It does not use the address. It uses the 2nd, 3rd and 5th letters of the last name, 2nd and 3rd letters of the first name, date of birth and sex. For shorter names it pads with "2". You can fake it into reporting "name withheld" by putting a "9" in each of those positions in the name.

Actually whoever the new guy is, I don't find the site to be "improved" at all; seems a little crummy. The story was butchered and incorrectly interpreted, and the all important software for interaction seems less interactive.

But what do I know?

As to my absence I've been a bit overwhelmed by work stuff, sorry about that, it's no excuse :)

The story as published implies that the ruling overruled the lower court on the 3 issues. In fact, it was agreeing with the trial court on the third issue -- that the sporadic instances of Vimeo employees making light of copyright law did not amount to adopting a "policy of willful blindness".

Going by the extracts, the agreement out to him might not do what he says it does.

There might be diverting in the definitions that changes that, but I doubt it. More likely, this guy is just being a jerk who is too cheap to pay a lawyer to review the agreement and advise him, even though it seems he has the money to do so.

From TFA, it seems that IFTTT has just gotten it's hands on done venture capital. One of the first things incoming venture capital will do is require regularisation of important ad hoc legal relationships (including making sure that all necessary copyright licences are in place), so this change would not be unexpected.

Some networks have been intentionally configured to send out RAs every 3 seconds because Samsung devices drop all IPv6 when the screen is off. This causes them to lose all network access (even IPv4) when the screen comes back on, until the next RA. Samsung broke it, they need to fix it.

It would of course be better if solicited RAs were not sent as broadcasts.

There are also many mistakes being made that demonstrate a basic lack of understanding, that cannot be attributed to lack of code review (my favourite example is email address validation code that assumes a TLD must have 2 or 3 characters).

Because businesses think software development in general, and especially web development, is easy. They hire monkeys and pay peanuts (or sometimes even serious dollars that could get them quality of they could recognise they were being taken for a ride), and we continue to see the most basic errors being repeated across most web sites. Seriously, the quality of web developers generally is absolutely appalling.

This strikes me as a complete answer. If it has good support for calling out to (native) C ( and you have the skills to do that when needed) and does not have the memory blowout of Java, you are losing nothing by basing the project on Rust instead of C.

Thank you for so astutely reading that thread; I thought maybe I was losing my mind :) I keep disagreeing with him, and he keeps saying we're on the same page :)

Yeah that's neither right nor left, it's the universal language of greedy bloodsuckers.

The fact that Democrats support something doesn't negate the possibility of something being right wing. The Democrats are not ideologically pure, or ideologically homogenous, and very few of them can be considered "left".

To me, pretending that copyright is only about property rights, and ignoring the fact that copyright was also supposed to be about free speech and about making material available for free to the public after a limited time, is definitely "right wing".

As I said, the decision has nothing to do with how much copying makes it a copyright infringement. It has to do with the fact that there is no evidence that John Doe copied anything from anybody.

The decision isn't about what is or is not copyright infringement. It's about whether you can sue somebody without any evidence that they did in fact commit a copyright infringement.

Exactly. Would have been nice for judges to start doing this 11 years ago, but glad they've come around.