Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories!

[Michael Wojcik]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_junction_point>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_reparse_point>

Non-responsive, since neither of those address alternative filesystems.

But hey, what the hell do I know...

A better question might be "what the hell do the authors of random
Wikipedia articles know?". But in this case it's irrelevant.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

What the **** is that? Certainly not a pathname in normal Windows syntax
(that would be C:\tmp\longdir...).

It certainly is in "normal Windows syntax". Since you obviously can't
be bothered to read the Windows documentation, there's really no point
in discussing this further.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Want some examples? (Third time I’m asking this.)

My point, Lawrence, is that whether "it's a pain" is subjective. Your
declaring that it is has exactly the same argumentative force as my
declaring it is not.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Java program != Java project

I said "project" and I ment that my Java program can contain several java
projects. It's called modularity and encapsulation.

To be fair, I also often have "Java projects" that are a single
package. For example, when I write a relatively simple UIMA annotator,
it'll generally be a single package. It's part of a great honking
program made up of lots of packages, but the others are pre-existing
and not part of my "project".

So this really depends on how "project" is defined, and what the scope
of a given project is.

They can all be in the "src" directory and still keep the original package.

Clearly this will remain one of the Java religious issues.

CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Drat. I was hoping to use your post as part of my next fabulously
lucrative commercial endeavor.

JFTR, anyone reading my Usenet posts are welcome to make millions off
them. I do not even require attribution. Knock yerselves out.

 

[Zapotec]

It certainly is in "normal Windows syntax".

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with Java, Wojcik? Normal Windows syntax starts with a drive letter.
Everybody knows this, Wojcik.

Since you obviously can't be bothered to read the Windows documentation,
there's really no point in discussing this further.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with Java,
Wojcik?

 

[John Silverstein]

Drat. I was hoping to use your post as part of my next fabulously
lucrative commercial endeavor.

JFTR, anyone reading my Usenet posts are welcome to make millions off
them. I do not even require attribution. Knock yerselves out.

An interesting question arises: If someone puts that in their usenet
post, but no X-No-Archive: Yes header, and Google then shows ads
alongside it in Google Groups, can Google be sued?

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

My point, Lawrence, is that whether "it's a pain" is subjective.

Not if I can point to actual examples, that you cannot deny exist, and which
make it plain to every other reader of this thread that you are in a state
of denial.

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Non-responsive, since neither of those address alternative filesystems.

That being the point, that the features concerned are specific to NTFS, and
not available with any other filesystem under Windows.

A better question might be "what the hell do the authors of random
Wikipedia articles know?".

The fact that Wikipedia articles are subject to peer review, of course.

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

If someone puts that in their usenet
post, but no X-No-Archive: Yes header, and Google then shows ads
alongside it in Google Groups, can Google be sued?

X-No-Archive makes no difference.

 

[John Silverstein]

X-No-Archive makes no difference.

Its absence could be interpreted as granting Usenet archives an implicit
reproduction license under attribution-noderivs like terms.

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Its absence could be interpreted as granting Usenet archives an implicit
reproduction license under attribution-noderivs like terms.

Except, since it says no such thing, no.

 

[John Silverstein]

Except, since it says no such thing, no.

Wrong. It's become a norm that Usenet posts can be retained and, without
modification except to add Xref etc. headers, redistributed:

1. For a limited time (typically up to three months) by news servers, so
in practice by pretty much anybody; and
2. For an unlimited time by archives (so in practice by pretty much
anybody) unless marked X-No-Archive: Yes.

Consequently, making a Usenet post may be construed as granting an
implicit reproduction license as described, but that license can be
construed as expiring after a short time in the presence of the
X-No-Archive: Yes header, whereupon any explicit license terms would
apply, or, if none was present, the default "all rights reserved".

Of course, unless the poster registered their Usenet post with the
Copyright Office, they could not sue for damages, only for an injunction
to stop infringing uses. (They could also still use the DMCA to take
down copies on US servers.)

In practice, the poster would probably use Google's own methods to
remove their post from the archive after the fact, and this would
probably work; otherwise they'd use a DMCA takedown notice, which Google
would probably respond to; and only sue if that also failed.

However, the law does allow someone to skip straight to suing someone...

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Wrong. It's become a norm that Usenet posts can be retained and, without
modification except to add Xref etc. headers, redistributed:

Say who?