Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Who supports it (Score 3, Interesting) 60

As a Python fan, I was hoping it would catch on, and couldn't figure out why it wasn't taking the world by storm. Perl was the dominant player in CGI at that time, which made it a big thing. Over the years, I kept taking my little bookshelf polls every now and then, and the ratio changed. Turns out it just took awhile. Now, there are very few Perl books and lots of Python books.

I think the problem was that the world didn't migrate from Perl CGI to a better CGI language; it went from CGI to PHP/Coldfusion/ASP, and python wasn't really relevant there. It wasn't until the flaws in those sort of systems became apparent, and OO, MVC frameworks like Django, Web2py, Pylons, etc, came into their own that python started appealing to the masses.

Comment Re:any repercussions? (Score 4, Insightful) 165

Here's the relevant bit from the DMCA:

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Note that the penalty of perjury doesn't apply to the statement that the information provided is accurate, but only to the specific claim that the complaining party is the authorized agent of the owner of the copyright that is allegedly being infringed.

It's got nothing to do with GitHub, or nothing to do with porn, it's all to do with the fact that the DMCA is a bad law, and specifically allows people to make as many fraudulent takedown notices they want, as long as they don't claim to represent an IP owner when they in fact don't. If they do represent an IP owner, then they have carte blanche to be as fraudulent as they want. Sure, they have to state that the information they provide is correct, but there's no penalty if it isn't.

Comment Re:Mass perjury (Score 1) 165

Nope. The bit in the DMCA that is protected by perjury is the bit where you say you are the holder of the copyright that is allegedly being infringed, or an authorised agent. There is no protection at all against lodging takedowns against material that does not infringe - at least not in the DMCA.

Comment Re:I wouldn't worry about it (Score 1) 130

Which is all true - and utterly irrelevant.

This is an article about writers. You demonstrate why ordinary people should fear government surveillance, but writers - that is, people who are deliberately putting pen to paper in order to publish the results - are no more affected than anyone else. They publish their material - the government doesn't need surveillance to snoop on writers (at least, as far as their writing goes), they just need basic literacy.

All this is clearly elucidated by the GP. But clearly, you didn't bother reading what he wrote before launching into full snark mode.

Comment Moving the Goalposts (Score 1) 300

A fine example of moving the goalposts. He starts with the thesis:

we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners

He ends with the conclusion:

Supersonic bizjets for the rich might well be viable...Virgin Galactic's sub-orbital pleasure hops are unlikely to be problematic...But point-to-point sub-orbital passenger services are, I think, going to remain a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

Congratulations. You've just proved yourself wrong. Maybe next time start out with a more reasonable premise like "We're not going to see point-to-point sub-orbital passenger services in the forseeable future", instead of whatever sounds dramatic.

Not to mention, his primary objection seems to be screeching about 9/11 security theatre. Maybe that's a good reason why they won't be seen in the US, but the rest of the world isn't afflicted by that particular form of paranoid dementia, and we still hold out vague hopes the US will snap out of it sometime soon.

Slashdot Top Deals

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger

Working...