yeah, the G1 isn't as sleek/sexy as the new Palm...
Have you actually used a Pre? It may look sleek and sexy in pictures, but actually holding the thing it feels completely flimsy, the keyboard is shit (and I say that as someone who really likes my Treo keyboard), and the application interface is frustratingly slow (half the time I couldn't even get the touch screen to work when I played with it). I didn't find it sleek or sexy at all.
Perhaps you think Finland must be tiny, in fact it's land area is 305470 sq km, that's bigger than Arizona. There are only five US states larger than Finland.
I have one that took a quick swim and yet works fine other than rebooting any time I type the word "economist" into a text message with auto spell on. (a samsung SGH A117)
That has nothing to do with the water; it's a known feature of these Samsung devices. They just don't want you to find out about articles published in The Economist discussing the bribery scandals.
What would be really cool is to have a device where you could input such information on an ongoing basis so you could remember many such events. Hell, while we're dreaming, let's imagine this device has a logical system for information storage and retrieval, an instant-on feature, and relatively permanent storage on a fixed medium -- possibly a small stack of processed wood pulp with a PDA-like input device that leaks ink instead of making impressions on a screen. That would be really cool...
Nah, this is the stuff of science fiction, let's get back to putting brains on microchips.
This is mostly true, but let's keep in mind that twitter has been significant in the Iranian uprising. Like any social networking tool, or like the web itself, 99% of what's out there is going to be crap. But that doesn't mean it's completely worthless.
What's funny is when I read this article summary I loaded up twitter in one tab and clicked on the Read More link in this tab... Twitter loaded right away, whereas slashdot could not be found, for at least a minute anyway. It's here now, but no sign of a ddos on twitter anymore... other than the fact that it's a trending topic so there were tons of inane comments there for me to read while slashdot was slashdotted.
Can someone provide a mirror of this slashdot page in case it gets slashdotted again?
Yeah they're probably using that silly "metric" system for measurements too. Rule of thumb: if they say it's "large" but they measure it in centimeters, they're lying....
Nope. You can copyright works, not words; charging per-word is a legal fiction since you cannot own a copyright on any specific word. Setting aside for the moment the fact that you always have a right to create derivative works, though they are understood to be derivative. The copyright holder can't stop you from creating the works, but he/she can own some or all of the resulting works.
But I think his point was to ridicule the ridiculous assumption from AP that they should be able to restrict access to and license on a per-word basis any text "more than four consecutive words" in the first place. The Jefferson quote helps him make the point. The fact that the software is basically just a word counter adds a level of lol, but I don't think that was the main point of this experiment.
All this tool does is count the number of words in a block of text. Every word processor and text editor I can think of has this feature already built in. And the premise that the copyright owner should be able to charge on a per-word basis (especially in text made up largely of quotations from other sources, as most AP articles are) is truly preposterous.
I don't think so; the software did exactly what it was supposed to do. What is brain-dead here is the AP thinking that this sort of thing is a good idea in the first place. I can understand them wanting to charge for the use of entire articles in commercial databases or such, but I can't imagine a situation in which you would want to use "more than four consecutive words" (but less than entire articles) for anything that wouldn't be covered by fair use anyway.
Oh believe me, this already exists, in my field as well as many others I'm sure. And it is slowly but surely being taken seriously as it proves itself. But very slowly, and whatever the legitimacy, such forums are way behind the print journals in terms of credibility. The problem is the copyright issues are not high on these outlets' agenda, and many of them are owned by the print publishers anyway, so many of them still obnoxiously require authors to assign copyrights.
You cited the law yourself. That is exactly what I meant when I said fair use as embodied in the law itself. I never claimed to be a lawyer, and this nitpicking over the way I phrased something is overly pedantic and not very productive -- you're asking me to defend positions I never proposed and you're making me out to have said things I never said. I didn't say the issue of journals taking copyrights was "applicable to fair use" - that's a completely separate issue. And sure, journals can just change their policy, but why would they? I was trying to argue that copyright should stay with the creator and not be something you can bargain away in the first place (and I realize this would have far reaching implications for more than just academic research). That's a separate point from my equally valid one that truly fair use should be permitted -- and my reading of the very law you cited allows fair use of material for scholarship, education, research, criticism, etc. This means I shouldn't have to contact a publisher if I want to put out a coursepack for example. If the extreme research anecdote in the story is bogus (and I agree with you it sounds fishy now), don't take that out on me; I was just responding to it. There are enough real examples of copyright abuse without needing a horror story of someone having to redo their experiment.
And, by the way, I am fully aware that the law is interpreted by courts in response to cases, but thank you for the lecture. My problem with this is not the common law but rather the way the law is interpreted by many academic publishers and universities. For example, the law never says you can only quote up to 10% of an article under fair use, but many universities publish copyright guidelines that say exactly that. The law never says that an academic author should have to seek permission of ASCAP to publish two lines from a popular song as part of a research article about rock music, for example, but publishers routinely expect and demand it. (That's an odd one, given that you're never expected to ask permission to use even extensive quotations from printed works).
Bottom line - what I was trying to say was that copyright need not be abolished to right its wrongs; but the world would be a lot better off if people stuck to reasonable interpretations of existing copyright law. Well, that, and some major changes like not letting a journal (or record company) "own" an author's copyrights.
Anyway, if you're just looking for evidence that I don't know what I'm talking about so you can call my comments jejune, I'm sure you'll find it, but in that case I probably can't be bothered to respond again.
I meant the restrictions should be limited to those embodied in the law itself, which should have been obvious from the context of the comments, but you misinterpreted the rest of them too so I suppose you missed that whole context thing. Perhaps I should have been more precise -- "fair use should no longer be as restricted as it currently is" or something less unwieldy. I'm not sure I said "information wants to be free" - perhaps you're confusing me with Stewart Brand?
Oh, sure, easy. Now somebody get all the professional organizations to certify your website, get all the old school professors who write textbooks to start citing it, etc. etc. You don't really know much about academic publishing, do you?
Umm, yeah, that's one way to look at it, I guess, but that's not what I was saying at all. I suppose I could find something you said and interpret in such a way that I could find fault with its logical extreme and then declare that you have no idea what you're talking about but I don't really have the time.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, the G1 isn't as sleek/sexy as the new Palm...
Have you actually used a Pre? It may look sleek and sexy in pictures, but actually holding the thing it feels completely flimsy, the keyboard is shit (and I say that as someone who really likes my Treo keyboard), and the application interface is frustratingly slow (half the time I couldn't even get the touch screen to work when I played with it). I didn't find it sleek or sexy at all.
Perhaps you think Finland must be tiny, in fact it's land area is 305470 sq km, that's bigger than Arizona. There are only five US states larger than Finland.
...and Texas is two of them.
Uhh, where the hell do you guys live that you pay less than 20% income taxes?
you just need to find the appropriate hashtag, like #fatherspickinglint, and you'll find a bunch of related posts.
So instead of "Dr. Langdell" he should be called "Twat Langdell"? Or are you saying he should be called "Dr. Twat"?
I have one that took a quick swim and yet works fine other than rebooting any time I type the word "economist" into a text message with auto spell on. (a samsung SGH A117)
That has nothing to do with the water; it's a known feature of these Samsung devices. They just don't want you to find out about articles published in The Economist discussing the bribery scandals.
Wonder Woman should have patented this technology a while ago
Shame that people are too PC and too Mac fanboyish to mod it the "+5, Funny" like it deserves
Make up your mind; are we too Mac or are we too PC??
What would be really cool is to have a device where you could input such information on an ongoing basis so you could remember many such events. Hell, while we're dreaming, let's imagine this device has a logical system for information storage and retrieval, an instant-on feature, and relatively permanent storage on a fixed medium -- possibly a small stack of processed wood pulp with a PDA-like input device that leaks ink instead of making impressions on a screen. That would be really cool...
Nah, this is the stuff of science fiction, let's get back to putting brains on microchips.
This is mostly true, but let's keep in mind that twitter has been significant in the Iranian uprising. Like any social networking tool, or like the web itself, 99% of what's out there is going to be crap. But that doesn't mean it's completely worthless.
What's funny is when I read this article summary I loaded up twitter in one tab and clicked on the Read More link in this tab ... Twitter loaded right away, whereas slashdot could not be found, for at least a minute anyway. It's here now, but no sign of a ddos on twitter anymore... other than the fact that it's a trending topic so there were tons of inane comments there for me to read while slashdot was slashdotted.
Can someone provide a mirror of this slashdot page in case it gets slashdotted again?
Everything is running without a hitch, and using the computer even feels a lot snappier!
And I haven't even installed the update yet!
By using this tool and paying AP for a license to use N words...
Wait a minute ... AP is now claiming copyright to the N-word?
Yeah they're probably using that silly "metric" system for measurements too. Rule of thumb: if they say it's "large" but they measure it in centimeters, they're lying....
The Economist's latest figures have the unemployement rate at 9.8% Sweden, 3.8% Denmark and 3.1% Norway. Sweden's rate is not seasonally adjusted.
Where are your 2% figures from?
Sufficiently large values of "2"?
Nope. You can copyright works, not words; charging per-word is a legal fiction since you cannot own a copyright on any specific word. Setting aside for the moment the fact that you always have a right to create derivative works, though they are understood to be derivative. The copyright holder can't stop you from creating the works, but he/she can own some or all of the resulting works.
True - I considered writing "The Jefferson quote, however out of context..." but I figured that was a separate issue...
But I think his point was to ridicule the ridiculous assumption from AP that they should be able to restrict access to and license on a per-word basis any text "more than four consecutive words" in the first place. The Jefferson quote helps him make the point. The fact that the software is basically just a word counter adds a level of lol, but I don't think that was the main point of this experiment.
All this tool does is count the number of words in a block of text. Every word processor and text editor I can think of has this feature already built in. And the premise that the copyright owner should be able to charge on a per-word basis (especially in text made up largely of quotations from other sources, as most AP articles are) is truly preposterous.
I don't think so; the software did exactly what it was supposed to do. What is brain-dead here is the AP thinking that this sort of thing is a good idea in the first place. I can understand them wanting to charge for the use of entire articles in commercial databases or such, but I can't imagine a situation in which you would want to use "more than four consecutive words" (but less than entire articles) for anything that wouldn't be covered by fair use anyway.
Oh believe me, this already exists, in my field as well as many others I'm sure. And it is slowly but surely being taken seriously as it proves itself. But very slowly, and whatever the legitimacy, such forums are way behind the print journals in terms of credibility. The problem is the copyright issues are not high on these outlets' agenda, and many of them are owned by the print publishers anyway, so many of them still obnoxiously require authors to assign copyrights.
You cited the law yourself. That is exactly what I meant when I said fair use as embodied in the law itself. I never claimed to be a lawyer, and this nitpicking over the way I phrased something is overly pedantic and not very productive -- you're asking me to defend positions I never proposed and you're making me out to have said things I never said. I didn't say the issue of journals taking copyrights was "applicable to fair use" - that's a completely separate issue. And sure, journals can just change their policy, but why would they? I was trying to argue that copyright should stay with the creator and not be something you can bargain away in the first place (and I realize this would have far reaching implications for more than just academic research). That's a separate point from my equally valid one that truly fair use should be permitted -- and my reading of the very law you cited allows fair use of material for scholarship, education, research, criticism, etc. This means I shouldn't have to contact a publisher if I want to put out a coursepack for example. If the extreme research anecdote in the story is bogus (and I agree with you it sounds fishy now), don't take that out on me; I was just responding to it. There are enough real examples of copyright abuse without needing a horror story of someone having to redo their experiment.
And, by the way, I am fully aware that the law is interpreted by courts in response to cases, but thank you for the lecture. My problem with this is not the common law but rather the way the law is interpreted by many academic publishers and universities. For example, the law never says you can only quote up to 10% of an article under fair use, but many universities publish copyright guidelines that say exactly that. The law never says that an academic author should have to seek permission of ASCAP to publish two lines from a popular song as part of a research article about rock music, for example, but publishers routinely expect and demand it. (That's an odd one, given that you're never expected to ask permission to use even extensive quotations from printed works).
Bottom line - what I was trying to say was that copyright need not be abolished to right its wrongs; but the world would be a lot better off if people stuck to reasonable interpretations of existing copyright law. Well, that, and some major changes like not letting a journal (or record company) "own" an author's copyrights.
Anyway, if you're just looking for evidence that I don't know what I'm talking about so you can call my comments jejune, I'm sure you'll find it, but in that case I probably can't be bothered to respond again.
I meant the restrictions should be limited to those embodied in the law itself, which should have been obvious from the context of the comments, but you misinterpreted the rest of them too so I suppose you missed that whole context thing. Perhaps I should have been more precise -- "fair use should no longer be as restricted as it currently is" or something less unwieldy. I'm not sure I said "information wants to be free" - perhaps you're confusing me with Stewart Brand?
Oh, sure, easy. Now somebody get all the professional organizations to certify your website, get all the old school professors who write textbooks to start citing it, etc. etc. You don't really know much about academic publishing, do you?
Umm, yeah, that's one way to look at it, I guess, but that's not what I was saying at all. I suppose I could find something you said and interpret in such a way that I could find fault with its logical extreme and then declare that you have no idea what you're talking about but I don't really have the time.