Pretty sure those small whole page previews you see when you click on that little magnifying glass are just JPEGs of the rendered page. You can't get more "taking [...] a copyrighted page and advertisements" than that. Although instead of changing them mid-stream, you've probably cached the JPEG for most pages long ago, so the image might not even be up-to-date and many hits of the preview only correspond to one page / ad view / whatever.
Meanwhile the Google image preview is high enough quality for the majority of the web's images that it's effectively making a library of everyone's images and adding your own adverts.
The only thing Google does right is not try to give the impression that this stuff was produced by Google.
(1) robots.txt isn't a legal protocol. Computers don't form contracts, particularly not implicit ones by virtue of the absence of some data associated with a private convention. A lot of what Google does is understood as technically contrary to the law in some countries, to the extent that in some places (e.g. UK) the government has been lobbied by Google to extend the notion of fair use;
(2) Even if robots.txt had some force, the absence of robots.txt conventionally allows for crawling and indexing. I don't see why this can be reasonably understood to extend to all the caching and thumbnailing Google does.
Considering how many of Google's offerings involve taking someone else's work and creating a derived work with adverts, Google would be pissing in their own cornflakes to consider this.
"Oh, but people who put stuff on the web implicitly consent to indexing, caching, image thumbnailing, page thumbnailing,..." Do they? OK, then they also implicitly consent to all the other bullshit.
A asks for a copy of something from B via C, and B gives the copy to C to pass to A. The copy has been made. I don't see what copyright has to say about whether C can modify that particular copy. Think of a book. If you buy a book from a book store, there's no copyright infringement if the book seller decides to white out a page in the book and replace it with a crudely drawn penis, is there? Otherwise every second hand textbook bought with notes pencilled in the margin is a copyright infringement.
Although, at the rate things are going, I'm sure it will be soon.
Get off your partisan hobby horse and re-read what I said:
And of course Obama, and any member of the ruling elite,
But if you feel it appropriate to ignore where Obama is now and who he answers to, and it makes you feel better to tell the world that Obama is the grandson of a lonely goatherd, knock yourself out...!
Sorry, are you saying there's no-one available better than the Chinese guy you've described? (since we seem to be talking "better" in the sense of knowing the difference between AC and DC) Did you choose him or was politics involved?
Believe it or not Slashdot, the guys at the top are usually there for very good reasons. They are not stupid, they are not idiots, and most of them are pretty damn good at what they do.
I'm one of those privileged cunts people whine about. I went to a nice private school and am quite familiar with the old boys'/girls' network.
I can assure you that while most aren't stupid, and some of them are even quite good at what they do, what they are not is uniquely able or qualified. The fact that they're in the position rather than any number of other people of equal or greater competence is that they know the right people and play the right tune (which is often very different from the tune the company claims to play).
In other words, a meritocratic market would certainly cause upper management pay to drop to one tenth of its current silliness. But why would you threaten your own security by actually practicing the competitive capitalism that you preach? No, you're far more secure and productive if you cooperate while preaching to everyone below you to turn against each other in ruthless competition.
So now people work in teams under supervision by senior scientists. There are lots of roles for lots of different strengths: there's structure to guide you and you don't have to be a lone hero (you still might be, but you still have to be singularly brilliant to do so).
And I question the idea that a "second-rate physicist" could do "first-rate work". Heroes of science, mathematics and engineering have since forever spoken as if anything not coming up to their level of output is trivial... then they get older and see all the new advances and new structure to academia and say, "Oh wow, these new ways aren't like back in my day, when everyone below me was quite simple!" Even among the merely quite good, people today talk of problems considered groundbreaking at their initial solution as if they were quite trivial. But they were hard not because people were stupid but because the background wasn't already established; the support of modern academia wasn't in place; the assumptions we so take for granted weren't clear at all.
Looked at another way, we also have a bit of Orwellian redefinition. Today, most "scientists" are helpers for greater minds who would have been traditionally considered lone scientists with mere technicians. These technicians wouldn't have achieved, nor necessarily been able to achieve, the higher degrees (by name) which they do today.
No, there is a glut of PhD scientists and it's getting worse every year.
Are you sure that the average PhD programme isn't just getting easier?
You may have a glut of PhDs, but are you sure that every PhD in science should call himself a scientist, in the way he might have legitimately done 30 or 40 years ago?
This applies to a tiny minority of science grads - it's the Ivy League / Oxbridge label that gets you the job there, not the degree. The reason most science grads aren't going into science isn't because they have such an amazing alternative waiting for them.
And a science grad who runs to finance at the first opportunity is not necessarily going to make a good scientist.
The basic point is: our science grads aren't good enough.
What it a simple observation on the quality of university education (i.e. the simple fact that what never would have counted as a university education in the past does count as one today) that made you think I was wearing a tin foil hat? Or did the basic implementation of free market principles bother you?
Is it really that we have too many scientists, or just that we have too many mediocre science grads who don't realise that the quality of their degree comes nowhere close to matching that expected of the science graduate even two or three decades ago?
And of course Obama, and any member of the ruling elite, wants more people in a technician role. Supply up; wages down. It's only a matter of time the middle class is eroded sufficiently that onshoring's time will come.
That reasoning has always been specious. It's trivial to compile a list of published steganographic methods and engineer some check for them. The method must involve some form of key and encryption to make the check unlikely to succeed.
While the fetus is inside her body, yeah, that's pretty much how it goes.
So the woman chooses whether to make the baby, and also chooses whether the father must support the baby? That's not equitable. If you put a sword in my back yard with my full knowledge and consent, it's not your fault if I choose to fall on it. Yeah, it's my body and it's my yard, but if I get to govern my body and my property then I must be responsible for the decisions I make regarding it.
And I think you'll find that who ever makes less and has the kid for most of the time gets the money.
You've already addressed the problem that it's usually the woman who gets the kid and the man who pays the money...
Just because you're encoding the information in the fragmentation patterns of the underlying filesystem it doesn't mean you're not engaging in encryption. The encryption is the key input to the algorithm to identify how to turn that apparently random pattern back into plaintext - otherwise we'd be able to say, "OK, let's check he's not using this method," without any secrets.
tl;dr Steganography is useless without encryption.
Ah, child support: where the woman gets to regard the foetus as her property until parturition, at which point it becomes the man's responsibility.
Yep, the law's about as wrong on that as it is to prohibit the noting down of particular sequences of 0s and 1s. Easier than actually stopping child abuse as all you have to do is subpoena the ISP for the "identity" (oh, wait..) behind a particular IP address and then turn up at the address they supply.
Although IIRC the sequence when talking to cops in the US is (i) never let them into your property without a warrant; (ii) tell them calmly that you have nothing to say; (iii) ask whether you're free to go; (iv) close the door / walk away......so any cop telling you to "please step out of the house" is doing it wrong, as it either means "I'm about to arrest you" or "I'm about to ask you to do something you won't do anyway".
Each corporation acts in its own individual interest
The premise of your argument is wrong.
A corporation is not a person and has no interest.
A corporation is effectively (individual shareholders or fund managers) the property of a few powerful individuals. And it is entirely in their self interest for these people to cooperate, whichever company they act to represent. Why the hell would you work against someone when you could both do much better by helping each other out?
The idea that big businessmen compete for the betterment of society is fantasy designed to make useful idiots (such as yourself, perhaps?) divide and squabble amongst themselves.
Well, early Laserdiscs were totally analogue, but digital audio eventually dominated. And the CD didn't start digital audio recording - PCM was discovered in the 1930s and we've had recorders since around 1970. Worthwhile historical overview.
Whether CD is more like laserdisc or more like DVD depends on how you weight the differences (purpose, physical structure, manufacturing technique, modulation, encoding / error correction, data structure, etc.), of course. And LD too 's just pits and lands.
The overall decision is precedent-forming, being a majority decision. It also overrides previous contradictory decisions.
Each individual judge's concurring opinion, as tacked onto the end of the decision document, is not precedent-forming. (But it can be used to influence a court in certain circumstances - this might have been a valid point for you or the other guy arguing with me to make, but neither of you did. )
Attached opinions are only precedent-forming if they express the majority opinion used to make a decision, rather than being merely concurring opinions.
Put simply, a group of judges can come to the same conclusion for different reasons. Where reasons differ, the underlying reasoning is less relevant. This should be obvious: otherwise one Supreme Court judge's thoughts would end up being regarded as the opinion of the Court, and one judge could effectively speak on behalf of the whole Supreme Court. This is especially relevant in this case where Douglas feels the need to mention a caveat which the other judges may not quite agree with.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty sure those small whole page previews you see when you click on that little magnifying glass are just JPEGs of the rendered page. You can't get more "taking [...] a copyrighted page and advertisements" than that. Although instead of changing them mid-stream, you've probably cached the JPEG for most pages long ago, so the image might not even be up-to-date and many hits of the preview only correspond to one page / ad view / whatever.
Meanwhile the Google image preview is high enough quality for the majority of the web's images that it's effectively making a library of everyone's images and adding your own adverts.
The only thing Google does right is not try to give the impression that this stuff was produced by Google.
Couple of things:
(1) robots.txt isn't a legal protocol. Computers don't form contracts, particularly not implicit ones by virtue of the absence of some data associated with a private convention. A lot of what Google does is understood as technically contrary to the law in some countries, to the extent that in some places (e.g. UK) the government has been lobbied by Google to extend the notion of fair use;
(2) Even if robots.txt had some force, the absence of robots.txt conventionally allows for crawling and indexing. I don't see why this can be reasonably understood to extend to all the caching and thumbnailing Google does.
Considering how many of Google's offerings involve taking someone else's work and creating a derived work with adverts, Google would be pissing in their own cornflakes to consider this.
"Oh, but people who put stuff on the web implicitly consent to indexing, caching, image thumbnailing, page thumbnailing, ..." Do they? OK, then they also implicitly consent to all the other bullshit.
A asks for a copy of something from B via C, and B gives the copy to C to pass to A. The copy has been made. I don't see what copyright has to say about whether C can modify that particular copy. Think of a book. If you buy a book from a book store, there's no copyright infringement if the book seller decides to white out a page in the book and replace it with a crudely drawn penis, is there? Otherwise every second hand textbook bought with notes pencilled in the margin is a copyright infringement.
Although, at the rate things are going, I'm sure it will be soon.
Well, he thinks you're his customers.
(And if you're not buying from him, he doesn't care what you read into his message.)
Get off your partisan hobby horse and re-read what I said:
And of course Obama, and any member of the ruling elite,
But if you feel it appropriate to ignore where Obama is now and who he answers to, and it makes you feel better to tell the world that Obama is the grandson of a lonely goatherd, knock yourself out...!
Sorry, are you saying there's no-one available better than the Chinese guy you've described? (since we seem to be talking "better" in the sense of knowing the difference between AC and DC) Did you choose him or was politics involved?
Believe it or not Slashdot, the guys at the top are usually there for very good reasons. They are not stupid, they are not idiots, and most of them are pretty damn good at what they do.
I'm one of those privileged cunts people whine about. I went to a nice private school and am quite familiar with the old boys'/girls' network.
I can assure you that while most aren't stupid, and some of them are even quite good at what they do, what they are not is uniquely able or qualified. The fact that they're in the position rather than any number of other people of equal or greater competence is that they know the right people and play the right tune (which is often very different from the tune the company claims to play).
In other words, a meritocratic market would certainly cause upper management pay to drop to one tenth of its current silliness. But why would you threaten your own security by actually practicing the competitive capitalism that you preach? No, you're far more secure and productive if you cooperate while preaching to everyone below you to turn against each other in ruthless competition.
So now people work in teams under supervision by senior scientists. There are lots of roles for lots of different strengths: there's structure to guide you and you don't have to be a lone hero (you still might be, but you still have to be singularly brilliant to do so).
And I question the idea that a "second-rate physicist" could do "first-rate work". Heroes of science, mathematics and engineering have since forever spoken as if anything not coming up to their level of output is trivial... then they get older and see all the new advances and new structure to academia and say, "Oh wow, these new ways aren't like back in my day, when everyone below me was quite simple!" Even among the merely quite good, people today talk of problems considered groundbreaking at their initial solution as if they were quite trivial. But they were hard not because people were stupid but because the background wasn't already established; the support of modern academia wasn't in place; the assumptions we so take for granted weren't clear at all.
Looked at another way, we also have a bit of Orwellian redefinition. Today, most "scientists" are helpers for greater minds who would have been traditionally considered lone scientists with mere technicians. These technicians wouldn't have achieved, nor necessarily been able to achieve, the higher degrees (by name) which they do today.
No, there is a glut of PhD scientists and it's getting worse every year.
Are you sure that the average PhD programme isn't just getting easier?
You may have a glut of PhDs, but are you sure that every PhD in science should call himself a scientist, in the way he might have legitimately done 30 or 40 years ago?
Ask why is it taking so much longer to get one.
This applies to a tiny minority of science grads - it's the Ivy League / Oxbridge label that gets you the job there, not the degree. The reason most science grads aren't going into science isn't because they have such an amazing alternative waiting for them.
And a science grad who runs to finance at the first opportunity is not necessarily going to make a good scientist.
The basic point is: our science grads aren't good enough.
What it a simple observation on the quality of university education (i.e. the simple fact that what never would have counted as a university education in the past does count as one today) that made you think I was wearing a tin foil hat? Or did the basic implementation of free market principles bother you?
Is it really that we have too many scientists, or just that we have too many mediocre science grads who don't realise that the quality of their degree comes nowhere close to matching that expected of the science graduate even two or three decades ago?
And of course Obama, and any member of the ruling elite, wants more people in a technician role. Supply up; wages down. It's only a matter of time the middle class is eroded sufficiently that onshoring's time will come.
Yes. My question was really: why do people put up with it?
That reasoning has always been specious. It's trivial to compile a list of published steganographic methods and engineer some check for them. The method must involve some form of key and encryption to make the check unlikely to succeed.
While the fetus is inside her body, yeah, that's pretty much how it goes.
So the woman chooses whether to make the baby, and also chooses whether the father must support the baby? That's not equitable. If you put a sword in my back yard with my full knowledge and consent, it's not your fault if I choose to fall on it. Yeah, it's my body and it's my yard, but if I get to govern my body and my property then I must be responsible for the decisions I make regarding it.
And I think you'll find that who ever makes less and has the kid for most of the time gets the money.
You've already addressed the problem that it's usually the woman who gets the kid and the man who pays the money...
Just because you're encoding the information in the fragmentation patterns of the underlying filesystem it doesn't mean you're not engaging in encryption. The encryption is the key input to the algorithm to identify how to turn that apparently random pattern back into plaintext - otherwise we'd be able to say, "OK, let's check he's not using this method," without any secrets.
tl;dr Steganography is useless without encryption.
Ah, child support: where the woman gets to regard the foetus as her property until parturition, at which point it becomes the man's responsibility.
Yep, the law's about as wrong on that as it is to prohibit the noting down of particular sequences of 0s and 1s. Easier than actually stopping child abuse as all you have to do is subpoena the ISP for the "identity" (oh, wait..) behind a particular IP address and then turn up at the address they supply.
Although IIRC the sequence when talking to cops in the US is ...so any cop telling you to "please step out of the house" is doing it wrong, as it either means "I'm about to arrest you" or "I'm about to ask you to do something you won't do anyway".
(i) never let them into your property without a warrant;
(ii) tell them calmly that you have nothing to say;
(iii) ask whether you're free to go;
(iv) close the door / walk away...
Each corporation acts in its own individual interest
The premise of your argument is wrong.
A corporation is not a person and has no interest.
A corporation is effectively (individual shareholders or fund managers) the property of a few powerful individuals. And it is entirely in their self interest for these people to cooperate, whichever company they act to represent. Why the hell would you work against someone when you could both do much better by helping each other out?
The idea that big businessmen compete for the betterment of society is fantasy designed to make useful idiots (such as yourself, perhaps?) divide and squabble amongst themselves.
The thread has addressed this narrowminded view already. You may want to read it.
Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable watching streaming TV unless a multicast implementation is in place? It's such a waste of bandwidth.
Consider the law's position on yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre before Brandenburg: it is via Schenck's "clear and present danger" test.
Now consider what Brandenburg is saying about Schenck's test.
Vinyl.
LD and CD.
From a disc construction and reader hardware perspective, LD is like CD and nothing like vinyl.
Well, early Laserdiscs were totally analogue, but digital audio eventually dominated. And the CD didn't start digital audio recording - PCM was discovered in the 1930s and we've had recorders since around 1970. Worthwhile historical overview.
Whether CD is more like laserdisc or more like DVD depends on how you weight the differences (purpose, physical structure, manufacturing technique, modulation, encoding / error correction, data structure, etc.), of course. And LD too 's just pits and lands.
The concurring opinion of one judge isn't the majority opinion of the Court, either logically (1 is not greater than 1) or in law.
The opinion of the judge refers explicitly to consequences, not speech itself.
His logic is very clear, and the law's view on applicability of his logic is very clear.
HTH.
OK, maybe you're just not understanding the law.
The overall decision is precedent-forming, being a majority decision. It also overrides previous contradictory decisions.
Each individual judge's concurring opinion, as tacked onto the end of the decision document, is not precedent-forming. (But it can be used to influence a court in certain circumstances - this might have been a valid point for you or the other guy arguing with me to make, but neither of you did. )
Attached opinions are only precedent-forming if they express the majority opinion used to make a decision, rather than being merely concurring opinions.
Put simply, a group of judges can come to the same conclusion for different reasons. Where reasons differ, the underlying reasoning is less relevant. This should be obvious: otherwise one Supreme Court judge's thoughts would end up being regarded as the opinion of the Court, and one judge could effectively speak on behalf of the whole Supreme Court. This is especially relevant in this case where Douglas feels the need to mention a caveat which the other judges may not quite agree with.
Clear?