WTF or not WTF: depends on level of coder?



  • Here's the question:

    I recently re-did our company website ([url=http://chiralsoftware.com]GSA software development[/url]).  One thing that is a sure sign of a dead site is if it says "Copyright 1998-2003".  That means no one is actively maintaining the site, or the business.  Of course, our site is actively maintained, but I wanted to have an auto-updating copyright year.

    The easy-to-read way would be:

    import java.util.Date;
    import java.text.SimpleDateFormat;

    Date date = new Date();
    SimpleDateFormat sdf = new SimpleDateFormat("yyyy");
    String yearString = sdf.format(date);
    out.print(yearString);

    (In reality, in a JSP file, the import statements would have to be in the proper JSP format).

    Instead, I did:

    <p class="copyright">&copy; 2003-<%= (new java.text.SimpleDateFormat("yyyy")).format(new java.util.Date()) %>,
    Chiral Software, Inc. All rights reserved.</p>

    The point of my post is this: To an experienced programmer, especially one who knows lisp, the above is quite clear and concise.  To an inexperienced programmer, the above is hard to figure out.

    C has a reputation for having tons of constructions like this, that may appear to be gibberish to beginnng or intermediate programmers, but may actually be sane for advanced programmers.  Java has no preprocessor so there's less room for insanity.  But still, there are constructions like anon inner classes, which experienced programmers use routinely, because they are the sanest and clearest way to express many things, but which are intimidating or incomprehensible to newer programmers.

    I notice that in some of the stories here on WorseThanFailure, there are some posts that most people say, "that's horrible, that's crazy, I have no idea what it does", and then some other people chime and say, "that's the best way to do that, and it's a standard idiom."  For example there was one where there was a hideous nested REPLACE statement in SQL.  Well, it's hideous but it is / was a standard idiom for doing what it was trying to do...



  • The real WTF here is that you're wasting time over one of those silly "copyright year" things. You do realise that they are pure masturbation and don't mean anything?



  • What do you mean?  This is a business and I don't want people ripping parts of my site and posting them as their own content.  I'm about to start posting some articles on web software over there and I certainly woudln't want those reposted without my permission.

    Note that I'm not greedy about copyright.  We have a [url=http://chiralsoftware.com/downloads.jsp]downloads[/url] section which includes software we created and released in the public domain, so it free for anyone to use, in commercial or non-commercial products, open source or closed source, etc.  But some things, like our website materials, are purely commercial in nature and should not be copied.



  • @JavaCoder said:

    What do you mean? This is a business and I don't want people ripping parts of my site and posting them as their own content. I'm about to start posting some articles on web software over there and I certainly woudln't want those reposted without my permission.

    Note that I'm not greedy about copyright. We have a [url=http://chiralsoftware.com/downloads.jsp]downloads[/url] section which includes software we created and released in the public domain, so it free for anyone to use, in commercial or non-commercial products, open source or closed source, etc. But some things, like our website materials, are purely commercial in nature and should not be copied.

    In no way does including the number of the current year, or any year at all, have anything to do with this - and it never has. Even including the word "copyright" on the page has not had anything to do with this since 1989 (and before that, only the US had that bizarre requirement).

    When you see large corporations doing this, it is because of masturbation on the part of their legal department who felt a need to justify their budget by running around and sticking pointless labels on things (probably because they didn't have any real work to do that day). What's your excuse?



  • @JavaCoder said:

    Here's the question:

    I recently re-did our company website ([url=http://chiralsoftware.com]GSA software development[/url]). One thing that is a sure sign of a dead site is if it says "Copyright 1998-2003". That means no one is actively maintaining the site, or the business. Of course, our site is actively maintained, but I wanted to have an auto-updating copyright year.
    ....

    ....

     

    It's fine, i haven't done Java since school, and i instantly understand what is being done, because the classpath is rather descriptive about it's function.

     

    About the "you don't need to include copyright" argument. Who cares if it's needed or not. 80% of the websites have it, so your website also needs one.
    If it is really needed doesn't matter, but people expect to see it. consious or not.

    The bigger WTF is the design of your page, please help yourself and look around for a good designer and ask him to make a website design.
    Currently i wouldn't hire your company, purely because your website looks like shit. It simply doesn't look proffesional.

    Also remove that flag, if i wanted to know in what country your company was based i would look at the contact details.
    If that flag is your company logo, ask that designer to make you a new one. 

     

    http://chiralsoftware.com/colophon.jsp

    Please remove the redundant drivel here.
    The only one who cares about how you built your site are webdevelopers, and as a webdeveloper i'm currently not impressed seing as your site looks like ... wel let's just say it looks bad. 

     

    sorry to be so negative, but it's just that bad. 



  • IMO it would be better to write

     <p class="copyright">&copy; 2003-<%= (getCurrentYear()) %>,
    Chiral Software, Inc. All rights reserved.</p>

    and a method

    String getCurrentYear() {
      return new java.text.SimpleDateFormat("yyyy")).format(new java.util.Date();
    }

    This would be shorter than the (IMO unnecessarily long) version with lots of temporary variables, while it's still easy to read - you know what to expect and I simply trust you that new java.text.SimpleDateFormat("yyyy")).format(new java.util.Date() really does what it is expected to do.
     



  • @stratos said:

    About the "you don't need to include copyright" argument. Who cares if it's needed or not. 80% of the websites have it, so your website also needs one.
    If it is really needed doesn't matter, but people expect to see it. consious or not.

    Exactly.  People also expect a privacy policy so I need to put one in there too.

    And now on to the rest of your superbly blunt post...

    @stratos said:

    The bigger WTF is the design of your page, please help yourself and look around for a good designer and ask him to make a website design.
    Currently i wouldn't hire your company, purely because your website looks like shit. It simply doesn't look proffesional.


    Ok, I need to get a web designer.  The scary thing is it's a big improvement over what was there before.  But you're right, we need a designer.

    If that flag is your company logo, ask that designer to make you a new one.


    Will do.

     

    http://chiralsoftware.com/colophon.jsp

    Please remove the redundant drivel here.


    Done.
    The only one who cares about how you built your site are webdevelopers, and as a webdeveloper i'm currently not impressed seing as your site looks like ... wel let's just say it looks bad. 

     sorry to be so negative, but it's just that bad.



    Bluntness is good.  Thanks for the comments.

    The current site is a lot better than what was before but it still needs a lot of help.



  • @stratos said:


    About the "you don't need to include copyright" argument. Who cares if it's needed or not. 80% of the websites have it, so your website also needs one.
    If it is really needed doesn't matter, but people expect to see it. consious or not.

    No, they really don't. You're making that up - and I'm pretty sure you made up that 80% figure too.

    For example, there is no pointless copyright label on this page, and yet you haven't started frothing at the mouth and turning into a werewolf, so far as I can tell (or whatever it is that you thought people would do).



  • @asuffield said:

    @stratos said:

    About the "you don't need to include copyright" argument. Who cares if it's needed or not. 80% of the websites have it, so your website also needs one.
    If it is really needed doesn't matter, but people expect to see it. consious or not.

    No, they really don't. You're making that up - and I'm pretty sure you made up that 80% figure too.

    For example, there is no pointless copyright label on this page, and yet you haven't started frothing at the mouth and turning into a werewolf, so far as I can tell (or whatever it is that you thought people would do).

    Damnit you caught me; Yes i confess i made it up.

    but if google, microsoft, intel, amd, ebay,  amazon,  groklaw, www.mkiplaw.com and yes worsethanfailure.com put them on there site.
    Then why not.

    It's not needed, well perhaps not, but who cares.

    However with a little googling on the subject, i found this page:
    http://www.xmlplease.com/copyright 

    Dunno if it's true or not, but it sounded reasonable.

     



  • It's a strange coincidence, but reading all these responses makes me think of this week's "Car Talk" program on NPR.  Click and Clack talked about their father, who prided himself on knowing how to get anywhere.

    One of the family members had a job interview coming up, I forget exactly where but let's say Linwood, MA.  He asked the father if he knew how to get to Linwood.

     "Of course I know how to get to Linwood!"

    Pause, while Dad thought for a while.  Finally:

    "Why the hell would you want to go to Linwood?"

    "I've got a job interview and I think this job would be a good match."

    "Aren't there any jobs not so far away that you can get?"

    etc.

     



  • @newfweiler said:

    It's a strange coincidence, but reading all these responses makes me think of this week's "Car Talk" program on NPR.  Click and Clack talked about their father, who prided himself on knowing how to get anywhere.

    One of the family members had a job interview coming up, I forget exactly where but let's say Linwood, MA.  He asked the father if he knew how to get to Linwood.

     "Of course I know how to get to Linwood!"

    Pause, while Dad thought for a while.  Finally:

    "Why the hell would you want to go to Linwood?"

    "I've got a job interview and I think this job would be a good match."

    "Aren't there any jobs not so far away that you can get?"

    etc.

     you beter be carefull before even godwin's law get's involved ;)

    but anyhow to get back on topic, WHO would want to work in Linwood? 



  • argh because of time limit i couldn't edit my post anymore.

    Anyhow for some reason or another i felt "creative" shudder and fear

    and decided that instead of bitching i could also try and come up with something a bit nicer.

    So low and behold, this is wat to much coffee, absolutely no artistic/design sense and about a hour buys you.

    And here's a normal size version 

    If you want i can mail you the xcf gimp file. 

     

    my own comment on it, is that it's very .... green.



  • @stratos said:

    but if google, microsoft, intel, amd, ebay,  amazon,  groklaw, www.mkiplaw.com and yes worsethanfailure.com put them on there site.
    Then why not.

    "But mum, everybody else was doing it!"

    Didn't anybody ever tell you what's wrong with that? Besides, most of those are large corporations, and I already pointed out why they do it - their legal departments like to make themselves look busy, and they don't always have anything useful to do. 

     

    However with a little googling on the subject, i found this page:
    http://www.xmlplease.com/copyright 

    Dunno if it's true or not, but it sounded reasonable.

    It's mostly wrong (the only bits I noticed that were correct were the parts about useless copyright notices being a bad idea, and there being nothing wrong with "deep linking"). 



  • @JavaCoder said:

    Here's the question:

    I recently re-did our company website ([url=http://chiralsoftware.com]GSA software development[/url]). One thing that is a sure sign of a dead site is if it says "Copyright 1998-2003". That means no one is actively maintaining the site, or the business. Of course, our site is actively maintained, but I wanted to have an auto-updating copyright year.

     For a better solution to this "problem", why not include in a footer on each page the last-changed date of the file?



  • Stratos, wow, I am blown away!  Thank you!

    I'm going to show this to a designer and figure out what to do.  For now I'm making a for more changes:  First, I created mobile versions of the site: [url=http://chiralsoftware.com/mobile]mobile XHTML[/url] and old-fashioned [url=http://chiralsoftware.com/wml]WML[/url] (note: those two links will not work unless you have a browser capable of displaying mobile content, such as Opera).  Next I need to do the site map.  I'll also be adding mobile device auto detection, so mobile browsers will be sent to the correct page automatically, just by going to the main URL (chiralsoftware.com).  After all this is in place, I'll take your design and show the whole thing to some designers to figure out what to do.

    I'm trying to avoid any use of JavaScript for navigation, and no use of nested tables or frames for layout.  I like pages that load fast, and I want to keep this site fast-loading.  Even the non-mobile version of it works pretty well on some of the mobile devices I tried, because it uses proper CSS layout and no JavaScript.



  • @asuffield said:

    @JavaCoder said:

    What do you mean? This is a business and I don't want people ripping parts of my site and posting them as their own content. I'm about to start posting some articles on web software over there and I certainly woudln't want those reposted without my permission.

    Note that I'm not greedy about copyright. We have a [url=http://chiralsoftware.com/downloads.jsp]downloads[/url] section which includes software we created and released in the public domain, so it free for anyone to use, in commercial or non-commercial products, open source or closed source, etc. But some things, like our website materials, are purely commercial in nature and should not be copied.

    In no way does including the number of the current year, or any year at all, have anything to do with this - and it never has. Even including the word "copyright" on the page has not had anything to do with this since 1989 (and before that, only the US had that bizarre requirement).

    When you see large corporations doing this, it is because of masturbation on the part of their legal department who felt a need to justify their budget by running around and sticking pointless labels on things (probably because they didn't have any real work to do that day). What's your excuse?

    It's true that you don't NEED a copyright notice, but it can help in court.  I quote from the US Copyright Office:

    Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that
    the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and
    shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a
    work is infringed, if the work carries a proper notice, the court will
    not give any weight to a defendant’s interposition of an innocent
    infringement defense—that is, that he or she did not realize that the
    work was protected. An innocent infringement defense may result in a
    reduction in damages that the copyright owner would otherwise receive.
     



  • @bstorer said:

    It's true that you don't NEED a copyright notice, but it can help in court.  I quote from the US Copyright Office:

    Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that
    the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and
    shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a
    work is infringed, if the work carries a proper notice, the court will
    not give any weight to a defendant’s interposition of an innocent
    infringement defense—that is, that he or she did not realize that the
    work was protected. An innocent infringement defense may result in a
    reduction in damages that the copyright owner would otherwise receive.
     

    This is specifically tied to one thing in US law: registration of the copyright with the copyright office. If you haven't registered your copyright at the time when the work was first created, you're not eligible for any statutory damages, only "actual damages" (so you'll have to prove specific instances, not general ones, in which the defendant has profited at your expense, and you'll get damages to the exact amount of that proven profit/expense - actual damages are not normally increased or reduced, for obvious reasons). Realistically, this is only relevant to legal battles between large corporations, and even then, very few judges are going to buy into the "I didn't realise that this work was copyrighted" defence, because the law is that every creative work is copyrighted if it's in one of the relevant classes, and all parties are always assumed to have been operating from full knowledge of the law - "ignorance of the law is not a defence".

    The advice in this text appears to be historical, from 1989 when US copyright law transitioned from its own bizarre version to the model used by the rest of the world.



  • @asuffield said:

    @bstorer said:

    It's true that you don't NEED a copyright notice, but it can help in court.  I quote from the US Copyright Office:

    Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that
    the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and
    shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a
    work is infringed, if the work carries a proper notice, the court will
    not give any weight to a defendant’s interposition of an innocent
    infringement defense—that is, that he or she did not realize that the
    work was protected. An innocent infringement defense may result in a
    reduction in damages that the copyright owner would otherwise receive.
     

    This is specifically tied to one thing in US law: registration of the copyright with the copyright office. If you haven't registered your copyright at the time when the work was first created, you're not eligible for any statutory damages, only "actual damages" (so you'll have to prove specific instances, not general ones, in which the defendant has profited at your expense, and you'll get damages to the exact amount of that proven profit/expense - actual damages are not normally increased or reduced, for obvious reasons). Realistically, this is only relevant to legal battles between large corporations, and even then, very few judges are going to buy into the "I didn't realise that this work was copyrighted" defence, because the law is that every creative work is copyrighted if it's in one of the relevant classes, and all parties are always assumed to have been operating from full knowledge of the law - "ignorance of the law is not a defence".

    The advice in this text appears to be historical, from 1989 when US copyright law transitioned from its own bizarre version to the model used by the rest of the world.

    It's true that for works that aren't registered at creation, one cannot sue for statutory damages or attorney's fees.  But actual damages CAN be reduced based upon a ruling of innocent infringement, it's just not as common.  Why not put in a simple notice to prevent such a ruling?  This is not historical; it's from the US Copyright Law, Section 402(d):

    (d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If
    a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears
    on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement
    suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition
    of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory
    damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2)

    In your previous post you said:

    When you see large corporations doing this, it is because of
    masturbation on the part of their legal department who felt a need to
    justify their budget by running around and sticking pointless labels on
    things (probably because they didn't have any real work to do that
    day).

    While I can't speak for the day-to-day habits or budgets of the legal departments of large corporations, I think I can say that they see this the same way I do: put the notice on there, because it adds extra protection.

    A large potential area where innocent infringement could become an issue is with copyleft licenses.  A good attorney could likely demonstrate that it's a common, reasonable misunderstanding to believe that F/OSS licenses are akin to public domain.  In fact, it's copyright law that allows the GPL and its brethren to function at all.

    Now, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be.  But I can't see how taking steps to defend one's rights can be seen as masturbation.



  • And anyway, it doesn't cost me anything to put that notice there.  People expect it, and expect professional websites to have a notice like that.  Whether it means anything or not.  Books aren't required to have page numbers, and guess what, a fiction book would work perfectly fine without page numbers (no one needs to refer to "page 343"), but they all have page numbers because it's part of the convention and expectation of books.  Well, a copyright notice with a year is an expected part of a website.  It's also a way of saying, "we (the creators of this site) regard our creation as important and worth defending."  That's a good message to send.  Not having it sends a message of, "we, the creators of this site, haven't really thought about if it's worth anything, or we wouldn't bother to defend it, or whatever, I think there's an interesting bird perched outside my windows right now."

    So the copyright notice stays, whether it is legally meaningful or not, and I can't understand why it caused any upset.  The material [i]is[/i] in fact copyright and people exepct to see a message saying, "Copyright Blah Blah, 2007, all rights reserved".  It's not like I'm printing that message on the skin of baby seals or paper made from an endangered tree that can also cure cancer or something.  It's 100% recycled electrons!



  • @JavaCoder said:

    It's 100% recycled electrons!

    Can you prove that none of the electrons you use are created fresh from pair production?



  • I'll revise it: "Created from 100% recycled fundamental particles!"  What is the origin of electrons anyway?



  • Electrons are fundamental particles; they're leptons.  But they can be created (in conjunction with a positron) by a high-energy photon striking a nucleus, which is called pair production.



  • I'm pretty sure none of the electrons on my website came from that.  I don't allow that kind of funny business on MY web server.



  • @JavaCoder said:

    I'm pretty sure none of the electrons on my website came from that. I don't allow that kind of funny business on MY web server.

    What funny business?  Light? 



  • I'd suggest Integer.toString(Calendar.getInstance().get(Calendar.YEAR))



  • @bstorer said:

    @JavaCoder said:

    I'm pretty sure none of the electrons on my website came from that. I don't allow that kind of funny business on MY web server.

    What funny business?  Light? 

    That's why his server room is a dark chamber without any windows... 



  • The real WTF is that this topic was instantly changed into a discussion on the usefulness of copyright messages in websites (except for a few posts). Then to a discussion on where electrons come from.



  • @Treeki said:

    The real WTF is that this topic was instantly changed into a discussion on the usefulness of copyright messages in websites (except for a few posts). Then to a discussion on where electrons come from.

    That's no WTF. That's called "the internet" ...



  • @theNestruo said:

    I'd suggest Integer.toString(Calendar.getInstance().get(Calendar.YEAR))


    Hey now that's a good idea.  A totally different approach, one which avoids the use of the Format class.  I think that is a more elegant solution to this problem, however minute this problem may be.

    What funny business? Light?


    @Col. Guano said:
    Ok. Go ahead. Try and get the president of the United States on the phone. [i]Mandrake enters phone booth and closes the door. Guano pushes it back open.[/i] If you try any preversions in there I'll blow your head off.



  • no copywrite notices here:

     

     



  • @tster said:

    no copywrite notices here:

    http://www.mit.edu/index.html

    Copyright notices here:
    http://www.stanford.edu/
    http://www.law.columbia.edu/
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/
    http://www.law.yale.edu/


     



  • @bstorer said:

    @tster said:

    no copywrite notices here:

    http://www.mit.edu/index.html

    Copyright notices here:
    http://www.stanford.edu/
    http://www.law.columbia.edu/
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/
    http://www.law.yale.edu/


     

    MIT is better than all of those schools.

    PS. I don't go to MIT (I swear)



  • @tster said:

    @bstorer said:
    @tster said:

    no copywrite notices here:

    http://www.mit.edu/index.html

    Copyright notices here:
    http://www.stanford.edu/
    http://www.law.columbia.edu/
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/
    http://www.law.yale.edu/


     

    MIT is better than all of those schools.

    PS. I don't go to MIT (I swear)

     Really?  MIT has a better law program than Stanford, Columbia, Harvard, or Yale?
     



  • @bstorer said:

    @tster said:
    @bstorer said:
    @tster said:

    no copywrite notices here:

    http://www.mit.edu/index.html

    Copyright notices here:
    http://www.stanford.edu/
    http://www.law.columbia.edu/
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/
    http://www.law.yale.edu/


     

    MIT is better than all of those schools.

    PS. I don't go to MIT (I swear)

     Really?  MIT has a better law program than Stanford, Columbia, Harvard, or Yale?
     

     

    MIT doesn't have quite the prick up their ass that those other schools have.  Besides, didn't you read the post about the copywrite notices being mandated by legal departments that want to look busy and important?  You have to start training those lawyers early in the art of bullshitting. 



  • @tster said:

    @bstorer said:
    @tster said:
    @bstorer said:
    @tster said:

    no copywrite notices here:

    http://www.mit.edu/index.html

    Copyright notices here:
    http://www.stanford.edu/
    http://www.law.columbia.edu/
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/
    http://www.law.yale.edu/

    MIT is better than all of those schools.

    PS. I don't go to MIT (I swear)

     Really?  MIT has a better law program than Stanford, Columbia, Harvard, or Yale?


    MIT doesn't have quite the prick up their ass that those other schools have.  Besides, didn't you read the post about the copywrite notices being mandated by legal departments that want to look busy and important?  You have to start training those lawyers early in the art of bullshitting. 

    Okay, tell you what?  You take whatever lawyers you want from MIT, and I'll take whatever lawyers I want from those schools with the pricks up their asses, and we'll see who wins in a copyright lawsuit.  I'm starting by picking this guy and this guy.  Good luck! :)
     



  • @bstorer said:

    @tster said:
    @bstorer said:
    @tster said:
    @bstorer said:
    @tster said:

    no copywrite notices here:

    http://www.mit.edu/index.html

    Copyright notices here:
    http://www.stanford.edu/
    http://www.law.columbia.edu/
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/
    http://www.law.yale.edu/

    MIT is better than all of those schools.

    PS. I don't go to MIT (I swear)

     Really?  MIT has a better law program than Stanford, Columbia, Harvard, or Yale?


    MIT doesn't have quite the prick up their ass that those other schools have.  Besides, didn't you read the post about the copywrite notices being mandated by legal departments that want to look busy and important?  You have to start training those lawyers early in the art of bullshitting. 

    Okay, tell you what?  You take whatever lawyers you want from MIT, and I'll take whatever lawyers I want from those schools with the pricks up their asses, and we'll see who wins in a copyright lawsuit.  I'm starting by picking this guy and this guy.  Good luck! :)

    Please also note that lessig has a copyright notice on his webpage ;) Moglen's site wasn't available thus couldn't check.



  • @stratos said:

    @bstorer said:
    @tster said:
    @bstorer said:
    @tster said:
    @bstorer said:
    @tster said:

    no copywrite notices here:

    http://www.mit.edu/index.html

    Copyright notices here:
    http://www.stanford.edu/
    http://www.law.columbia.edu/
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/
    http://www.law.yale.edu/

    MIT is better than all of those schools.

    PS. I don't go to MIT (I swear)

     Really?  MIT has a better law program than Stanford, Columbia, Harvard, or Yale?


    MIT doesn't have quite the prick up their ass that those other schools have.  Besides, didn't you read the post about the copywrite notices being mandated by legal departments that want to look busy and important?  You have to start training those lawyers early in the art of bullshitting. 

    Okay, tell you what?  You take whatever lawyers you want from MIT, and I'll take whatever lawyers I want from those schools with the pricks up their asses, and we'll see who wins in a copyright lawsuit.  I'm starting by picking this guy and this guy.  Good luck! :)

    Please also note that lessig has a copyright notice on his webpage ;) Moglen's site wasn't available thus couldn't check.

     1.  Moglen's site does not have any copywrite notices

    2. Lessig's site has a license notice informing you that it is licensed under the creative commons license.  This is more of a way to let people know that they can copy and distribute the work if they want than telling people that they cannot copy or use any of the work on that page.  Thus it does not pertain at all to our conversation, which was discussing if it was required for a copywrite notice to be on a website to have legal rights to the content.

     



  • @tster said:

    @bstorer said:
    @tster said:

    no copywrite notices here:

    http://www.mit.edu/index.html

    Copyright notices here:
    http://www.stanford.edu/
    http://www.law.columbia.edu/
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/
    http://www.law.yale.edu/


     

    MIT is better than all of those schools.

    PS. I don't go to MIT (I swear)


    Good, because MIT would be embarrassed by your spelling, Mr. Copywrite.



  • Auto updating dates annoy me.  You're like those pr0n sites that say "New videos added on <script src="currdate.js></script>!", then when you pay you find out they havent updated since 1993.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.