It's not even the fault of an open-source developer. The whole point of open source is if someone neglects a feature you need/want, or adds a feature you don't need/want, you're more than welcome to add/remove the feature.
You're in marketing, aren't you? You can't possibly be a developer... actually, you couldn't possibly be a developer who knows what he's talking about. I think marketing though... you know how to abuse buzzwords.
Have you ever seen the movie Unbreakable? It could just be that you and I are arch-nemesis' of each other.
Considering our polar viewpoints on alot of things that's entirely possible. Also, we're very civil towards each other. The best super-hero/super-villain combinations are very civil with each other. Superman and Lex Luthor, Dr. Xavier and Magneto, etc...
There may be something to this bizarre synchronicity theory of yours.
Hopefully someone will get around to suing because the "patent" is killing them.
My understanding is that having either of these genes doesn't guarantee that you will or will not have breast cancer. In fact, if I remember correctly, only 5% of breast cancer cases are related to these genes. All the tests do is identify whether or not you have a genetic predisposition to getting breast cancer. A good family history should tell you the same thing.
If I was Myriad, I would worry more about people suing because they got a negative result from their test, and they still got breast cancer.
Interesting to see this thing coming from traditionally religious Utah...
Alot of genetic research comes out of Utah. The LDS church keeps meticulous geneaological records which are invaluable in this kind of research, and the common racial background of most of the inhabitants only makes the testing easier. All you have to do is identify a couple of families who appear to have a genetic predisposition for a disease, then you start testing them and comparing them to find out which genes they have in common.
Re:Regulare Expressions for HTML?
on
Perl & LWP
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You *have* to use a proper HTML-parser (that is tolerant to some extent), otherwise your program is simply wrong and I can always construct a proper HTML page that will break your regexp parser.
The problem is that regular expressions are often faster at processing than using an HTML parser. One example that I wrote used the HTML::TreeBuilder module to parse the pages. The problem is that we were parsing 100's of MB's worth of pages, and the structure of these pages made it very simple for me to write a few regexp's to get the necessary data out. The regexp version of the script took much less time to run than the TreeBuilder version did.
This is not to say that TreeBuilder doesn't have it's place. There's a lot of stuff that I use TreeBuilder for just because sometimes it's easier and produces cleaner code.
Re:This book fills a niche
on
Perl & LWP
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It's actually not that often that I want to grep web pages with Perl, the slightly-more difficult stuff is when you want to pass cookies, etc, and that's where I always find the docs to be wanting.
I've always found the libwww-perl cookbook to be an invaluable reference. It covers cookies and https connections. Of course, it doesn't go into too much detail, but it provides you with good working examples.
Re:Worth learning LWP instead of doing it manually
on
Perl & LWP
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I've done a whoooole lot of screen-scraping working for a company that shall remain nameless:) and I've generally always used "lynx --source" or curl to download the file and parse/grep it manually.
Can anyone discuss if it's worth it to learn this module and convert HTML the "right" way? Does it provide more reliability, easy of use or deployment, or other spiffiness? Or is it just a bloated Perl module that slaps a layer of indirection onto what is sometimes a very simple task?
The benefits come from when you're trying to crawl websites that require some really advanced stuff. I use it to crawl websites where they add cookies via javascript and do different types of redirects to send you all over the place. One of my least favorite ones used six different frames to finally feed you the information, and their stupid software was requiring my session to download, or at least open, three or four of those pages in the frames before it would spit out the page with all the information in it. IMHO, LWP with PERL makes it way simple to handle this sort of stuff.
If the consumer wants to edit their copy of a movie, or pay some one to do it for them, that is their right. However, if the studio wants to make an edited version of the film and sell it, they should have to get the permition of the director.
Read the article. The article makes it very clear. It's not the studio that's selling these edited videos, it's little mom and pop video stores that sell you the video, and then go and cut the scenes out of it.
He's saying that wanting to change a movie is wrong, not that it's not your right to do so.
Enter the thought police...
Art is in the eye of the beholder. It's valuable to everybody for different reasons. For you to suggest that I'm wrong because I don't find the same value in it as the creator/author is clearly erroneous. It has personal value, and if I desire to do something to enhance that personal value, then all the more power to me.
If you own them do you have the right to destroy them?
The question is who owns the rights to a copy of something original, and who owns the original? I'm talking about editing copies for personal use. Not censoring originals so that noone has access to them.
Personally I didn't think the Taliban should have done that. Now, if the Taliban were destroying little Buddha statues that they bought at a market for $20 a piece, personally I have no problem with that.
Ignorance and intolerance go hand in hand and they are the two most destructive forces in the world. Their instrument is religion although needless to say the article in the Salt Lake Tribune [sltrib.com] wasn't in the least motivated by religion-endorsed ignorance, now was it???
You're the one being ignorant and intolerant. First of all, you dismiss the article solely on the basis of the location it was published (intolerant). Second, it's the Trib, not the Deseret News (ignorant).
These companies aren't going out and banning all the copies of these films with dirty scenes/words in them. They're providing people with more options in order to enjoy them.
If I think my print of the Mona Lisa looks better on my wall wearing a turtleneck, then all the more power to me. I'm not being ignorant or intolerant by altering it in this way. I'm making it more enjoyable for myself. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's no reason for you or any artist to come into my home and tell me any different.
"If I buy a print of the Mona Lisa, do I have the right to draw on it? Yes, I do."
No, you don't. There is a specific exemption in the first sale doctrine for "unique artistic works". If there is only one of it the seller can indeed enjoin you from altering it.
So the privilege of making backup copies only applies to computer programs (and possibly rare printed material in certain circumstances) but not videos, CDs, DVDs, etc. It would appear that you and Timothy are both mistaken.
Copyright law is intentionally very vague, and you neglected to include the most important two thirds of that statute.
There are four factors that have to be investigated in order to determine wether or not it is copyright infringement, or wether it is covered by fair use. It's up to a judge to weigh these four factors and make the decision as to wether or the use infringes on the copyright owner. However, in the situation above, it should be noted that the use is non-commercial, and in the case of the DEFCON presentation it could be argued that it was for educational purposes, and is likely to have a neglible effect on the market. Therefore it would likely pass two of the four factors, and in my reading of the findings in Sony vs. Universal City Studios, it's my opinion that those two factors are the ones that the Justices weighed most highly in reaching their conclusions.
No, hes saying that when a company breaks the law they should be punished. MS has been convicted of breaking a law, hence they should be punished by forcing modularity.
Anti-trust law is about leveling the playing field when one company is more powerful than another. It's not about changing the rules to give one side or another an advantage.
None of the Linux distributors have illegally abused a monopoly, which is why they are not required to stop abusing a monopoly, which is why they are therefore not having the same kind of restrictions put on them. Got it now?
Are you saying that instead of having one set of rules, we should have several that depend on the size of your organization and the amount of power it wields?
I have no problem with the government coming out and saying the MS abused it's monopoly by forcing people to only sell computers with windows installed. However, when it comes to the question of wether or not MS abused it's monopoly by also distributing a tcp/ip stack, a web browser, a media player, notepad, etc... I have to disagree with people. All they were doing was giving people features they want.
People bitch and moan around here because the MPAA and RIAA are using the government to prevent them from have to change their business models with the times. Well, I find it awfully ironic that it's pretty much the same thing that Netscape did with the trial.
I can not belive this! Mill the God Damn corn so they will be able to eat it!
Most of the time they are considered the breadbasket of Africa. I find it highly surprising that they don't have the equipment/facilities to mill it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not even the fault of an open-source developer. The whole point of open source is if someone neglects a feature you need/want, or adds a feature you don't need/want, you're more than welcome to add/remove the feature.
I use elinks http://elinks.or.cz/ although it's been so long since I evaluated them that I can't remember why I liked it better.
It's a chemical laser. The fuel for the laser takes up a big chunk of that space.
You're in marketing, aren't you? You can't possibly be a developer ... actually, you couldn't possibly be a developer who knows what he's talking about. I think marketing though ... you know how to abuse buzzwords.
Weber State is famous for having launched its own satellite, Webersat, one of the OSCAR series.
... Webersat was their second satellite. Nusat was the first. Jawsat was the third. WSU is also where the Phase3D spaceframe was built.
Actually
UHF is 300 - 3000 MHz ... 88.1 is well outside that ...
Have you ever seen the movie Unbreakable? It could just be that you and I are arch-nemesis' of each other.
...
Considering our polar viewpoints on alot of things that's entirely possible. Also, we're very civil towards each other. The best super-hero/super-villain combinations are very civil with each other. Superman and Lex Luthor, Dr. Xavier and Magneto, etc
There may be something to this bizarre synchronicity theory of yours.
I saw your name and I thought "again???" ;-)
Hopefully someone will get around to suing because the "patent" is killing them.
My understanding is that having either of these genes doesn't guarantee that you will or will not have breast cancer. In fact, if I remember correctly, only 5% of breast cancer cases are related to these genes. All the tests do is identify whether or not you have a genetic predisposition to getting breast cancer. A good family history should tell you the same thing.
If I was Myriad, I would worry more about people suing because they got a negative result from their test, and they still got breast cancer.
Interesting to see this thing coming from traditionally religious Utah...
Alot of genetic research comes out of Utah. The LDS church keeps meticulous geneaological records which are invaluable in this kind of research, and the common racial background of most of the inhabitants only makes the testing easier. All you have to do is identify a couple of families who appear to have a genetic predisposition for a disease, then you start testing them and comparing them to find out which genes they have in common.
You *have* to use a proper HTML-parser (that is tolerant to some extent), otherwise your program is simply wrong and I can always construct a proper HTML page that will break your regexp parser.
The problem is that regular expressions are often faster at processing than using an HTML parser. One example that I wrote used the HTML::TreeBuilder module to parse the pages. The problem is that we were parsing 100's of MB's worth of pages, and the structure of these pages made it very simple for me to write a few regexp's to get the necessary data out. The regexp version of the script took much less time to run than the TreeBuilder version did.
This is not to say that TreeBuilder doesn't have it's place. There's a lot of stuff that I use TreeBuilder for just because sometimes it's easier and produces cleaner code.
It's actually not that often that I want to grep web pages with Perl, the slightly-more difficult stuff is when you want to pass cookies, etc, and that's where I always find the docs to be wanting.
I've always found the libwww-perl cookbook to be an invaluable reference. It covers cookies and https connections. Of course, it doesn't go into too much detail, but it provides you with good working examples.
I've done a whoooole lot of screen-scraping working for a company that shall remain nameless :) and I've generally always used "lynx --source" or curl to download the file and parse/grep it manually.
Can anyone discuss if it's worth it to learn this module and convert HTML the "right" way? Does it provide more reliability, easy of use or deployment, or other spiffiness? Or is it just a bloated Perl module that slaps a layer of indirection onto what is sometimes a very simple task?
The benefits come from when you're trying to crawl websites that require some really advanced stuff. I use it to crawl websites where they add cookies via javascript and do different types of redirects to send you all over the place. One of my least favorite ones used six different frames to finally feed you the information, and their stupid software was requiring my session to download, or at least open, three or four of those pages in the frames before it would spit out the page with all the information in it. IMHO, LWP with PERL makes it way simple to handle this sort of stuff.
Are they so lazy that they need a third party company to make these edits for them?
... maybe? However, maybe they just don't want to make the investment in the equipment to do the editing themselves?
Lazy
If the consumer wants to edit their copy of a movie, or pay some one to do it for them, that is their right. However, if the studio wants to make an edited version of the film and sell it, they should have to get the permition of the director.
Read the article. The article makes it very clear. It's not the studio that's selling these edited videos, it's little mom and pop video stores that sell you the video, and then go and cut the scenes out of it.
He's saying that wanting to change a movie is wrong, not that it's not your right to do so.
...
Enter the thought police
Art is in the eye of the beholder. It's valuable to everybody for different reasons. For you to suggest that I'm wrong because I don't find the same value in it as the creator/author is clearly erroneous. It has personal value, and if I desire to do something to enhance that personal value, then all the more power to me.
If you own them do you have the right to destroy them?
The question is who owns the rights to a copy of something original, and who owns the original? I'm talking about editing copies for personal use. Not censoring originals so that noone has access to them.
Personally I didn't think the Taliban should have done that. Now, if the Taliban were destroying little Buddha statues that they bought at a market for $20 a piece, personally I have no problem with that.
Ignorance and intolerance go hand in hand and they are the two most destructive forces in the world. Their instrument is religion although needless to say the article in the Salt Lake Tribune [sltrib.com] wasn't in the least motivated by religion-endorsed ignorance, now was it???
You're the one being ignorant and intolerant. First of all, you dismiss the article solely on the basis of the location it was published (intolerant). Second, it's the Trib, not the Deseret News (ignorant).
These companies aren't going out and banning all the copies of these films with dirty scenes/words in them. They're providing people with more options in order to enjoy them.
If I think my print of the Mona Lisa looks better on my wall wearing a turtleneck, then all the more power to me. I'm not being ignorant or intolerant by altering it in this way. I'm making it more enjoyable for myself. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's no reason for you or any artist to come into my home and tell me any different.
"If I buy a print of the Mona Lisa, do I have the right to draw on it? Yes, I do."
No, you don't. There is a specific exemption in the first sale doctrine for "unique artistic works". If there is only one of it the seller can indeed enjoin you from altering it.
A "print" is not a unique artistic work.
it's that any idiot would try to take the swear words out of a film in the first place
If I buy a print of the Mona Lisa, do I have the right to draw on it? Yes, I do.
The idiot is the guy who thinks that Leonardo's artistic vision trumps my consumer rights.
So the privilege of making backup copies only applies to computer programs (and possibly rare printed material in certain circumstances) but not videos, CDs, DVDs, etc. It would appear that you and Timothy are both mistaken.
Copyright law is intentionally very vague, and you neglected to include the most important two thirds of that statute.
There are four factors that have to be investigated in order to determine wether or not it is copyright infringement, or wether it is covered by fair use. It's up to a judge to weigh these four factors and make the decision as to wether or the use infringes on the copyright owner. However, in the situation above, it should be noted that the use is non-commercial, and in the case of the DEFCON presentation it could be argued that it was for educational purposes, and is likely to have a neglible effect on the market. Therefore it would likely pass two of the four factors, and in my reading of the findings in Sony vs. Universal City Studios, it's my opinion that those two factors are the ones that the Justices weighed most highly in reaching their conclusions.
How is making copies of copyrighted videos fair use?
What if you're making a copy because you're worried that you are going to lose or damage the original? Fair use, right?
No, hes saying that when a company breaks the law they should be punished. MS has been convicted of breaking a law, hence they should be punished by forcing modularity.
Anti-trust law is about leveling the playing field when one company is more powerful than another. It's not about changing the rules to give one side or another an advantage.
None of the Linux distributors have illegally abused a monopoly, which is why they are not required to stop abusing a monopoly, which is why they are therefore not having the same kind of restrictions put on them. Got it now?
... I have to disagree with people. All they were doing was giving people features they want.
Are you saying that instead of having one set of rules, we should have several that depend on the size of your organization and the amount of power it wields?
I have no problem with the government coming out and saying the MS abused it's monopoly by forcing people to only sell computers with windows installed. However, when it comes to the question of wether or not MS abused it's monopoly by also distributing a tcp/ip stack, a web browser, a media player, notepad, etc
People bitch and moan around here because the MPAA and RIAA are using the government to prevent them from have to change their business models with the times. Well, I find it awfully ironic that it's pretty much the same thing that Netscape did with the trial.
I can not belive this! Mill the God Damn corn so they will be able to eat it!
Most of the time they are considered the breadbasket of Africa. I find it highly surprising that they don't have the equipment/facilities to mill it themselves.