is not fact. Negligence on your (web designer/web master/web owner) part should not place undue responsibility on another's (Google/Yahoo/MSN/etc) part. NOARCHIVE is part of that craft and is hardly obscure or undocumented. So Frontpage won't insert it by default, you'll argue? whoop de shit. You shouldn't be using Frontpage in the first place. Learn your craft, and in the case of the web, one of the subjects you need to be familiar with is different types of caching (browser, proxy, and search engine).
Now, if Google IGNORED the NOARCHIVE or robots directive, then it would be their negligence and their responsibility to fix this. This is not the case here.
Sorry that was the browser cache.
THIS is the correct tag:
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
Sorry about the brain fart. I wish we could edit posts (preview, I know, but that would not have made me catch this one)
Google caching is a free service which is optional. Web site owners have total control over it. Note the following:
If this is in place the site does not get cached.
I hope Google is responding to such frivilous complaints and lawsuits by completely removing those sites from their index. If they do not remove those companies, they are doing evil through omission by allowing other companies to do evil to remain in business.
Can someone point me at a torrent of the eBook version?
(I kid, I kid)
And up to this point what has covered EULA such as the GPL?
Contract law.
Does this mean that a "license" is a contract? Case law seems to indicate yes.
I'd like to see what happens if that article is translated to Chinese then back to English, using folks who usually translate stereo manuals for the American market. :)
Does this mean that if elected President, he will provide hundreds of billions of dollars worth subsidies to telephone companies to roll out fiber to every address in America, with the end result being the telephone companies' accepting the subsidies but not delivering to suburban or rural areas because "it's not cost effective" to do so?
Wait, hasn't this happened before? Or is it just deja vu?
Which prompts a great question: does this make mounting "lasers" on sharks any easier? My boss is demanding fricken sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.
Now they will probably have to be listed on "registered sex offender" registries. How fucked up is that?
IMHO, It was not so much of a knee-jerk reaction as it was about media whoring for ambitious small time politicians and officials.
1. Toss all politician into the sea
2. Encourage everyone to use solar heat and solar or wind power on their homes
3. Plant more trees
4. Stop wasting gasoline on mowing lawns
Problem solved. The bulk of global warming will be solved by #1 though, considering how many politicians proclaim themselves to be environmentalists and then oppose clean power projects.
You missed my point; it is still not a $500-$700 computer; it's a $700-$950 computer.
Oh, sure, Apple has a $500-$700 model to choose from now, but that's without monitor, mouse, keyboard, etc. plus expansion is severely limited. Who wants that except people who do nothing but surf the web, play solitaire, and check email?
When I buy a Mac (and I decided I'm going to) I'm going to get a dual-processor dual (or quad by then) core Xeon, then I can actually install PCI cards. It will probably run Linux 90% of the time,
Why would I buy a Mac for that?
Because their towers are QUIET. For me to build a dual Xeon which runs just as cool, and just as quiet, I'd have to spend what would match list price of an equivalent Mac, or hack together ugly components with outboard cooling. Supermicro chassis may be wonderful and well-built, but quiet is not a term I would use to describe them.
Oh sure I'd run OS X now and then, but truthfully, I can't stand the dock and I can't stand finder. Oh, and why is the ONLY place I can grab a window to resize it in the lower right? In both Windows and most X window managers, I can grab any edge or corner to resize a window. Also, with a keystroke (either win or alt depending on keyboard config) I can click anywhere on a window to move it where I want in X.
Vista? I may actually end up taking it home and installing it, but that's only because it comes with MSDN.
Well, if the 38 miles per hour development was in 1999 and the article states that development occurred two years ago, I would guess that this is a really, really old article.
With a population of 298 million, there isn't a job description Microsoft can concoct which a single American can't fill.
No kidding. I'm shocked -- shocked that Microsoft execs would lie about anything like this.
;)
Now I wonder about Vista - will it really rock my world? Is it really more secure than Linux? Now I'm not so sure Microsoft was telling the truth about that either.
Yeah, but they forgot to include cover sheets. . .
Oh, you must be one of those new SCO employees!
0 6/21/1537215
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/
Fear and sensationalism sells papers and wins viewers.