They took it down because it was causing them problems. What.cd certainly doesn't actually care about "respect" for a dead author's wishes.

This notion really needs more attention that it gets. Copyright law is a ruinous no-man's-land whose primary function is to denude the public domain of anything that some publisher might squeeze value out of, when it was intended to do quite the opposite.

Publishing companies want to turn culture into something we consume rather than participate in.

I'm not sure why, if I am not due a share of my grandfather's income as "royalties" for his farm or factory work, I am somehow due a share of royalties for a book he wrote. If he left the only copy with me and I'm the first person to take it to a publisher, it can be argued that that is a slightly different matter.

Maybe Princeton shouldn't be in the business of playing gatekeeper to a dead man's paranoiac death wishes about publication. If Salinger was a serial killer or a despot, would Princeton feel morally obliged to follow his wishes about what he wanted published after his death?

The fact that copyright lasts for the author's life "+ X years" where X gets increased every time it nearly expires means that we have infinite copyright, which is blatantly unconstitutional, and definitely contrary to the original stated purpose of US copyright law.

If Salinger wanted to keep his precious manuscripts away from the public eye, instead of granting precious sanctimonious access of it through an agreement with Princeton, maybe he should have entrusted it to a private individual, or an institution without a duty to higher learning, such as a legal firm or a publishing house.

http://myweb.rollins.edu/jsiry/map-china-us_superimposed.jpg

Just stop. Mind you, I'd be happy with a country-wide single-time-zone if and only if either I were at the western edge of it, or if we just pushed the clock ahead 2-2.5 hours ahead before standardizing it.

All of the "just change your schedule instead of the time" arguments come from a naive understanding of what it's actually like to hold a regular job like most people have: your employer is pretty much the one and only determiner of your schedule for the majority of your week and your life. "Hey, I'm just going to come into work a few minutes later each day in the winter, and I'll start to float back the opposite way once spring kicks in" presumes the corporate world gives a damn about your scheduling needs. Most of the working world does not have the luxury of a job that, if they arrive 30 minutes late as a regular basis, they will not be fired from. Many people who work in workplaces with a time clock will get fired if they're a few minutes late from the employer-mandated start time more than a few minutes per month.

Also, many detractors of DST obviously don't have to schedule their work life with the starting times of their children's schools. "Well, if everyone floated,they could all float the same!" That's simply not happening. Workplaces like standardized time for a reason: because it places the burden of scheduling the workplace on the employer without having to have complicated time shifts every day (or every few weeks). If you have a job and children, and they shift time expectations in blocks independent of one another, the problem persists.

Many DST-detractors also seem to presume that, if you have children, getting them to school is simply a matter of getting them up in time to catch the bus, or to walk. Most areas of the country either do not have dependable public transportation where children can learn to commute themselves, nor live within walking distance of their school, and an increasing number of parents have to drive their children to school every year precisely because tight education budgets means something has to get cut, and school busing is one of the first to go - and it's easy to justify, because the logic is that if the parents don't approve a busing millage, they're the only ones who will be inconvenienced by it, anyway. Admittedly, this is a political failure where the citizen is somehow given collective veto power over the funding of schools, police, and fire services, but can't disapprove "millages" for any meaningful government spending such as corporate tax breaks and military weapon systems.

As far as California goes, some of its tech service sector effectively works from 5 to 5 precisely because they have to serve the needs of a country whose major business hubs are either in Eastern Time, Central Time, or Pacific Time. Mountain Time is said to exist, but I have deliberately chosen to forget it does.

Moving to one time zone wouldn't be impossible, of course. China does it and they are, roughly speaking, as wide as the mainland US.

Whatever the solution is, if it means that most Americans who leave work after 5PM get almost no useful daylight time for much of the year, it's a dead letter, and that won't change regardless of how many slashdotters who make their own hours tell them to "just" adjust their schedules.

Finally, an underpowered smart phone that is already as dated as the existing smartphone I have, and will struggle with heavy app usage. But it's FLOSS and that makes it better.

While I certainly agree that most well-written webpages should look good in half screen mode, this isn't an excuse for them to look bad in fullscreen mode, with either large blocks of space going unused, or for text-heavy websites, long lines that result in readability nightmare.

Amen. I find 16:9 to be too cramped, and this is compounded by the fact that a lot of web developers are still making content that assumes we're back in the age of non-widescreen monitors, meaning more scrolling. Or in the case of 16:9 monitors, MORE more scrolling.

16:10 is a compromise I can live with, and it disappoints me that 1920x1080 has somehow become dominant merely because of a video distribution standard. Don't shackle me in your 16:9 chains.

Frankly, I'd rather see a move to higher-resolution mainstream monitors with higher pixel density (again, at 16:10) than anything else as far as video improvement goes.

This is only astonishing if you're unfamiliar with the increasingly dizzying prices of textbooks. I presume that South Africa is little different than the US in this regard, though this presumption is unchecked.

> Firstly, corporate sovereignty has been decreasing for decades.

I am interested in your alternate history novel. Please tell me more.

Ouch. I don't envy them. Of course, ditch 21" CRTs for 27" LCDs didn't really save me any physical desktop space. Clutter multiplies to fit its container.

A tangent, but frankly, given the choice between 4K monitors that I couldn't afford an a return to widespread availability of a 16:10 option at 1920x1200, I'd take the latter. 16:9 is less ideal to me.

Given how few CRT monitors there are in the wild (let alone on those computers that are running new hardware), I'm not sure why the CRT vs LCD distinction was noteworthy.

...as actually having anything to do with "yetis".

I don't think we need DNA evidence to demonstrate that people are perfectly capable of making up monster folklore without anything more convincing than a tall tale.

Replacing a non-existent creature of folklore with a purported half breed of a creature that occurs nowhere near a specific location really isn't accomplishing much, especially when people have long been motivated to produce "evidence" before the advent of DNA testing. The polar bear doesn't live anywhere near the Himalays, yet intrepid explorers who wanted to engage in a prank or to fool a foundation to donate money to their expedition were certainly capable of bringing part of a polar bear to create "evidence" for their "discovery".

This is like finding a South African cent in my change and coming to the conclusion that the United States used to be a South African possession. There are easier ways to explain this "evidence" than purporting the yeti myth to be a misunderstood bear that didn't live anywhere near the reported location: people make shit up, and people want to believe in monster myths.

So what you're saying is that you can't dispute that:

1 - Sharia is the law imposed on Muslims.

2 - Sharia law imposes great sanction - including death in this life and damnation in the next - for those that reject the faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

I'm done with you. You are at best deluded, and at worst, disingenuous.