Slashdot Mirror

I could appreciate that conclusion except it flies in the face of the facts.

After I resigned and took time off I switched to Tea as the source of my caffeine, and drank an average of about 3-4 cups per day. I was drinking Tea as the symptoms as the systems subsided and went away.

I drank only ONE can of diet Dr. Pepper and it brought the symptoms back within 30 minutes. I can and have repeated that "test" to see if the sensitivity remains. After 15 years it sill does.

Currently I drink about 4-5 cups of Green Tea each day and never experience the symptoms.

Concerning the claim that Rumsfeld was never at R.G.Serle I offer these URLs, which says otherwise:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript. aspx?transcriptid=3427
and this one which states he was the HEAD of the company... ...
He even took out a few years from 1977 to 1985 to make a living, and a very good living I might add, as the very successful head of G.D. Serle & Company
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6001/meeting_with_s ecretary_of_defense_donald_h_rumsfeld.html
and the 1985 Congressional Record: https://web.lexis-nexis.com/congcomp

Searle was being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for attempting to defraud the FDA into approving artificial aspartame as a safe artificial sweetener when lab tests proved it was a neurotoxic, carcinogenic drug. He was able to pull political strings to get Searle out of legal trouble and influenced President Reagan's appointment of Arthur Hull Hayes as FDA Commissioner to politically approve the sale of aspartame in 1981--over the objections of FDA scientists, independent researchers and consumer safety advocates. Monsanto bought Searle for $2.7 billion in 1985, and the Searle family walked away with about $1 billion. Rumsfeld's take was about $12 million.

OR
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/15/sit room.01.html
When he was CEO of a company, he took a company over, G.D. Serle, a pharmaceutical company, that was -- it was dying. And he fired people, he reorganized it, he turned it around, he brought synergies in ...

Now we know what the "synergies" were... his own people planted at the FDA to push approval of Aspartame through.

Several soft drink companies and Nutrasweet were taken to court in April of 2004 but I haven't heard how the case is going.

Then, there is this little bit of info about bird flu and Rumsfeld
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0312-06.ht m

There are many different sections to LexisNexis and you can have access to any variety of them at a time based on your security. I know of two individuals with access to this information that have nothing to do with law enforcement.

See here for information on LexisNexis' available public records.

Actually, there is. If you have access, try Lexis Nexis Academic Universe. A search for "Apple vs." under "Get a case" gives the following:

This search has been interrupted because it will return more than 1,000 documents.

Guess I'll have to refine that a little.

This company makes a engine nearly to that spec, but it's not aimed at the Internet, just law/personal information. If it were, you'd have a search engine that'd work as such.

"Care to cite your sources for that tidbit? Or were you just making that all up?"

I think you're misunderstanding me. I am simply making the point that there is always a price that can be paid. That price might be ridiculously high, but it does always exist. For example, I have no intention of selling my home. I built it myself and it's exactly what I want and where I want it, but if someone came around and offered me $10 million for it, it's as good as sold. Likewise, the Nation estate is squabbling with the BBC over creative control, but if BBC offered the Nation Estate enough money, they would forget all about creative control. Just ask the Rolling Stones who claimed they would never sell their songs to advertisers.

You notice that there's no "opt out" anywhere on the locateplus.com website.


At least some other database companies, such as lexis-nexis.com will let you at least opt out.

I wonder how long before these private databases are mandated to respond to "opt out" requests.

except for a few unknown subjects, it's already been done.
I'd highly doubt military specific info was in there, since it's mostly used by lawyers and some researchers.

The thing is, "databases" like GrokLaw are the ones that don't need this protection. Why make a public database public if you don't want people to use the data? It makes no sense.

I think you've got the poster completely backwards. It's not the Groklaw would be protected, but that for-profit law indexes would prosecute sites like Groklaw under this law. It doesn't matter if they're infringing or not... the reason facts are not currently subject to copyright is that it's darn hard to tell whether someone copied them or went out and got the info themselves.

Private databases aren't shared, so they don't need it. Public databases *are* shared, so (as far as I can tell) they don't need it, or shouldn't be shared.

What about proprietary, for-sale databases? They are neither private nor public. Instead, they are a saleable item. If I want shapefiles of all US ZIP codes to drop into GIS, chances are I'll have to pay for them. But that's just because I don't know someone who already has the data and can give it to me.

You seem to be stuck on the notion that databases are either used only internally or are completely public and free. Lexis-Nexis would beg to differ.

As long as the letter is to an individual in re his position as a company executive, it is still subject to free speech provisions. In Voight v. Harbiller (search for it on Lexis/Nexis) our fabled McDonald's crusader was sued by Leslie Voight, McDonald's VP of Marketing. Voight alleged that Harbiller tried to threaten her in his letter that was delivered to her house. Guess who won?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You can't buy your way out of the first amendment.

Before everyone goes off an say that they will never pay for a search engine, please understand what Yahoo's plan is.

Yahoo isn't planning on charging for the searches that you do on its portal now, like the searches for the web pages. What they are offering for a fee is the stuff that you cannot find on any websites out there, where the publishers make them unavailable for free. Yahoo is moving towards the market that Lexis-Nexis is in now.

Many of you claim that this plan is unprofitable or nobody is going to pay for it. Think about this. Lexis Nexis charges $9/law review articles, $3/newspaper article, $4-12/SEC filings, or $129/week for Business news package. My school is paying into the 10K+ range for a site license per year.

This is definitely a highly profitable area.

... they aren't in this case. Yahoo isn't out to charge for access to your web page via their portal, but rather it would seem that they're creating a cheap alternative to something like Lexis Nexis, which, in in my opinion, could be a horribly valuable asset for, say, high school debate teams that can't afford $600/year and up that Lexis-Nexis charges. There are very few players in the online document provision market - and none with the ability to provide affordable content that Yahoo! has. They see this and are taking advantage of it in another attempt to reach profitability.

If you're looking for the "Game Theory" columns and you're at a major university, you can probably access them through Lexis-Nexis. The most common package for universities is the Academic Universe, which has full text for most major newspapers going way back. If you're in your universities IP space, you can access it here: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe

Enjoy!

If this is actually READING articles and then making insights about their content, this could be a revolutionary search tool for any field! These guys should contact Lexis-Nexis or some other fact finding service.
Finding information is a hell of a skill - I know that a lot of my time as a grad student has been spent on literature reviews.

>>lastly, a Missle Defense system violates the Strategic Arms Treaties. this in itself is reason enough not to build one.

Actually, a missile defense system would violate the ABM treaty, not the "Strategic Arms Treaties". Which, is technically no longer legally valid, since the US signed it with the Soviet Union, which no longer exists, as stated here. (courtesy of lexis nexis).
The ABM treaty prohibits "strategic" defense systems, but permits "theater" defenses, the difference being one of scale.
IANAL

People will pay for entertainment, but not for information. Businesses will pay for the minimum set of things they have to, but if given a less expensive option, they will take it.

As I see it, the issue with these newspapers is that they are expiring articles out faster to get them into the archive where they can make money off them than would any large library.

People and businesses will pay for aggregated and processed information. The requirements are simple: the information aggregation must be large, the location mechanism must be easy to user, the cost must be lower than the value of the time to do the research by other means. Ask anyone who has used Lexis-Nexis for legal research. This sort of charging is similar to following up an Eric search and buying a copy of the article or using any of the dozens of stock analysis sites.

The answer (see above) is to aggregate as much of this as possible in one place- including the AP and Reuters news wires- make it easy to use, and sell it cheap. Arrange the licensing in advance for a flat rate or establish as staggered fee structure for the more desireable collections.
- technik