Nearly every comment on this article is about them being too stupid to rotate the fax.
Then some guy asks if there is any software which would automatically detect the need to rotate a document.
Just when things start to get perhaps a little interresting... you in your moment of brilliance decide to say what has already said elsewhere already a hundred times over, that they are too stupid to rotate the fax?
Do you work for the patent office? Management perhaps?
Note the lack of reading comprehension in the replies here so far.
To automatically detect that the document is upside down might also create false positives: documents that are right side up being flagged as being upside down.
The title of this comment, "umop apisdn", is upside down. How many people caught that vs how many thought that it was gibberish?
Did you think that you were going to impress us by linking to something that wasnt even under debate, as if it was under debate?
I mean COME ON.. you linked to something that essentially says "CODEC (A) NOT COMPATIBLE WITH CODEC (B)".. are you fucking serious? This is SLASHDOT.. did you REALLY think that anyone here didn't know that?
For the record, I do not hate you. I just hate the tremendous stupidity that you have shown.
Not all of it is H.264. Some of it appears to be Theora or some other codec that Opera supports natively.
I was thinking that maybe the stuff posted to Google Video was encoded in Theora and it gets cross-posted to YouTube, while the stuff posted directly to YouTube gets encoded in H.264, but thats just a guess (it could also be that it doesnt bother to covert theora encoded uploads of the correct size)
You suggest that an author file suit against Google.. and then.. "the burden will be on google to show.."
I got news for you buddy. Thats not how it works in America. The burden will be on the plaintiff (the author) to show that defendant (Google) did not take "reasonable steps."..
Your conclusion that "at absolute worst" the author gets royalties is wrong. At absolute worst the author goes bankrupt fighting against a behemoth corporation and ends up with nothing.. not even rights to his work.
The opt-out provision only applies to works where the copyright holder is either unknown or not responding to contact attempts (the class of works referred to as "orphan works").
Bullshit. What you are suggesting is that for each of the MILLIONS of published works that Google is going to make an effort to contact the rights holders?
Are you serious? Its laughable to even entertain the thought. This is how its going to work: Google will submit a list to BIG PUBLISHERS and if THEY own the rights to or have a contract with the rights holder of any of the material then they will submit an opt-out list right back. Thats it. Thats the extent of the "attempt to contact" that will happen.
Authors who are not currently beholden to a publishing contract from any of the big publishers will have THEIR RIGHTS taken away until they complain. The little guy gets fucked again.
Your argument not only dies for being just a generalization, but because its also bullshit.
The definition of an orphaned work is not "the owners have no interest in preservation of the work" like you claim. The definition of an orphaned work in this case is "google couldn't contact them".. you dont get to change the definition.
The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print.
This is not a good enough reason.
Here is the deal. Right now its just Google trying to get this deal set up, so right now you would have to contact only one entity (Google) and that doesnt seem so bad...
...but you can bet your ass that Google will not hold an exclusive here for very long, because that would be terribly wrong on so many levels (can you say Monopoly?) Microsoft will get in the game, then others. Before you know it, the author will have to opt out on a dozen different services.. then two dozen.. then four.. all of them of course claiming that they couldnt contact him... which brings up another question: How much effort is actually required to contact the owners of the work before its considered "orphaned?" My guess is NONE.
You can't make shit like this law. Its wrong. If you've got a problem with copyright law (as most of us do) then fix the law.. don't extend the problem by giving rights to Google that lets them side-skirt it.
If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?
Your big mistake is not being informed.
Tesla HAS private investors. The deal with this money is that while the government was already handing out big loans to other auto manufacturers, Tesla raised their hand and said "us too, its only fair."
There just hasnt been a good argument expressed as to why Tesla shouldn't get this loan. The guys saying that electric vehicles will always be under-performant to ICE's are wrong in practice because the Roadster is one of the best performing street legal car on the road today. The Roadster is a performance MONSTER built on what is still an immature technology: 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.7 seconds, and this year they are upgrading the engine on the Roadster (because they are improving the technology.)
This is a company that is actually making a profit selling electric vehicles. Know of any others? Hell, the rest of the american automotive industry is barely breaking even, or worse. The only drawbacks right now in Tesla's offerings are price, range, and limited infrastructure for recharging away from home. The next iteration will absolutely improve the first drawback, likely also the second, while we will still have to wait for mass production for the 3rd.
Tesla's roadmap is for the following iteration, the Model T, for mass production to be practical. People say that Tesla will just be a footnote.. yeah.. the footnote will say "100 years ago Tesla put both GM and Chrysler out of business, and 4 years later merged with Ford's strong hybrid division"
Probably this, along with using the existing workers. The roadster was never going to be a mass produced vehicle, so it makes sense at some point to stop production and build something different using those same resources.
The key there is "reasonable settlement" - they've gone and fucked themselves over for ever having anyone believe that MORE than that is a "reasonable" amount, since after all, thats the figure that they declared reasonable.
If the "ownership" of an object is not clear, or could not be efficiently tracked, or if you cant be sure if all the entities holding the pointer or the reference have to release it then you should use garbage collection.
If the ownership and lifetime is easily tracked, then a decent compiler can track it just as well as the human and will not generate code that requires a hunt for garbage at all (contrary to your efficiency argument), but instead will explicitly alloc and then explicitly free just like the programmer would have had to do manually.
Once the expert understands the garbage collection system, he can avoid the inefficiencies that you are afraid of while still getting all the bang-for-his-buck in those cases where the hunt for garbage makes sense... and while we are on the subject, if efficiency is important then you arent New'ing inside that loop anyways. If you want efficiency, stop being lazy.
There are still some things I would like from MASM that really should be built in instead of having to hack-it-up.. some simple things like built-in support for floating point calculations within the pre-processor. It is a very glaring omission at this point, considering that FPU's are no longer optional co-processors....
The nice thing about this nearly-compatible masm assembler is its license terms. Like if I want to write a domain-specific compiler I can just package this thing up and send it along so that I can emit regular assembler instead of binary opcodes. One thought that comes to mind already would be a compiler for a fractal generator so that users can write custom recurrence relations that would get compiled to a fairly efficient binary.. this is something where that compiler would be a lot of work (more than the fractal generator program itself) without a robust back-end assembler like this.
"sar dx, 16" wasnt a valid 8086 instruction. The ability to use a constant larger than 1 wasnt introduced into the 80286. Prior to that, you would have had to use the cl register:
Slashdot Mirror
If Google wants to strike a deal with me, then why are they litigating with other people?
No, Google does not want to strike a deal over my rights with me. Google wants to strike a deal over my rights with those other people.
This is slashdot. We think that copyright terms are way too long and so forth. This isnt the solution.
Its inevitable that google charges for other peoples still-under-copyright work without their permission?
Embarrassed LowID slashdot troll thinks that hes clever by posting things that arent true as an anonymous asshat. News at 11.
Thats assuming all the pages are upside down.
What does that have to do with anything?
Nearly every comment on this article is about them being too stupid to rotate the fax.
Then some guy asks if there is any software which would automatically detect the need to rotate a document.
Just when things start to get perhaps a little interresting... you in your moment of brilliance decide to say what has already said elsewhere already a hundred times over, that they are too stupid to rotate the fax?
Do you work for the patent office? Management perhaps?
Note the lack of reading comprehension in the replies here so far.
To automatically detect that the document is upside down might also create false positives: documents that are right side up being flagged as being upside down.
The title of this comment, "umop apisdn", is upside down. How many people caught that vs how many thought that it was gibberish?
I'll believe it when I see it. Until you provide some sort of proof (URL to non-H.264 and non-FLV YouTube video would be nice), I won't believe that.
Already did that the last time this subject came up on slashdot.
.. are you fucking serious? This is SLASHDOT.. did you REALLY think that anyone here didn't know that?
Did you think that you were going to impress us by linking to something that wasnt even under debate, as if it was under debate?
I mean COME ON.. you linked to something that essentially says "CODEC (A) NOT COMPATIBLE WITH CODEC (B)"
For the record, I do not hate you. I just hate the tremendous stupidity that you have shown.
Did you even read what I wrote, and what I replied to?
Some of the stuff on YouTube is most definitely NOT H.264 because Opera plays some of it while using YouTube's test HTML5 mode.
Not all of it is H.264. Some of it appears to be Theora or some other codec that Opera supports natively.
I was thinking that maybe the stuff posted to Google Video was encoded in Theora and it gets cross-posted to YouTube, while the stuff posted directly to YouTube gets encoded in H.264, but thats just a guess (it could also be that it doesnt bother to covert theora encoded uploads of the correct size)
Ah yes..
..
..and if you wanted to set your house on fire, all you had to do was put it into a long print cycle..
There was once another computer named Adam. After release it quickly became known as Coleco's "Adam Bomb"
I would argue that their video shows something closer to a 20" screen, and such a size might be optimal for what I'd want.
Now picture this.. a low-horsepower tablet that is convertible into a wireless LCD touch-screen monitor for your high-horsepower desktop computer.
The vast vast majority of mobile browsers are Opera.
iPhones, Androids, and Palms are trendy.. but they are still a minority.
Did you even think about that before typing it?
..
You suggest that an author file suit against Google.. and then.. "the burden will be on google to show.."
I got news for you buddy. Thats not how it works in America. The burden will be on the plaintiff (the author) to show that defendant (Google) did not take "reasonable steps."
Your conclusion that "at absolute worst" the author gets royalties is wrong. At absolute worst the author goes bankrupt fighting against a behemoth corporation and ends up with nothing.. not even rights to his work.
The opt-out provision only applies to works where the copyright holder is either unknown or not responding to contact attempts (the class of works referred to as "orphan works").
Bullshit. What you are suggesting is that for each of the MILLIONS of published works that Google is going to make an effort to contact the rights holders?
Are you serious? Its laughable to even entertain the thought. This is how its going to work: Google will submit a list to BIG PUBLISHERS and if THEY own the rights to or have a contract with the rights holder of any of the material then they will submit an opt-out list right back. Thats it. Thats the extent of the "attempt to contact" that will happen.
Authors who are not currently beholden to a publishing contract from any of the big publishers will have THEIR RIGHTS taken away until they complain. The little guy gets fucked again.
Your argument not only dies for being just a generalization, but because its also bullshit.
.. you dont get to change the definition.
The definition of an orphaned work is not "the owners have no interest in preservation of the work" like you claim. The definition of an orphaned work in this case is "google couldn't contact them"
The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print.
This is not a good enough reason.
...but you can bet your ass that Google will not hold an exclusive here for very long, because that would be terribly wrong on so many levels (can you say Monopoly?) Microsoft will get in the game, then others. Before you know it, the author will have to opt out on a dozen different services.. then two dozen.. then four.. all of them of course claiming that they couldnt contact him... which brings up another question: How much effort is actually required to contact the owners of the work before its considered "orphaned?" My guess is NONE.
Here is the deal. Right now its just Google trying to get this deal set up, so right now you would have to contact only one entity (Google) and that doesnt seem so bad...
You can't make shit like this law. Its wrong. If you've got a problem with copyright law (as most of us do) then fix the law.. don't extend the problem by giving rights to Google that lets them side-skirt it.
If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?
Your big mistake is not being informed.
Tesla HAS private investors. The deal with this money is that while the government was already handing out big loans to other auto manufacturers, Tesla raised their hand and said "us too, its only fair."
There just hasnt been a good argument expressed as to why Tesla shouldn't get this loan. The guys saying that electric vehicles will always be under-performant to ICE's are wrong in practice because the Roadster is one of the best performing street legal car on the road today. The Roadster is a performance MONSTER built on what is still an immature technology: 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.7 seconds, and this year they are upgrading the engine on the Roadster (because they are improving the technology.)
This is a company that is actually making a profit selling electric vehicles. Know of any others? Hell, the rest of the american automotive industry is barely breaking even, or worse. The only drawbacks right now in Tesla's offerings are price, range, and limited infrastructure for recharging away from home. The next iteration will absolutely improve the first drawback, likely also the second, while we will still have to wait for mass production for the 3rd.
Tesla's roadmap is for the following iteration, the Model T, for mass production to be practical. People say that Tesla will just be a footnote.. yeah.. the footnote will say "100 years ago Tesla put both GM and Chrysler out of business, and 4 years later merged with Ford's strong hybrid division"
Still looking for a calculator with a Primorial operator.
Probably this, along with using the existing workers. The roadster was never going to be a mass produced vehicle, so it makes sense at some point to stop production and build something different using those same resources.
He's just this guy.. 'ya know?
The key there is "reasonable settlement" - they've gone and fucked themselves over for ever having anyone believe that MORE than that is a "reasonable" amount, since after all, thats the figure that they declared reasonable.
Don't you know the street value of this mountain?
If the "ownership" of an object is not clear, or could not be efficiently tracked, or if you cant be sure if all the entities holding the pointer or the reference have to release it then you should use garbage collection.
If the ownership and lifetime is easily tracked, then a decent compiler can track it just as well as the human and will not generate code that requires a hunt for garbage at all (contrary to your efficiency argument), but instead will explicitly alloc and then explicitly free just like the programmer would have had to do manually.
Once the expert understands the garbage collection system, he can avoid the inefficiencies that you are afraid of while still getting all the bang-for-his-buck in those cases where the hunt for garbage makes sense... and while we are on the subject, if efficiency is important then you arent New'ing inside that loop anyways. If you want efficiency, stop being lazy.
There are still some things I would like from MASM that really should be built in instead of having to hack-it-up .. some simple things like built-in support for floating point calculations within the pre-processor. It is a very glaring omission at this point, considering that FPU's are no longer optional co-processors....
.. this is something where that compiler would be a lot of work (more than the fractal generator program itself) without a robust back-end assembler like this.
The nice thing about this nearly-compatible masm assembler is its license terms. Like if I want to write a domain-specific compiler I can just package this thing up and send it along so that I can emit regular assembler instead of binary opcodes. One thought that comes to mind already would be a compiler for a fractal generator so that users can write custom recurrence relations that would get compiled to a fairly efficient binary
"sar dx, 16" wasnt a valid 8086 instruction. The ability to use a constant larger than 1 wasnt introduced into the 80286. Prior to that, you would have had to use the cl register:
mov dx, ax
mov cl, 16
sar dx, cl
damn i'm old.