I think google's implementation of this project very clearly falls under scholarship and/or research purposes.
What Google are doing is not research. The fact that you may be able to use Google's service for research is irrelevant becuase that's not why the service exists. If this was just to test out some new algorithm then perhaps it could be considered research. Google is a for-profit corporation and they intend to use the copyright works to make money by drawing people to their site and serving them ads. They aren't doing it to further the sum of human knowledge, they are doing it to get rich.
You are asserting there would be a massive negative economic impact and you just threw in an entirely random 20% unemployment figure. What's your evidence for these assertions?
Our government (I'm British) are making us reduce our use of use of fossil fuels, by making them more expensive. This is good. They are still in power, the economy is healthy and we don't have massive unemployment. Your "people will accept the consequences" attitude may be prevalent in the US, but it isn't in more enlightened parts of the world. That's why the rest of the world signed up to the Kyoto treaty and are making some progress towards its targets.
And the underlying National Hurricane Center data is biased for a political agenda, how?
It only looks at things which affect a political entity - the United States of America. How is that not political? Alone it's not useful data on global warming because global warming changes weather patterns. Some places get colder. Some places get calmer weather.
You can't solve the problem overnight so there's no point doing anything? You don't even have to stop burning things, you can just start burning things you grow instead of things you dig up out of the ground. You can use energy more efficiently - insulation, hybrid cars, staggered working hours, a viable public transport system. You also conveniently ignore the economic impact of global warming itself. Say you double the frequency of events like Katria. At >>$200bn a pop that aint cheap.
I implied nothing, you infered something. If you read the previous post you'd realise why I used the use of force in a capitalist system as an example - it was a counter-example to the use of force in communist systems. It went something like this:
John Doe: Communist systems must use force as not everyone agrees.
Me: Every system must use force as not everyone agress. <Example of use of force in capitalism./>
You: Duh huh! Communist systems use force too!
Me: You must have missed something, let me make it clear.
You: I am a fucktard.
And how do you propose I avoid it ? The road network is designed to handle the amount of traffick it gets and no more; that means that as soon as there is enough space to fit a car between you and whoever goes in front of you, someone will either pass you, move there from another line, or come to road from a side road in front of you. This, in turn, means that there is always someone right in front of me, no matter how I drive.
I've heard this argument before. It's bullshit. I drive on congested roads (M1, M25) and manage to maintain a safe distance from the car in front. There is never a constant stream of people cutting in front of me. Perhaps once every couple of minutes. If you can't deal with that then perhaps you should deal with your feelings of inferiority before getting back into a car.
Despite the sound-bites, speed doesn't kill. Ever. It's all about gaps. If you can stop in time it doesn't matter if you're doing 130mph or 5mph as far as I'm concerned. Of course, I exercise prudence when there's a good chance of being caught as sadly the law works on the illogical blanket speed-limit system. If you can't stop in time you're a liability.
I expect this will come up in court some time (if it hasn't already) and somebody will sue the WiFi base-station manufacturer, because they sold a product which makes your network insecure. 6 months later every WiFi base-station sold will have a big WARNING sticker on it.
Much as I hate lawsuits which ignore any notion of personal responsibility, WiFi manufacturers making their stuff secure by default and adding warnings wouldn't actually be a bad thing.
I presume your point is that not all mp3s are under copyright and not all of those which are under copyright have licenses which prohibit redistribution. And you're right, of course.
Seriously, we have this thing called context which human beings use to infer details which are not explicity stated. In this case it's pretty fucking obvious to world+dog that 'mp3' used in this context is shorthand for 'electronic music files under copyright which are not licensed for distribution by the mechanism under discussion'.
p.s. I don't literally mean the planet Earth and a canine.
Does it mention anywhere that the property must be physical? No, it doesn't, therefore intellectual property. would fall under this definition as well.
The "intellectual property" is the copyright, which they still have even if you infringe it.
She moves like she don't care
Smooth as silk cool as air
Ooh it makes you wanna cry
She doesn't know your name
And your heart beats like a subway train
Ooh it makes you wanna die
Ooh Don't ya wanna take her
Ooh Don't ya wanna make her all your own
MARIAA
You've got to see her
Go insane and out of your mind ...
Everyone ignores the fact that these people are guilty, even if they themselves don't realize it.
What evidence you you have that all (your word) these computers are being used to distribute copyright materials illegally? I thought only the Flying Spaghetti Monster was omniscient and infallible.
so what you're essentially saying is that any artists today who want to make a living putting out music should expect to devote 25 years to nothing but road touring to expect any sort of revenues.
Would it really be so bad if someone wanting to make a living out of playing music should have to, you know, actually play music to make money?
You should learn what 'will' means in this context. I'll help you out a bit: It's to do with the future. In 10 years, Paul McCartney will have written that music 50 years ago. In 60 years it will be 100 years ago. And it'll still be under copyright. After a hundred fucking years.
If Paul McCartney really gave a shit what happened to his music he would have retained copyright.
There's a good argument that copyright should last the lifetime of the author. After all, it would suck to see your work abused. But many people sell their copyrights to megacorps to make a quick buck - those people evidently don't care quite so much about how their work is used.
Any system requires enforcement as not everybody will agree, whatever the system. With a capitalist system you need men with guns to stop those who think they have a right to roam the land and hunt and forage to support themselves. You can even shoot trespassers in some particularly unsavoury parts of the capitalist world.
Yeah, they really should implement some kind of 'Preview' function and put a message on the posting page mentioning it. If they put the button right next to 'Submit' nobody could possibly miss it
You know how it is, you have a few too many beers and gradually the chick with three ears, one eye and an OS/2 laptop with a broken floppy starts to look like Natalie Portman asking you to make the dock icons smaller on her PowerBook.
That's a $9.99 Radio Shack Logic Probe. A Logic Analyser is typically somewhat more elaborate, with as many input channels as you like and as fast as you are rich. Hundreds of channels and gigaherts timing speeds are possible if you're really rich.
Not only do logic analysers capture digital signals, they help analyse them too. They understand different kinds of signals and can present the information to you in a nice way. Imagine a version of ethereal for electrical signals and you'll get the general idea.
Use of the word 'property' implies that the products of our intellects - ideas - can be owned in the same way as a chair or a house. The term 'intellectual property' was coined to imply some kind of parity between the rights offered to patent, copyright and trademark holders and those offered to the owners of property. Ditto use of 'theft' instead of 'misapropriation' to refer to copyright infringement. Ideas are not property and they should never become property.
Slashdot Mirror
What Google are doing is not research. The fact that you may be able to use Google's service for research is irrelevant becuase that's not why the service exists. If this was just to test out some new algorithm then perhaps it could be considered research. Google is a for-profit corporation and they intend to use the copyright works to make money by drawing people to their site and serving them ads. They aren't doing it to further the sum of human knowledge, they are doing it to get rich.
You are asserting there would be a massive negative economic impact and you just threw in an entirely random 20% unemployment figure. What's your evidence for these assertions?
Our government (I'm British) are making us reduce our use of use of fossil fuels, by making them more expensive. This is good. They are still in power, the economy is healthy and we don't have massive unemployment. Your "people will accept the consequences" attitude may be prevalent in the US, but it isn't in more enlightened parts of the world. That's why the rest of the world signed up to the Kyoto treaty and are making some progress towards its targets.
Having just read the essay itself for the first time, I can say Dijkstra's writing style has done far more harm to my head than goto ever could.
Admittedly, his English is probably better than my Dutch. Largely because I don't speak Dutch.
The source of data they used (weather satellites) was not available before 1970.
It only looks at things which affect a political entity - the United States of America. How is that not political? Alone it's not useful data on global warming because global warming changes weather patterns. Some places get colder. Some places get calmer weather.
You can't solve the problem overnight so there's no point doing anything? You don't even have to stop burning things, you can just start burning things you grow instead of things you dig up out of the ground. You can use energy more efficiently - insulation, hybrid cars, staggered working hours, a viable public transport system. You also conveniently ignore the economic impact of global warming itself. Say you double the frequency of events like Katria. At >>$200bn a pop that aint cheap.
John Doe: Communist systems must use force as not everyone agrees. />
Me: Every system must use force as not everyone agress. <Example of use of force in capitalism.
You: Duh huh! Communist systems use force too!
Me: You must have missed something, let me make it clear.
You: I am a fucktard.
Dude, you should put me in touch with your weed dealer. Judging by your short-term memory you must be getting some seriously good shit.
I'll repeat the first sentence for you: "Any system requires enforcement as not everybody will agree, whatever the system."
It's either an endoparasite or an endosymbiont (depending on your religious convictions), but certainly not a virus.
I've heard this argument before. It's bullshit. I drive on congested roads (M1, M25) and manage to maintain a safe distance from the car in front. There is never a constant stream of people cutting in front of me. Perhaps once every couple of minutes. If you can't deal with that then perhaps you should deal with your feelings of inferiority before getting back into a car.
Despite the sound-bites, speed doesn't kill. Ever. It's all about gaps. If you can stop in time it doesn't matter if you're doing 130mph or 5mph as far as I'm concerned. Of course, I exercise prudence when there's a good chance of being caught as sadly the law works on the illogical blanket speed-limit system. If you can't stop in time you're a liability.
I expect this will come up in court some time (if it hasn't already) and somebody will sue the WiFi base-station manufacturer, because they sold a product which makes your network insecure. 6 months later every WiFi base-station sold will have a big WARNING sticker on it.
Much as I hate lawsuits which ignore any notion of personal responsibility, WiFi manufacturers making their stuff secure by default and adding warnings wouldn't actually be a bad thing.
And the pedant of the century award goes to...
I presume your point is that not all mp3s are under copyright and not all of those which are under copyright have licenses which prohibit redistribution. And you're right, of course.
Seriously, we have this thing called context which human beings use to infer details which are not explicity stated. In this case it's pretty fucking obvious to world+dog that 'mp3' used in this context is shorthand for 'electronic music files under copyright which are not licensed for distribution by the mechanism under discussion'.
p.s. I don't literally mean the planet Earth and a canine.
The "intellectual property" is the copyright, which they still have even if you infringe it.
She moves like she don't care
Smooth as silk cool as air
Ooh it makes you wanna cry
She doesn't know your name
And your heart beats like a subway train
Ooh it makes you wanna die
Ooh Don't ya wanna take her
Ooh Don't ya wanna make her all your own
MARIAA
...
You've got to see her
Go insane and out of your mind
What evidence you you have that all (your word) these computers are being used to distribute copyright materials illegally? I thought only the Flying Spaghetti Monster was omniscient and infallible.
Would it really be so bad if someone wanting to make a living out of playing music should have to, you know, actually play music to make money?
You should learn what 'will' means in this context. I'll help you out a bit: It's to do with the future. In 10 years, Paul McCartney will have written that music 50 years ago. In 60 years it will be 100 years ago. And it'll still be under copyright. After a hundred fucking years.
If Paul McCartney really gave a shit what happened to his music he would have retained copyright.
There's a good argument that copyright should last the lifetime of the author. After all, it would suck to see your work abused. But many people sell their copyrights to megacorps to make a quick buck - those people evidently don't care quite so much about how their work is used.
Any system requires enforcement as not everybody will agree, whatever the system. With a capitalist system you need men with guns to stop those who think they have a right to roam the land and hunt and forage to support themselves. You can even shoot trespassers in some particularly unsavoury parts of the capitalist world.
Oh yes, we all know it's the guys on the factory floor who play golf in the afternoon.
I hope your absolutely-positioned, pixel-perfect layouts work when I use my default stylesheet.
Yeah, they really should implement some kind of 'Preview' function and put a message on the posting page mentioning it. If they put the button right next to 'Submit' nobody could possibly miss it
You know how it is, you have a few too many beers and gradually the chick with three ears, one eye and an OS/2 laptop with a broken floppy starts to look like Natalie Portman asking you to make the dock icons smaller on her PowerBook.
Not only do logic analysers capture digital signals, they help analyse them too. They understand different kinds of signals and can present the information to you in a nice way. Imagine a version of ethereal for electrical signals and you'll get the general idea.
Microsoft just called, they said something about you performing a study for them.
Use of the word 'property' implies that the products of our intellects - ideas - can be owned in the same way as a chair or a house. The term 'intellectual property' was coined to imply some kind of parity between the rights offered to patent, copyright and trademark holders and those offered to the owners of property. Ditto use of 'theft' instead of 'misapropriation' to refer to copyright infringement. Ideas are not property and they should never become property.