Nah. I didn't miss the point. I just addressed it in another post. I was addressing the idea that the functional equivalent of a screenshot would constitute piracy in the realm of software.
I'm not sure I understand your objection. If teachers are testing for "Identify the author and work from which this quotation is taken." I could see the point. If that's enough to swing your grade then I'd contend the teacher isn't doing their job appropriately.
GOOGLE IS COPYING THE WORK IN IT'S ENTIRETY AND STORING IT ON THEIR SERVERS.
Regardless of what they are displaying to their users, they are making an ILLEGAL copy that they did not purchase.
Correct. And I think that Google may have a problem based on this technicality. This is the letter of the law but I think that what Google is doing is not in violation of the spirit of the law which is to protect copyright holders.
This one could boil down to forum shopping and who has the best attorneys.
How is google going to keep people/organizations from creating or otherwise attaining large server farms or some method to fool googles methods of detecting unique visitors. I mean if such a server farm or something like it can be created/obtained, couldn't one theroretically compile whole texts.
Sure they could. All they have to do is submit multiple search strings with the text of the book they want to replicate. In order to do this they would have to very nearly replicate a good percentage of the work in their search strings which would yield a jumble of excerpts from various parts of the book that would then need to be reassembled in the correct order. They'd have to have a photographic memory or a copy of the text on hand to enter their search strings and it would just be simpler to either scan it yourself or retype it by hand.
In this case, Google is scanning books, then adding this content to the internet.
Not exactly. Their scanning them in full but adding them to a searchable database. What a search reveals is a small excerpt containing the search string (or portions thereof). The only way the entire content would be made available this way is if the author repeated the search string in every sentence.
The Punisher is also not very well known and the movie reflected that.
I could see how not being "well known" might have affected the box office appeal, but The Punisher just wasn't a good movie. It could have been, but it just wasn't.
If person A proves that person B's position is wrong it does not mean that person A's position on the same subject is correct. It's not binary. Both could be wrong. There could be hundreds of distinct theories about a single subject and all of them could be wrong.
Most legitimate requests will tell you to log in to the front page of their web-site (where you've already been)
Whereas most phishing attempts will tell you to log in to the front page of a website (where you've already been) and will provide a handly link to that webpage (slightly altered).
...but it sounds like all they did was go to a web-site.
Gee, kinda like with a phishing attack.
Depending on what these instructions were, the students were either gullible, or just following what seemed to be a legitimate set of instructions.
Again. Same point. It all seems perfectly reasonable to someone who is ignorant of the tactics being used. That seems to be the point of the exercise. There's no sense dismissing it with "All they did was...." because that defeats the purpose.
Nowhere in the original comment does the author say "...therefore bin Laden is not guilty by reason of poor parental attachment".
And my reply doesn't say that the author made that statment. Besides, you generally don't hear people say, "...therefore I am not responsible for my actions" either, but they drop the excuse in hopes that you'll dismiss their behavior when you realize how rough they've had it.
I have to side with your link. Context should help render the appropriate meaning. There are numbers of words that have multiple meanings and we manage to use them in ways that convey which meaning is intended. I don't see why this one should be an exception. I rarely hear 'presently' spoken with Strunk and White's preferred usage, and although I see it in print more often I still don't see it as often as the alternate usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah. I didn't miss the point. I just addressed it in another post. I was addressing the idea that the functional equivalent of a screenshot would constitute piracy in the realm of software.
I'm not sure I understand your objection. If teachers are testing for "Identify the author and work from which this quotation is taken." I could see the point. If that's enough to swing your grade then I'd contend the teacher isn't doing their job appropriately.
GOOGLE IS COPYING THE WORK IN IT'S ENTIRETY AND STORING IT ON THEIR SERVERS.
Regardless of what they are displaying to their users, they are making an ILLEGAL copy that they did not purchase.
Correct. And I think that Google may have a problem based on this technicality. This is the letter of the law but I think that what Google is doing is not in violation of the spirit of the law which is to protect copyright holders.
This one could boil down to forum shopping and who has the best attorneys.
I should point out that I'm talking about what is made available rather than what is scanned.
Sorry, where I come from that's called software piracy and is definately illegal.
Not if it's the functional equivalent of a screen shot.
How is google going to keep people/organizations from creating or otherwise attaining large server farms or some method to fool googles methods of detecting unique visitors. I mean if such a server farm or something like it can be created/obtained, couldn't one theroretically compile whole texts.
Sure they could. All they have to do is submit multiple search strings with the text of the book they want to replicate. In order to do this they would have to very nearly replicate a good percentage of the work in their search strings which would yield a jumble of excerpts from various parts of the book that would then need to be reassembled in the correct order. They'd have to have a photographic memory or a copy of the text on hand to enter their search strings and it would just be simpler to either scan it yourself or retype it by hand.
If this were "evil" you might have a point.
In this case, Google is scanning books, then adding this content to the internet.
Not exactly. Their scanning them in full but adding them to a searchable database. What a search reveals is a small excerpt containing the search string (or portions thereof). The only way the entire content would be made available this way is if the author repeated the search string in every sentence.
...which allow everything from parodies to excerpts in book reviews.
Are they going to have reviews? Otherwise their use doesn't seem to fall under that.
No. They're going to be verbatim parodies of the original.
Dude! With a lineup like that we could ressurect The Tick!
The Punisher is also not very well known and the movie reflected that.
I could see how not being "well known" might have affected the box office appeal, but The Punisher just wasn't a good movie. It could have been, but it just wasn't.
The first one to misread the title? Maybe not, but you're the first one to own up to it.....
Isn't THAT spatial!
If person A proves that person B's position is wrong it does not mean that person A's position on the same subject is correct. It's not binary. Both could be wrong. There could be hundreds of distinct theories about a single subject and all of them could be wrong.
Most legitimate requests will tell you to log in to the front page of their web-site (where you've already been)
Whereas most phishing attempts will tell you to log in to the front page of a website (where you've already been) and will provide a handly link to that webpage (slightly altered).
...but it sounds like all they did was go to a web-site.
Gee, kinda like with a phishing attack.
Depending on what these instructions were, the students were either gullible, or just following what seemed to be a legitimate set of instructions.
Again. Same point. It all seems perfectly reasonable to someone who is ignorant of the tactics being used. That seems to be the point of the exercise. There's no sense dismissing it with "All they did was...." because that defeats the purpose.
Buncha posers.....
You'd know that had you RTFA.
Referenced The Friendly Aussie?
You mean the people who built the tower of Babel?
No, no. Babelonians are the female Babylonians after they grow up....
If you state the PDP-8 was an 8 bit machine, one gazillion people will immediately correct you.
No way! Well, maybe today, but when they were new they cost a lot more than that....
I almost pooped your pants when I read it......
Nowhere in the original comment does the author say "...therefore bin Laden is not guilty by reason of poor parental attachment".
And my reply doesn't say that the author made that statment. Besides, you generally don't hear people say, "...therefore I am not responsible for my actions" either, but they drop the excuse in hopes that you'll dismiss their behavior when you realize how rough they've had it.
I have to side with your link. Context should help render the appropriate meaning. There are numbers of words that have multiple meanings and we manage to use them in ways that convey which meaning is intended. I don't see why this one should be an exception. I rarely hear 'presently' spoken with Strunk and White's preferred usage, and although I see it in print more often I still don't see it as often as the alternate usage.
I know people who have intentionally "crashed" their car. I'm not sure I know anyone who has planned a collision....
"Emergent is a growing generative friendship among missional Christian leaders ..."
Their targetted audience apparently being middle-managers...