So you trash the uninstaller, can't uninstall, and that's OpenOffice.org's fault?
Using the installer as the uninstaller and not warning about it prominently upgront would be OOo's fault; GP complained that OOo wouldn't uninstall without the original installer, not a seperate uninstaller that was installed by the original installer.
Well, For my money, the fact that Open Office allows you to export as PDF--that has really been a boon.
While OOo had it first, its a free (as in beer) option for Office 2007, so not a competitive advantage to OOo vs. Office 2007 (having the feature, at least, isn't; I suppose the quality of the PDFs might be, though I haven't used the PDF generation in either suite enough to identify which does a better job.)
A bunch of people that always hated excel's interface actually like the 2007 one. It reminds them of the old lotus 123 days.
Which version of 1-2-3? The last version of 1-2-3 I used was Release 1A, which certainly was outstanding for its time, but didn't have an interface even remotely like Excel 2007...
Er, wow. Cut and paste error there. The dangers of having two different web forums open at once, a computer that occasionally ignores Ctrl-C, and a habit of not reviewing quoted material.
How about the $400 per seat price tag? Is that still there?
That depends on the version and the kind of license; the price tags in, IIRC, the $150 range for the 5-seat non-commercial license; $400 is, IIRC, about the price tag of the Professional license bought one a time, though volume licensing I believe is cheaper.
Do you want:
A desktop with M$ Office and it's snazzy interface. A desktop and a laptop with Open Office, which you can use right away.
I've got two desktops and a laptop, two of the three have both Office 2007 and OpenOffice.org 2.2 installed (the desktop that is dual-boot Windows/Linux has OOo on both partitions, and the other desktop just has Office 2007.) I have no problem using either "right away". I am more productive with Office 2007, despite the fact that OOo is closer to the interface I've been using for over a decade.
Now, I prefer Free Software, and not just because of the price (though that's a factor), but I even more strongly prefer software that does what I want, and does it well; the advantage to Office 2007 in those terms outweigh the price and other advantages of OOo. For now, at least.
I hold out high hopes for OOo and other Free alternatives, though.
This was brought up in a different manner yesterday by someone. One scenario for the continued U.S. presence in Iraq is for our troops to be watching the borders for a while longer once the Iraqis "stand up." Vis-a-vis the borders with Iran and Syria, it makes a lot of sense.
I've been using Microsoft Office for well over a decade, on a daily basis. The only way in which 2007 is "worse" than either 2003 or OOo in terms of interface is that its not the same as one would expect from prior versions of Office (which have been fairly constant back at least to Office 95), so I can see why people of the "I refuse to learn anything new" crowd (which, previously, have help fuel MS Office's dominance) might prefer OOo, which is much closer the pre-2007 MS Office interface.
However, Office 2007's interface makes it so much easier to work with things (and much smoother to do things the right way that makes documents more easily maintainable, too) than the pre-2007 interface that I'm was much happier with 2007 after about a day of working with it (my only problem is that I have to switch back and forth between 2007 at home and 2003 at work, and that OneNote 2007, despite being a wonderful program on its own, doesn't have an interface that fits in with the 2007 style, being more in the pre-2007 style.)
Wow, you must have thought about for a long time. The whole reason for the GPL3 is to stop companies like TiVO. Some people object to TiVO being able to base a product on Linux but then not let the Linux community pull it apart and play with it.
Yes, but so what? Linux doesn't use the GPLv3 now, and there is really no concrete threat of the kind articulated here by the GPLv3 anyhow. The main threat is future changes to the GPL, buts its shear FUD to think that anyone using the GPL -- v2 or v3 -- now is at risk of not being able to distribute software because of future GPL changes. At worst, if they use "or any later version", other people might distribute their software under terms they didn't anticipate, but that doesn't restrict the original distributors ability to distribute software.
However, if the FSF is serious about "anti-TiVoization" the GPLv4 is going to be a radical change and have to be an intrusive, use-affecting license contract, since its possible to build a TiVo-like locked-down product that uses GPL software without ever becoming bound by the GPL: you just enter into an exclusive contract with the actual provider of the GPL-covered software who provides it to you on a component that is not inherently locked down, incorporate it into your device that simply verifies the appropriate signatures, etc., to assure that it is the right software, and sell the device. Since you are neither making copies and distributing them or making derivative works, you don't need the GPL to distribute: you are just exercising your right to dispose of your own physical copy under the doctrine of first sale. A pure copyright license that doesn't affect use rights can't prevent this, you need a contract that regulates use.
OTOH, the FSF recognized that business users might actually want locked-down products, so its not really clear what the future direction is. Maybe they'll realize that the same considerations that lead business to want that actually may apply to consumer uses, too,
Stonebreaker's complaint is that modern RDMBS's are "one size fits all" when different approaches can outperform them in particular niches. The problem here is that real enterprises often need solutions that fill multiple roles (OLTP, OLAP, etc.) and integrate seemlessly. Having a solution that fills one role with less fuss and overhead and DBA workload than existing RDMBS's is of limited utility if it makes all the other things that need to connect to it take correspondingly more fuss than they would with a "one-size fits all" database system.
Of course, if it can be wrapped up in a way which is transparent to the user and integrates seemlessly "behind the scenes" with existing systems, this stops being an issue, but then you still have an RDBMS, just with a different underlying implementation of the storage engine. And its hardly as if optimized storage implementations for particular roles are something new to the RDBMS world.
The second block, whoah, I guess I just have to take your word that it does the same thing as the first block.
The second block of code:
1. Defines "compose2" as a function which takes as its parameters two functions F and G, and returns a function which takes an argument x and returns F(G(x)).
2. Then defines "target" as the result of applying compose2 to two existing functions (F and G), and then applying the resulting function to each member of source_list.
Its a bit confusing as an example because F, G are used as parameter names in the first line, and are also the names of the arguments passed to compose2 in the second line. While you might occasionally end up doing that, and there is usually nothign syntactically wrong with it in an FP language, its pretty confusing in an example.
A check with the police department (or whatever other department) would reveal that, no, I am not a murderer, and the employer would no longer put stock in the list that was proposed.
The problem is that there are many different jurisdictions that would be checked, and employers that "do" background investigations do not, for the most part, "do" the investigations themselves, they pay someone else, who uses private databases collected from various public sources.
So, yes, while checking the right sources would reveal this was false, most users of the data wouldn't check all the sources. In fact, the reason they would be using a list compiled by some third party in the first place would be to avoid the work of checking all the basic sources themselves.
Misrepresentations on these types of compilations are controlled, currently, in substantial part by the fact that people making false representations can be sued for the damage caused by those false representations.
If it were a list like the first person that replied to me proposed, it would be much more time consuming to check (assuming the potential employer wanted to do as thorough a job as possible), but being as I've not stolen items like pens, paper, and other things that were mentioned, I'd *still* be OK.
Assuming the list was accurate; of course, in your proposal where the list owner would be able to make any claims they wanted to in the list, without consequences, you (and everyone else) would be in danger of being placed falsely on the list, and no one placed on the list falsely would have any recourse against the list owner.
A simple background check (which has been done at every job I've ever held) would reveal your list to be shite
Most places that do background check pay some third party to do it. If that third party relied in whole or in part on the list in question, perhaps to fill gaps in other records, then, no, the background check would not reveal the list would be wrong, it would return the results of relying on the list.
Now, what would happen in the real world today is that the first person to find out they were flagged would file, and win, a rather substantial defamation lawsuit that would put the company running the list out of business, assuming that there wasn't a reasonable basis for them being listed on the list. But you seem to oppose the very laws that punish such lies.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that where you're named as the defendant in a civil case taking place in another country, you can pretty much decide to do what you like with the judgement, including wipe your bottom with it.
Problems only start if you wish to travel to that country at a later date.
Well, no, if you have assets or business dealings in the country, you certainly stand financial risk from ignoring the case even if you never wish to visit personally, and, IIRC, several countries have agreeements allowing enforcement of some or all civil judgements of one country in the other's courts, so you may be at risk if you have assets or business dealings in certain third countries, as well.
Shouldn't I be able to list any domain or IP in any database I please?
Listing a domain or IP in a database is making a claim about it. Should anyone be able to claim anything about you, regardless of truth or falsity, regardless of the resulting harm, with the responsibility only on the listener to decide if it is true or false? Perhaps they should be, but it is pretty well established that there are boundaries to this in general, hence laws regarding slander, libel, etc., and I don't see any reason that an online database should be an especially privileged means of making and publishing such claims, whether the current rules or some alternate set are applied generally.
You get five minute clips of your show, followed by 30 seconds of commercials.
That's an interesting theory as to the source of the problem; to test it, one might try to studying the effect of commercial-free viewing vs. commercial-laden viewing (and even different levels of commercial frequency and duration). There is a considerable difference, IME, in viewing experience between watching series on Showtime, HBO, etc. vs. broadcast networks from the lack of commercials, but it'd be interesting to see how that relates to effects like the one studied here.
OTOH, the effect may not be from commercials so much as short cuts in the main body of the program, which are very common in modern TV and movies, in which case programs without commercials might not have a big difference (though the series on the premium cable outlets might still average better; at least the ones I've seen seem not to favor quick cuts as much as broadcast shows do.)
The official definition of a cult is an organization that rejects Jesus Christ, uses their own "scriptures" as superior to the King James Bible, discourages their members from reading the Bible, and then poses as a religion.
There are lots of definitions of "cult". In what sense is that definition "official"?
If you are truly a content provider, you should respect the rights of other content providers in choosing how they wish their material to be distributed.
Maybe in ideal-happy-mutual-cooperation-land.
In reality, if you are a content provider trying to make a profit, you'll band together with other content providers where there is a common interest (say, enforcement of copyright, lobbying for narrower scope of "fair use", etc.) and, at all other times, do everything possible to guarantee you have a competitive edge over other cotnent providers, including making sure their content doesn't get to consumers when you can block it without facing consequences.
The game exists and whether or not it is designed to be a "simulator" which with today's technology could only loosely be called a "simulation", or just a game for fun's sake, is beside point.
It is, in fact, designed to be a recruiting tool (or extended advertisement), more than a simulation for the sake of accuracy or a game for the sake of entertainment.
I believe the other thing registration of copyright allows you to do is sue for damages as opposed to simplly C&D.
Without registration, you can only sue for misattribution and distortion (roughly), not for other copyright infringement. And, I believe, remedies may be limited to a C&D on the misattribution and distortion.
But that's if you sue without registering first; you don't have to register before you publish, or before the infringement, just before you file suit. Presumably, if you are going to file suit seeking damages for copyright infringement, the registration fee is going to be negligible in the face of both the other costs of going to court, and the expected damage award, so it shouldn't be much of a marginal concern.
In the US without registration all you could win in court if it went that far is to get a cease and desist order.
Basically true, but one should note that that's if you haven't registered when you go to court; you don't have to register before the infringement to be able to sue for damages. It's a limitation on instituting (certain types of) legal action not on your rights as a copyright holder.
Somehow I would respect you more if you were equally angry about both types of violations.
And I should care...why?
Why is it irrelevent if the authors rights are violated
Its irrelevant where it was offered, as a mitigation of the wrongness of the fraudulent takedown notice, since the fraudulent takedown notice doesn't become either less illegal or less morally wrong if some author's rights were violated. It is a non-sequitur.
but [cue Dragnet sound track] a violation of the law when your toes are stepped upon?
"My toes"? I'm not affiliated with Scribd, don't use Scribd, and didn't know it existed until this thread, and frankly don't care all that much one way or another about it now that I know it exists. I read my science fiction on the carcasses of trees, not on the computer screen. I'm failing to see how its "my toes" that are being stepped on, in any case.
Imagine if we treated physical goods the same way? What if I could, say, steal your lawn furniture and it would be your responsibility to hire a lawyer to tell me that it's yours?
If you want to recover a piece of personal property it in a civil action for conversion, one requirement is that you've made a legally-sufficient demand, and its not an altogether uncommon problem in such cases for individuals acting on their own without the assistance of an attorney to ask for things back in ways that fall short of such a legally-sufficient demand. So, really, its not all that different for physical goods.
The excerpt you say doesn't disagree with me, it simply says that someone who receives an incomplete takedown notice isn't necessarily required to take down material, which is exactly what the statute says that I pointed to. They are required to contact the person providing the incomplete takedown notice (if it identifies the supposedly infringing material and the supposedly infringed material and provides contact information) to get a proper takedown notice. If they fail to do so, however, per the statute, they are no longer within the DMCA shield.
Nothing prevents a service provider from concluding from an imperfect takedown notice that the most likely result of a contact is that they'd get a proper takedown notice, and that it would save time and money just to take the material down. I'm not saying they should do so, I'm saying the suggest upthread that ignoring the imperfect notice entirely was not a good option.
Slashdot Mirror
Using the installer as the uninstaller and not warning about it prominently upgront would be OOo's fault; GP complained that OOo wouldn't uninstall without the original installer, not a seperate uninstaller that was installed by the original installer.
While OOo had it first, its a free (as in beer) option for Office 2007, so not a competitive advantage to OOo vs. Office 2007 (having the feature, at least, isn't; I suppose the quality of the PDFs might be, though I haven't used the PDF generation in either suite enough to identify which does a better job.)
Which version of 1-2-3? The last version of 1-2-3 I used was Release 1A, which certainly was outstanding for its time, but didn't have an interface even remotely like Excel 2007...
Er, wow. Cut and paste error there. The dangers of having two different web forums open at once, a computer that occasionally ignores Ctrl-C, and a habit of not reviewing quoted material.
That depends on the version and the kind of license; the price tags in, IIRC, the $150 range for the 5-seat non-commercial license; $400 is, IIRC, about the price tag of the Professional license bought one a time, though volume licensing I believe is cheaper.
I've got two desktops and a laptop, two of the three have both Office 2007 and OpenOffice.org 2.2 installed (the desktop that is dual-boot Windows/Linux has OOo on both partitions, and the other desktop just has Office 2007.) I have no problem using either "right away". I am more productive with Office 2007, despite the fact that OOo is closer to the interface I've been using for over a decade.
Now, I prefer Free Software, and not just because of the price (though that's a factor), but I even more strongly prefer software that does what I want, and does it well; the advantage to Office 2007 in those terms outweigh the price and other advantages of OOo. For now, at least.
I hold out high hopes for OOo and other Free alternatives, though.
I've been using Microsoft Office for well over a decade, on a daily basis. The only way in which 2007 is "worse" than either 2003 or OOo in terms of interface is that its not the same as one would expect from prior versions of Office (which have been fairly constant back at least to Office 95), so I can see why people of the "I refuse to learn anything new" crowd (which, previously, have help fuel MS Office's dominance) might prefer OOo, which is much closer the pre-2007 MS Office interface.
However, Office 2007's interface makes it so much easier to work with things (and much smoother to do things the right way that makes documents more easily maintainable, too) than the pre-2007 interface that I'm was much happier with 2007 after about a day of working with it (my only problem is that I have to switch back and forth between 2007 at home and 2003 at work, and that OneNote 2007, despite being a wonderful program on its own, doesn't have an interface that fits in with the 2007 style, being more in the pre-2007 style.)
Yes, but so what? Linux doesn't use the GPLv3 now, and there is really no concrete threat of the kind articulated here by the GPLv3 anyhow. The main threat is future changes to the GPL, buts its shear FUD to think that anyone using the GPL -- v2 or v3 -- now is at risk of not being able to distribute software because of future GPL changes. At worst, if they use "or any later version", other people might distribute their software under terms they didn't anticipate, but that doesn't restrict the original distributors ability to distribute software.
However, if the FSF is serious about "anti-TiVoization" the GPLv4 is going to be a radical change and have to be an intrusive, use-affecting license contract, since its possible to build a TiVo-like locked-down product that uses GPL software without ever becoming bound by the GPL: you just enter into an exclusive contract with the actual provider of the GPL-covered software who provides it to you on a component that is not inherently locked down, incorporate it into your device that simply verifies the appropriate signatures, etc., to assure that it is the right software, and sell the device. Since you are neither making copies and distributing them or making derivative works, you don't need the GPL to distribute: you are just exercising your right to dispose of your own physical copy under the doctrine of first sale. A pure copyright license that doesn't affect use rights can't prevent this, you need a contract that regulates use.
OTOH, the FSF recognized that business users might actually want locked-down products, so its not really clear what the future direction is. Maybe they'll realize that the same considerations that lead business to want that actually may apply to consumer uses, too,
Stonebreaker's complaint is that modern RDMBS's are "one size fits all" when different approaches can outperform them in particular niches. The problem here is that real enterprises often need solutions that fill multiple roles (OLTP, OLAP, etc.) and integrate seemlessly. Having a solution that fills one role with less fuss and overhead and DBA workload than existing RDMBS's is of limited utility if it makes all the other things that need to connect to it take correspondingly more fuss than they would with a "one-size fits all" database system.
Of course, if it can be wrapped up in a way which is transparent to the user and integrates seemlessly "behind the scenes" with existing systems, this stops being an issue, but then you still have an RDBMS, just with a different underlying implementation of the storage engine. And its hardly as if optimized storage implementations for particular roles are something new to the RDBMS world.
The second block of code:
1. Defines "compose2" as a function which takes as its parameters two functions F and G, and returns a function which takes an argument x and returns F(G(x)).
2. Then defines "target" as the result of applying compose2 to two existing functions (F and G), and then applying the resulting function to each member of source_list.
Its a bit confusing as an example because F, G are used as parameter names in the first line, and are also the names of the arguments passed to compose2 in the second line. While you might occasionally end up doing that, and there is usually nothign syntactically wrong with it in an FP language, its pretty confusing in an example.
The problem is that there are many different jurisdictions that would be checked, and employers that "do" background investigations do not, for the most part, "do" the investigations themselves, they pay someone else, who uses private databases collected from various public sources.
So, yes, while checking the right sources would reveal this was false, most users of the data wouldn't check all the sources. In fact, the reason they would be using a list compiled by some third party in the first place would be to avoid the work of checking all the basic sources themselves.
Misrepresentations on these types of compilations are controlled, currently, in substantial part by the fact that people making false representations can be sued for the damage caused by those false representations.
Assuming the list was accurate; of course, in your proposal where the list owner would be able to make any claims they wanted to in the list, without consequences, you (and everyone else) would be in danger of being placed falsely on the list, and no one placed on the list falsely would have any recourse against the list owner.
Most places that do background check pay some third party to do it. If that third party relied in whole or in part on the list in question, perhaps to fill gaps in other records, then, no, the background check would not reveal the list would be wrong, it would return the results of relying on the list.
Now, what would happen in the real world today is that the first person to find out they were flagged would file, and win, a rather substantial defamation lawsuit that would put the company running the list out of business, assuming that there wasn't a reasonable basis for them being listed on the list. But you seem to oppose the very laws that punish such lies.
Well, no, if you have assets or business dealings in the country, you certainly stand financial risk from ignoring the case even if you never wish to visit personally, and, IIRC, several countries have agreeements allowing enforcement of some or all civil judgements of one country in the other's courts, so you may be at risk if you have assets or business dealings in certain third countries, as well.
Listing a domain or IP in a database is making a claim about it. Should anyone be able to claim anything about you, regardless of truth or falsity, regardless of the resulting harm, with the responsibility only on the listener to decide if it is true or false? Perhaps they should be, but it is pretty well established that there are boundaries to this in general, hence laws regarding slander, libel, etc., and I don't see any reason that an online database should be an especially privileged means of making and publishing such claims, whether the current rules or some alternate set are applied generally.
That's an interesting theory as to the source of the problem; to test it, one might try to studying the effect of commercial-free viewing vs. commercial-laden viewing (and even different levels of commercial frequency and duration). There is a considerable difference, IME, in viewing experience between watching series on Showtime, HBO, etc. vs. broadcast networks from the lack of commercials, but it'd be interesting to see how that relates to effects like the one studied here.
OTOH, the effect may not be from commercials so much as short cuts in the main body of the program, which are very common in modern TV and movies, in which case programs without commercials might not have a big difference (though the series on the premium cable outlets might still average better; at least the ones I've seen seem not to favor quick cuts as much as broadcast shows do.)
Elections have consequences.
There are lots of definitions of "cult". In what sense is that definition "official"?
Someone else is using the TV for something else?
Maybe in ideal-happy-mutual-cooperation-land.
In reality, if you are a content provider trying to make a profit, you'll band together with other content providers where there is a common interest (say, enforcement of copyright, lobbying for narrower scope of "fair use", etc.) and, at all other times, do everything possible to guarantee you have a competitive edge over other cotnent providers, including making sure their content doesn't get to consumers when you can block it without facing consequences.
It is, in fact, designed to be a recruiting tool (or extended advertisement), more than a simulation for the sake of accuracy or a game for the sake of entertainment.
Without registration, you can only sue for misattribution and distortion (roughly), not for other copyright infringement. And, I believe, remedies may be limited to a C&D on the misattribution and distortion.
But that's if you sue without registering first; you don't have to register before you publish, or before the infringement, just before you file suit. Presumably, if you are going to file suit seeking damages for copyright infringement, the registration fee is going to be negligible in the face of both the other costs of going to court, and the expected damage award, so it shouldn't be much of a marginal concern.
Basically true, but one should note that that's if you haven't registered when you go to court; you don't have to register before the infringement to be able to sue for damages. It's a limitation on instituting (certain types of) legal action not on your rights as a copyright holder.
And I should care...why?
Its irrelevant where it was offered, as a mitigation of the wrongness of the fraudulent takedown notice, since the fraudulent takedown notice doesn't become either less illegal or less morally wrong if some author's rights were violated. It is a non-sequitur.
"My toes"? I'm not affiliated with Scribd, don't use Scribd, and didn't know it existed until this thread, and frankly don't care all that much one way or another about it now that I know it exists. I read my science fiction on the carcasses of trees, not on the computer screen. I'm failing to see how its "my toes" that are being stepped on, in any case.
If you want to recover a piece of personal property it in a civil action for conversion, one requirement is that you've made a legally-sufficient demand, and its not an altogether uncommon problem in such cases for individuals acting on their own without the assistance of an attorney to ask for things back in ways that fall short of such a legally-sufficient demand. So, really, its not all that different for physical goods.
The excerpt you say doesn't disagree with me, it simply says that someone who receives an incomplete takedown notice isn't necessarily required to take down material, which is exactly what the statute says that I pointed to. They are required to contact the person providing the incomplete takedown notice (if it identifies the supposedly infringing material and the supposedly infringed material and provides contact information) to get a proper takedown notice. If they fail to do so, however, per the statute, they are no longer within the DMCA shield.
Nothing prevents a service provider from concluding from an imperfect takedown notice that the most likely result of a contact is that they'd get a proper takedown notice, and that it would save time and money just to take the material down. I'm not saying they should do so, I'm saying the suggest upthread that ignoring the imperfect notice entirely was not a good option.
Why?