The irony here is that while it is becoming easier and easier to find stuff, every year there is less and less stuff worth finding
The irony is that it is becoming harder and harder to get your content found in a sea of content. Electronic academic journals are finding this phenomenon a bit hard to overcome. Content overload is as much a problem for the future as content obscurity was in the past.
I suppose you think you're clever. You left something out, however:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order...."
The speech was discussing the PATRIOT Act and roving wiretaps on wholly domestic targets, not foreign intelligence electronic espionage. The NSA does not derive its authority from the PATRIOT Act. This is exactly what I was talking about - uninformed, ignorant, partisan hacks. 100% Slashdot.
It doesn't do us a whole lot of good if our battles are lost because the representation is poor, but it can do us harm
Which is exactly the philosophy of the ACLU, btw. It should be the philosophy of any good attorney. Foolishly jumping into the fray "for the good fight" is a good way down the road to a phyric victory. Losing sets precedents, and the legal system does not give "A"s for "Effort".
Interesting thing about the US that bribing the government is not illegal
Of course it is illegal. A bribe is an improper soliciting of a quid pro quo. Which is not the same thing as exercising one's freedom of speech and political association by contributing to the political campaign of a public official you agree with, and whose policies you wish to see enacted.
They are nutty because they evidence the same obsessive objectification of the "Other" and are equally unable to allow for good faith disagreement amongst disparate viewpoints. If "they" disagree with you, then "they" are somehow deficient and less worthy of one's tolerance or respect.
Both extremes exhibit what amounts to social pathology.
As for the bible-thumpers taking over America, start with Bush
Clinton was quite explicit in including religious references in his speeches, and made the show of going to church. Jimmy Carter was an overt born again southern baptist. I believe your discomfort with Bush has far more to do with politics than any real religious grounds.
Exactly when was it that my country decide to abdicate rationality in favor of wanton superstition, reprehensible pseudoscience, and gross ignorance?
What do we really expect when people are fed a steady diet of superstition on TV? What are some of the most popular youth TV shows - Buffy, Charmed, Supernatural, etc. Take a flip around the dial - ghost "documentary" shows abound. Combine that with lousy science ed and a general lack of critical thinking instruction in schools and you get messy heads.
As to your church teaching ID - that's where it belongs. No one should be teaching faith in science class, and it is a church's perogative to not teach science in classes about faith. That, IMO, is the proper division.
I am equally discouraged by the alarmist "bible thumpers taking over America!" rhetoric from some corners. The people that are irrationally opposed to religious viewpoints are just as nutty as those that are irrationally opposed to non-religious viewpoints.
attempt at slander in the blurb only reveals the 'political bent' of this site
Especially considering they're talking about Roger Simon, fercrissakes. Attempt at slander is right. Simon is a long-time card carrying liberal. It's just that he's now a "September 11 liberal" as he would say, and it is instructive to see the response.
1. Publication-by-press-release 2. Few to none serious scientific citations 3. Brilliant technology that would change the world but for government conspiracy to keep him down 4. known nutjob that is ignored by the scientific community
We have a winner! He's a nutjob!
I'm dying to see a working commercial fusion reactor too, but let's try to keep a healthy sense of scientific skepticism.
And the knockoffs copy Civ's "expression". If they were just making a turn based world-conquest strategy game, there would be no issue. But they copy much of Civ's intrinsic elements. It would come down to whether they copied only functional elements, and whether their work is sufficiently transformative. I'm not convinced they would win.
You cannot copyright a user interface. Microsoft taught that to Apple
Civilization is not just a user interface. Microsoft won on the "look and feel" case largely because Apple had licensed the technology to Microsoft, which reduced Apple's rights to "thin" copyright protection. To my knowledge, the Civ knockoffs have not licensed the rights to Civ. Copyright protects intrinsic and extrinsic elements, and it isn't clear that knockoffs like FreeCiv would prevail in court.
So every copy of every article or book I've made for research or other fair use reason should be destroyed after I've completed the task?
Yes. Where the issue has been presented to courts, it has been held infringing and not fair use. See American Geophysical Union v. Texaco and Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services for starters. Fair use is a defense to infringement, not a privilege at law. The fact that you're copying for research purposes only helps very slightly in the test. You're still infringing. The question for fair use is - is the infringing use excused by the statutory exception for fair use? It isn't a "gimme".
I don't claim to know much about copyright law, but doesn't this fall directly under fair use? Although fair is a pretty ambiguous term, I think sensible people can tell what is and isn't
No, it probably is not fair use. Fair use is a term of legal art and has a specific legal test. It isn't guesswork. Courts examine 1. the purpose and nature of the use, 2. the nature of the work being copied, 3. the extent of the copying, and 4. the market effect. If it is "commercial use", that weighs very heavily against fair use. It isn't necessary to be engaging in profit-seeking activity to be commercial, wholesale copying like Google is engaging in is considered commercial, like was found in the Napster case. The works are copyrighted, the use is commercial in nature and archiving for Google's commercial use, and they are copying whole works. It weighs very heavily against fair use, market effect or no market effect.
I love these projects which OCRs old books where the copyright is no longer active. As for new books, I think it is a bad idea unless the author gave his permission
And that's the most reasonable (and least litigious) approach, IMO.
But if I start making more copies and giving them away, or give my copy away, now I should be held to account
You've already made an unauthorized copy. You've already infringed the copyright holder's statutory exclusive rights. You can already be held to account.
Sue who for what? 100 developers and contributors for a portion of all the profits they've earned?
It's called an injunction. Take Two can prevent the OS developers from developing or distributing their game, by court order. Considering it's an obvious copy, as a matter of fact the copying is the whole draw, it would be fairly easy. Copyright holders own the exclusive right to create derivative works, so there really is no defense.
I have two gripes with the experiment of both MIT and Mythbusters.
1. Mythbusters assumed one large array of mirrors. MIT got it right here, IMO, because it would be more likely that the ancient Greeks would use mirrors attached to the shields of the ranks of a Greek Phalanx. Highly disciplined, ordered, and trained to act as a coordinated unit - they could aim the beam quite easily I'd imagine.
2. Both MIT and Mythbusters assumes they would aim for the wooden hull. I would aim for the sails, which would be easier to ignite. Even given that the ships were rowed galleys, they still relied on sail to a certain extent. The burning sails would deliver a significant psychological blow to the enemy, not to mention rain burning canvass down on their heads.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony here is that while it is becoming easier and easier to find stuff, every year there is less and less stuff worth finding
The irony is that it is becoming harder and harder to get your content found in a sea of content. Electronic academic journals are finding this phenomenon a bit hard to overcome. Content overload is as much a problem for the future as content obscurity was in the past.
I suppose you think you're clever. You left something out, however:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order...."
The speech was discussing the PATRIOT Act and roving wiretaps on wholly domestic targets, not foreign intelligence electronic espionage. The NSA does not derive its authority from the PATRIOT Act. This is exactly what I was talking about - uninformed, ignorant, partisan hacks. 100% Slashdot.
If you were looking for informed discussion, you came to the wrong place. If you want flames and smoke, come to Slashdot.
It doesn't do us a whole lot of good if our battles are lost because the representation is poor, but it can do us harm
Which is exactly the philosophy of the ACLU, btw. It should be the philosophy of any good attorney. Foolishly jumping into the fray "for the good fight" is a good way down the road to a phyric victory. Losing sets precedents, and the legal system does not give "A"s for "Effort".
I have been around the corporate world for awhile though, and the language used here would be considered pretty strong there
What corporate world have you been inhabiting? Apparently not the American corporate world, and definately not New York.
Interesting thing about the US that bribing the government is not illegal
l ?title=18&sec=201
Of course it is illegal. A bribe is an improper soliciting of a quid pro quo. Which is not the same thing as exercising one's freedom of speech and political association by contributing to the political campaign of a public official you agree with, and whose policies you wish to see enacted.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.p
Both extremes exhibit what amounts to social pathology
Exactly why are people opposed to religion nutty?
They are nutty because they evidence the same obsessive objectification of the "Other" and are equally unable to allow for good faith disagreement amongst disparate viewpoints. If "they" disagree with you, then "they" are somehow deficient and less worthy of one's tolerance or respect.
Both extremes exhibit what amounts to social pathology.
As for the bible-thumpers taking over America, start with Bush
Clinton was quite explicit in including religious references in his speeches, and made the show of going to church. Jimmy Carter was an overt born again southern baptist. I believe your discomfort with Bush has far more to do with politics than any real religious grounds.
Exactly when was it that my country decide to abdicate rationality in favor of wanton superstition, reprehensible pseudoscience, and gross ignorance?
What do we really expect when people are fed a steady diet of superstition on TV? What are some of the most popular youth TV shows - Buffy, Charmed, Supernatural, etc. Take a flip around the dial - ghost "documentary" shows abound. Combine that with lousy science ed and a general lack of critical thinking instruction in schools and you get messy heads.
As to your church teaching ID - that's where it belongs. No one should be teaching faith in science class, and it is a church's perogative to not teach science in classes about faith. That, IMO, is the proper division.
I am equally discouraged by the alarmist "bible thumpers taking over America!" rhetoric from some corners. The people that are irrationally opposed to religious viewpoints are just as nutty as those that are irrationally opposed to non-religious viewpoints.
Wolcott is just jealous he doesn't have some babe rubbing her titties on him. ;P
attempt at slander in the blurb only reveals the 'political bent' of this site
Especially considering they're talking about Roger Simon, fercrissakes. Attempt at slander is right. Simon is a long-time card carrying liberal. It's just that he's now a "September 11 liberal" as he would say, and it is instructive to see the response.
Has NASA contracted with John Deere to build them?
:)
They should. John Deere would do it for helluva lot cheaper than NASA-native ones. If NASA designs and builds it: $500 million. John Deer: $699.
how do you know there aren't any extremophiles
Extremophiles? On the moon? More like absurdspeculationophiles.
I have no doubt that Dubya's team of neo-conservative swindlers and murderers are responsible for this technology being sidelined
ROFLMAO! Look! Another nutjob!
The fact you got modded "insightful" is pretty insightful of Slashdot's majority culture, IMO.
This guy is a quack.
Here's a hint:
1. Publication-by-press-release
2. Few to none serious scientific citations
3. Brilliant technology that would change the world but for government conspiracy to keep him down
4. known nutjob that is ignored by the scientific community
We have a winner! He's a nutjob!
I'm dying to see a working commercial fusion reactor too, but let's try to keep a healthy sense of scientific skepticism.
Wrong. COPYRIGHT PROTECTS EXPRESSIONS, NOT IDEAS!
And the knockoffs copy Civ's "expression". If they were just making a turn based world-conquest strategy game, there would be no issue. But they copy much of Civ's intrinsic elements. It would come down to whether they copied only functional elements, and whether their work is sufficiently transformative. I'm not convinced they would win.
You cannot copyright a user interface. Microsoft taught that to Apple
Civilization is not just a user interface. Microsoft won on the "look and feel" case largely because Apple had licensed the technology to Microsoft, which reduced Apple's rights to "thin" copyright protection. To my knowledge, the Civ knockoffs have not licensed the rights to Civ. Copyright protects intrinsic and extrinsic elements, and it isn't clear that knockoffs like FreeCiv would prevail in court.
So every copy of every article or book I've made for research or other fair use reason should be destroyed after I've completed the task?
Yes. Where the issue has been presented to courts, it has been held infringing and not fair use. See American Geophysical Union v. Texaco and Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services for starters. Fair use is a defense to infringement, not a privilege at law. The fact that you're copying for research purposes only helps very slightly in the test. You're still infringing. The question for fair use is - is the infringing use excused by the statutory exception for fair use? It isn't a "gimme".
I don't claim to know much about copyright law, but doesn't this fall directly under fair use? Although fair is a pretty ambiguous term, I think sensible people can tell what is and isn't
No, it probably is not fair use. Fair use is a term of legal art and has a specific legal test. It isn't guesswork. Courts examine 1. the purpose and nature of the use, 2. the nature of the work being copied, 3. the extent of the copying, and 4. the market effect. If it is "commercial use", that weighs very heavily against fair use. It isn't necessary to be engaging in profit-seeking activity to be commercial, wholesale copying like Google is engaging in is considered commercial, like was found in the Napster case. The works are copyrighted, the use is commercial in nature and archiving for Google's commercial use, and they are copying whole works. It weighs very heavily against fair use, market effect or no market effect.
I love these projects which OCRs old books where the copyright is no longer active. As for new books, I think it is a bad idea unless the author gave his permission
And that's the most reasonable (and least litigious) approach, IMO.
That constitutes 'fair use'
No it isn't. Librarying is not fair use.
But if I start making more copies and giving them away, or give my copy away, now I should be held to account
You've already made an unauthorized copy. You've already infringed the copyright holder's statutory exclusive rights. You can already be held to account.
So, aside from actually going to the Med, California is one of the closest places you can test something like this within the US
No, SOME places in California are close enough to test something like this. San Francisco is NOT one of those places, emphatically.
Because San Francisco has a climate soooo similar to Mediteranean Syracuse!
Sue who for what? 100 developers and contributors for a portion of all the profits they've earned?
It's called an injunction. Take Two can prevent the OS developers from developing or distributing their game, by court order. Considering it's an obvious copy, as a matter of fact the copying is the whole draw, it would be fairly easy. Copyright holders own the exclusive right to create derivative works, so there really is no defense.
I have two gripes with the experiment of both MIT and Mythbusters.
1. Mythbusters assumed one large array of mirrors. MIT got it right here, IMO, because it would be more likely that the ancient Greeks would use mirrors attached to the shields of the ranks of a Greek Phalanx. Highly disciplined, ordered, and trained to act as a coordinated unit - they could aim the beam quite easily I'd imagine.
2. Both MIT and Mythbusters assumes they would aim for the wooden hull. I would aim for the sails, which would be easier to ignite. Even given that the ships were rowed galleys, they still relied on sail to a certain extent. The burning sails would deliver a significant psychological blow to the enemy, not to mention rain burning canvass down on their heads.