wherefrom can I download it?
--------------= Posted using GrabIt =----------------
------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =---------
-= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =- 48  4951 
On 21 Feb 2006 19:13:49 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote: On 2006-02-21, mai <ma***********@yahoo.com> wrote: wherefrom can I download it?
http:
Did peter Van Der Linden decide to make his book public domain, or are
you aiding and abetting a thief?
2 seconds at www.google.com would have been quicker
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote: On 21 Feb 2006 19:13:49 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, mai <ma***********@yahoo.com> wrote: wherefrom can I download it?
http:
Did peter Van Der Linden decide to make his book public domain, or are
you aiding and abetting a thief?
Are you always such an anal idiot?
I googled up a link to the PDF. Anything else is assumptive. But since
you are so concerned, maybe you could collect a list of all the places
it is hosted and inform the authorities : I certainly dont have the
time nor the inclination to check the copyright issues of every
document I reference via the wonderful world of web.
2 seconds at www.google.com would have been quicker
--
Remove evomer to reply
"Richard G. Riley" <rg***********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46************@individual.net... On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote: On 21 Feb 2006 19:13:49 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, mai <ma***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
wherefrom can I download it?
http:
Did peter Van Der Linden decide to make his book public domain, or are
you aiding and abetting a thief?
Are you always such an anal idiot?
Yes, he is.
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios
"...use of a copyrighted work is noncommercial, defeating a fair use defense
requires 'proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it
should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for
the copyrighted work.'"
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co
"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors,
but 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' . . . To this end,
copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but
encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by
a work."
Rod Pemberton
"mai" <ma***********@yahoo.com> writes: wherefrom can I download it?
Please include your entire question in the body of your message; not
all newsreaders display the subject header in a convenient manner.
There is a published book by Peter van der Linden called _Expert C
Programming_. As far as I know, it's available only on paper. If
there are soft copies available, they're probably illegal.
If you want to read it, show some respect for the author; buy or
borrow a copy or check it out of a library.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
On 21 Feb 2006 19:56:37 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote: On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote: On 21 Feb 2006 19:13:49 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, mai <ma***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
wherefrom can I download it?
http:
Did peter Van Der Linden decide to make his book public domain, or are
you aiding and abetting a thief?
Are you always such an anal idiot?
I googled up a link to the PDF.
Which aided and abetted a thief.
Anything else is assumptive. But since
you are so concerned, maybe you could collect a list of all the places
it is hosted and inform the authorities :
No, thanks. I don't go around the neighborhood checking doors to see
if they're locked.
I certainly dont have the
time nor the inclination to check the copyright issues of every
document I reference via the wonderful world of web.
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
"Richard G. Riley" <rg***********@gmail.com> writes: On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote: On 21 Feb 2006 19:13:49 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, mai <ma***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
wherefrom can I download it?
http:
Did peter Van Der Linden decide to make his book public domain, or are
you aiding and abetting a thief?
Are you always such an anal idiot?
I googled up a link to the PDF. Anything else is assumptive. But since
you are so concerned, maybe you could collect a list of all the places
it is hosted and inform the authorities : I certainly dont have the
time nor the inclination to check the copyright issues of every
document I reference via the wonderful world of web.
So you're aiding and abetting a thief because you didn't take the time
to investigate the origin of the document
Perhaps you weren't familiar with the book, and actually thought it
might be a legitimate public domain document. However, your question
above, "Are you always such an anal idiot?", leads me to suspect that
you just don't care.
I happen to own a copy of the book (on paper; I paid for it). I also
just downloaded a copy of the PDF file. It appears to be a copy of
the book, including the cover, but *not* including the title page or
any copyright notices.
If it were legitimate, it would presumably have a notice to that
effect. Since it doesn't, it seems likely that it was stolen. I've
just informed the publisher, Prentice Hall, of the existence of this
copy of the book. (No, I didn't mention you or the original poster,
just the site that's hosting the PDF file.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote: On 21 Feb 2006 19:56:37 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote: On 21 Feb 2006 19:13:49 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, mai <ma***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wherefrom can I download it?
http:
Did peter Van Der Linden decide to make his book public domain, or are
you aiding and abetting a thief?
Are you always such an anal idiot?
I googled up a link to the PDF.
Which aided and abetted a thief.
Anything else is assumptive. But since
you are so concerned, maybe you could collect a list of all the places
it is hosted and inform the authorities :
No, thanks. I don't go around the neighborhood checking doors to see
if they're locked.
I certainly dont have the
time nor the inclination to check the copyright issues of every
document I reference via the wonderful world of web.
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
Yes, but most things you see on the web that aren't behind a credit card
login can be assumed to be free for viewing and download. You can hardly
fault him for not knowing that this in particular is not.
I didn't know the draft number for the most recent draft of the C
standard, so I just searched for "c99 pdf" [expecting to find a
perfectly legal draft], and stumbled across a copy of the published
standard that had been put up by mistake. I didn't realize what had
happened until, in browsing through it, I got to the back cover page
which stated the price and the number of pages that the price was based
on.
"Al Balmer" <al******@att.net> wrote in message
news:eq********************************@4ax.com... On 21 Feb 2006 19:56:37 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote: On 21 Feb 2006 19:13:49 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, mai <ma***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wherefrom can I download it?
http:
Did peter Van Der Linden decide to make his book public domain, or are
you aiding and abetting a thief?
Are you always such an anal idiot?
I googled up a link to the PDF.
Which aided and abetted a thief.
Anything else is assumptive. But since
you are so concerned, maybe you could collect a list of all the places
it is hosted and inform the authorities :
No, thanks. I don't go around the neighborhood checking doors to see
if they're locked.
I certainly dont have the
time nor the inclination to check the copyright issues of every
document I reference via the wonderful world of web.
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
"...everything you see on the web is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated
to the public domain" is untrue. Everything that is within physical US
jurisdiction on the web is copyrighted by law. There are many places in the
world where US laws don't apply. You can "sign in" to libraries, e.g.,
Russian, online and access volumes of digital copyrighted material legally
just as if you entered the library by foot.
Rod Pemberton
On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote: On 21 Feb 2006 19:56:37 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote: On 21 Feb 2006 19:13:49 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, mai <ma***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wherefrom can I download it?
http:
Did peter Van Der Linden decide to make his book public domain, or are
you aiding and abetting a thief?
Are you always such an anal idiot?
I googled up a link to the PDF.
Which aided and abetted a thief.
Sigh
In article <dt**********@news1.greatnowhere.com>, Rod Pemberton
<do*********@sorry.bitbucket.cmm> writes
"Al Balmer" <al******@att.net> wrote in message
news:eq********************************@4ax.com.. . On 21 Feb 2006 19:56:37 GMT, "Richard G. Riley" >On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2006 19:13:49 GMT, "Richard G. Riley"
>>>On 2006-02-21, mai <ma***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> wherefrom can I download it?
>>>http:
>> Did peter Van Der Linden decide to make his book public domain, or are
>> you aiding and abetting a thief?
>Are you always such an anal idiot?
>I googled up a link to the PDF. Which aided and abetted a thief. > Anything else is assumptive. But since
>you are so concerned, maybe you could collect a list of all the places
>it is hosted and inform the authorities :
No, thanks. I don't go around the neighborhood checking doors to see
if they're locked.
> I certainly dont have the
>time nor the inclination to check the copyright issues of every
>document I reference via the wonderful world of web.
>
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
"...everything you see on the web is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated
to the public domain" is untrue.
Well *most* countries have a copyright law and it *usually* says
copyright is automatic and implicit. Most (but not all) countries have a
reciprocal agreement on copyright. So *most* things on the Internet
automatically fall under a copyright law.
However most counties have vehicle speed limits on the roads... likewise
there is nothing to stop anyone putting up some one else's copyright
work.
Everything that is within physical US
jurisdiction on the web is copyrighted by law.
But only US law which is irrelevant outside the physical area of the US.
However some things on web sites in the US may be illegal or breaking US
or someone else's copyright in the first place.
BTW The "generally accepted agreement" is that the law of the country
the server is in has jurisdiction no matter where the item is uploaded
from.
The problem is getting the country concerned to do something about it.
China and Russia are notoriously bad at co-operating.
There are many places in the
world where US laws don't apply.
Everywhere outside the US.... despite what the US military think :-)
You can "sign in" to libraries, e.g.,
Russian, online and access volumes of digital copyrighted material legally
just as if you entered the library by foot.
There is as probably much copy righted material available illegally in
the US as anywhere else. (there is certainly more spam from the US than
anywhere else, Florida I think is the main hot spot.)
Just because there are laws does not mean that they are observed. It is
not helped by the indirect influence of FSF and GNU. They have created a
sort of climate where people expect things for free. Especially software
and documentation. It was not their intention hence the GPL but the
result is that people seem to expect books and SW for free. I once go
stung buying a book on open source only to discover 3 months later that
it was legally available as a PDF for free....
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:48:05 -0500, "Rod Pemberton"
<do*********@sorry.bitbucket.cmm> wrote: "...everything you see on the web is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated
to the public domain" is untrue. Everything that is within physical US
jurisdiction on the web is copyrighted by law. There are many places in the
world where US laws don't apply.
True, but there are few where the Berne Convention doesn't apply. I
didn't mention US law.
You can "sign in" to libraries, e.g.,
Russian, online and access volumes of digital copyrighted material legally
just as if you entered the library by foot.
I don't know of any such libraries which supply general literature
(although a couple of companies including Google are running into
legal problems trying to establish one.) However, I do know that
Russia is a signatory to the Berne Convention, as well as other
copyright treaties, and also has a bilateral copyright agreement with
the US.
I presume that you are a programmer. It may well be that you will
never produce software in other than a work for hire capacity, but if
you do, it would be wise to obtain a basic knowledge of copyright law.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
On 21 Feb 2006 19:56:37 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote: On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
Did peter Van Der Linden decide to make his book public domain, or are
you aiding and abetting a thief?
Are you always such an anal idiot?
do you need to insult people?
I googled up a link to the PDF. Anything else is assumptive.
On your part. Next time, engage your brain before posting, or at least
be sensible enough to check if you're abetting a crime.
: I certainly dont have the time nor the inclination
Extend this thought: would you also not have the inclination to check
if something you physically obtained was stolen? I suspect you would
since few of us much like the idea of being caught with hot goods.
to check the copyright issues of every
document I reference via the wonderful world of web.
Then you will come a cropper.
Mark McIntyre
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
On 2006-02-22, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On 21 Feb 2006 19:56:37 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
Did peter Van Der Linden decide to make his book public domain, or are
you aiding and abetting a thief?
Are you always such an anal idiot?
do you need to insult people?
I googled up a link to the PDF. Anything else is assumptive.
On your part. Next time, engage your brain before posting, or at least
be sensible enough to check if you're abetting a crime.
Another one. *p*
On 21 Feb 2006 23:12:35 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra*******@gmail.com> wrote: On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
Yes, but most things you see on the web that aren't behind a credit card
login can be assumed to be free for viewing and download.
Can they? Does it say that somewhere in a legal document you have
access to? My garden furniture is in public fiew, not secured behind a
credit card login, does that mean someone can take it away? I think
there's a big assumption going on, and we all know what assumptions
make.
You can hardly
fault him for not knowing that this in particular is not.
Perhaps, but it would have been wiser to have suggested that the
publishers would be a good place to start. If it can be obtained
legally, they'll be able to help. If not, then...
Mark McIntyre
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
On 21 Feb 2006 19:56:37 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Richard G. Riley"
<rg***********@gmail.com> wrote: But since
you are so concerned, maybe you could collect a list of all the places
it is hosted and inform the authorities :
Looks like you got your wish. See elsethread.
Mark McIntyre
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
On 2006-02-22, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On 21 Feb 2006 23:12:35 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<ra*******@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
Yes, but most things you see on the web that aren't behind a credit card
login can be assumed to be free for viewing and download.
Can they? Does it say that somewhere in a legal document you have
access to? My garden furniture is in public fiew, not secured behind a
credit card login, does that mean someone can take it away? I think
there's a big assumption going on, and we all know what assumptions
make.
Your garden furniture is not on the internet, and downloading is not
"taking" - your flimsy analogy aside, there _is_ an assumption by
default that if you go to a website you're allowed to look at it, your
browser is allowed to cache it in temporary internet files, etc. There
is even, i believe, a recent court decision recognizing the lack of a
robots.txt as permission for a search engine to cache/index it and
provide excerpts in search results. [Furthermore, I don't know your
jurisdiction's laws, but in many jurisdictions people are allowed to
take photographs of your garden furniture if it's in public view]
"Al Balmer" <al******@att.net> wrote in message
news:fv********************************@4ax.com... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:48:05 -0500, "Rod Pemberton"
<do*********@sorry.bitbucket.cmm> wrote:
"...everything you see on the web is copyrighted, unless expressly
dedicatedto the public domain" is untrue. Everything that is within physical US
jurisdiction on the web is copyrighted by law. There are many places in
theworld where US laws don't apply.
True, but there are few where the Berne Convention doesn't apply. I
didn't mention US law.
You can "sign in" to libraries, e.g.,
Russian, online and access volumes of digital copyrighted material
legallyjust as if you entered the library by foot.
I don't know of any such libraries which supply general literature
(although a couple of companies including Google are running into
legal problems trying to establish one.) However, I do know that
Russia is a signatory to the Berne Convention, as well as other
copyright treaties, and also has a bilateral copyright agreement with
the US.
I presume that you are a programmer. It may well be that you will
never produce software in other than a work for hire capacity, but if
you do, it would be wise to obtain a basic knowledge of copyright law.
You're correct that I'm not a lawyer. My brother is a intellectual property
law attorney specializing in Internet law. He's worked with the state
attorney generals of a number states to draft internet related laws. He's
worked with or for Microsoft, Richard Stallman and his FSF, EPIC, ESRB and
many others. I've had numerous conversations with him on aspects of
copyright laws such as Public Domain versus "Copyleft", COPA, DMCA, 18
U.S.C. Section 2510, etc... Despite your continued insistence to the
contrary (on this and other threads), I seem to be better versed in this
area than you.
Rod Pemberton
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:49:31 -0500, "Rod Pemberton"
<do*********@sorry.bitbucket.cmm> wrote:
You're correct that I'm not a lawyer. My brother is a intellectual property
law attorney specializing in Internet law. He's worked with the state
attorney generals of a number states to draft internet related laws. He's
worked with or for Microsoft, Richard Stallman and his FSF, EPIC, ESRB and
many others. I've had numerous conversations with him on aspects of
copyright laws such as Public Domain versus "Copyleft", COPA, DMCA, 18
U.S.C. Section 2510, etc... Despite your continued insistence to the
contrary (on this and other threads), I seem to be better versed in this
area than you.
Then you have no excuse whatsoever for spouting nonsense on the
subject.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
On 2006-02-21, Rod Pemberton <do*********@sorry.bitbucket.cmm> wrote: Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios
"...use of a copyrighted work is noncommercial, defeating a fair use defense
requires 'proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it
should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for
the copyrighted work.'"
Fair use is rather more complicated than this snippit would imply. First,
fiar use is an affirmative defense. I don't have to defeat a fair use
defense if fair use isn't established in the first place. See 17 USC 107
for a statutory list of factors to be considered in determining fair use.
I think you've misquoted Sony as well...
"Thus, although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively
an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of
the copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter. A challenge to a
noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the
particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would
adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present
harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder
with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with
certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a
preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm
exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be
presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be
demonstrated." 464 US 417 at 451.
This isn't "defeating a fair use defense", it's challenging a non-commercial
use.
Sony isn't really about fair use anyway. It's about whether a product
that has significant non-infringing uses still infringes if it can be
used to infringe.
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co
"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors,
but 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' . . . To this end,
copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but
encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by
a work."
Also not a fair use case. Feist is about copyright of underlying facts
in a database.
See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 US 569 (1994) for a Supreme
Court decision about fair use. This is 10 years after Sony, and perhaps
significantly, after the US joined the Berne Convention.
If anyone cares, here's the statute. Go read the cases for explaination.
17 USC 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair
use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use
if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Talk to a lawyer licensed in your
jurisdiction if you think any of this may become directly relevant to you.
ObCaveat: I am half-way through law school, am concentrating on intellectual
property, and am currently writing my note on copyright ownership of
open-source software.
--
Nathan Wagner
On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book. Which aided and abetted a thief.
Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.
Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are different.
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express dedication.
Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially, depending on when it was
created. Prior to joining the Berne Convention, there were certain formalities
that had to be done in the US to obtain copyright protection in the first
place.
--
Nathan Wagner
IANAL
On 2006-02-24, Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> wrote: On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book.
Which aided and abetted a thief.
Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.
Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are different.
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express dedication.
That's hardly reasonable, though, for a book titled "Expert C
Programming" - Such a discipline has not existed at all, let alone
existed for long enough that there are people who can be called
"experts", long enough for any work about it to have had its copyright
expired.
Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially, depending on
when it was created. Prior to joining the Berne Convention, there
were certain formalities that had to be done in the US to obtain
copyright protection in the first place.
Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> writes: On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book.
Which aided and abetted a thief.
Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.
Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are
different.
A valid point. But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express
dedication. Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially,
depending on when it was created. Prior to joining the Berne
Convention, there were certain formalities that had to be done in
the US to obtain copyright protection in the first place.
True in general, but not in this specific case. The book in question,
_Expert C Programming_ by Peter van der Linden, was published in 1994.
It's vanishingly unlikely that the PDF copy was anything other than
copyright infringement.
I've already informed the publisher, so we needn't worry about it here
(we could even talk about C if we wanted to).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:30:15 +0000 (UTC), Nathan Wagner
<nw@hydaspes.if.org> wrote: On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book.
Which aided and abetted a thief.
Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.
Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are different.
True, in your world. In my layman's world, "theft of intellectual
property" is a commonly used phrase, whether or not accurate in the
legal sense. But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express dedication.
I should not have used absolutes here. But we are not talking about
archives of general works, such as the Gutenberg collection, we're
talking about technical works with current applicability and
usefulness, which are pretty much guaranteed to be post-Berne and have
decades to go before expiration.
Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially, depending on when it was
created. Prior to joining the Berne Convention, there were certain formalities
that had to be done in the US to obtain copyright protection in the first
place.
Yes. Even now, enforcing a copyright and being compensated for
infringement is easier if notice is given and the copyright is
registered.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Nathan Wagner wrote: On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book.
Which aided and abetted a thief.
Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.
Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are different.
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express dedication.
Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially, depending on when it was
created. Prior to joining the Berne Convention, there were certain formalities
that had to be done in the US to obtain copyright protection in the first
place.
NAIAL (Nor am I a lawyer)
Copyright protection is afforded to authors more or less automatically.
In most cases the author only declares the copyright. It is not 'applied
for' and then 'granted' by any agency.
--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
Nathan Wagner wrote: On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably)
copyrighted book.
Which aided and abetted a thief.
Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're
looking for. Or should be looking for at any rate.
Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that
are different.
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on
the web is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public
domain.
Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express
dedication. Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially,
depending on when it was created. Prior to joining the Berne
Convention, there were certain formalities that had to be done in
the US to obtain copyright protection in the first place.
Is there no provision to the general effect that, by default,
publishing something in a public place releases any copyright to
that material? As far as I am concerned ANYTHING written in a
newsgroup is automatically public, and public domain, barring only
use of otherwise copyrighted material.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst- u@mib.org> writes Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> writes: On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably) copyrighted book.
Which aided and abetted a thief.
Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're looking
for. Or should be looking for at any rate.
Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that are
different.
A valid point.
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on the web
is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public domain.
Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express
dedication. Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially,
depending on when it was created.
Most work is automatically copyrighted by default as it is written in
most areas where there is copyright law.
Prior to joining the Berne Convention, there were certain formalities that had to be done in
the US to obtain copyright protection in the first place.
True in general, but not in this specific case. The book in question,
_Expert C Programming_ by Peter van der Linden, was published in 1994.
It's vanishingly unlikely that the PDF copy was anything other than
copyright infringement.
I've already informed the publisher, so we needn't worry about it here
(we could even talk about C if we wanted to).
C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
In article <43***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.com> writes Nathan Wagner wrote: On 2006-02-21, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
[snip exchange about downloading a PDF of a (presumably)
copyrighted book.
Which aided and abetted a thief.
Theft is a different offense. "infringer" is the word you're
looking for. Or should be looking for at any rate.
Calling copyright infringement "theft" confuses two issues that
are different.
But you have the time and inclination to find illegal copies for
someone else? How public spirited. FYI, everything you see on
the web is copyrighted, unless expressly dedicated to the public
domain.
Almost true. The copyright may have expired even without express
dedication. Also, the work may not have had a copyright initially,
depending on when it was created. Prior to joining the Berne
Convention, there were certain formalities that had to be done in
the US to obtain copyright protection in the first place.
Is there no provision to the general effect that, by default,
publishing something in a public place releases any copyright to
that material?
Not at all. In fact the exact opposite! Every book and newspaper and web
site is "published" however it is ALL AUTOMATICALLY copyright (where the
copyright law applies) this includes NG's. This is why there is the GNU
GPL and "Copy Left " statements on the open source software removing
some of the copy right restrictions that AUTOMATICALLY apply to anything
published,
As far as I am concerned ANYTHING written in a
newsgroup is automatically public,
Correct (and automatically copyright)
and public domain,
Correct (and automatically copyright)
barring only
use of otherwise copyrighted material.
Incorrect. (IANAL)
ALL material posted here is AUTOMATICALLY copyright of the author
(assuming the NG server it is first published on us covered by a country
in the Berne convention). It is in the public domain and copyright.
Being in the public domain is the reason for having copyright. This is
how books, web sites, technical papers etc are protected in the public
domain. they are copy right. That is the whole point of it.
If it was private and not published copyright would not be an issue.
Copyright only works on published items.
If you write something in 2000 but keep it private and I write and
publish something virtually identical in 2005 I have the copyright. The
way round this is you post it you yourself (or a solicitor etc.) in a
sealed envelope and get it signed for etc.
Publishing or communicating it to another is part of the copyright
process.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
I wasn't going to post again on this topic, but the following is flat
out wrong on some points, and is a grand-child of one of my posts,
so I felt the need to correct.
The poster appears to be from Britain, and I will be discussing US copyright
law. Both are Berne Convention countries. It is conceivable that some
of what I will take issue with would be correct in Britain, but I doubt
it. If anyone is really, really interested, send me an email and I'll
see what I can find out about British law.
On 2006-02-25, Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote: In article <43***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.com> writes
Not at all. In fact the exact opposite! Every book and newspaper and web site
is "published" however it is ALL AUTOMATICALLY copyright (where the copyright
law applies) this includes NG's.
I'm not sure if a web site is "published" or not. However, it doesn't matter.
Being published is not a requirement for copyright.
This is why there is the GNU GPL and "Copy Left " statements on the open
source software removing some of the copy right restrictions that
AUTOMATICALLY apply to anything published,
No. Copyright applies to a work fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It
inheres as soon as the work is fixed.
A quick glance of the British Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988
doesn't appear to have the same language, but section 154(4)(a) refers to
unpublished works, and is similar in effect, referring to the time that the
work was made.
As far as I am concerned ANYTHING written in a newsgroup is automatically
public,
Correct (and automatically copyright)
Correct perhaps, but not relevant to the copyright.
and public domain,
Correct (and automatically copyright)
Manifestly and absolutely incorrect. "public domain" and "copyrighted" are
antonyms. If something is copyrighted, it is not in the public domain. If
something is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted. It cannot be both.
barring only use of otherwise copyrighted material.
Incorrect. (IANAL)
Probably correct. I can think of several likely defenses to an infringement
suit based on copying a newsgroup posting.
ALL material posted here is AUTOMATICALLY copyright of the author (assuming
the NG server it is first published on us covered by a country in the Berne
convention).
Probably true. There is enough caselaw that posting to a newsgroup almost
certainly qualifies as having been fixed in a tangible medium of expression.
It is in the public domain and copyright.
This sentence is an oxymoron. It can't be both.
Being in the public domain is the reason for having copyright.
Not in the US. Here the reason for having copyright is "To promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts" Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the
Constitution.
In Britain the original purpose was to protect publishers under the statute of
Anne. The purpose has changed since then.
This is how books, web sites, technical papers etc are protected in the
public domain. they are copy right.
This is just so wrong. How they are protected is by reserving certain rights
to copyright holders by statute.
If it was private and not published copyright would not be an issue.
Copyright only works on published items.
Not in the US and not in Britain either. My guess is not in any Berne
Convention country as well, but I haven't read it recently.
Being "published" is not necessary for copyright protection.
If you write something in 2000 but keep it private and I write and publish
something virtually identical in 2005 I have the copyright.
True. You have the copyright to yours, and I have the copyright to mine. They
are both copyrighted by their respective authors. Copyright protects
*copying*. No copying, no infringement.
The way round this is you post it you yourself (or a solicitor etc.) in a
sealed envelope and get it signed for etc.
I'm not going to chase down British case law, but in the US, this is garbage.
You might be able to use this as evidence, but it has no direct legal
significance.
Publishing or communicating it to another is part of the copyright process.
No. Not at all.
Please read up on copyright law before you post about it. Repeating rumors and
urban legends that you heard somewhere doesn't help anyone.
I'm almost certainly skirting the line of topicality on the wrong side. I
appologize for that. Despite having been posting to usenet since 1992, I'm not
entirely sure if ettiquette allows me to post off-topic corrections to a
grand-child of one of my posts. Given how terribly wrong the information in
the post was, and its conceivable legal significance to ownership of posts to
the group or code written, I thought it would be a greater dis-service to allow
it to stand un-corrected.
--
Nathan Wagner
Still not a lawyer. Find one if any of this seems like it would directly
affect you.
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes: In article <43***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.com> writes
[...] As far as I am concerned ANYTHING written in a
newsgroup is automatically public,
Correct (and automatically copyright)
and public domain,
Correct (and automatically copyright)
barring only
use of otherwise copyrighted material.
Incorrect. (IANAL)
ALL material posted here is AUTOMATICALLY copyright of the author
(assuming the NG server it is first published on us covered by a country
in the Berne convention). It is in the public domain and copyright.
Being in the public domain is the reason for having copyright. This is
how books, web sites, technical papers etc are protected in the public
domain. they are copy right. That is the whole point of it.
Chris, I think you've got the terminology wrong here.
My understanding (IANAL) is that the term "public domain"
refers specifically and only to any materials *not* covered by
copyright. It applies only to materials on which the copyright
has expired and materials that have been *explicitly* released to
the public domain by their authors. Examples of public domain
works are the plays of Shakespeare and Doug Gwyn's q8 library
<http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/q8/>, and CBFalconer's ggets.
Most free software is *not* public domain.
Let me emphasize again that I am not a lawyer. Nobody reading this
should assume, without further research, that I'm right and Chris is
wrong.
The misc.int-property newsgroup would probably be a better place for
this discussion.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
"Nathan Wagner" <nw@hydaspes.if.org> wrote in message
news:sl***************@granicus.if.org... I wasn't going to post again on this topic, but the following is flat
out wrong on some points, and is a grand-child of one of my posts,
so I felt the need to correct.
The poster appears to be from Britain, and I will be discussing US
copyright law. Both are Berne Convention countries. It is conceivable that some
of what I will take issue with would be correct in Britain, but I doubt
it. If anyone is really, really interested, send me an email and I'll
see what I can find out about British law.
On 2006-02-25, Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote: In article <43***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.com> writes Not at all. In fact the exact opposite! Every book and newspaper and web
site is "published" however it is ALL AUTOMATICALLY copyright (where the
copyright law applies) this includes NG's.
I'm not sure if a web site is "published" or not. However, it doesn't
matter. Being published is not a requirement for copyright.
This is why there is the GNU GPL and "Copy Left " statements on the open
source software removing some of the copy right restrictions that
AUTOMATICALLY apply to anything published,
No. Copyright applies to a work fixed in a tangible medium of expression.
It inheres as soon as the work is fixed.
A quick glance of the British Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988
doesn't appear to have the same language, but section 154(4)(a) refers to
unpublished works, and is similar in effect, referring to the time that
the work was made.
As far as I am concerned ANYTHING written in a newsgroup is
automatically public,
Correct (and automatically copyright)
Correct perhaps, but not relevant to the copyright.
and public domain,
Correct (and automatically copyright)
Manifestly and absolutely incorrect. "public domain" and "copyrighted"
are antonyms. If something is copyrighted, it is not in the public domain.
If something is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted. It cannot be
both.
No. A copyright is a right of property. So, it must be owned and
transfered, under my understanding of US law (from my IP attorney brother).
For "public domain", the copyright is owned by the "public domain." This
ownership can be granted by the original copyright holder or the work can
transfered to the "public domain" by law, such as at the end of a copyright.
barring only use of otherwise copyrighted material.
Incorrect. (IANAL)
Probably correct. I can think of several likely defenses to an
infringement suit based on copying a newsgroup posting.
ALL material posted here is AUTOMATICALLY copyright of the author
(assuming the NG server it is first published on us covered by a country in the
Berne convention).
Probably true. There is enough caselaw that posting to a newsgroup almost
certainly qualifies as having been fixed in a tangible medium of
expression. It is in the public domain and copyright.
This sentence is an oxymoron. It can't be both.
No. "public domain" works are copyrighted but owned by the "public domain."
(see above)
Being in the public domain is the reason for having copyright.
Not in the US. Here the reason for having copyright is "To promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts" Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of
the Constitution.
In Britain the original purpose was to protect publishers under the
statute of Anne. The purpose has changed since then.
This is how books, web sites, technical papers etc are protected in the
public domain. they are copy right.
This is just so wrong. How they are protected is by reserving certain
rights to copyright holders by statute.
If it was private and not published copyright would not be an issue.
Copyright only works on published items.
Not in the US and not in Britain either. My guess is not in any Berne
Convention country as well, but I haven't read it recently.
Being "published" is not necessary for copyright protection.
If you write something in 2000 but keep it private and I write and
publish something virtually identical in 2005 I have the copyright.
True. You have the copyright to yours, and I have the copyright to mine.
They are both copyrighted by their respective authors. Copyright protects
*copying*. No copying, no infringement.
The way round this is you post it you yourself (or a solicitor etc.) in
a sealed envelope and get it signed for etc.
I'm not going to chase down British case law, but in the US, this is
garbage. You might be able to use this as evidence, but it has no direct legal
significance.
Publishing or communicating it to another is part of the copyright
process.
No. Not at all.
Please read up on copyright law before you post about it. Repeating
rumors and urban legends that you heard somewhere doesn't help anyone.
Comments above.
Rod Pemberton
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:00:23 -0500, "Rod Pemberton"
<do*********@sorry.bitbucket.cmm> wrote: something is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted. It cannot be
both.
No. A copyright is a right of property. So, it must be owned and
transfered, under my understanding of US law (from my IP attorney brother).
For "public domain", the copyright is owned by the "public domain." This
ownership can be granted by the original copyright holder or the work can
transfered to the "public domain" by law, such as at the end of a copyright.
Nathan is correct. A work is public domain iff the copyright no longer
exists, either by expiration or renunciation by the copyright holder.
There is no transfer of ownership (usually called assignment of
copyright) to some entity known as "the public domain." What would be
the point?
There is another meaning of "public domain" which applies to real
property owned by governments.
Here's an interesting summary of some modern copyright issues: http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/classes/cmpe.../Copyright.pdf
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
On 2006-02-27, Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote: On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:00:23 -0500, "Rod Pemberton"
<do*********@sorry.bitbucket.cmm> wrote:
something is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted. It cannot be
both.
No. A copyright is a right of property. So, it must be owned and
transfered, under my understanding of US law (from my IP attorney brother).
For "public domain", the copyright is owned by the "public domain." This
ownership can be granted by the original copyright holder or the work can
transfered to the "public domain" by law, such as at the end of a copyright.
Nathan is correct. A work is public domain iff the copyright no longer
exists, either by expiration or renunciation by the copyright holder.
There is no transfer of ownership (usually called assignment of
copyright) to some entity known as "the public domain." What would be
the point?
There is another meaning of "public domain" which applies to real
property owned by governments.
Here's an interesting summary of some modern copyright issues:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/classes/cmpe.../Copyright.pdf
Al, I would be grateful if you could reply to your own post and remind
yourself that this is *painfully* off topic and that "the folks" in
"*.legal" would be far more interested in this.
--
Remove evomer to reply
On 27 Feb 2006 16:54:58 GMT, "Richard G. Riley" <rg****@gmail.com>
wrote:
Al, I would be grateful if you could reply to your own post and remind
yourself that this is *painfully* off topic and that "the folks" in
"*.legal" would be far more interested in this.
I did that already, a couple of days ago. Didn't work.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Keith Thompson wrote: "mai" <ma***********@yahoo.com> writes: wherefrom can I download it?
Please include your entire question in the body of your message; not
all newsreaders display the subject header in a convenient manner.
Sorry for non including my entire question in the bgody of my
message, I'll doo it next time.
There is a published book by Peter van der Linden called _Expert C
Programming_. As far as I know, it's available only on paper. If
there are soft copies available, they're probably illegal.
I haven't knew that there is only published version of this book.
but i know other : I'm from Croatia (if u know where it is and whats
economic situation in it), I'm student and even if there is published
this book at my place I will probably go for borow it if I can and do a
copy of it--- it's much cheaper (around 75%) than buying a new book.
I'm at universitiy that I dont pay (it's payed by my country) and I
have to have books to study from. How i get to that books my profesors
dont care they only care that i have to know what they ask on exam.
Eg. at my first year there was a subject named programming where we
have studied whole basic of cbrom beginning a program, input, outputand
at the end working with files (open, close, sort- basics). At he second
year theres a subject named algorithms and structures of data where we
study funstions that are calling themselves, stacks, sorts, lists and
every operation with them.
At my language theres no any good book about it so i ask u how to study
that and be good in that if u don't have money for buying books?
And belive me I wont do this if i have other choice.
If you want to read it, show some respect for the author; buy or
borrow a copy or check it out of a library.
mai wrote
(in article <dt**********@bagan.srce.hr>): wherefrom can I download it?
You can buy it from a bookstore.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Chris Hills wrote
(in article <W2**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>): C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Randy Howard wrote: Chris Hills wrote
(in article <W2**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>):
C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...
I always loved the one where they tie them, throw them into the river,
and if they sink they're witches. Ttakes a bit of time to dry them
before burning, and they're quite dead already, but apart from that,
great fun. ;-)
--
BR, Vladimir
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
-- Vroomfondel
On 2006-03-05, Randy Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote: Chris Hills wrote
(in article <W2**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>):
C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...
Hmmm . . . I think any discussions of burning ducks should be referred
to comp.lang.python.
"Vladimir S. Oka" wrote: Randy Howard wrote: Chris Hills wrote
C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...
I always loved the one where they tie them, throw them into the
river, and if they sink they're witches. Ttakes a bit of time
to dry them before burning, and they're quite dead already, but
apart from that, great fun. ;-)
You have it backwards. If they drown, they weren't witches. If
they survive, they used the witchly powers, thus are obviously
witches, and require burning. This achieves the goal of burning
all witches. QED.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>
CBFalconer wrote: "Vladimir S. Oka" wrote:
Randy Howard wrote:
Chris Hills wrote
C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...
I always loved the one where they tie them, throw them into the
river, and if they sink they're witches. Ttakes a bit of time
to dry them before burning, and they're quite dead already, but
apart from that, great fun. ;-)
You have it backwards. If they drown, they weren't witches. If
they survive, they used the witchly powers, thus are obviously
witches, and require burning. This achieves the goal of burning
all witches. QED.
Yes, and has the advantage of getting rid of the annoying people whether
witches or not. Do they still do that in Salem?
--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
CBFalconer wrote: "Vladimir S. Oka" wrote: Randy Howard wrote: Chris Hills wrote
C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...
I always loved the one where they tie them, throw them into the
river, and if they sink they're witches. Ttakes a bit of time
to dry them before burning, and they're quite dead already, but
apart from that, great fun. ;-)
You have it backwards. If they drown, they weren't witches. If
they survive, they used the witchly powers, thus are obviously
witches, and require burning. This achieves the goal of burning
all witches. QED.
No no no. The reason witches float is that they're made of wood.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell ( http://catandgirl.com)
Default User wrote: CBFalconer wrote:
"Vladimir S. Oka" wrote: > Randy Howard wrote:
>> Chris Hills wrote
> >
>>> C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
> >
>> There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...
>
> I always loved the one where they tie them, throw them into the
> river, and if they sink they're witches. Ttakes a bit of time
> to dry them before burning, and they're quite dead already, but
> apart from that, great fun. ;-)
You have it backwards. If they drown, they weren't witches. If
they survive, they used the witchly powers, thus are obviously
witches, and require burning. This achieves the goal of burning
all witches. QED.
No no no. The reason witches float is that they're made of wood.
Yes yes yes! And that's also why they weigh less than ducks! ;-)
--
BR, Vladimir
If you don't do the things that are not worth doing, who will?
Vladimir S. Oka wrote:
Default User wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
"Vladimir S. Oka" wrote:
> Randy Howard wrote:
>> Chris Hills wrote
> >
>>> C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
> >
>> There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...
>
> I always loved the one where they tie them, throw them into the
> river, and if they sink they're witches. Ttakes a bit of time
> to dry them before burning, and they're quite dead already, but
> apart from that, great fun. ;-)
You have it backwards. If they drown, they weren't witches. If
they survive, they used the witchly powers, thus are obviously
witches, and require burning. This achieves the goal of burning
all witches. QED.
No no no. The reason witches float is that they're made of wood.
Yes yes yes! And that's also why they weigh less than ducks! ;-)
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
--
pete
In article <7d********************@comcast.com>, Charles Krug
<cd****@aol.com> writes On 2006-03-05, Randy Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote: Chris Hills wrote
(in article <W2**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>):
C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...
Hmmm . . . I think any discussions of burning ducks should be referred
to comp.lang.python.
Python? Here? HERETIC!!! Burn him..... :-)
There we go again :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
pete wrote
(in article <44**********@mindspring.com>): Vladimir S. Oka wrote:
Default User wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
"Vladimir S. Oka" wrote:
> Randy Howard wrote:
>> Chris Hills wrote
>>
>>> C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
>>
>> There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...
>
> I always loved the one where they tie them, throw them into the
> river, and if they sink they're witches. Ttakes a bit of time
> to dry them before burning, and they're quite dead already, but
> apart from that, great fun. ;-)
You have it backwards. If they drown, they weren't witches. If
they survive, they used the witchly powers, thus are obviously
witches, and require burning. This achieves the goal of burning
all witches. QED.
No no no. The reason witches float is that they're made of wood.
Yes yes yes! And that's also why they weigh less than ducks! ;-)
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
Don't forget very small rocks.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Randy Howard wrote: pete wrote
(in article <44**********@mindspring.com>):
Vladimir S. Oka wrote:
Default User wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
> "Vladimir S. Oka" wrote:
>> Randy Howard wrote:
>>> Chris Hills wrote
>>>
>>>> C ? here? technical discussions? HERETIC!!! Burn Him!!! :-)
>>>
>>> There are ways of telling whether he he is a witch...
>>
>> I always loved the one where they tie them, throw them into the
>> river, and if they sink they're witches. Ttakes a bit of time
>> to dry them before burning, and they're quite dead already, but
>> apart from that, great fun. ;-)
>
> You have it backwards. If they drown, they weren't witches. If
> they survive, they used the witchly powers, thus are obviously
> witches, and require burning. This achieves the goal of burning
> all witches. QED.
No no no. The reason witches float is that they're made of wood.
Yes yes yes! And that's also why they weigh less than ducks! ;-)
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
Don't forget very small rocks.
Ni!
--
BR, Vladimir
"...and scantily clad females, of course. Who cares if it's below zero
outside"
(By Linus Torvalds) This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Don Vaillancourt |
last post by:
I do a lot of hiring for my company and a lot of the people I interview
say that they are experts at SQL queries, but when I give them something
simple just beyond the typical SELECT type of...
|
by: anonymous |
last post by:
Hi CLCers,
I want to know your opinion about the book: Expert C
programming-Deep C secrets by Peter Van Der Linden. Thanks
in advance.
Sha
|
by: Migrators |
last post by:
Where can i find the .pdf version of the book "Expert C Programming"
by Peter Vander Tiden/Liden. Please Specify the link.
|
by: Migrators |
last post by:
I want to become an expert in C programming. Where can I find free
electronic versions (.pdf or .doc) of C materials so that I can
download it and study. Please specify the links.
|
by: aarklon |
last post by:
Hi all,
I accidentally found expert C programming by peter van der linden
here:: http://sunner.cn/courses/C/ebook/Expert.C.Programming.pdf
|
by: Daniel |
last post by:
Looking to see if anyone can offer some suggestions on some good VB.net
books?
looking for beginner to intermidiate and to expert..
Any suggestions?
--
ASP, SQL2005, DW8 VBScript
|
by: Neo Morpheous |
last post by:
Ok, first lets start with some definitions:
By "Expert", I mean someone who :
1). Is familiar with and understands the *MAJOR* concepts/philosopies
underlying C# (and possible .Net as a whole...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |
