You forget one essential fact of the US legal system: Attorneys represent their clients. Even attorneys who are working pro bono (as this one might be) are representing their clients. I had been under the impression that the lawyer in question had been working for Penguin, but you have clarified things for me.
RTFA. She's not an adult. There is no legal, ethical, or moral code that makes her liable for this. She didn't accidentally wound someone; she she accidentally let a savvy, experienced adult take advantage of her. Kind of ironic.
You are missing the very subtle distinction between EXPRESS and IMPLIED malice. Expressing a desire to kill someone would be express malice. Exhibiting a reckless disregard for human life would be implied malice. See the discussion here.
I think driving while watching a DVD could be a classic example of a reckless disregard for human life. The driver knew he was manuevering a ton of steel at high speed in a place where human beings were expected to be. I doubt that the DA had a choice in what charge to file, given both the letter and the spirit of the law.
What's the point of sending people 62.5 miles by airplane? What's wrong with cars?
What's the point of sending people 62.5 miles by car? What's wrong with horses?
What's the point of sending people 62.5 on horseback? What's wrong with shoes?
What's the point in walking 62.5 miles? Can't you find everything you need within an hour's walk of the cave?
And that, of course, is the point...if you can't go 62.5 miles, you can't go 200 miles. You can't reach low-earth orbit, or high orbit, or solar orbit, or anything else. Orbital flight is currently a governmental monopoly. If you fail to see the point of orbital flight in the short term, then feel free to chuck your GPS receiver, cell phone, pager, and international internet connection in the toilet. If you fail to see the point of orbital flight and beyond in the long term, then feel free to mine your back yard for every element needed to support your lifestyle.
"That means that when Google was trademarking Froogle, and they researched anythign similiar, they came up with nothing simply because nothing else like it was trademarked at the time"
So your theory is that researching trademarks means absolutely, positively NOT typing www.trademarkedterm.com? I think any junior trademark attorney would rip you to shreds on that point.
Odeon would have no problem tweaking their site to save themselves the bad press
You are demonstrably incorrect. They did NOT tweak their site to save themselves bad press. I'm used to people not reading the article, but have you read ANYTHING in this thread?
Fair use is not a right. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that guarantees it. It is permitted by the law. Congress could pass a law tomorrow abolishing fair use and there wouldn't be a thing we could do about it.
What we need is a Constitutional amendment that enshrines fair use. The world has changed since the 18th century. Information is now vital. Access to information must not be abridged.
"If Vinge didn't spend so much time teaching, he'd probably have time to write more novels."
I have a different take on that. If Vinge didn't take so long to write his novels, there wouldn't be time for so many interesting ideas to percolate, and his novels wouldn't be as brilliant as they are.
"The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; "
This clause is what permits copyright in the US. Note the phrase "for limited times." Passing a new copyright extension bill each time the first Mickey Mouse cartoon is about to pass into public domain effectively makes copyright last indefinitely. This is clearly unconstitutional. It will probably be another 20 years or so and will take another copyright extension before the Supreme Court responds.
No matter how badly badly unlawful copying hurts their proficts, it doesn't give them the right to bribe Congress into unconstitutional extensions of copyright. They aren't interested in enforcing the law of the land. Indeed, they are willing to diminish the rule of law (passing unconstitutional laws) and increase contempt for the law (passing laws the majority WILL disobey)long as it increases their profits.
Yes, copying contrary to the law is wrong. Somehow, I can't get too worked up about it.
Permit me to respectfully disagree. Human beings are great at carrying around general ideas or small chunks of knowledge but poor at transporting the multi-megabyte databases that show the raw results of the 14 different regression tests on the 283 samples. If I could get you to steal that from your employer, I would save myself the cost of doing the tests myself; by dumping half of those costs into my R&D branch, I could afford to have twice as many people analyzing those results as my competitor. Presto! I now have better results, faster, at a fraction of the cost. Alternatively, I could wait six months and bribe someone for the name of the one sample that did the best in testing, but then I'm six months behind the power curve.
IANAM but I do have a BS in mathematics. While it is possible to compose a formal system which is provably complete, it will be less capable than elementary-school arithmetic.
In this case, the spreadsheet was a hindrance to productivity.
I would disagree. The spreadsheet was a HUGE help to his productivity. Without a spreadsheet, he'd have been doing the work in a word processor, or worse, on paper.
But I grant your point that using a tool when a BETTER tool is available can carry a huge opportunity cost.
The point, of course, is that if you weren't using a poorly formulated expression of the chain rule, you'd only be thinking about how to multiply functions, not nest them. At worst, you'd be figuring out how to unnest them.
DOH! That second paragraph should read as follows:
Note that 'apparently true' is not the same as 'rigorously proven true' - but the differential notation works the way you think it should, provided you understand fractions.
Slashdot Mirror
You forget one essential fact of the US legal system: Attorneys represent their clients. Even attorneys who are working pro bono (as this one might be) are representing their clients. I had been under the impression that the lawyer in question had been working for Penguin, but you have clarified things for me.
RTFA. She's not an adult. There is no legal, ethical, or moral code that makes her liable for this. She didn't accidentally wound someone; she she accidentally let a savvy, experienced adult take advantage of her. Kind of ironic.
You idiot! You should be telling your clients that it's faster because YOU are SO GOOD! =D
Heh. +1 Snarky.
You are missing the very subtle distinction between EXPRESS and IMPLIED malice. Expressing a desire to kill someone would be express malice. Exhibiting a reckless disregard for human life would be implied malice. See the discussion here.
I think driving while watching a DVD could be a classic example of a reckless disregard for human life. The driver knew he was manuevering a ton of steel at high speed in a place where human beings were expected to be. I doubt that the DA had a choice in what charge to file, given both the letter and the spirit of the law.
True, but if you look at state and national population figures, you'll find there are FEWER fatalities per capita.
The obvious conclusion is that Alaskans, on average, drive farther.
What's the point of sending people 62.5 miles by airplane? What's wrong with cars?
What's the point of sending people 62.5 miles by car? What's wrong with horses?
What's the point of sending people 62.5 on horseback? What's wrong with shoes?
What's the point in walking 62.5 miles? Can't you find everything you need within an hour's walk of the cave?
And that, of course, is the point...if you can't go 62.5 miles, you can't go 200 miles. You can't reach low-earth orbit, or high orbit, or solar orbit, or anything else. Orbital flight is currently a governmental monopoly. If you fail to see the point of orbital flight in the short term, then feel free to chuck your GPS receiver, cell phone, pager, and international internet connection in the toilet. If you fail to see the point of orbital flight and beyond in the long term, then feel free to mine your back yard for every element needed to support your lifestyle.
"That means that when Google was trademarking Froogle, and they researched anythign similiar, they came up with nothing simply because nothing else like it was trademarked at the time"
So your theory is that researching trademarks means absolutely, positively NOT typing www.trademarkedterm.com? I think any junior trademark attorney would rip you to shreds on that point.
I'd like to point out that you are both using a flawed analogy. It's like being arrested for owning a screwdriver and a hammer.
Breaking and entering is illegal. Owning tools that permit breaking and entering is not.
Odeon would have no problem tweaking their site to save themselves the bad press
You are demonstrably incorrect. They did NOT tweak their site to save themselves bad press. I'm used to people not reading the article, but have you read ANYTHING in this thread?
Fair use is not a right. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that guarantees it. It is permitted by the law. Congress could pass a law tomorrow abolishing fair use and there wouldn't be a thing we could do about it.
What we need is a Constitutional amendment that enshrines fair use. The world has changed since the 18th century. Information is now vital. Access to information must not be abridged.
Guess they've never heard of the weird ancient foreign scientist, Einstein.
"If Vinge didn't spend so much time teaching, he'd probably have time to write more novels."
I have a different take on that. If Vinge didn't take so long to write his novels, there wouldn't be time for so many interesting ideas to percolate, and his novels wouldn't be as brilliant as they are.
This clause is what permits copyright in the US. Note the phrase "for limited times." Passing a new copyright extension bill each time the first Mickey Mouse cartoon is about to pass into public domain effectively makes copyright last indefinitely. This is clearly unconstitutional. It will probably be another 20 years or so and will take another copyright extension before the Supreme Court responds.
No matter how badly badly unlawful copying hurts their proficts, it doesn't give them the right to bribe Congress into unconstitutional extensions of copyright. They aren't interested in enforcing the law of the land. Indeed, they are willing to diminish the rule of law (passing unconstitutional laws) and increase contempt for the law (passing laws the majority WILL disobey)long as it increases their profits.
Yes, copying contrary to the law is wrong. Somehow, I can't get too worked up about it.
Permit me to respectfully disagree. Human beings are great at carrying around general ideas or small chunks of knowledge but poor at transporting the multi-megabyte databases that show the raw results of the 14 different regression tests on the 283 samples. If I could get you to steal that from your employer, I would save myself the cost of doing the tests myself; by dumping half of those costs into my R&D branch, I could afford to have twice as many people analyzing those results as my competitor. Presto! I now have better results, faster, at a fraction of the cost. Alternatively, I could wait six months and bribe someone for the name of the one sample that did the best in testing, but then I'm six months behind the power curve.
That's how we did it when I worked at Gateway tech support in 1995.
No, no, it's metric. It's about 10 gallons.
On the other hand, colleges CAN prevent students from enrolling.
...but when will it turn 1.0?
IANAM but I do have a BS in mathematics. While it is possible to compose a formal system which is provably complete, it will be less capable than elementary-school arithmetic.
In this case, the spreadsheet was a hindrance to productivity.
I would disagree. The spreadsheet was a HUGE help to his productivity. Without a spreadsheet, he'd have been doing the work in a word processor, or worse, on paper.
But I grant your point that using a tool when a BETTER tool is available can carry a huge opportunity cost.
And THAT is why we have the standard of living that we enjoy.
The point, of course, is that if you weren't using a poorly formulated expression of the chain rule, you'd only be thinking about how to multiply functions, not nest them. At worst, you'd be figuring out how to unnest them.
DOH! That second paragraph should read as follows:
Note that 'apparently true' is not the same as 'rigorously proven true' - but the differential notation works the way you think it should, provided you understand fractions.