"...my point is that by legal precedent, there's nothing to prosecute. In the United States, Prior Restraint against publication in the Public Interest is unconstitutional.'
Stuff *HAS* been published,
No prior restraint.
1543 posts • joined 8 Feb 2007
I've generally held to the idea that, if Egypt suffered a series of unfortunate calamities within a short period of time that impacted food production -- locusts, insect-borne diseases among the cattle, crop-damaging hail, etc. -- that expelling large populations of foreigners who don't worship the "real" gods (and were probably the ones who pissed them off!) to go fend for themselves in someone else's fields would be a logical food-conservation measure.
...Sort of a "Get your people out!" rather than a "Let my people go!" scenario, but that doesn't play as well in the hinterlands...
But, them, I'm a cynical old SOB...
"Those who do study history are doomed to ignore it."
Daniel Ellsberg first approached the Nixon Administration and members of the Senate who wouldn't touch the Papers before he went to the Times. Afterwards, he took responsibility for what he did and surrendered himself to the authorities for trial.
He did what he did and accepted the likelihood of serious consequences for doing so.
THIS is why he's considered a hero. He walked the walk.
So far, Assange, et al, are only talking the talk.
I'm a Mac and Windows user and prefer Macs, while admitting that some of their business decisions can be somewhat... controversial.
I would generally never comment on a writer's typos unless such made a significant change to the meaning of the sentence.
OTOH, "...it may be a dual-core chip, but it lacks HypeThreading..." is impossible to pass up -- the MacBook Air may be the ONLY thing to come from Apple that lacks this attribute!
Sorry about that, Mr. Smith. -- when something is that perfectly apropos, I fear I have no self-control!
As it happened, while it WASN'T a NASA requisite, the Fiisher Space Pen™ turned out to be of critical importance to Apollo 11.
According to rumor, which writer Spider Robinson claims was confirmed to him by Lunarian #2, Buzz Aldrin: when he and Neil Armstrong were getting ready to leave the moon, one of the tasks was to remove their EVA packs and hook up to the LM life-support systems. While removing their bulky packs in the cramped cabin of the LM, one of them bumped into the control panel and broke a paddle-type switch off flush with the panel.
Unfortunately, it turned out that the broken item was the main engine ignition switch -- causing them no small amount of consternation, as you might assume!
Fortunately, Armstrong had his Fisher pen handy and, when it came time to lift off, managed to joggle the switch inside the panel with it and achieve ignition. It is questionable whether it could have been done with the tip of a pencil.
...that the posters who "corrected" the manager about weighing rhubarb have all of their meals out of cardboard boxes delivered to their caves and haven't actually stepped foot in a grocery checkout line in the last five years, or so? Otherwise they might have noticed that these days the scale is built flush with the counter to minimize cashier motion/save time/squeeze that extra penny onto the store's bottom line. This set-up, of course, means that overlong rhubarbs ARE, in fact, resting part of their weight on the counter.
Interviewer: "So, Mr. Playmonaut, your aircraft ascended to over 89,000 feet above the earth before release from the motherballoon.
Chuck Eccles; Yeah... yeah... yeah...
Interviewer: And when you were that high up, did the earth look round?
Chuck Eccles: Yeah... I don't think it saw me, though,
...Because , let's face it... launching a paper plane into space would TOTALLY fit as a Goon Show plot!
(Although perhaps the intrepid pilot was not the Famous Eccles... I could almost suspect that I heard a boyish East Finchley-type voice fading into the distance as the Vulture-1 was released: "YOU ROTTEN SWINE, YOO-O-O-O-o-o-o-u-u-u-u-u-u...!")
"...internet users could use the service to ask for material that is "inaccurate" or infringes their privacy to be removed."
First up for review of accuracy, every politician's website, next every religious site, then every corporate site... The possibility for hilarity seem ENDLESS!
I wish some politician in the States would propose something this idiotic -- I mean, we're talking hours of fun for the whole family!
I wouldn't put a 50-inch flatscreen TV where it was easily visible by someone walking past my house lest I tempt a break-in; why in Ghoo's name would I want my bank balance visible at all times on my interactive, keypadded, bank/debit/credit card?!!?
This just strikes me as an account-vacuuming waiting to happen... or am I missing something?
On a separate note, how flexible are those 3.9mm cards? Things in my wallet tend to get a bit bent from having my fat butt sat on them all day -- my regular cards can stand it and either bounce back or work even WITH a bit of a bend in them. I wonder about these ones, though.
...with a street sweeper attached...?
I'm actually quite impressed with the picking up a glass and pouring.
OTOH, the writing demo was a disappointment -- I was expecting "Hello, world". (Honestly -- youngsters today...! No sense of tradition!!
...And while it handled the pyramid and the jack, I wonder how well it'd deal with picking up a thumbtack standing on its head...
"Putting something on the public internet then crying when someone viewed/used it is certainly one of the more retarded things people do. It's not for them to unilaterally decide it's a place where photographers can post their shit and no one's allowed to steal it anymore than it is for me to decide it's a place for me to steal whatever the fuck I want."
That may be the most asinine argument ever posted in AnonymousCowarddom. In one paragraph you have displayed an amazing lack of knowledge of (or contempt for; I'm not certain) the concept of copyright.
Copyright says PRECISELY that you, as the creator of a work, have the total right to do whatever you want with it and no one else does unless YOU allow it. This was not "...them (...) unilaterally decid(ing) it's a place where photographers can post their shit and no one's allowed to steal it..."; it's actually an extension of established law that has been around since before you were born (Admittedly, saying that it's been around since before yesterday isn't saying much, but work with me, here).
The image wasn't "viewed", it was appropriated and used in a different medium. By your argument, if you were looking for work and posted a resume online for employers to find and someone else later on used it as their own to apply for a similar position with your company, causing them to sack you for fraud (stealing someone else's resume), the fault would be yours for posting it online.
"He also attacked The Huffington Post and Wired.com for articles that scrutinized finances and internal power struggles within the Wikileaks organization, according to the Associated Press. "
Wikileaks doesn't like leaks when it's their OWN internals...?
...but have you ever heard of the town of Amityville...?
It's on Long Island, a bit under 15 miles east of Hempstead (Not "Hampshire", which isn't on Long Island at all -- Mr. Ray, please take note of the MoM link in your article, which has Hempstead as the town in question).
If you go 15 miles WEST of Hempstead, you're in the New York City buroughs of Brooklyn or Queens, which sit on the western end of Long Island and have their fair share of gun and knife murders -- not sure about axes...
I don't know about the UK, but in the US the rules on recording phone conversations vary from state to state -- some require that all parties be informed and agree to recording, others don't. Anyone using their VOIP-archiving service would have to start every outgoing and incoming call with a "This conversation is being recorded," statement replacing "Hello" as their greeting in order not to fall afoul of the laws here.
Also, if the carriers offered this service, would it have any effect on the wiretap laws? Would the police need to get a wiretap authorization if the suspect has already, essentially, agreed to let his calls be recorded (by choosing to use that carrier)?
I dunno... Sounds more "can of worms" than "Pandora's Box", to me.
Check the AC 17:33 post below:
Carla Franklin -- acted in one short indie comedy, otherwise costume designer and make-up artist for the same indie producer.
So where did you get your evidence that she "has all the money in the world and normally treats everyone else like rubbish"?
You're an idiot.
"Best Buy sent a cease-and-desist letter to Strand earlier this month demanding that he remove the sticker as ==> the logo on it bears a strong resemblance<== to the company’s Geek Squad badge." One can't copyright common words -- it's the "look and feel" of the logo that they're protecting.
Even a non-profit organization can't use a logo that resembles another company/organization's. If some fly-by-night company used a logo that was made to resemble BB's -- "Tech Squad", say, in similar fonts and colors -- and put it on a VW Beetle (as GS uses and as the good Father owns), they would be in violation of of BB's copyrights and trademarks. It would be the same as, say, Pepsi-Cola selling its product in Coca-Cola's distinctively-shaped bottles.. You may want to look at the concept of "trade dress" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
As the Best Buy spokesman said, "... at the end of the day, it's bad precedent to let some groups violate our trademark while pursuing others." In point of fact, NOT pursuing infringements can result in the trade dress losing its protection and, hence, the brand identity (and, hopefully, good will) that the company had spent millions to establish. If they don't want their competitors riding their coattails with look-alike branding they HAVE to aggressively protect their brand -- even from use by non-competing, non-profit (Yeah, it's the Catholic Church; don't go there...) organizations.
And, to give credit where it's due, if "...the company has been working with Strand to make a logo that doesn't infringe on the Geek Squad trademark," that's different from parachuting a Goon Squad™ of lawyers into Fr. Strand's parish. It sounds like they're using their designers to create something that doesn't infringe AND looks good for Fr. Strand. If that's the case, then good on them!
True enough, in the sense that it is conceivably possible that I could create screen-caps of a 100+-page, highly-formatted document and create a web site where clients could look it over for approvals.
It would be a pretty moronic use of my time, but it WOULD be possible.
Of course, to make sure that the images were sufficiently high-rez, I'd probably have to zoom in and take screen caps of PARTS of each page and stitch those together -- and likely have to color-correct them, as well...
Then, of course, once the job was approved, the printer would have to print off of those screen-caps, or I would have to send him all of the raw files and hope that he's not running older versions of the publishing software that I used.
Or I could just send PDFs to all parties concerned and get back to billable work.
Guess which one gets my vote.
...to be able to afford every program and font in existence.
For those of us that have to send complex documents created in InDesign or Quark XPress for approvals by people who don't have them, or who get, say, ArcView maps in from people when we don't own ArcView, PDF writers/readers fulfill a vital need.
As long as they are gauging a surfer's "interest" by the mouse hovering over a particular link or bit of a search snippet, there is absolutely no reason for them not to set a threshold past which they assume that you're sufficiently interested to automatically open another window.
"Well, our research shows that users who hover over a search result for 'X' amount of time are likely to click on it -- we're just saving them time.
"... and (artificially) increasing your click-through rates. Pay up!"
"I like what you say about documentation and ease of use as these two things go hand in hand. I'd almost go further and say that some of the more basic things shouldn't need documentation as if they have been designed with ease of use in mind, documentation should be unnecessary."
Speaking as someone who has worked in tech docs, I can point out the one flaw with that idea:
The engineer always KNOWS that his design is so intuitively obvious that NONE of it needs documentation! <gr>
Not that the engineer is alone in this -- EVERYBODY hates the documentation: The engineer, as noted, believes that documentation is unnecessary because of his brilliant work;, management and finance hate it because it's a cost rather than a revenue enhancer; marketing hates it because a stack of manuals makes the product look more complicated and, thus, harder to sell; the customer isn't going to read it anyway, but will just call the help line who will curse the docs group for making them pick up the slack because "if they'd done their bloody job in the first place...".
No respect... No respect at all...
No "Non-user-replaceable battery...? How DARE they!??!" whingers...?
Maybe you could change the title to something with "Apple" or "Jesus phone" to lure them in? I mean, SURELY, it couldn't be that it's only an issue for them when the product comes from Cupertino...
...would you claim that someone who advocates Linux and open source programs couldn't be trusted to write an unbiased review of an Android phone, say?
In fact, to carry your argument to its logical end, no one who uses ANYTHING can be trusted to review anything; no driver should be allowed to review automobiles, since s/he already has preconceptions about how they "should" look and work and, likely, preferences for the make of car that they own...
Or, you can do what most rational people do and read a NUMBER of reviews from different sources to look for the common points, or even --quelle idee! -- try the item out and see if it works for you, rather than whinging about a reviewer's possible biases over a product that you (I''m guessing, here) have some aversion to.
Ummm... Edward Tufte isn't, AFAIK, connected in any way with OOo. His book, "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" is -- or should be -- a bible for anyone creating informational graphics (including PPT slides).
And FWIW -- if people are using PPT inappropriately, moving them to Impress won't help them. They'll still be making useless slides and reading them out loud to the audience. Tufte's point is about making them GOOD, after first determining if you actually NEED to make them at all.
In fact, I was rather hoping that the last exhibit would turn out to be the video from the surveillance cams on, say, a half-hour (or whatever) delay so that the exhibit-goers could watch themselves going through the whole thing. There would have been a lovely bit of bringing the concept home, there.
Oh, well... Perhaps a bit too "meta-"-...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019