(For those who don't get it: The root of lunacy is "luna", the Greek word for "moon". Lunacy literally refers to "moon madness".)
you have to be a lunatic to put fission on the moon.
Ok. Here's the ever important question: Why? The benefits are obvious:
- Energy dense - Lightweight (in comparison to a comparable area of solar panels) - Portable - Low maintenance - Safe for transport prior to being activated
I don't see any obvious negatives that would justify your reaction, so let's discuss. What are the negatives that concern you? Is there a danger that we're unaware of? Will the reactors interact with the environment in some negative fashion? Please share!
So in a choice between a radioactive landfill site on what could prove to be useful land or dragging digging machinery to the moon with the reactor, it doesnt seem to me to be particularly easy.
You're needlessly concerned, methinks. The moon has a surface area of 37,930,000 km. NONE of that space is covered by large bodies of water. The amount of land on earth is 148,940,000 km. That gives the moon about 25% of the useful land that earth has. That's quite a bit!
Now consider the cost of developing the entire area of the moon. With launch costs easily reaching $10,000/lb, can we reasonably expect to ship enough materials to cover an area 25% the size of earth's usable land masses? The only way that much space would be used is for lunar colonies to become self-sufficient to the point of thriving colonization. We're talking generations upon generations of people, crops, and livestock. All housed in artificial structures. It took ~500 years for American soil to be populated to the point it is today. And that's with the creature comforts of Earth. Can we realistically expect that in such a harsh environment, a colony will thrive as well or better than the American colonization efforts?
What I'm saying is that with a mere smidgen of planning, there is more than enough space for landfills that will not interfere with other lunar activities.
An RTG is not a reactor. It does not "split uranium". In fact, RTGs don't use uranium as it's not radioactive enough. RTGs also produce a LOT less power than reactors. The last ones sent to the moon with the Apollo missions generated a mere 60 watts. These new reactors will work on actual nuclear fission and are intended to generate 40 kilowatts. A 600x increase in power output.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
If you find that reference "obscure", you're not much of a fan. The actual event happened, I believe, in the second season when Rodney was trying to get the Ancient facility that draws Zero Point Energy from our own universe to work. If you watched it, you might remember that several scientists died in sudden fluctuations of the field. Rodney and Mckay were eventually allowed to return alone because Rodney thought he could solve the problem. Long story short, they ended up flying off in the Jumper with the ancient weapon firing randomly and had to be saved by the Daedalus just before the entire solar system blew up. Rodney then got chewed out for blowing up an entire solar system.
Last season (while Carter was in command), they enlisted the help of Rodney's sister to revive the experiment. Except they drew the energy from another universe. (Which ended up in the appearance of "Rod", Rodney's doppleganger from that universe.) Obviously, when they were explaining the issue to Jeannie, Rodney's sister, the subject of blowing up an entire Solar System came up. To which she relied, "MEREDITH!" Which makes perfect sense when you realize that the other reoccurring joke in that episode was that Rodney's first name is actually Meredith.
No sir. The travesty is not that people have been modded up and down for their opinions. Such is the normal course of things. The travesty is that Mr. Beckerman's lapse in grace and judgment was posted by the editors. Had they passed over his submission, no one would have known of his misstep and his reputation would have remained untarnished.
I am utterly saddened by what this story has done to a man that I deeply respected. This story will cause his future judgments to be called into question, which will significantly reduce his ability to communicate news to the Slashdot readership. A blow from which I can only hope he will be able to recover.
I'm afraid that it is not I who is "missing the point". Shannon's entropy relationships CANNOT be divorced from the physical workings of our universe. If they were, then they would be capable of producing any number you wanted them to. However, since Shannon's findings agree with how the universe operates, they are by definition scientific discoveries. No more or less than the discovery of absolute zero is a scientific discovery.
If you can find a method by which Shannon's theories may be disproven, then you may have a point. But as it stands, they are tremendously useful in the proper application of engineering and physics. (Both physical machinery and "virtual" software.) If they did not reflect the nature of the universe, then they would not be useful.
Which is why you've heard a subtle shift in the terminology of physics in recent years. What was once the domain of computer science is now overlapping with advanced physics. Hawking does not refer to "information" because he believes it to be a cool term to use. He refers to it because it is a solid concept rooted in the nature of the universe.
The judge mentions protection of "fictional facts," citing other Second Circuit opinions (as the judge pretty much must do).
This is a fair point. However, I must point out that the judge decided that there was too much of Rowling's work to be protected under fair use. While the legal convention of "fictional facts" is an interesting one, it is by definition a tricky tight rope to walk. Since all the facts are fiction, it becomes a battle of the lawyers to convince the judge of what is "fact" and what is protected by copyright law.
First let me say that I do not disagree with you. Your post is well stated. I only respond because the context in which we are speaking belies the use of your statements as arguments.
Plagiarism is not illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal.
You are correct. However, plagiarism often plays a role in copyright infringement. Especially when a work is seen as improperly using large quantities of text or when seen as a derivative work.
Interestingly, the commercial aspect of the nature was not what primarily compelled the judge to decide as he did.
To clarify, the commercial aspect is not the concern of the judge. It is the concern of Rowling, and apparently the reasoning behind her move for an injunction.
"Reorganized" is not always illegal either- particularly when facts are involved.
Except that this case is over the reorganization of an original work of fiction. Given that it is fiction, those pieces are the property of Rowling and are not protected as factual statements under copyright law. Had facts been stated (e.g. "The author of the Harry Potter books claims that the length of her character's wand is 14 inches"), there would have been no case.
You mean selected snippets of the Lexicon were read in order to trick the judge into believing that that was all there was. A clear logical fallacy, but common tactic in cases like this.
Of which the defense simply allowed without showing the substantive quantity of original text following the lifted text? Please. If any lawyer is that incompetent, he deserves to lose. Otherwise, for what purpose does legal defense exist?
Which is funny, considering the HP Lexicon website itself had advertising revenue associated with it.
I will reiterate: It is up to the author to decide how their work is used. Given that there was no charge to the readers of the site, and that web advertising rarely does more than defray operating costs, I can see how she would have given it a nod as an excellent fan reference.
That still conveys ZERO legal right to publish a work of plagiarism for profit. Only Rowling can make that decision. Which (if you read the decision) she attempted to convey in correspondence with the author and publisher. Correspondence that they chose to disregard.
And of course, there's the fact that the research was obviously independent, given that Rowling started attacking them for "getting things wrong":
You appear to think that one cannot plagiarize and yet be guilty of poor research at the same time. Allow me to disabuse you of that notion.
Let's say we have original text that looks like this: "Harry Potter's wand is a 14 inch long, magical instrument that is capable of some very powerful spells indeed! Yet Harry knows that its power is strong and that he should only use it only in dire situations."
Now let's create text that both plagiarizes and adds unsubstantiated claims to the text: "Harry Potter's wand is a 14 inch long, magical piece of wood that is capable of powerful hexes. Harry is a pacifist and thus feels that the power is strong and that he should only use it only in dire situations."
With those very simple changes, we have managed to achieve "getting it wrong" without adding sufficient research to be considered either for fair use or as an original work.
In summary: the judge was dazzled by Rowling's star power and way too much lawyering, and should never be let near a copyright case again because he's proven himself utterly incompetent in the area.
See, that is opinion. The facts presented in the case disagree with your opinion. Until someone demonstrates facts that are contrary to the judge's findings, then I'm afraid you have no leg to stand on.
--
As a personal note, I'd like to add that I have no stake in wanting Rowling to win or lose this case. I have been avoiding the Harry Potter series since its inception and am entirely turned off by its premise. My only interest in this situation is the matter of law and justice. The decision, while an obviously difficult one for the judge, appears to be correct according to everything I have seen about the case to date. Until someone proves otherwise, NewYorkCountryLawyer's post is reactionary and defamatory.
NYCL, are you trying to lose all respect? Moryath's post was way off base based on the evidence presented in this case. If you believe otherwise, you need to present a reasonable argument to the contrary. Not simply cherry pick those who agree with you and pat them on the back. Rather than building up that individual, you are dragging your own reputation through the mud.
If you want more support on your side, then I suggest you treat Slashdot as you would a courtroom: Argue your case!
You never know. If you actually have a case, you might gain more support. If you don't, it will become clear very quickly. Either way you'll have a much better chance at gaining respect for your beliefs than by making defamatory statements like, "J. K. Rowling didn't make enough money on Harry Potter, so she had to make sure that the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' was shut down." As a lawyer, you should know better.
The judge granted summary judgement on the flimsiest of grounds - a reference work for a multiple-volume work of fiction, by definition, will be "a dry reference."
You hinged your argument on the wrong part of that sentence. "Dry reference" is not illegal, nor is it the judge's words. "Reorganized", however, IS illegal when we are speaking about copyrighted works. That is what the judge found against.
And if you've ever looked at the Lexicon website, you know that it does precisely that
Hardly. The lexicon was read aloud in court, along with the source material it pulled from. The book was a clear case of plagiarism to the court. The publisher can feel free to appeal the decision, but I doubt they'll find much sympathy from an appeals judge.
The crux of your defense appears to be that a website previously existed that Rowling was happy with. Yet one has to be clear on one aspect here: There is a large gulf between publishing large pieces of someone's work for a no-cost reference and publishing someone else's work for profit. The defendant may have had a website that Rowling was happy with and thus not inclined to take legal action against (effectively giving approval for the use), but the book should have either added significantly more value over the source material OR have sought approval from the Rowling before attempting to go to press.
FWIW, PJ does an excellent job in reaching the same conclusion in her Groklaw post. Kudos to kdawson for adding that useful link to balance out an otherwise defamatory post.
J. K. Rowling didn't make enough money on Harry Potter, so she had to make sure that the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' was shut down.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up a moment! NewYorkCountryLawyer, I normally respect your posts, but this one is in need of some serious scrutiny.
As it happens, I was listening to the details of the case this morning on NPR. The problem with this specific book is not that it focuses on the Harry Potter series. The problem is that nearly every description was lifted from the books in a reasonably clear case of plagerism and/or derivitive works. Most reference books contain unique descriptions and commentary above and beyond the information presented in the source material. However, this particular lexicon made no effort to add such value over the books themselves.
In effect, it was merely a reorganization of J.K. Rowling's books into a dry reference. Something for which only the author has a legal right to grant.
THAT is why the judge found against the lexicon. And he did so with a strong warning that this book is an exception to the usually legal practice:
Issuing an injunction in this case both benefits and harms the public interest. While the Lexicon, in its current state, is not a fair use of the Harry Potter works, reference works that share the Lexicon's purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled. As the Supreme Court suggested in Campbell, "[b]ecause the fair use enquiry often requires close questions of judgment as to the extent of permissible borrowing" in cases involving transformative uses, granting an injunction does not always serve the goals of copyright law, when the secondary use, though edifying in some way, has been found to surpass the bounds of fair use. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578 n.10. On the other hand, to serve the public interest, copyright law must "prevent[] the misappropriation of the skills, creative energies, and resources which are invested in the protected work." Apple Computer, 714 F.2d at 1255. Ultimately, because the Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide, a permanent injunction must issue to prevent the possible proliferation of works that do the same25 and thus deplete the incentive for original authors to create new works.
I understood what you were saying. What I'm saying is that the issue you raised is merely a special circumstance of the issue I was discounting. Thus I was not being "disingenuous". Merely broad.
I think you're missing the point. Sending a file that you own is not fundamentally different (from a legal perspective) than downloading a file you own. In either case, Google cannot reasonably expect to claim license to the subject of these events as they are not a party to them. You may be using a browser developed by Google to perform these actions, but that is neither here nor there in a legal sense.
Effectively, the contract is unconscionable. There is zero consideration that would apply sufficient balance to the contract to make it enforceable in a court of law. Just as you cannot easily sign away the rights to your firstborn child, you can no more sign away valuable rights in an unfair and unnegotiated exchange for a bauble.
How is this a story? The language is fairly common among services that allow user materials to be uploaded. It has been in Google's standard TOS for years now. The only reason why it came to light with Chrome is that the language didn't make a lick of sense in that context. Since you weren't uploading user-generated content, Google's TOS read as if they auto-claimed the entire internet.
"View this page and it's ours! MWHAHAHA!"
Not only is that an unenforcable statement, but it's a downright ridiculous statement, as well. That is why it was removed. Nothing more, nothing less.
The only difference I see between the standard content license that Google uses and the license of their competitors is that many competitors choose to limit the license to the length of your membership. After such a time they "make a reasonable effort" to remove any content you request removed. It's up to you, the consumer, to decide if a perpetual license is more bothersome than a "best effort" license limited to the period that you maintain membership.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 4, Funny
this time, its different, the world is really going to end this time
Honestly, my take is this. If the LHC guys really do manage to destroy the universe in some science shattering stranglet experiment, well...
That would be rather impressive. It's just too bad no one would be around to bear witness to the fact.;-)
Or to put it in the context of Stargate...
Carter: He destroyed a solar system. Jeannie: MEREDITH!
Which line are you referring to? I don't remember the line in 5th Element, nor can I find it in a google search. The line is always attributed to Bab5. (Which is where I pulled it from.)
...to the summary was: What? I didn't catch a word of that.
Thankfully, TFA is a bit better:
Often, the first model wouldn't work very well, so the group would argue about how to strengthen it. Some would offer up new data they'd collected, and suggest tweaks to the model. "They'd be sitting around arguing about what model was the best, which was most predictive," Steinkuehler recalls. That's when it hit her: The kids were practicing science.
While I have the highest respect for my esteemed colleagues in Madison, I find myself disagreeing with Steinkuehler's conclusions. These kids are not practicing science, they're practicing being human beings. And as human beings, we find new and inventive ways to meet a challenge whenever one is presented to us.
All one needs to do is look back through history. Aliens didn't build the pyramids; humans did. Humans who were given the seemingly impossible task rose to the challenge and made it happen. The Flavian Amphitheatre (aka the Coliseum) didn't just appear when someone pulled the plug on a drain and the water swirled around. Humans wanted a better place to host their blood sport. So they devised a new method. Trains didn't start moving themselves. Humans had a problem of not enough labor. So they devised a solution.
Which isn't to say that these many engineering feats were devoid of what we today think of as "science". However, it is important to remember that the scientific process (i.e. the thing that separates "science" from simply "effort") is a formalized process that vets the actual facts from the statistical noise. If you are not following the formalized methodology, you are not performing "science".
Which isn't to say that I don't think these kids deserve mad props. They used their brains and were rewarded for it. Which is something to be proud of in a comfortable modern society that makes it all too easy to turn one's brain to the "off" position.:-)
That logic would be AWESOME... if our air conditioners ran on oil.
(insert stoic look here)
AC runs off the grid. The grid is primarily powered by Coal, Uranium, and Natural Gas. Oil is a tiny part of that energy infrastructure. All these "deaths" you're waxing over are in pursuit of CARS, not Air Conditioners.
You know, it is in fact possible to survive in most parts of the world without air conditioning. Yes I know it's shocking, but it's a fact of life.
You know what else? Many of those people die.
I was watching a History Channel miniseries on the American Revolution the other day, and I was surprised to learn that one of the revolution's greatest Generals Nathanael Greene, died of a heat stroke. But not on the battlefield as one might expect. (Especially during the searing heat of Clinton's retreat from Philadelphia.) He died on his own plantation of a heat stroke.
What I'm getting at is that you should be careful about considering AC a luxury. It may make life more comfortable, but it also saves lives. One only needs to go as far as a major city to find reports of deaths every year from low income people who have no AC.
Primarily because the existing one was broken. But it only showed up broken under a load. Which meant that it didn't show up until testing until a few days before deployment. Worse yet, it's not like we could replace the server at the last minute as we were already invested in the vendor's extensions. (Something which I was a vocal opponent of.)
We contacted the vendor and were promised an emergency patch. The patch arrived the day of the deployment. Testing began... and failed. The patch didn't work. But if we didn't get this new piece of the application out that day, we'd fail our contract with our partners. Effectively, we were stuck in a no-win situation. (One could easily argue that better planning would have avoided the issue, but that's neither here nor there once you're staring down the barrel.)
So my solution was to change the rules. I pulled up the vendor's meager documentation on their JSPC compiler and set to work on a replacement engine that used as much of the vendor's original code as possible. All the libraries and the compiler itself were left intact, but the key part we wanted to replace (the part that loaded JSPS pages, initiated, included, and forwarded requests) was what I focused on. In 3 hours, I did the research, the reverse engineering, and the implementation to make it happen. The code was load tested with barely a half hour to spare. An exhausting bit of work. But it saved the day.:-)
There was one minor bug fix required later that night, and I added development features like dynamic reloading the next day. The powers that be were so happy with the solution that when the vendor finally got us a working patch, no one was in any hurry to install it. I honestly don't remember if we ever replaced my jury-rigged engine or not!
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see. Maybe more emphasis on the moon jokes, next time? :-)
Love the moon reference, there. Kudos!
(For those who don't get it: The root of lunacy is "luna", the Greek word for "moon". Lunacy literally refers to "moon madness".)
Ok. Here's the ever important question: Why? The benefits are obvious:
- Energy dense
- Lightweight (in comparison to a comparable area of solar panels)
- Portable
- Low maintenance
- Safe for transport prior to being activated
I don't see any obvious negatives that would justify your reaction, so let's discuss. What are the negatives that concern you? Is there a danger that we're unaware of? Will the reactors interact with the environment in some negative fashion? Please share!
You're needlessly concerned, methinks. The moon has a surface area of 37,930,000 km. NONE of that space is covered by large bodies of water. The amount of land on earth is 148,940,000 km. That gives the moon about 25% of the useful land that earth has. That's quite a bit!
Now consider the cost of developing the entire area of the moon. With launch costs easily reaching $10,000/lb, can we reasonably expect to ship enough materials to cover an area 25% the size of earth's usable land masses? The only way that much space would be used is for lunar colonies to become self-sufficient to the point of thriving colonization. We're talking generations upon generations of people, crops, and livestock. All housed in artificial structures. It took ~500 years for American soil to be populated to the point it is today. And that's with the creature comforts of Earth. Can we realistically expect that in such a harsh environment, a colony will thrive as well or better than the American colonization efforts?
What I'm saying is that with a mere smidgen of planning, there is more than enough space for landfills that will not interfere with other lunar activities.
An RTG is not a reactor. It does not "split uranium". In fact, RTGs don't use uranium as it's not radioactive enough. RTGs also produce a LOT less power than reactors. The last ones sent to the moon with the Apollo missions generated a mere 60 watts. These new reactors will work on actual nuclear fission and are intended to generate 40 kilowatts. A 600x increase in power output.
If you find that reference "obscure", you're not much of a fan. The actual event happened, I believe, in the second season when Rodney was trying to get the Ancient facility that draws Zero Point Energy from our own universe to work. If you watched it, you might remember that several scientists died in sudden fluctuations of the field. Rodney and Mckay were eventually allowed to return alone because Rodney thought he could solve the problem. Long story short, they ended up flying off in the Jumper with the ancient weapon firing randomly and had to be saved by the Daedalus just before the entire solar system blew up. Rodney then got chewed out for blowing up an entire solar system.
Last season (while Carter was in command), they enlisted the help of Rodney's sister to revive the experiment. Except they drew the energy from another universe. (Which ended up in the appearance of "Rod", Rodney's doppleganger from that universe.) Obviously, when they were explaining the issue to Jeannie, Rodney's sister, the subject of blowing up an entire Solar System came up. To which she relied, "MEREDITH!" Which makes perfect sense when you realize that the other reoccurring joke in that episode was that Rodney's first name is actually Meredith.
No sir. The travesty is not that people have been modded up and down for their opinions. Such is the normal course of things. The travesty is that Mr. Beckerman's lapse in grace and judgment was posted by the editors. Had they passed over his submission, no one would have known of his misstep and his reputation would have remained untarnished.
I am utterly saddened by what this story has done to a man that I deeply respected. This story will cause his future judgments to be called into question, which will significantly reduce his ability to communicate news to the Slashdot readership. A blow from which I can only hope he will be able to recover.
I'm afraid that it is not I who is "missing the point". Shannon's entropy relationships CANNOT be divorced from the physical workings of our universe. If they were, then they would be capable of producing any number you wanted them to. However, since Shannon's findings agree with how the universe operates, they are by definition scientific discoveries. No more or less than the discovery of absolute zero is a scientific discovery.
If you can find a method by which Shannon's theories may be disproven, then you may have a point. But as it stands, they are tremendously useful in the proper application of engineering and physics. (Both physical machinery and "virtual" software.) If they did not reflect the nature of the universe, then they would not be useful.
Which is why you've heard a subtle shift in the terminology of physics in recent years. What was once the domain of computer science is now overlapping with advanced physics. Hawking does not refer to "information" because he believes it to be a cool term to use. He refers to it because it is a solid concept rooted in the nature of the universe.
My pleasure.
This is a fair point. However, I must point out that the judge decided that there was too much of Rowling's work to be protected under fair use. While the legal convention of "fictional facts" is an interesting one, it is by definition a tricky tight rope to walk. Since all the facts are fiction, it becomes a battle of the lawyers to convince the judge of what is "fact" and what is protected by copyright law.
First let me say that I do not disagree with you. Your post is well stated. I only respond because the context in which we are speaking belies the use of your statements as arguments.
You are correct. However, plagiarism often plays a role in copyright infringement. Especially when a work is seen as improperly using large quantities of text or when seen as a derivative work.
To clarify, the commercial aspect is not the concern of the judge. It is the concern of Rowling, and apparently the reasoning behind her move for an injunction.
Except that this case is over the reorganization of an original work of fiction. Given that it is fiction, those pieces are the property of Rowling and are not protected as factual statements under copyright law. Had facts been stated (e.g. "The author of the Harry Potter books claims that the length of her character's wand is 14 inches"), there would have been no case.
Of which the defense simply allowed without showing the substantive quantity of original text following the lifted text? Please. If any lawyer is that incompetent, he deserves to lose. Otherwise, for what purpose does legal defense exist?
I will reiterate: It is up to the author to decide how their work is used. Given that there was no charge to the readers of the site, and that web advertising rarely does more than defray operating costs, I can see how she would have given it a nod as an excellent fan reference.
That still conveys ZERO legal right to publish a work of plagiarism for profit. Only Rowling can make that decision. Which (if you read the decision) she attempted to convey in correspondence with the author and publisher. Correspondence that they chose to disregard.
You appear to think that one cannot plagiarize and yet be guilty of poor research at the same time. Allow me to disabuse you of that notion.
Let's say we have original text that looks like this: "Harry Potter's wand is a 14 inch long, magical instrument that is capable of some very powerful spells indeed! Yet Harry knows that its power is strong and that he should only use it only in dire situations."
Now let's create text that both plagiarizes and adds unsubstantiated claims to the text: "Harry Potter's wand is a 14 inch long, magical piece of wood that is capable of powerful hexes. Harry is a pacifist and thus feels that the power is strong and that he should only use it only in dire situations."
With those very simple changes, we have managed to achieve "getting it wrong" without adding sufficient research to be considered either for fair use or as an original work.
See, that is opinion. The facts presented in the case disagree with your opinion. Until someone demonstrates facts that are contrary to the judge's findings, then I'm afraid you have no leg to stand on.
--
As a personal note, I'd like to add that I have no stake in wanting Rowling to win or lose this case. I have been avoiding the Harry Potter series since its inception and am entirely turned off by its premise. My only interest in this situation is the matter of law and justice. The decision, while an obviously difficult one for the judge, appears to be correct according to everything I have seen about the case to date. Until someone proves otherwise, NewYorkCountryLawyer's post is reactionary and defamatory.
NYCL, are you trying to lose all respect? Moryath's post was way off base based on the evidence presented in this case. If you believe otherwise, you need to present a reasonable argument to the contrary. Not simply cherry pick those who agree with you and pat them on the back. Rather than building up that individual, you are dragging your own reputation through the mud.
If you want more support on your side, then I suggest you treat Slashdot as you would a courtroom: Argue your case!
You never know. If you actually have a case, you might gain more support. If you don't, it will become clear very quickly. Either way you'll have a much better chance at gaining respect for your beliefs than by making defamatory statements like, "J. K. Rowling didn't make enough money on Harry Potter, so she had to make sure that the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' was shut down." As a lawyer, you should know better.
You hinged your argument on the wrong part of that sentence. "Dry reference" is not illegal, nor is it the judge's words. "Reorganized", however, IS illegal when we are speaking about copyrighted works. That is what the judge found against.
Hardly. The lexicon was read aloud in court, along with the source material it pulled from. The book was a clear case of plagiarism to the court. The publisher can feel free to appeal the decision, but I doubt they'll find much sympathy from an appeals judge.
The crux of your defense appears to be that a website previously existed that Rowling was happy with. Yet one has to be clear on one aspect here: There is a large gulf between publishing large pieces of someone's work for a no-cost reference and publishing someone else's work for profit. The defendant may have had a website that Rowling was happy with and thus not inclined to take legal action against (effectively giving approval for the use), but the book should have either added significantly more value over the source material OR have sought approval from the Rowling before attempting to go to press.
FWIW, PJ does an excellent job in reaching the same conclusion in her Groklaw post. Kudos to kdawson for adding that useful link to balance out an otherwise defamatory post.
Two posts above you, an hour earlier.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up a moment! NewYorkCountryLawyer, I normally respect your posts, but this one is in need of some serious scrutiny.
As it happens, I was listening to the details of the case this morning on NPR. The problem with this specific book is not that it focuses on the Harry Potter series. The problem is that nearly every description was lifted from the books in a reasonably clear case of plagerism and/or derivitive works. Most reference books contain unique descriptions and commentary above and beyond the information presented in the source material. However, this particular lexicon made no effort to add such value over the books themselves.
In effect, it was merely a reorganization of J.K. Rowling's books into a dry reference. Something for which only the author has a legal right to grant.
THAT is why the judge found against the lexicon. And he did so with a strong warning that this book is an exception to the usually legal practice:
I understood what you were saying. What I'm saying is that the issue you raised is merely a special circumstance of the issue I was discounting. Thus I was not being "disingenuous". Merely broad.
I think you're missing the point. Sending a file that you own is not fundamentally different (from a legal perspective) than downloading a file you own. In either case, Google cannot reasonably expect to claim license to the subject of these events as they are not a party to them. You may be using a browser developed by Google to perform these actions, but that is neither here nor there in a legal sense.
Effectively, the contract is unconscionable. There is zero consideration that would apply sufficient balance to the contract to make it enforceable in a court of law. Just as you cannot easily sign away the rights to your firstborn child, you can no more sign away valuable rights in an unfair and unnegotiated exchange for a bauble.
Because Information Theory has no practical application to the physics of the Universe, right?
Or not.
How is this a story? The language is fairly common among services that allow user materials to be uploaded. It has been in Google's standard TOS for years now. The only reason why it came to light with Chrome is that the language didn't make a lick of sense in that context. Since you weren't uploading user-generated content, Google's TOS read as if they auto-claimed the entire internet.
"View this page and it's ours! MWHAHAHA!"
Not only is that an unenforcable statement, but it's a downright ridiculous statement, as well. That is why it was removed. Nothing more, nothing less.
The only difference I see between the standard content license that Google uses and the license of their competitors is that many competitors choose to limit the license to the length of your membership. After such a time they "make a reasonable effort" to remove any content you request removed. It's up to you, the consumer, to decide if a perpetual license is more bothersome than a "best effort" license limited to the period that you maintain membership.
Honestly, my take is this. If the LHC guys really do manage to destroy the universe in some science shattering stranglet experiment, well...
That would be rather impressive. It's just too bad no one would be around to bear witness to the fact. ;-)
Or to put it in the context of Stargate...
Carter: He destroyed a solar system.
Jeannie: MEREDITH!
Which line are you referring to? I don't remember the line in 5th Element, nor can I find it in a google search. The line is always attributed to Bab5. (Which is where I pulled it from.)
...to the summary was: What? I didn't catch a word of that.
Thankfully, TFA is a bit better:
While I have the highest respect for my esteemed colleagues in Madison, I find myself disagreeing with Steinkuehler's conclusions. These kids are not practicing science, they're practicing being human beings. And as human beings, we find new and inventive ways to meet a challenge whenever one is presented to us.
All one needs to do is look back through history. Aliens didn't build the pyramids; humans did. Humans who were given the seemingly impossible task rose to the challenge and made it happen. The Flavian Amphitheatre (aka the Coliseum) didn't just appear when someone pulled the plug on a drain and the water swirled around. Humans wanted a better place to host their blood sport. So they devised a new method. Trains didn't start moving themselves. Humans had a problem of not enough labor. So they devised a solution.
Which isn't to say that these many engineering feats were devoid of what we today think of as "science". However, it is important to remember that the scientific process (i.e. the thing that separates "science" from simply "effort") is a formalized process that vets the actual facts from the statistical noise. If you are not following the formalized methodology, you are not performing "science".
Which isn't to say that I don't think these kids deserve mad props. They used their brains and were rewarded for it. Which is something to be proud of in a comfortable modern society that makes it all too easy to turn one's brain to the "off" position. :-)
That logic would be AWESOME... if our air conditioners ran on oil.
(insert stoic look here)
AC runs off the grid. The grid is primarily powered by Coal, Uranium, and Natural Gas. Oil is a tiny part of that energy infrastructure. All these "deaths" you're waxing over are in pursuit of CARS, not Air Conditioners.
Correct. No boom today. Boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow.
You know what else? Many of those people die.
I was watching a History Channel miniseries on the American Revolution the other day, and I was surprised to learn that one of the revolution's greatest Generals Nathanael Greene, died of a heat stroke. But not on the battlefield as one might expect. (Especially during the searing heat of Clinton's retreat from Philadelphia.) He died on his own plantation of a heat stroke.
What I'm getting at is that you should be careful about considering AC a luxury. It may make life more comfortable, but it also saves lives. One only needs to go as far as a major city to find reports of deaths every year from low income people who have no AC.
Primarily because the existing one was broken. But it only showed up broken under a load. Which meant that it didn't show up until testing until a few days before deployment. Worse yet, it's not like we could replace the server at the last minute as we were already invested in the vendor's extensions. (Something which I was a vocal opponent of.)
We contacted the vendor and were promised an emergency patch. The patch arrived the day of the deployment. Testing began... and failed. The patch didn't work. But if we didn't get this new piece of the application out that day, we'd fail our contract with our partners. Effectively, we were stuck in a no-win situation. (One could easily argue that better planning would have avoided the issue, but that's neither here nor there once you're staring down the barrel.)
So my solution was to change the rules. I pulled up the vendor's meager documentation on their JSPC compiler and set to work on a replacement engine that used as much of the vendor's original code as possible. All the libraries and the compiler itself were left intact, but the key part we wanted to replace (the part that loaded JSPS pages, initiated, included, and forwarded requests) was what I focused on. In 3 hours, I did the research, the reverse engineering, and the implementation to make it happen. The code was load tested with barely a half hour to spare. An exhausting bit of work. But it saved the day. :-)
There was one minor bug fix required later that night, and I added development features like dynamic reloading the next day. The powers that be were so happy with the solution that when the vendor finally got us a working patch, no one was in any hurry to install it. I honestly don't remember if we ever replaced my jury-rigged engine or not!