[yvonne]

Does that mean those not pictured aren't part of the class?

[yvonne]

Does that mean those not pictured aren't part of the class?

[yvonne]

Does that mean those not pictured aren't part of the class?

[yvonne]

Does that mean those not pictured aren't part of the class?

[stan01]

Yvonne, would you be able to ID them?

[stan01]

Yvonne, would you be able to ID them?

[stan01]

Yvonne, would you be able to ID them?

[stan01]

Yvonne, would you be able to ID them?

[Steven_Durrett]

I don't really understand jumping through hoops to avoid providing information for free that was learned from behind a paywall. As long as you don't copy/paste, it's fine. What gives?

It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Steve Durrett

Steve Durrett

[Steven_Durrett]

I don't really understand jumping through hoops to avoid providing information for free that was learned from behind a paywall. As long as you don't copy/paste, it's fine. What gives?

It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Steve Durrett

Steve Durrett

[Steven_Durrett]

I don't really understand jumping through hoops to avoid providing information for free that was learned from behind a paywall. As long as you don't copy/paste, it's fine. What gives?

It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Steve Durrett

Steve Durrett

[Steven_Durrett]

I don't really understand jumping through hoops to avoid providing information for free that was learned from behind a paywall. As long as you don't copy/paste, it's fine. What gives?

It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Steve Durrett

Steve Durrett

[Extra Point]

In the past, recruits attended the men's basketball game. Is this still the case? My concern is this could be a real downer. Who wants to go to a school where no one attends games?

[Extra Point]

In the past, recruits attended the men's basketball game. Is this still the case? My concern is this could be a real downer. Who wants to go to a school where no one attends games?

[Extra Point]

In the past, recruits attended the men's basketball game. Is this still the case? My concern is this could be a real downer. Who wants to go to a school where no one attends games?

[Extra Point]

In the past, recruits attended the men's basketball game. Is this still the case? My concern is this could be a real downer. Who wants to go to a school where no one attends games?

[washingtonismoney]

In the past, recruits attended the men's basketball game. Is this still the case? My concern is this could be a real downer. Who wants to go to a school where no one attends games?

I think we've generally decided to send them to the women's basketball game in recent years, for reasons that don't really need to be elaborated on. (Though in this case both MBB and WBB are away...)

Speaking of recruits at MBB, I still remember Tavita Pritchard instigating the crowd to cheer Manti Te'o. Kind of funny to think Stanford just missed out on Te'o and Kuechly. Would've been a hell of a three-man ILB rotation with Skov.

[washingtonismoney]

In the past, recruits attended the men's basketball game. Is this still the case? My concern is this could be a real downer. Who wants to go to a school where no one attends games?

I think we've generally decided to send them to the women's basketball game in recent years, for reasons that don't really need to be elaborated on. (Though in this case both MBB and WBB are away...)

Speaking of recruits at MBB, I still remember Tavita Pritchard instigating the crowd to cheer Manti Te'o. Kind of funny to think Stanford just missed out on Te'o and Kuechly. Would've been a hell of a three-man ILB rotation with Skov.

[washingtonismoney]

In the past, recruits attended the men's basketball game. Is this still the case? My concern is this could be a real downer. Who wants to go to a school where no one attends games?

I think we've generally decided to send them to the women's basketball game in recent years, for reasons that don't really need to be elaborated on. (Though in this case both MBB and WBB are away...)

Speaking of recruits at MBB, I still remember Tavita Pritchard instigating the crowd to cheer Manti Te'o. Kind of funny to think Stanford just missed out on Te'o and Kuechly. Would've been a hell of a three-man ILB rotation with Skov.

[washingtonismoney]

In the past, recruits attended the men's basketball game. Is this still the case? My concern is this could be a real downer. Who wants to go to a school where no one attends games?

I think we've generally decided to send them to the women's basketball game in recent years, for reasons that don't really need to be elaborated on. (Though in this case both MBB and WBB are away...)

Speaking of recruits at MBB, I still remember Tavita Pritchard instigating the crowd to cheer Manti Te'o. Kind of funny to think Stanford just missed out on Te'o and Kuechly. Would've been a hell of a three-man ILB rotation with Skov.

[stupac2]

It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Sure, but I'd argue that posting said information with "You can find this information at foo.com, along with much more awesome Stanford stuff!" would be vastly more effective in both of those goals than dancing around the issue.

[stupac2]

It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Sure, but I'd argue that posting said information with "You can find this information at foo.com, along with much more awesome Stanford stuff!" would be vastly more effective in both of those goals than dancing around the issue.

[stupac2]

It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Sure, but I'd argue that posting said information with "You can find this information at foo.com, along with much more awesome Stanford stuff!" would be vastly more effective in both of those goals than dancing around the issue.

[stupac2]

It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Sure, but I'd argue that posting said information with "You can find this information at foo.com, along with much more awesome Stanford stuff!" would be vastly more effective in both of those goals than dancing around the issue.

[Bruce Wang]

Does that mean those not pictured aren't part of the class?

Bigger concern: does it mean that those not making the Stanford hand sign aren't planning on committing?  ???  :P

[Bruce Wang]

Does that mean those not pictured aren't part of the class?

Bigger concern: does it mean that those not making the Stanford hand sign aren't planning on committing?  ???  :P

[Bruce Wang]

Does that mean those not pictured aren't part of the class?

Bigger concern: does it mean that those not making the Stanford hand sign aren't planning on committing?  ???  :P

[Bruce Wang]

Does that mean those not pictured aren't part of the class?

Bigger concern: does it mean that those not making the Stanford hand sign aren't planning on committing?  ???  :P

[yvonne]

Do you think fans in the stands can flash the glasses away from their faces like Oregon fans flashing the O?

[yvonne]

Do you think fans in the stands can flash the glasses away from their faces like Oregon fans flashing the O?

[yvonne]

Do you think fans in the stands can flash the glasses away from their faces like Oregon fans flashing the O?

[yvonne]

Do you think fans in the stands can flash the glasses away from their faces like Oregon fans flashing the O?

[Bruce Wang]

Do you think fans in the stands can flash the glasses away from their faces like Oregon fans flashing the O?

I get the feeling this will catch on and will become a Stanford fixture.  It's just too fun not to.

[Bruce Wang]

Do you think fans in the stands can flash the glasses away from their faces like Oregon fans flashing the O?

I get the feeling this will catch on and will become a Stanford fixture.  It's just too fun not to.

[Bruce Wang]

Do you think fans in the stands can flash the glasses away from their faces like Oregon fans flashing the O?

I get the feeling this will catch on and will become a Stanford fixture.  It's just too fun not to.

[Bruce Wang]

Do you think fans in the stands can flash the glasses away from their faces like Oregon fans flashing the O?

I get the feeling this will catch on and will become a Stanford fixture.  It's just too fun not to.

[97fan]

[quote author=Steven Durrett link=topic=9374.msg81434#msg81434 date=1389470697]It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Sure, but I'd argue that posting said information with "You can find this information at foo.com, along with much more awesome Stanford stuff!" would be vastly more effective in both of those goals than dancing around the issue.
[/quote]

Are members of those sites signing a gag order with respect to even the content that's posted by other members on the sites' message boards, or only the information generated by the sites' employees? Either way, Rivals and Scout have got a nice little racket going.

[97fan]

[quote author=Steven Durrett link=topic=9374.msg81434#msg81434 date=1389470697]It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Sure, but I'd argue that posting said information with "You can find this information at foo.com, along with much more awesome Stanford stuff!" would be vastly more effective in both of those goals than dancing around the issue.
[/quote]

Are members of those sites signing a gag order with respect to even the content that's posted by other members on the sites' message boards, or only the information generated by the sites' employees? Either way, Rivals and Scout have got a nice little racket going.

[97fan]

[quote author=Steven Durrett link=topic=9374.msg81434#msg81434 date=1389470697]It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Sure, but I'd argue that posting said information with "You can find this information at foo.com, along with much more awesome Stanford stuff!" would be vastly more effective in both of those goals than dancing around the issue.
[/quote]

Are members of those sites signing a gag order with respect to even the content that's posted by other members on the sites' message boards, or only the information generated by the sites' employees? Either way, Rivals and Scout have got a nice little racket going.

[97fan]

[quote author=Steven Durrett link=topic=9374.msg81434#msg81434 date=1389470697]It's not a copyright issue. People who have access behind a "paywall" have usually agreed not to to repost information they get from that site. The promise isn't really enforceable, but a lot of people feel a moral obligation to honor their commitments.

At a more practical level, those who like a site enough to pay for it usually want it to survive. Keeping the info that the site provides private helps to accomplish that.

Sure, but I'd argue that posting said information with "You can find this information at foo.com, along with much more awesome Stanford stuff!" would be vastly more effective in both of those goals than dancing around the issue.
[/quote]

Are members of those sites signing a gag order with respect to even the content that's posted by other members on the sites' message boards, or only the information generated by the sites' employees? Either way, Rivals and Scout have got a nice little racket going.