Can it really be true that he had no say in it? I mean, not directly in normal circumstances, but the copyright belonged to him, right? Was it legal for him to tell you to copy it? If so, couldn't he have put that on the first page?
I'm not nitpicking, I'm actually curious how all that shit happens.
If it's anything like the University Press that I worked for, no, he couldn't put it on the first page, there's a standard copyright assertion/disclaimer that the place will use. No, it probably wasn't *strictly* legal for him to be saying that, and technically, it's not his copyright.
That's right. It's not his copyright. The entire point of the contract that an author and publisher sign is a temporary assignment of copyright for specific purposes, generally the publisher holds it for the first run, and maybe some subsequent reprints, until the book is declared out of print, and then the copyright reverts to the author.
This is pretty much necessary under current business practices, since deals for advertising, excerpting, and even designing and printing would all be kneecapped by having to return to the author constantly for written approval for every change and deal made. And since I've seen authors go incommunicado for literally months at a time, publishing would grind to a halt.
eBooks will have to change the formula slightly, since the book will never need to technically go out of print, so it'll probably see a move to term-periods of copyright assignment. Say, a publisher gets it for 5 years or some such before reversion.
As for if one publisher refused, another be willing? Not as likely as you think. Publishers in a field tend to talk to each other a lot, and find out things, and keep tabs on each other, and very few are willing to take on something that's going to be a clear loss in publishing, which with an author looking to give the book away, would probably do it. You'd be stuck doing self-publishing, and even for people who are subject matter experts, self-published books are a damn nightmare. Typos and awkward phrasing slip through, organization is horrible, there's usually no fact checking and source attribution checking, all because the person assumes they know the topic that well, and mistakes happen.
A large, heavily illustrated book costs about $20 to get printed at a professional printer if you do a print run of 1,000+. It's not the printing that costs the money, it's the original research, follow-up research, and editing that cost the money. The advanced-level Ukrainian language text book that my Press printed took the author five years of in-class and at-home work to create before she ever brought it to us, and then it took nearly another two years to get it printed. It's also the stuff that no one ever thinks of that costs the big money too. The book had hundreds of images that had to be converted to print quality, some starting out as crappy web images, some as massive posters. That all needs to be done out-of-house usually too.
Textbooks are fucking expensive to make, and the biggest bandits are usually the college bookstores to boot, especially when they buy back and resell used copies. If you're in a college town, check independent bookstores in your area. If you have the ISBN, you can usually get them to order it in (as far as I know, every University Press has a deal with at least one distributor, and most textbook publishers do too), and it'll usually be cheaper. Amazon is also a good bet, though shipping can be an issue.
That would be why he differentiated between worthless and useless. Valueless might have worked better, but been open to more bizarre interpretations. If you can't sell it, and wouldn't buy it except at low values, it is worthless in the monetary sense.
Funny - people used to be all upset about planned obsolescence, but now that it's a reality you don't hear boo. Why is that, I wonder?
Because while the old tech may work, people for the most part realize that new tech moves so fast, having the old stuff hanging around hinders progress. See: shit like IPv4.
I like those. I did one of their "test" once. The guy talked to me, and asked lots of questions. I remained calm, and answered every one of them any way I wanted. The needle didn't move. After a few minutes, he began doubting the machine, and then questioned me on if I was operating it right. With the simple instructions "hold these loosely in your hands", there wasn't much for me to mess up. Since he had turned the sensitivity all the way up because he couldn't get a response, when he told me to hold them a little tighter, the needle shot all the way to the right. I suggested he turn the sensitivity down.:)
I held on a little tighter, and he adjusted the machine again, so it was now showing neutral. The questions resumed, and I didn't show any sort of reaction to any of the questions. He got real frustrated with me (Hey dude, reactionary mind. Practice what you preach.), and gave up on it. I guess I wouldn't be a good cult member, if they won't know that I'm lying to them or not. Too bad, I wanted to join up, so I could take over.;)
Not so hard to believe, but I think it's more likely that the retail shops are pawning it off as Apple's doing. It's probably just what they've been told to say. If you asked corporate of those stores, they'd probably justify it by saying "Apple forced us to by not letting us have enough of a margin on the product, so we need to sell accessories or we're practically selling them at a loss!"
As bad as I think Apple is and can be, I *know* corporate retail is worse.
That's because it's a perpetuating cycle. The transit sucks, so no one uses it, so there's no incentive to improve it (nor funding), so it continues to suck so still no one uses it. With a larger population base, at the least you'll get enough people willing to put up with it that you can spare the cash to tweak the system.
As soon as someone is killed or hurt by an automated car, there will never be automated cars again.
Yeah, because regular cars, airplanes, boats, skateboards, rollerskates, hang gliders, and jet skis are all retired forms of transportation.
I'm sorry to say this, and I'll try to be polite as possible, but that's an asinine belief that an entire technology line would be retired on one incident, or that even a rash of incidents would cause a permanent shelving. The best example would be nuclear power. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island both put *huge* amounts of fear in to people about nuclear power, and yet there's still nuclear power plants all over the world. If something that *actually caused a disaster* wasn't shelved, why would automated cars be abandoned? You're not being realistic in the slightest, and obviously just hoping your own world view is correct. Especially the "people are afraid of computer systems." No they're not. Yeah, they used to be, hence why you had movies like 2001, where the evil was technology run amok, but people don't take that kind of threat seriously now. Can you name a movie made after 2005 that had the computer as the main villain? Or how about after 2000 with one that can be taken seriously? Movie villains reflect the fears of the times, and with everyone and their dog having an mp3 player, a computer at home, and using computers at work, saying any one is "afraid" of computer systems is backwards. "Mistrusting" might be a better word, but people mistrust any new technology, not just computers.
I agree that they should be teaching concepts, completely, but your point of Win7 not existing in the corporate world is patently ridiculous on its face. Windows XP is still strong in the corporate world, and it's 9 years old. If Windows 7 is the next system adopted, then given some time lag, and less than optimistic projections, it should be in mid-life by the time they're done college, 7 years later (3 for adoption, 4 years in to the life cycle). I'd say it'd be likely that Win 7 would be just on the downhill side.
It is the job of education to show kids the possibilities out there, so they can make informed choices.
No, it is the job of education to provide knowledge. The tools are irrelevant, and should never matter more than what is being imparted. It is the job of education to show how to find and assess possibilities, not to present them. There is not enough time to do a fair job of presenting possibilities in all fields, nor are all possibilities equal (for instance, your position would be the basis of an argument for allowing Intelligent Design to a Biology class, since it's a possible alternative to evolution, and students should be shown all the possibilities).
It is NOT the job of education to dictate how someone learns. Unfortunately, that's the system in place, it seems. It's more important that someone learn in the "correct" way, than to actually learn, hence standardized testing, and unreasonable supply lists that dictate folder colour, notebook size, and pencil type.
There were techies bitching about buttons being moved in Ubuntu, and you expect normal people to go from OS X after three years of likely exclusive use to Windows? People react poorly to change, and Mac users least of all due to the sticky nature of Apple's product line. You're right, they ARE going to have some big problems later when they need to use a computer at work, and it requires something more than drag-n-drop to work.
Just to mention, I don't think *either* Google OR the government should have the data. But Google definitely fucked up by collecting it in the first place.
HA! Right. If Google hadn't announced they'd collected it, they'd never destroy it. Remember, their entire business model is information. I think you trust in them a little too much if you think they'd just randomly destroy any information that might possibly have value.
My call is they went public with the info because they knew a leak was inevitable, and thought they could save face by being open. They didn't quite count on governments taking an interest so forcefully. That, or they knew governments would, and planned so that they could still end up looking like the good guys, because hey, the big mean government is taking the data, and who knows what THOSE GUYS are going to do with it.
Looks like that option worked on you, so no, they opened the can of worms by collecting it unnecessarily.
Yeah, corrosive attitude, because I think one guy acting like a fucking moron. I'd thank you not to attempt to use me as an object lesson in your societal ills and woes diatribes, especially since I don't fit as a clean example.
I never said that the cops injured him purposefully, in this case, the guy wasn't beaten, basically every single thing about this particular situation doesn't work at all for what you're saying. Hell, if we're giving people the benefit of the doubt (the AC never said he'd be compliant if they'd said they were going to injure him, just that now he knew it was a possibility, as he'd already been hurt, he'd comply), why not assume the cops were jacked up on adrenaline and jerking his arm that hard was an accident? It's not excessive if it's an accident. It's an accident.
Nothing about my replies or this situation reinforces any point you have, except that you think you have a point to make, and that you thought this was the opportunity. It wasn't.
I don't see where he admits to being beaten. I see where he almost got his arm dislocated. If you actually think, that means they yanked his arm to get it in to place to cuff him. Especially since he said only AFTER his arm was nearly dislocated did he become compliant.
So, no admitted beating, simply a hurt arm, a part that would reasonably be handled during a cuffing of a suspect resisting.
How is that logically unjustified, and how am I a fucking moron for pointing it out?
I don't buy Apple products, and one of the reasons is the whole walled-garden thing.
Apple goons won't show up at my door, but they also won't fix my phone if anything unrelated happens to it if I do anything against their terms. Again, I ask, why do they get that kind of say? If it's a defective product, then it's defective, and they should still be forced to abide by any portion of the warranty still valid. But they don't. You jailbreak your phone, they won't service it. Even if your problem is the battery's shot, or the speaker died.
As for why they shouldn't get 100% control, that's blatantly ridiculous, and damn near trolling. You're not buying a service from Apple. You're buying a product. I've never heard of "hardware as a service." Does Ford have any kind of control over your car? Does Kenmore have any control over your fridge? So again, why should Apple get any kind of control over my hardware purchase? Don't give me some kind of "If you don't like it, don't buy it," bullshit. I want an actual justification beyond "controlling the user experience."
Because there's still stores other than Costco to get stuff at legitimately. If you own an iPod/iPhone, and you don't want to Jailbreak it, you can ONLY get things through the app store. Either Apple needs to open up the marketplace, or they need to open up a legitimate alternate channel for app purchase. If I buy it, it's my phone. Why does Apple get any kind of say at all as to what I put on it?
No, that's a serious question. It's not a specialized device like a console. It's capable of running lots of different things, and doing it well. As long as I'm not violating someone else's copyright, why should anyone care what goes on my phone?
My question is, why should they be allowed to? Just slap a warning on it, and let it go. Last I checked, image management wasn't a valid reason to restrict other peoples' actions.
I dunno about wearing uniforms at nonviolent protests. Why should they, if they're not starting anything? Wearing a uniform in a situation like that is usually a catalyst to bad behaviour. Emotions are running high in the crowd, all it takes is for one moron to decide to mouth off just a liiiiiiiittle too much, or think he can use the anonymity of the crowd and toss something, and everything can go to hell in a handbasket.
Wow, you're a fucking moron. Your repeated use of the term "pigs" means you were likely belligerent during the encounter. You were already being arrested, which means they already had cause to be suspicious of you. And then you bitch and moan that they didn't treat you with kid gloves, when "flexing your arms" could have been a prelude to an assault? Belligerent, already under suspicion, non-cooperative, and you make a move that might have been aggressive? Yeah, there's shit cops out there, but in your case, I think you fucking deserved it.
Hey, it's a short-sighted, narrow-minded view! Holy shit, do you really not see why street vendors would need to be kept track of? Fuck collecting taxes for the moment, there's dealing dangerous materials, knowingly or unknowingly (childrens' toys with lead paint, clothing covered in pesticides, etc). There's a wide range of reasons why they'd need to be tracked, and licencing them is the easiest, and probably *least* intrusive way.
Slashdot Mirror
So, don't compete then. We don't need textbook publishers anymore.
Yeah, you do. Maybe not dedicated companies, but you still need publishers for textbooks.
Can it really be true that he had no say in it? I mean, not directly in normal circumstances, but the copyright belonged to him, right? Was it legal for him to tell you to copy it? If so, couldn't he have put that on the first page?
I'm not nitpicking, I'm actually curious how all that shit happens.
If it's anything like the University Press that I worked for, no, he couldn't put it on the first page, there's a standard copyright assertion/disclaimer that the place will use. No, it probably wasn't *strictly* legal for him to be saying that, and technically, it's not his copyright.
That's right. It's not his copyright. The entire point of the contract that an author and publisher sign is a temporary assignment of copyright for specific purposes, generally the publisher holds it for the first run, and maybe some subsequent reprints, until the book is declared out of print, and then the copyright reverts to the author.
This is pretty much necessary under current business practices, since deals for advertising, excerpting, and even designing and printing would all be kneecapped by having to return to the author constantly for written approval for every change and deal made. And since I've seen authors go incommunicado for literally months at a time, publishing would grind to a halt.
eBooks will have to change the formula slightly, since the book will never need to technically go out of print, so it'll probably see a move to term-periods of copyright assignment. Say, a publisher gets it for 5 years or some such before reversion.
As for if one publisher refused, another be willing? Not as likely as you think. Publishers in a field tend to talk to each other a lot, and find out things, and keep tabs on each other, and very few are willing to take on something that's going to be a clear loss in publishing, which with an author looking to give the book away, would probably do it. You'd be stuck doing self-publishing, and even for people who are subject matter experts, self-published books are a damn nightmare. Typos and awkward phrasing slip through, organization is horrible, there's usually no fact checking and source attribution checking, all because the person assumes they know the topic that well, and mistakes happen.
A large, heavily illustrated book costs about $20 to get printed at a professional printer if you do a print run of 1,000+. It's not the printing that costs the money, it's the original research, follow-up research, and editing that cost the money. The advanced-level Ukrainian language text book that my Press printed took the author five years of in-class and at-home work to create before she ever brought it to us, and then it took nearly another two years to get it printed. It's also the stuff that no one ever thinks of that costs the big money too. The book had hundreds of images that had to be converted to print quality, some starting out as crappy web images, some as massive posters. That all needs to be done out-of-house usually too.
Textbooks are fucking expensive to make, and the biggest bandits are usually the college bookstores to boot, especially when they buy back and resell used copies. If you're in a college town, check independent bookstores in your area. If you have the ISBN, you can usually get them to order it in (as far as I know, every University Press has a deal with at least one distributor, and most textbook publishers do too), and it'll usually be cheaper. Amazon is also a good bet, though shipping can be an issue.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's more to prevent insider trading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading), which can be illegal most places.
That would be why he differentiated between worthless and useless. Valueless might have worked better, but been open to more bizarre interpretations. If you can't sell it, and wouldn't buy it except at low values, it is worthless in the monetary sense.
Funny - people used to be all upset about planned obsolescence, but now that it's a reality you don't hear boo. Why is that, I wonder?
Because while the old tech may work, people for the most part realize that new tech moves so fast, having the old stuff hanging around hinders progress. See: shit like IPv4.
I like those. I did one of their "test" once. The guy talked to me, and asked lots of questions. I remained calm, and answered every one of them any way I wanted. The needle didn't move. After a few minutes, he began doubting the machine, and then questioned me on if I was operating it right. With the simple instructions "hold these loosely in your hands", there wasn't much for me to mess up. Since he had turned the sensitivity all the way up because he couldn't get a response, when he told me to hold them a little tighter, the needle shot all the way to the right. I suggested he turn the sensitivity down. :)
I held on a little tighter, and he adjusted the machine again, so it was now showing neutral. The questions resumed, and I didn't show any sort of reaction to any of the questions. He got real frustrated with me (Hey dude, reactionary mind. Practice what you preach.), and gave up on it. I guess I wouldn't be a good cult member, if they won't know that I'm lying to them or not. Too bad, I wanted to join up, so I could take over. ;)
I just wanted to say, this is awesome.
Not so hard to believe, but I think it's more likely that the retail shops are pawning it off as Apple's doing. It's probably just what they've been told to say. If you asked corporate of those stores, they'd probably justify it by saying "Apple forced us to by not letting us have enough of a margin on the product, so we need to sell accessories or we're practically selling them at a loss!"
As bad as I think Apple is and can be, I *know* corporate retail is worse.
That's because it's a perpetuating cycle. The transit sucks, so no one uses it, so there's no incentive to improve it (nor funding), so it continues to suck so still no one uses it. With a larger population base, at the least you'll get enough people willing to put up with it that you can spare the cash to tweak the system.
As soon as someone is killed or hurt by an automated car, there will never be automated cars again.
Yeah, because regular cars, airplanes, boats, skateboards, rollerskates, hang gliders, and jet skis are all retired forms of transportation.
I'm sorry to say this, and I'll try to be polite as possible, but that's an asinine belief that an entire technology line would be retired on one incident, or that even a rash of incidents would cause a permanent shelving. The best example would be nuclear power. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island both put *huge* amounts of fear in to people about nuclear power, and yet there's still nuclear power plants all over the world. If something that *actually caused a disaster* wasn't shelved, why would automated cars be abandoned? You're not being realistic in the slightest, and obviously just hoping your own world view is correct. Especially the "people are afraid of computer systems." No they're not. Yeah, they used to be, hence why you had movies like 2001, where the evil was technology run amok, but people don't take that kind of threat seriously now. Can you name a movie made after 2005 that had the computer as the main villain? Or how about after 2000 with one that can be taken seriously? Movie villains reflect the fears of the times, and with everyone and their dog having an mp3 player, a computer at home, and using computers at work, saying any one is "afraid" of computer systems is backwards. "Mistrusting" might be a better word, but people mistrust any new technology, not just computers.
I agree that they should be teaching concepts, completely, but your point of Win7 not existing in the corporate world is patently ridiculous on its face. Windows XP is still strong in the corporate world, and it's 9 years old. If Windows 7 is the next system adopted, then given some time lag, and less than optimistic projections, it should be in mid-life by the time they're done college, 7 years later (3 for adoption, 4 years in to the life cycle). I'd say it'd be likely that Win 7 would be just on the downhill side.
It is the job of education to show kids the possibilities out there, so they can make informed choices.
No, it is the job of education to provide knowledge. The tools are irrelevant, and should never matter more than what is being imparted. It is the job of education to show how to find and assess possibilities, not to present them. There is not enough time to do a fair job of presenting possibilities in all fields, nor are all possibilities equal (for instance, your position would be the basis of an argument for allowing Intelligent Design to a Biology class, since it's a possible alternative to evolution, and students should be shown all the possibilities).
It is NOT the job of education to dictate how someone learns. Unfortunately, that's the system in place, it seems. It's more important that someone learn in the "correct" way, than to actually learn, hence standardized testing, and unreasonable supply lists that dictate folder colour, notebook size, and pencil type.
There were techies bitching about buttons being moved in Ubuntu, and you expect normal people to go from OS X after three years of likely exclusive use to Windows? People react poorly to change, and Mac users least of all due to the sticky nature of Apple's product line. You're right, they ARE going to have some big problems later when they need to use a computer at work, and it requires something more than drag-n-drop to work.
He did say "Bible," not "Torah."
The Bible pre-dates Socrates?
Is this some magic time-travelling Bible you're talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
Check the death date. A few hundred years before Jesus was born.
Just to mention, I don't think *either* Google OR the government should have the data. But Google definitely fucked up by collecting it in the first place.
HA! Right. If Google hadn't announced they'd collected it, they'd never destroy it. Remember, their entire business model is information. I think you trust in them a little too much if you think they'd just randomly destroy any information that might possibly have value.
My call is they went public with the info because they knew a leak was inevitable, and thought they could save face by being open. They didn't quite count on governments taking an interest so forcefully. That, or they knew governments would, and planned so that they could still end up looking like the good guys, because hey, the big mean government is taking the data, and who knows what THOSE GUYS are going to do with it.
Looks like that option worked on you, so no, they opened the can of worms by collecting it unnecessarily.
Yeah, corrosive attitude, because I think one guy acting like a fucking moron. I'd thank you not to attempt to use me as an object lesson in your societal ills and woes diatribes, especially since I don't fit as a clean example.
I never said that the cops injured him purposefully, in this case, the guy wasn't beaten, basically every single thing about this particular situation doesn't work at all for what you're saying. Hell, if we're giving people the benefit of the doubt (the AC never said he'd be compliant if they'd said they were going to injure him, just that now he knew it was a possibility, as he'd already been hurt, he'd comply), why not assume the cops were jacked up on adrenaline and jerking his arm that hard was an accident? It's not excessive if it's an accident. It's an accident.
Nothing about my replies or this situation reinforces any point you have, except that you think you have a point to make, and that you thought this was the opportunity. It wasn't.
I don't see where he admits to being beaten. I see where he almost got his arm dislocated. If you actually think, that means they yanked his arm to get it in to place to cuff him. Especially since he said only AFTER his arm was nearly dislocated did he become compliant.
So, no admitted beating, simply a hurt arm, a part that would reasonably be handled during a cuffing of a suspect resisting.
How is that logically unjustified, and how am I a fucking moron for pointing it out?
I don't buy Apple products, and one of the reasons is the whole walled-garden thing.
Apple goons won't show up at my door, but they also won't fix my phone if anything unrelated happens to it if I do anything against their terms. Again, I ask, why do they get that kind of say? If it's a defective product, then it's defective, and they should still be forced to abide by any portion of the warranty still valid. But they don't. You jailbreak your phone, they won't service it. Even if your problem is the battery's shot, or the speaker died.
As for why they shouldn't get 100% control, that's blatantly ridiculous, and damn near trolling. You're not buying a service from Apple. You're buying a product. I've never heard of "hardware as a service." Does Ford have any kind of control over your car? Does Kenmore have any control over your fridge? So again, why should Apple get any kind of control over my hardware purchase? Don't give me some kind of "If you don't like it, don't buy it," bullshit. I want an actual justification beyond "controlling the user experience."
Because there's still stores other than Costco to get stuff at legitimately. If you own an iPod/iPhone, and you don't want to Jailbreak it, you can ONLY get things through the app store. Either Apple needs to open up the marketplace, or they need to open up a legitimate alternate channel for app purchase. If I buy it, it's my phone. Why does Apple get any kind of say at all as to what I put on it?
No, that's a serious question. It's not a specialized device like a console. It's capable of running lots of different things, and doing it well. As long as I'm not violating someone else's copyright, why should anyone care what goes on my phone?
Wow. This has got to be the single best thing I've ever seen someone say on the topic.
My question is, why should they be allowed to? Just slap a warning on it, and let it go. Last I checked, image management wasn't a valid reason to restrict other peoples' actions.
I dunno about wearing uniforms at nonviolent protests. Why should they, if they're not starting anything? Wearing a uniform in a situation like that is usually a catalyst to bad behaviour. Emotions are running high in the crowd, all it takes is for one moron to decide to mouth off just a liiiiiiiittle too much, or think he can use the anonymity of the crowd and toss something, and everything can go to hell in a handbasket.
Wow, you're a fucking moron. Your repeated use of the term "pigs" means you were likely belligerent during the encounter. You were already being arrested, which means they already had cause to be suspicious of you. And then you bitch and moan that they didn't treat you with kid gloves, when "flexing your arms" could have been a prelude to an assault? Belligerent, already under suspicion, non-cooperative, and you make a move that might have been aggressive? Yeah, there's shit cops out there, but in your case, I think you fucking deserved it.
Hey, it's a short-sighted, narrow-minded view! Holy shit, do you really not see why street vendors would need to be kept track of? Fuck collecting taxes for the moment, there's dealing dangerous materials, knowingly or unknowingly (childrens' toys with lead paint, clothing covered in pesticides, etc). There's a wide range of reasons why they'd need to be tracked, and licencing them is the easiest, and probably *least* intrusive way.