This sounds like pseudolegal folklore (in the US at least). Do you have any actual examples where this affected a case?
In the US, you get copyright on your work automatically, with or without a label.
The only thing a label does in the US is defend against "innocent infringement" defenses. But even that defense doesn't absolve the other party from liability; you just can't recover as much.
There is no reason you can't have `(C) 200X-$currentYear Acme Inc` or whatever.
Yet your earlier comment said "200x-$currentYear" not "200x-$modifiedYear" in reply to someone automatically inserting the year. That shows a misunderstanding of copyright AND an intent to mislead when you believe others view it as last updated.
You're better off omitting it entirely in generated web pages. No one cares unless they don't understand copyright, the year shown isn't the current year, and they're already looking to find fault. In other words, for those that treat it as last updated, they must already be struggling to find value when they scroll to your copyright notice, and at that point, after feeling the page looks stale, is seeing the current year going to change their mind?
I'm not sure what the point being made here even is, beyond arguing just to argue?
It does not matter in the US whether you use the current year or last modified date. At worst, omitting a date entirely makes it easier for the other guy to claim "innocent infringement", which only reduces your damages. Show me one US court case from this century where the tail of a date range had a material affect on the outcome.
Moreover, it is an objective fact that people use the current year and the modified year in web pages being written today. And based on the comment that kicked this whole chain off, clearly people are using it as a signal of when the page was changed.
Glad I'm not the only one! I love these kinds of games; played the heck out of Turing Complete and Zachtronics' Engineer of the People... But I'd never heard of 3 state logic until today.
Really threw me for a loop! I'm still trying to wrap my head around making level 3's NOT gate.
This is such a cool idea, definitely the first 3-state circuit puzzler I've seen! Throw a cute story over it and I bet this would get some takers on Steam.
It's just HP and HPE split up. HPE took all the nice enterprise stuff, plus the supercomputing business (they own Cray). HP took the consumer stuff, and proceeded to milk as much as they could.
No, wrong decade and wrong split - the test & measurement equipment and scientific equipment was long gone from HP at the time of the HP -> HP inc + HPE split. It ended up in Agilent (1999) and from there Keysight.
HP semiconductors went HP -> Agilent -> Avago, now broadcom.
I've got two garages full of 80's and 90's HP lab equipment, and most of it even works. In that era, HP had the best hardware design/production capability in the world.
Unfortunately, in the same era, their software was almost always complete crap. I think the same rigid processes and controls that allowed them to make great hardware were the reason their software was awful. Their rigid processes made changing the software difficult, so it was harder for the devs to improve (and they usually didn't bother).
Every field and every publisher has this issue though.
I've read papers in the chemical literature that were clearly thinly veiled case studies for whatever instrument or software the authors were selling. Hell, I've read papers that had interesting results, only to dig into the math and find something fundamentally wrong. The worst was an incorrect CFD equation that I traced through a telephone game of 4 papers only to find something to the effect of "We speculate adding $term may improve accuracy, but we have not extensively tested this"
Just because something passed peer review does not make it a good paper. It just means somebody* looked at it and didn't find any obvious problems.
If you are engaged in research, or in a position where you're using the scientific literature, it is vital that you read every paper with a critical lens. Contrary to popular belief, the literature isn't a stone tablet sent from God. It's messy and filled with contradictory ideas.
Short of developing psychic abilities, how would you then address the discoverability problem without relying on a third party?
Forums, search engines, social media, and link aggregators are all third parties with their own ranking. Nobody outside of a handful of small-web hobbyists have put a "cool links" section into a website since 1997.
This is classic engineering missing the forest for the trees.
The answer to your question is: same as we always did before! Do you talk to friends? Colleagues? Family? You definitely chat with us here on HN. All of these people share things with you constantly.
There's a funny obsession in tech circles to gather all the information they can as quick as possible. I much prefer to optimize for the quality of information I'm ingesting.
> The answer to your question is: same as we always did before! Do you talk to friends? Colleagues? Family? You definitely chat with us here on HN. All of these people share things with you constantly.
So, in your opinion, we can cut out the reliance on third parties by relying on third parties?
There’s always a relationship aspect in discoverability. Unless the set is small, there will always be intermediary nodes in that graph that will connect consumers and producers. But there’s no need for it to be a mega tech company. Radio DJs help with discovering musics. Books club can help with recommending books.
Doesn't need to be, but most traffic is driven by search. I reckon 2nd most common is influencers, and I don't know if that's an upgrade (even easier to buy out).
reply