Actually they're also now available to undergraduates, but since I am 20 years out of Uni that's not much help to me either
They're available to anybody who can make the case for one, irrespective of study level. It's just that doing postgrad studies is one of the objective criteria that automatically makes the case.
A history of astro-navigation" may not be Earth-shatteringly exciting, but who are the BL to judge its merit?
They are the people appointed with the task of making that judgement.
I had a case for research work, I showed that pamphlets they held were not available elsewhere but my application was denied for no reason other than the secretary was grumpy that day. She could provide no objective explanation.
In other words, you failed to make the case and it's somebody else's fault. There is a set of objective criteria to decide whether somebody can get a card. If you fail those tests then you get a second chance with an interview and a subjective judgement. It's meaningless to complain that she could "provide no objective explanation". You'd already failed the objective tests.
The BL blows on about adding to "our shared heritage" but the truth is that they are notoriously fickle and arbitrary about issuing Reader's Passes to actually use their collection.
It's automatic if you are doing a postgraduate degree.
I have had my application for a pass refused as my research justification was deemed "insufficiently scholarly", even after I had spent 10 minutes being interviewed by the secretary. The average man on the street who wanders in to their London campus will be in for a rude shock.
You don't accept the possibility that your research justifiction might have been insufficiently scholarly?
Even if the staff judge you to be worthy enough to view their precious possessions you have to jump through hoops just to reserve the item.
You ask the person on the information desk to reserve it for you, or you log in to the electronic catalogue (on-site or on-line), look the item up, press the "reserve" button, and select the reading room to which you want it delivered. If you consider that to be jumping through hoops then it says a lot for the academic standard you are likely to achieve.
Whenever I finally publish the fruits of my work I will happily flout the Legal Deposit Libraries Act and refuse to provide BL a copy.
So if you cut and paste it then you might be breaching copyright. If you retype the paragraph you are citing then I don't see how you can be. I suspect the real reason for the non-commercial clause is to stop people publishing and selling paper versions directly from the digitized versions.
If you are in the UK, your local library should be able to get hold of copies of most British Library material for you, for quite a small fee. Yes, it's slow, and the small fees would build up if you need to access a lot of different things, but the information was already more accessible than you suggest. This is still a great step forward, though.
Also keep in mind two other facts about this case:
1) US civil courts have no jurisdiction over a British company, which is why they failed to respond in the first place.
2) Pro bono lawyers seem to like Spamhaus and represent them for free.
If you're thinking about suing Spamhaus, you'd have to realize that not only do they have a lawyer that works for free (and fame), but no judgement in the USA will have any effect anyway.
US courts have no jurisdiction over the company, but I wonder whether, when the company doesn't pay, (alleged) spammers might go after the officials of the company? They would, more likely than not, be liable to extradition to the USA.
National libraries of record already keep copies of everything published. So, for instance, the Library of Congress, the British Library and the Bodleian Library keep copies of everything published in English. So we already have a triplicated, geographically diverse, and properly environmentally controlled system, which is going to preserve the books a lot longer than a shipping container on an industrial estate.
No it doesn't: read the article. Spamhaus didn't bother trying to prove e360 were spammers. They didn't file a defense because they didn't consider the court to have jurisdiction over them (being in a different country).
Spamhaus is fighting this judgment for some of the same reasons IBM fought SCO -- if Spamhaus showed that it wouldn't defend itself against one spammer, them they'd be inundated by other spammers looking to kill Spamhaus through a thousand paper cuts (lawsuits.) Even if Spamhaus spent ten times the amount of the judgment on the appeal, if they win and it prevents a hundred other similar lawsuits it would be worth it.
I don't see how that works. Even if they get what they ask for and the damages are reduced to a nominal $1, all it shows is that e360 failed to show evidence of their damages. Spamhouse is still left open to copycat cases from (alleged) spammers who can show evidence of the damages they're asking for.
Well, I usually worked with an ASR33 plugged in, which wasn't a bad size for a keyboard plus printer -- and the paper tape reader came with that package!
You must have a small refrigerator. The early PDPs were huge, but we had the PDP8E well before the PC came along and it wasn't really much bigger than a full-sized tower PC. (I'm qualified to repair them, although I'm a bit rusty...)
Not everybody is obsessed with being in control all of the time.
The information and channel have value. If there is no value, then the Icelandic Government is playing games with those who think that they are genuinely participating in reform.
The information has value, so yes, the Icelandic government should take care to ensure that it is retained independently of whatever channel they use. It's called taking backups. That's not a Facebook issue. The existence of a channel has value, but it's pretty much irrelevant what the channel is; the main criterion is ease of access for the users. It's a cheap commodity item, and if Facebook didn't provide the channel they could use another channel. The existing userbase has value too, which is in Facebook's favour.
Not supporting a company who's sole purpose is to abuse that exchange of information might also be a good step as is not forcing participation in that system to be a part of reform.
I suspect that's your only real objection, and even that depends on what you consider to be "abuse". After all, didn't you say that the channel had value?
But the reality is that one has no control over the services offered in that network nor how your information is used once it is made available to that network.
But why does that matter? If Facebook ceased to offer the services required for this consultation it would be cheap and relatively simple to move the discussion elsewhere.
If it's cheap, why not set up one's own environment and control all data and meta-data while further reducing the possibility of disruption or mis-use?
What would be cheap is switching to another conferencing system, not rolling their own. Why bother rolling their own?
I think it's unlikely that the US Government has any interest in Iceland's constitutional reforms. Let's not get caught up in the minutia of the example. It is simply an example of control. If data, meta-data, and services exist on my own infrastructure (even if I'm renting that infrastructure) I have much better control and understanding of what is being done with it. Reliance on a 3rd party, especially one that has already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with service and data, seems to be a considerable step backwards. Especially when alternatives exist.
I think it's unlikely too. It wasn't me that raised it. My point was simply that for a public discussion the supposed problems with Facebook are irrelevant. Why bother going for a system with more control when you don't need more control and most people are already using this system?
But the reality is that one has no control over the services offered in that network nor how your information is used once it is made available to that network.
But why does that matter? If Facebook ceased to offer the services required for this consultation it would be cheap and relatively simple to move the discussion elsewhere.
You can bet that there would be an outcry from Iceland officials if a US Federal agents' dragnet collected information involving this constitutional reform activity.
And you think that's a Facebook issue? This is a public consultation. Do you really think there's nobody in Iceland who would give US Federal agents all the information on the consultation that they required for a very modest fee in terms of US Federal agent's budgets, whatever the medium of the discussions? Or that US Federal agents would have too much difficulty in posing as an Icelandic citizen in order to get access to the discussion, whatever the medium of the discussion? If the USA doesn't already have a registered participant in these discussions, it's because they don't want to.
Yes, and I bet before this people arranged meetings by telephone over systems run by large private corporations, drove to meetings in cars made by large private corporations using fuel supplied by large private corporations and took notes on laptop computers made by large private corporations or on paper made by large private corporations with pens made by large private corporations. So what's new here?
Why should the public be allowed to have software/web development tools? Where are the tax revenues in that? Where are the profits for big business? Writing your own software and designing your own website are like theft!
Slashdot Mirror
And the response to a threat of hacking is to be terrified? Or is it merely to be concerned?
And the first turf wars will probably be over .cola
Hi there,
Do you hold a BL Reader Pass?
Yes.
Actually they're also now available to undergraduates, but since I am 20 years out of Uni that's not much help to me either
They're available to anybody who can make the case for one, irrespective of study level. It's just that doing postgrad studies is one of the objective criteria that automatically makes the case.
A history of astro-navigation" may not be Earth-shatteringly exciting, but who are the BL to judge its merit?
They are the people appointed with the task of making that judgement.
I had a case for research work, I showed that pamphlets they held were not available elsewhere but my application was denied for no reason other than the secretary was grumpy that day. She could provide no objective explanation.
In other words, you failed to make the case and it's somebody else's fault. There is a set of objective criteria to decide whether somebody can get a card. If you fail those tests then you get a second chance with an interview and a subjective judgement. It's meaningless to complain that she could "provide no objective explanation". You'd already failed the objective tests.
> And nothing of value was lost, I suspect.
Exactly the attitude expressed by the BL.
So you are still failing to make your case.
The BL blows on about adding to "our shared heritage" but the truth is that they are notoriously fickle and arbitrary about issuing Reader's Passes to actually use their collection.
It's automatic if you are doing a postgraduate degree.
I have had my application for a pass refused as my research justification was deemed "insufficiently scholarly", even after I had spent 10 minutes being interviewed by the secretary. The average man on the street who wanders in to their London campus will be in for a rude shock.
You don't accept the possibility that your research justifiction might have been insufficiently scholarly?
Even if the staff judge you to be worthy enough to view their precious possessions you have to jump through hoops just to reserve the item.
You ask the person on the information desk to reserve it for you, or you log in to the electronic catalogue (on-site or on-line), look the item up, press the "reserve" button, and select the reading room to which you want it delivered. If you consider that to be jumping through hoops then it says a lot for the academic standard you are likely to achieve.
Whenever I finally publish the fruits of my work I will happily flout the Legal Deposit Libraries Act and refuse to provide BL a copy.
And nothing of value was lost, I suspect.
So if you cut and paste it then you might be breaching copyright. If you retype the paragraph you are citing then I don't see how you can be. I suspect the real reason for the non-commercial clause is to stop people publishing and selling paper versions directly from the digitized versions.
If you are in the UK, your local library should be able to get hold of copies of most British Library material for you, for quite a small fee. Yes, it's slow, and the small fees would build up if you need to access a lot of different things, but the information was already more accessible than you suggest. This is still a great step forward, though.
Looks like either the majors are not engaging in this practice or too large of Goliaths for the FTC to consider throwing stones at.
Or they're practicing on the easy targets before gearing up to the tougher ones.
Come on... "busted seals" Is this what we have come to? Hello, AP?
Are you telling me that those navy guys never get caught with drugs?
All science is just bastardized version of physics when you get right down to it.
Nah, physics is just real science dumbed down for the sake of those who can't cope with emergent properties of complex systems :-)
That's reassuring!
Also keep in mind two other facts about this case:
If you're thinking about suing Spamhaus, you'd have to realize that not only do they have a lawyer that works for free (and fame), but no judgement in the USA will have any effect anyway.
US courts have no jurisdiction over the company, but I wonder whether, when the company doesn't pay, (alleged) spammers might go after the officials of the company? They would, more likely than not, be liable to extradition to the USA.
You mean this data?
The sad fact is, attempt to hold up climate science to the standards of other exact sciences, like physics, and nothing remains.
You mean like this? (Climate science is physics, by the way).
National libraries of record already keep copies of everything published. So, for instance, the Library of Congress, the British Library and the Bodleian Library keep copies of everything published in English. So we already have a triplicated, geographically diverse, and properly environmentally controlled system, which is going to preserve the books a lot longer than a shipping container on an industrial estate.
No it doesn't: read the article. Spamhaus didn't bother trying to prove e360 were spammers. They didn't file a defense because they didn't consider the court to have jurisdiction over them (being in a different country).
Spamhaus is fighting this judgment for some of the same reasons IBM fought SCO -- if Spamhaus showed that it wouldn't defend itself against one spammer, them they'd be inundated by other spammers looking to kill Spamhaus through a thousand paper cuts (lawsuits.) Even if Spamhaus spent ten times the amount of the judgment on the appeal, if they win and it prevents a hundred other similar lawsuits it would be worth it.
I don't see how that works. Even if they get what they ask for and the damages are reduced to a nominal $1, all it shows is that e360 failed to show evidence of their damages. Spamhouse is still left open to copycat cases from (alleged) spammers who can show evidence of the damages they're asking for.
Well, I usually worked with an ASR33 plugged in, which wasn't a bad size for a keyboard plus printer -- and the paper tape reader came with that package!
You must have a small refrigerator. The early PDPs were huge, but we had the PDP8E well before the PC came along and it wasn't really much bigger than a full-sized tower PC. (I'm qualified to repair them, although I'm a bit rusty...)
If one doesn't need control - why do it?
Not everybody is obsessed with being in control all of the time.
The information and channel have value. If there is no value, then the Icelandic Government is playing games with those who think that they are genuinely participating in reform.
The information has value, so yes, the Icelandic government should take care to ensure that it is retained independently of whatever channel they use. It's called taking backups. That's not a Facebook issue. The existence of a channel has value, but it's pretty much irrelevant what the channel is; the main criterion is ease of access for the users. It's a cheap commodity item, and if Facebook didn't provide the channel they could use another channel. The existing userbase has value too, which is in Facebook's favour.
Not supporting a company who's sole purpose is to abuse that exchange of information might also be a good step as is not forcing participation in that system to be a part of reform.
I suspect that's your only real objection, and even that depends on what you consider to be "abuse". After all, didn't you say that the channel had value?
But the reality is that one has no control over the services offered in that network nor how your information is used once it is made available to that network.
But why does that matter? If Facebook ceased to offer the services required for this consultation it would be cheap and relatively simple to move the discussion elsewhere.
If it's cheap, why not set up one's own environment and control all data and meta-data while further reducing the possibility of disruption or mis-use?
What would be cheap is switching to another conferencing system, not rolling their own. Why bother rolling their own?
I think it's unlikely that the US Government has any interest in Iceland's constitutional reforms. Let's not get caught up in the minutia of the example. It is simply an example of control. If data, meta-data, and services exist on my own infrastructure (even if I'm renting that infrastructure) I have much better control and understanding of what is being done with it. Reliance on a 3rd party, especially one that has already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with service and data, seems to be a considerable step backwards. Especially when alternatives exist.
I think it's unlikely too. It wasn't me that raised it. My point was simply that for a public discussion the supposed problems with Facebook are irrelevant. Why bother going for a system with more control when you don't need more control and most people are already using this system?
But the reality is that one has no control over the services offered in that network nor how your information is used once it is made available to that network.
But why does that matter? If Facebook ceased to offer the services required for this consultation it would be cheap and relatively simple to move the discussion elsewhere.
You can bet that there would be an outcry from Iceland officials if a US Federal agents' dragnet collected information involving this constitutional reform activity.
And you think that's a Facebook issue? This is a public consultation. Do you really think there's nobody in Iceland who would give US Federal agents all the information on the consultation that they required for a very modest fee in terms of US Federal agent's budgets, whatever the medium of the discussions? Or that US Federal agents would have too much difficulty in posing as an Icelandic citizen in order to get access to the discussion, whatever the medium of the discussion? If the USA doesn't already have a registered participant in these discussions, it's because they don't want to.
Yes, and I bet before this people arranged meetings by telephone over systems run by large private corporations, drove to meetings in cars made by large private corporations using fuel supplied by large private corporations and took notes on laptop computers made by large private corporations or on paper made by large private corporations with pens made by large private corporations. So what's new here?
Why should the public be allowed to have software/web development tools? Where are the tax revenues in that? Where are the profits for big business? Writing your own software and designing your own website are like theft!
I couldn't give a monkeys cuss who is to blame. The question is what we can do about it now.