Someone wanted to deliver content via webserver and then sue people who received this delivery as violating copyright?
Amazing.
They seem to be saying that, in addition to displaying the content on your screen, your browser also writes a copy into its cache, and that's two copies.
I wonder what they'd say of, say, a RAID1 file system, which makes two copies of the cached page, on two different disks. Would that mean two violations of the copyright? And if, after sending it from the screen to your eyes, the information in your brain is a third violation?
It's even worse. From the copy on the screen, each of your eyes makes another copy on its retina.
And on the technical side, all the routers temporarily put the data into a buffer. So it causes one extra copyright infringement for every router the data passes.
Less than 1% of the electricity generated in the US is from oil. Solar and Wind only generate electricity. So well under 1% of all oil is used to generate electrical power. It was less the 2% of all oil in 2004 and has gone down to under 1% of the oil used in the US.
What you say may be true. As non-American I'm not terribly interested in the details of the American energy mix. Indeed, before that post, I couldn't even know which county you are from, so even with perfect knowledge of the American energy mix I could not have decided on the truth of that statement.
But your definition of "stupid" is wrong. "Stupid" is not the same as "uninformed", "misinformed" or "wrong".
And you just flunked your skeptic and critical thinking test.
There was no critical thinking test. I didn't make any statement about the energy situation of the US or any other country. I only made a statement about your use of "stupid".
1. You assumed you knew the truth.
I didn't assume to know the truth of the statement. I did (and still do) assume I know the truth about the meaning of "stupid". And your use of that word doesn't fit that meaning.
2. You failed to question the truth.
OK, I indeed didn't consult a dictionary (but I'm convinced you didn't either). Well, let's do now (I omit the pronounciation and ethymology parts):
stupidI a: slow of mind: obtuse b: given to unwise decisions or actions 2: dulled in feeling or sensation 3: marked by or resulting from dullness: senseless (a stupid mistake) 4: dreary, boring (a stupid plot) [Source: Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary]
None of those fits your use of stupid.
3. spouted off without doing any research.
Yes, I did not do any research on the meaning of "stupid". Nor did you, apparently.
4. You trusted without question those that told you that Solar and Wind would reduce our dependence on foreign oil when it is less than 1% of our oil use.
Does not apply. I didn't make a statement about wind and solar energy, I made a statement about your use of "stupid".
5. I am willing to bet that you are proud of your critical thinking skills and consider yourself an enlightened skeptic yet you showed none of those skills.
While I do think I have some critical thinking skills, I certainly didn't need to use them on your comment. Basic language knowledge was sufficient. In that sense I agree that I didn't show any critical thinking skills in my reply, because there was no critical thinking skill needed or sufficient.
You better think about what your answer says about your critical thinking skills.
Except for the telephone sanitizers whose job is generally undervalued. You know, a single unsanitized telephone could wipe out a complete civilization.
So you think that a higher status makes you a better cook? Or that a higher status makes the local supermarket to sell you the unprocessed food cheaper?
Just don't take pictures of people who obviously don't want to be in your photo and you're fine
Must be a great place if you're a thief.
No, because in Germany, while you're forbidden to publish the picture without consent of the person, you're not forbidden to take it, nor to show it to the police.
No, there are usually exceptions for that type of photography. Also there are typically exceptions for people of special interest (that is, if you photograph a politician, he cannot forbid you you to publish it, at least not on the ground of that law) and for certain other common cases.
For example, I have to pay travel expenses from my own money, and then get them reimbursed afterwards. That is, I may have a legitimate reason to access my bank account in order to e.g. pay my flight. But that doesn't give my employer the right to access my banking password (and possibly look what's going on in my bank account).
Also, if I'm not allowed to access my bank account from the company network, the right thing is not to decrypt it, but to block it.
Slashdot Mirror
What about "the rumor of perl's death has been greatly exaggerated?"
Did Netcraft confirm it?
Someone wanted to deliver content via webserver and then sue people who received this delivery as violating copyright?
Amazing.
They seem to be saying that, in addition to displaying the content on your screen, your browser also writes a copy into its cache, and that's two copies.
I wonder what they'd say of, say, a RAID1 file system, which makes two copies of the cached page, on two different disks. Would that mean two violations of the copyright? And if, after sending it from the screen to your eyes, the information in your brain is a third violation?
It's even worse. From the copy on the screen, each of your eyes makes another copy on its retina.
And on the technical side, all the routers temporarily put the data into a buffer. So it causes one extra copyright infringement for every router the data passes.
Did they also calculate how much energy would be saved if we would not waste processor power on DRM decoding?
What you say may be true. As non-American I'm not terribly interested in the details of the American energy mix. Indeed, before that post, I couldn't even know which county you are from, so even with perfect knowledge of the American energy mix I could not have decided on the truth of that statement.
But your definition of "stupid" is wrong. "Stupid" is not the same as "uninformed", "misinformed" or "wrong".
There was no critical thinking test. I didn't make any statement about the energy situation of the US or any other country. I only made a statement about your use of "stupid".
I didn't assume to know the truth of the statement. I did (and still do) assume I know the truth about the meaning of "stupid". And your use of that word doesn't fit that meaning.
OK, I indeed didn't consult a dictionary (but I'm convinced you didn't either). Well, let's do now (I omit the pronounciation and ethymology parts):
stupid I a: slow of mind: obtuse b: given to unwise decisions or actions 2: dulled in feeling or sensation 3: marked by or resulting from dullness: senseless (a stupid mistake) 4: dreary, boring (a stupid plot) [Source: Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary]
None of those fits your use of stupid.
Yes, I did not do any research on the meaning of "stupid". Nor did you, apparently.
Does not apply. I didn't make a statement about wind and solar energy, I made a statement about your use of "stupid".
While I do think I have some critical thinking skills, I certainly didn't need to use them on your comment. Basic language knowledge was sufficient. In that sense I agree that I didn't show any critical thinking skills in my reply, because there was no critical thinking skill needed or sufficient.
You better think about what your answer says about your critical thinking skills.
No, equalling that statement with "stupid" is stupid.
(NOTE: this is sarcasm for those of you who can't think critically)
The smiley at the end already said so. But of course this is Slashdot, so stating it twice may be appropriate. ;-)
My average age is exactly half of my actual age. I'm speaking about the time average, of course.
Probably green jelly beans.
Except for the telephone sanitizers whose job is generally undervalued. You know, a single unsanitized telephone could wipe out a complete civilization.
A reference is
I think you remembered your reference once too often. ;-)
So you think that a higher status makes you a better cook? Or that a higher status makes the local supermarket to sell you the unprocessed food cheaper?
A definite no. But then, I was not raised on industrially processed food; you tend to like the sort of food you were raised on.
And quite a lot of them actually exploded. ;-)
The people hiding Jews in Nazi Germany also broke the law. I guess that would also exclude them from being heroes in Bill Gates' opinion?
So you are in favour of a global thermonuclear war? Because that certainly would reduce the birth rate worldwide.
Must be a great place if you're a thief.
No, because in Germany, while you're forbidden to publish the picture without consent of the person, you're not forbidden to take it, nor to show it to the police.
Given that the German law contains an explicit exemption for pictures of contemporary history, that statement is not true.
No, there are usually exceptions for that type of photography. Also there are typically exceptions for people of special interest (that is, if you photograph a politician, he cannot forbid you you to publish it, at least not on the ground of that law) and for certain other common cases.
Rubbish. You have no rights to your image.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note that the German term "Recht am eigenen Bild" translates literally to "right to your own image"
That's why astrophysicists concentrate on the sky instead.
For example, I have to pay travel expenses from my own money, and then get them reimbursed afterwards. That is, I may have a legitimate reason to access my bank account in order to e.g. pay my flight. But that doesn't give my employer the right to access my banking password (and possibly look what's going on in my bank account).
Also, if I'm not allowed to access my bank account from the company network, the right thing is not to decrypt it, but to block it.
soylentnews.org
pipedot.org
What colour is the sky on your planet?
Sure. And people can just decide not to eat for prolonged time whenever no acceptable way to generate income is available. </sarcasm>
You mean, government activity like protection of lives? Protection of freedom? Or protection of any other human rights?
Alienating your users seems to be all the rage lately.
Or he has, and the resulting program crashed. ;-)