On the other hand, their findings to cast doubt upon Yahoo's claims regarding index size.
These findings don't do anything of the sort. In fact, Google could have only 999 pages in index, and if it returned all 999 for every query it would have won this test. There's too many assumptions here for the results to be useful.
Also, not everyone in the world is selfish. There are people who believe in doing what is right, not just what benefits only them.
Yes they are. Evironmentalists just think that what benefits the environment benefits them.
And I just have to laugh when environmentalists support plug-in electrics. It's the same groups who've almost killed the most environmental form of electricity generation available, nuclear. As it stands today, plug-in electrics probably account for more polution than efficient gasoline or diesel engines.
It shoudl be about money. The $6k could be more helpful to the environment if used directly for environmental remidiation in your area. Buy the regular car, and invest the excess in your local recycler.
Yes, and the only evidence you've presented is your testimony that the idea oe whatever was in the envelope when it was postmarked. This testimony is no more reliable than your testimony that the date on the page in your inventors notebook is accurate.
I hate to state the obvious, but just because his lawyer wrote a letter saying that FedEX's claims are bullshit, doesn't mean FedEX's claims are bullshit. That's what lawyers do. They advocate for their clients. Usually it's because there is some grey area and they think there's a compelling argument to be made on their side. Sometimes they don't have a compelling argument, but they think they can make the other side blink. It is much less often that they know for sure that they are right, and would certainly win a suit. So, while the letter from the dude's lawyer to FedEX is filled with certainties, the actual conversation between lawyer and client was probably slightly less so.
Here's the thing. You cannot sue someone under the DMCA unless they're violating DIGITAL copyrights, most notably circumvention of a device to protect against illegal copying (or legal copying, frankly. Another debate for later).
Here's the thing. You're wrong. circumvention of copyprotection devices is but one section of the DMCA. There are others. Try reading it sometime. You might be surprised at how little you learn from/.
When hackers stole my wife a 250 other people's credit card numbers and personal addresses, and posted it on their website, Google wasn't publishing it. Fine.
When Googlebot crawled the website, and put my sife's credit card number in their index, Google wasn't publishing it. Fine.
When the hosting company took down the website (because any moron could see that it was a list of credit card numbers and other personal information), but Google continued to serve the page out of their cache, even after beeing directly requested to remove it, were they publishing it? At that point, if Google wasn't publishing the information, who was?
And what proof do you have that the envelope was sealed when it was postmarked?
1. Mail yourself a bunch of empty unsealed envelopes. 2. Wait for someone to invent something. 3. Draw a picture of said something and put it in one of the envelopes from step 1 and seal it. 4. Claim you invented said something before the actual inventor. 5. Offer your sealed envelope postmarked before the actual inventor's patent application as proof. 6. Get laughed at.
Perhaps we can't make a net profit on the direct care of the elderly and the terminal and the chronically ill, but it won't destroy society, either; at that point, one needs to ask what benefits could be received from treating these people.
So why are doctors in Holland euthanizing old people and newborns without the parent's consent? Those old people, and those babies parents will never pay for their own medical care, so why should they have any part in the decision making processes? Is that a good place to be? No matter how little you like it, money makes the world go round. As long as you control it, you can decide to spend your little chunk on whatever you think will make life better for yourself and the people around you. Once you start letting the gov't redistribute it, you lose that ability.
Well, the article is about why Google uses Linux, and as far as I'm concerned, they gave the best possible answer. Basically, it best meets their business and technical needs. That's not lame at all. Lame would be if an executive of a public corporation said sonething like, "Information wants to be free," or "Bill Gates is the devil," or "Free Software rules!"
Not interested in fixing that. Interested in having them live and die healthy.
Then go to medical school and give away your services to poor people.
The problem that is completely ignored by your utopic scenario is that while society may derive a net benefit from treating your neighbor when he has pneumonia, or giving out flu shots, treating the chronically ill will almost always be a net loser. You can't make a utilitarian argument for socialized medicine without concluding that we should euthanize the elderly and the seriously ill. This is happening today in Holland.
Then there is the related, but different, issue that insurance is not offered to those with known, pre-existing conditions -- for instance, one may be diabetic at birth, and in such a case, general health insurance will never be an option under the current system.
Those people can't get insurance because insuring them would guarantee a loss. It doesn't matter if it's a big bad corporation or the government, it's a losing proposition. So what you are really saying is that you think the state should force me to contribute to the diabetic's treatment, which brings us right back to the redistribution argument.
Some people will lice and die poor. You can't fix that.
You are indeed correct that the cost to society is probably similar whether it is born by the individual or the company. The libertarian perspective is that the individual should go bankrupt, while the modern liberal perspective is that the company should. Although I think neither would characterize their own position quite that way. If you face risks you can't afford buy insurance, fine, but that begs the question of who should face the risk.
Insurance companies exist for the same reason other companies exist; to make money.
Around here, you can expect to get about 30-40% of the new price when selling your books back to the bookstore, and they will get 60-80% when they resell it. I predict that this discount/no resale plan will be very popular with students and very unpopular with bookstores.
I'm sure at somepoint in the future, buying the old fashioned made out of paper books will not be an option, but I seriously doubt it will be anytime soon.
In point of fact, in the real world, publishers are selling DRM'd textbooks for 33% less than the dead tree equivalent. 2/3 the cost seems like a pretty good deal to me. Yes, there are differences between eBooks and real books (do you really think we needed a bulleted list?), but that's the point isn't it? If you want paper, buy paper. If you want eBook, buy eBook, AND you get a discount precisely BECAUSE of some of the differences you cited.
Since when is consumer choice a bad thing?
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that content providers are going to just transition to digital equivilents without imposing some controls on what the user can do (regardless of whether the/. crowd can defeat the DRM) is clueless. It's a tradeoff, if you don't like it, don't take it. But the market for non-eBooks is going to shrink and shrink and shrink.
Your plan would possibly result in insufficient wealth redistribution. As a libertarian (I'm assuming) you're probably focusing on efficiency in wealth creation, while the leftist you are arguing about is more concerned with efficiency in distribution.
Increased demand => Lower prices? But that's unpossible!Well, it would depend on several things, including the scarcity of the good, and the behavior of the actors. ebooks are not scarce, and prices of new textbooks are artificially inflated today because of the secondary market. I'm not an economist, but this article is about precisely the effect of publishers dropping the cost of new books when the secondary market is eliminated.
If you purchase a time-limited book, which you will need after the time expires, that's your problem. You still should have the option of paying full-price for the non-limited version.
33% is a decent discount, it would save me several hundred dollars a semester. If you know someplace that gives more than a third of the price for used textbooks, please hook me up.
What proof do you have that the idea was in the envelope when the PO postmarked it? None, execpt your sworm testimony. Which is the same proof that the date on your inventors notebook is accurate. So, either way, the reliability of the date comes down to the trustworthiness of your testimony. You gain nothing by mailing inventions to yourself.
If it were, you could mail yourself a bunch of empty envelopes today, and then whenever you invent something, stick it in one of the envelopes and seal it.
Plus (at least in the US) trial courts don't create binding precedent.
Re:Sometimes, we're just worried about students
on
Textbooks With EULAs
·
· Score: 1
I think this is an issue with professors as much as publishers. If the only difference between the new and old book is the questions are rearanged, then the professor is an asshole if he makes you buy the new version. And an asshole professor will screw you up in many worse ways than making you buy a new textbook.
Which means publishers can afford to sell them for less and still maintain their margins. Sounds like a win-win. I hardly ever need a textbook after the class is through, so I wind up selling it back to the bookstore. Since everyone is doing this, and the books are much more valuable to the bookstore than the students, the students get a piddling sum for the used books, while the store sells them for nearly the price of new. If the bookstore offered me a 33% discount upfront on the condition that they got the book back at the end of the semester, I'd take it. This is just the digital equivilent.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, their findings to cast doubt upon Yahoo's claims regarding index size.
These findings don't do anything of the sort. In fact, Google could have only 999 pages in index, and if it returned all 999 for every query it would have won this test. There's too many assumptions here for the results to be useful.
Also, not everyone in the world is selfish. There are people who believe in doing what is right, not just what benefits only them.
Yes they are. Evironmentalists just think that what benefits the environment benefits them.
And I just have to laugh when environmentalists support plug-in electrics. It's the same groups who've almost killed the most environmental form of electricity generation available, nuclear. As it stands today, plug-in electrics probably account for more polution than efficient gasoline or diesel engines.
It shoudl be about money. The $6k could be more helpful to the environment if used directly for environmental remidiation in your area. Buy the regular car, and invest the excess in your local recycler.
3: EULAs are not copyright they are EULAs and the GPL is not an EULA is is a copyright[left] license.
So, what does the "L" in EULA stand for? Ah, yes it's a license agreement.
(Personally I never read a EULA and follow the my local copyright and fair use laws since it's not the Job of companies to create new laws)
Sure it is. In fact, contracts probably compose the single largest body of law anywhere.
Yes, and the only evidence you've presented is your testimony that the idea oe whatever was in the envelope when it was postmarked. This testimony is no more reliable than your testimony that the date on the page in your inventors notebook is accurate.
Google for patent + postmark.
I hate to state the obvious, but just because his lawyer wrote a letter saying that FedEX's claims are bullshit, doesn't mean FedEX's claims are bullshit. That's what lawyers do. They advocate for their clients. Usually it's because there is some grey area and they think there's a compelling argument to be made on their side. Sometimes they don't have a compelling argument, but they think they can make the other side blink. It is much less often that they know for sure that they are right, and would certainly win a suit. So, while the letter from the dude's lawyer to FedEX is filled with certainties, the actual conversation between lawyer and client was probably slightly less so.
Here's the thing. You cannot sue someone under the DMCA unless they're violating DIGITAL copyrights, most notably circumvention of a device to protect against illegal copying (or legal copying, frankly. Another debate for later).
/.
Here's the thing. You're wrong. circumvention of copyprotection devices is but one section of the DMCA. There are others. Try reading it sometime. You might be surprised at how little you learn from
How? He didn't sign a contract when he got the boxes?
You should be aware that there are many legal causes of action that do not require an enforcable contract. Unjust enrichment is one.
When hackers stole my wife a 250 other people's credit card numbers and personal addresses, and posted it on their website, Google wasn't publishing it. Fine.
When Googlebot crawled the website, and put my sife's credit card number in their index, Google wasn't publishing it. Fine.
When the hosting company took down the website (because any moron could see that it was a list of credit card numbers and other personal information), but Google continued to serve the page out of their cache, even after beeing directly requested to remove it, were they publishing it? At that point, if Google wasn't publishing the information, who was?
Unless, of course, you happen to be President Bush.
Or John Kerry.
And what proof do you have that the envelope was sealed when it was postmarked?
1. Mail yourself a bunch of empty unsealed envelopes.
2. Wait for someone to invent something.
3. Draw a picture of said something and put it in one of the envelopes from step 1 and seal it.
4. Claim you invented said something before the actual inventor.
5. Offer your sealed envelope postmarked before the actual inventor's patent application as proof.
6. Get laughed at.
Your argument is utter nonsense.
Because it doesn't make you feel good inside?
Perhaps we can't make a net profit on the direct care of the elderly and the terminal and the chronically ill, but it won't destroy society, either; at that point, one needs to ask what benefits could be received from treating these people.
So why are doctors in Holland euthanizing old people and newborns without the parent's consent? Those old people, and those babies parents will never pay for their own medical care, so why should they have any part in the decision making processes? Is that a good place to be? No matter how little you like it, money makes the world go round. As long as you control it, you can decide to spend your little chunk on whatever you think will make life better for yourself and the people around you. Once you start letting the gov't redistribute it, you lose that ability.
Well, the article is about why Google uses Linux, and as far as I'm concerned, they gave the best possible answer. Basically, it best meets their business and technical needs. That's not lame at all. Lame would be if an executive of a public corporation said sonething like, "Information wants to be free," or "Bill Gates is the devil," or "Free Software rules!"
Not interested in fixing that. Interested in having them live and die healthy.
Then go to medical school and give away your services to poor people.
The problem that is completely ignored by your utopic scenario is that while society may derive a net benefit from treating your neighbor when he has pneumonia, or giving out flu shots, treating the chronically ill will almost always be a net loser. You can't make a utilitarian argument for socialized medicine without concluding that we should euthanize the elderly and the seriously ill. This is happening today in Holland.
Then there is the related, but different, issue that insurance is not offered to those with known, pre-existing conditions -- for instance, one may be diabetic at birth, and in such a case, general health insurance will never be an option under the current system.
Those people can't get insurance because insuring them would guarantee a loss. It doesn't matter if it's a big bad corporation or the government, it's a losing proposition. So what you are really saying is that you think the state should force me to contribute to the diabetic's treatment, which brings us right back to the redistribution argument.
Some people will lice and die poor. You can't fix that.
You are indeed correct that the cost to society is probably similar whether it is born by the individual or the company. The libertarian perspective is that the individual should go bankrupt, while the modern liberal perspective is that the company should. Although I think neither would characterize their own position quite that way. If you face risks you can't afford buy insurance, fine, but that begs the question of who should face the risk.
Insurance companies exist for the same reason other companies exist; to make money.
Around here, you can expect to get about 30-40% of the new price when selling your books back to the bookstore, and they will get 60-80% when they resell it. I predict that this discount/no resale plan will be very popular with students and very unpopular with bookstores.
I'm sure at somepoint in the future, buying the old fashioned made out of paper books will not be an option, but I seriously doubt it will be anytime soon.
In point of fact, in the real world, publishers are selling DRM'd textbooks for 33% less than the dead tree equivalent. 2/3 the cost seems like a pretty good deal to me. Yes, there are differences between eBooks and real books (do you really think we needed a bulleted list?), but that's the point isn't it? If you want paper, buy paper. If you want eBook, buy eBook, AND you get a discount precisely BECAUSE of some of the differences you cited.
/. crowd can defeat the DRM) is clueless. It's a tradeoff, if you don't like it, don't take it. But the market for non-eBooks is going to shrink and shrink and shrink.
Since when is consumer choice a bad thing?
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that content providers are going to just transition to digital equivilents without imposing some controls on what the user can do (regardless of whether the
Your plan would possibly result in insufficient wealth redistribution. As a libertarian (I'm assuming) you're probably focusing on efficiency in wealth creation, while the leftist you are arguing about is more concerned with efficiency in distribution.
Increased demand => Lower prices? But that's unpossible!Well, it would depend on several things, including the scarcity of the good, and the behavior of the actors. ebooks are not scarce, and prices of new textbooks are artificially inflated today because of the secondary market. I'm not an economist, but this article is about precisely the effect of publishers dropping the cost of new books when the secondary market is eliminated.
If you purchase a time-limited book, which you will need after the time expires, that's your problem. You still should have the option of paying full-price for the non-limited version.
33% is a decent discount, it would save me several hundred dollars a semester. If you know someplace that gives more than a third of the price for used textbooks, please hook me up.
What proof do you have that the idea was in the envelope when the PO postmarked it? None, execpt your sworm testimony. Which is the same proof that the date on your inventors notebook is accurate. So, either way, the reliability of the date comes down to the trustworthiness of your testimony. You gain nothing by mailing inventions to yourself.
An idea in an envelope isn't proof of anything.
If it were, you could mail yourself a bunch of empty envelopes today, and then whenever you invent something, stick it in one of the envelopes and seal it.
Plus (at least in the US) trial courts don't create binding precedent.
I think this is an issue with professors as much as publishers. If the only difference between the new and old book is the questions are rearanged, then the professor is an asshole if he makes you buy the new version. And an asshole professor will screw you up in many worse ways than making you buy a new textbook.
Which means publishers can afford to sell them for less and still maintain their margins. Sounds like a win-win. I hardly ever need a textbook after the class is through, so I wind up selling it back to the bookstore. Since everyone is doing this, and the books are much more valuable to the bookstore than the students, the students get a piddling sum for the used books, while the store sells them for nearly the price of new. If the bookstore offered me a 33% discount upfront on the condition that they got the book back at the end of the semester, I'd take it. This is just the digital equivilent.