Slashdot Mirror

Ray Gun Revival magazine has at least two works that have been removed by Scribd at SFWA's behest merely for mentioning the last names 'Asimov' and 'Heinlein'.

We filed our DMCA counter-notification and are awaiting the mandatory ten day time period.

The story, for me, is recounted here: http://raygunrevival.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=139 5&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The idea that there is a net benefit for a group from the collective selfish actions of individual actors is closer to what this article is describing as swarm theory.

Actually, the article doesn't say anything about the collective selfish actions of anybody. In fact, in almost all the examples given, the actors are behaving unselfishly.

You are assuming the actors are the individuals, where the selfish actors are the genes. In social insects specific genetic relationships cause altruistic behavior in individuals because it is in the genes best interest for propagation to behave in such a way due to their unusual genetics. Applying, such social systems to human social systems would not be advised. Now applying ant routing mechanisms to route trucks, as in the article, that's a little more sensible.

As some else has already said, the knowledge is available now. At least, allow this (quite old anyway) kids to know which precautions the must take. If any of them is intent on doing harm, they won't go here anyway (how much knowledge do you need to blow up a gas canister?).

Like this http://www.scribd.com/doc/25047/Full-body-teleport ation-system

YOU ARE IN DANGER

I can see Blockbuster suing them, or some other company whom Netflix threatened. But I can't imagine that there are enough of those companies to form a "class".

The article is pretty vague on exactly what the evidence is. The actual lawsuit is more informative, but harder to read.

The class (as I finally figured out on page 17 of the lawsuit) is Netflix customers, of whom Dennis Dilbeck is the representative sample. They're suing based on the idea that Netflix's prices are higher than they should be, because competition by Blockbuster should have brought prices down. I just can't see a judge buying it; these people all paid for Netflix's service at the asking price voluntarily.

From what I've read so far, I'm just not buying their claim. They are citing one patent in particular, which is about delivery of resources based on people making requests on a computer, but that's considerably different from Netflix's rental queue.

(I'm assuming that patents are not a completely stupid idea. Please, if you're in the "all patents are inherently evil" category, can you just assume that I agree with you and go preach to the choir in some other thread?)

I don't consider Netflix's idea at all obvious. I thought it was pretty neat when I came up with it: the idea of a rental service which doesn't have a due date is pretty cool and I'd never heard of it.

I know we hate patents, but I hate idiot class-action lawsuits even more. I've been involved in dozens of them; I literally throw them away unopened when they arrive in the mail. The lawyers always make money and I always get a coupon for 30 cents off my next bag of Chex Mix.

Sometimes, I'm even suing myself. Some of those lawsuits were shareholders suing the company. Well, I'm still a shareholder, so I'm suing myself.

All the lawyers need to find is one fool member of the class to make a claim, and the company will often settle rather than fight. It's free money for class-action lawyers.

There's a place up ahead called Mescal Springs," he said. "As your attorney, I advise you to stop and take a swim." I shook my head. "It's absolutely imperative that we get to the Mint Hotel before the deadline for press registration," I said. "Otherwise, we might have to pay for our suite."

It's not the book, and it's pictures (so no search function), but at least you got something ^^.