Re^4: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

A link offsite to any kind of paste-bin style code is guaranteed to be broken eventually and probably soon. The link was future garbage. It pointed to 25 lines of code that could have been placed here easily. Also, anonymonks get no benefit of the doubt with this kind of thing. If an even slightly well known monk had posted the link, it would not have been reaped.

FWIW, its more than a pastebin, faq says it runs the code and the code will live forever ... website has been live since 2009

Its even listed in sitefaqlet Miscellaneous Off-site Resources since 2013

I'm reminded of IRC Considered Harmful

Cheers

Comment on Re^4: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node by Your Mother (Archbishop) on May 04, 2016 at 12:45 UTC
Be fair. The age of a domain registration has no correlation with the number of links that 200 or 404. This is in line with my complaints about IRC. If the code was meant to survive it should have gone on PM, which I see you have done. This raises a side-issue not mentioned. You broke the law by posting it. Since there is no license associated with the code it’s © all rights reserved; in the US at least. I understand this is a silly and irrelevant distinction but it’s worth noting that only the author has the legal right to publish the code until it has a CC or OSI or similar license and the author chose to not publish it on PM. I didn’t vote to reap it, by the way, and wouldn’t. I vote to keep things, like misspellings in titles, against the general tide because PM isn’t a reference work and I think premature normalization is a mistake.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on May 04, 2016 at 12:45 UTC

Be fair. The age of a domain registration has no correlation with the number of links that 200 or 404. This is in line with my complaints about IRC. If the code was meant to survive it should have gone on PM, which I see you have done. This raises a side-issue not mentioned. You broke the law by posting it. Since there is no license associated with the code it’s © all rights reserved; in the US at least. I understand this is a silly and irrelevant distinction but it’s worth noting that only the author has the legal right to publish the code until it has a CC or OSI or similar license and the author chose to not publish it on PM.

I didn’t vote to reap it, by the way, and wouldn’t. I vote to keep things, like misspellings in titles, against the general tide because PM isn’t a reference work and I think premature normalization is a mistake.

[reply]