I'm glad this was fixed, but for several days I had a bricked device (you ended stuck on the activation screen, with no option to skip that process) and in a situation best summed up by Cory Doctorow: “Anytime someone puts a lock on something you own, against your wishes, and doesn’t give you the key, they’re not doing it for your benefit.”
Old library catalogs and databases, which are still around, work this way. The problem is that unless you've been trained to do non-intuitive things like omit initial articles from titles ("Old Man and the Sea" instead of "The Old Man and the Sea"), they don't work. This causes far more problems than an expert searcher grousing about having to occasionally add back in +/- operators to search for a known it
Here's a similar gem, made by Steve Case in 1997, in response to gripes from people unable to connect to swamped AOL servers after their switch to unlimited hours:
Just as you would be sensitive about using a public phone booth if others were waiting in line to use it . . . try to show some restraint at night during the next few months when we're in this transitional mode.
In other words, it's your fault for trying to use what you've paid for.
Was a university's primate research laboratory. They were doing studies on addiction. So you had these metal cages, not much bigger than the monkeys, just stacked together in a room.
Yes, point taken... "My entire profession" should be "Libraries" above.
As a reference librarian, my main goal is to be Bablyon 5. I'd love it if we succeeded in creating a powerful enough search and retrieval tool with an intuitive interface that negated the need for library user instruction. My career mission is to work towards this ideal. It would, just as how B5 succeeded in its mission so much so that it was no longer necessary, make a large part of what librarians now do obsolete.
Remember all the outrage over colorizing Casablanca in the 1980s? There were even congressional hearings that warned of the dire consequences of unmitigated technology (someone even imagined at the time dead actors being re-inserted in new movies, unthinkable at the time). Sounds crazy....
Hmm, does that mean that the RIAA is willing to take on the 11th Amendment and go through state government to sue students? Something tells me the campus lawyer has this ace up her sleeve when advising students to refuse settlement offers.
Ditto on Clarke and Asimov. The 2001 movie is nice too, even if they don't understand all of it.
Considering its age, the depiction of space travel is really astounding. The only Hollywood concession I'm aware of is the opening shot of Discovery One, in which the front is lit as if it's facing the sun. There's something in one of the commentaries about this.
Reminds me of the ROTK commentary where Frodo is lying on the ground in one scene, and is also mysteriously well-lit. Elijah asked someone where the light was coming from once, and the response was, "the same place the music does."
Shorts like "They're Made Out of Meat" are good along with "The Last Question". Blade Runner is also a good introduction to some philosophical concepts.
Here ya go, 48 State Privacy Laws Regarding Library Records. Since the USA PATRIOT Act (and in the 1970s during the FBI's "Library Awareness" investigations), however, federal law (NSA letters, for example) can trump these statutes. So the OP is partially right.
Librarians learned in the 60s not to keep patron records like this. It turns us in to sleeper agents for a snooping government. Pre-9/11 this was the widespread sentiment too.
I guess that the 9/11 hijackers used library computers doesn't help, nor does the current "Library 2.0" movement to offer customized services.
before doing anything drastic. If someone is qualified on paper and you choose to interview them, it's not really your place to lambast them. If you mention things that aren't in the job ad for a reason they weren't picked, that seems kinda dangerous to me, this day and age.
To answer your question, though, yes, you can do so. Don't offer them the job.:)
gj, you just described any large company (or organization for that matter, as large unis invariably have departments and units which operate akin to feudal baronies)
I love the new additions to the landscape. We need them!
If I can add a little plug... With the potential rise of Citizendium and the continued media circus surrounding Wikipedia's foibles, it's a good time to review the current state of Wikimania and consider what these disruptive technologies mean for the future of "authoritative" information sources. If you've ever wanted for a general overview of Wikipedia or needed something to point to when asked, "Wikipedia? Isn't that just a bunch of lies?" then the 1-hour screencast titled "Why Wiki?" is for you. The online video is my perspective on the pros and cons of Wikipedia and how it stacks up to traditional publication formats.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The plaintiff's cousin's former roommate being the lawyer would be a coincidence. That someone doing what he normally does doens't consisitute a coincidence.
A typical academic library spends at least six figures to get the (free) Google News equivalent for peer-reviewed journals -- which usually charge to have their contents indexed -- in the form of subscription research databases... many of which don't even provide the full text of articles.
With the advent of Google Scholar and Microsoft Live Academic this may be changing (hopefully), but cases like this show its a constant tug of war between the profiteers and those that support the free distribution of information -- an old idea that would never get off the gound today.
As I understand it, when a full text content provider republishes copyright-free works, they copyright their newly bundled publication. So I can't, say, go in to ProQuest Historical Newspapers and download everything and host it providing free access. Further reproduction is prohibited. (But how you can prove you took *their* republished text is another issue I suppose.)
It's why a search for "Alice in Wonderland" in Google Books gets you only a few pages, while Project Gutenberg delivers the whole text. The books in Google (for the copyright-free text) are for copyrighted books (or presentations, rather).
A lot of organizations have made money off of reproducing copyright-free materials. You can reprint government documents (US federal ones are usually copyright-free) and re-sell them, for example. The publisher of the 9-11 report (available freely online, not that it was widely advertised as such) got a real "royalty-free windfall" from the bestseller.
I believe the comma in lieu of a period in a European thing. Kinda looks pretentious, but submitter has a.nl address. Not the best copy edit to use them interchangeably however.
My math says that Google would be cheaper for anything over $100.
Last year my health insurance company, in response to a billing dispute, send me a full page from their billing database. The record for my family took up just one paragraph, and above and below it I could see other patient names, billing codes, account numbers, and more.
I asked them to explain this, and got no response. I sent the sheet of paper to the US Department of Health & Human Services. A few months later I got a letter back in the mail from them, stating that they had investigated the situation, the provider (Humana) admitted making a mistake which resulted in a privacy violation, and they weren't going to do a damn thing about it.
So, I'm hardly surprised by this article. Still it's sad to see I was in the 73 percent of cases.
I hated the voice-over too, and list it as one of the worst voiceovers of all time. Good points in this thread about the "film noir" genre bending that it added, but it still doesn't cut it for me.
I'm still waiting on my ST:OT DVDs with the new special effects, original Boba Fett voice, Han shooting first, and Sebastian Shaw as Anakin's ghost. Not sure about the Gungans and Ewoks though.:0
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad this was fixed, but for several days I had a bricked device (you ended stuck on the activation screen, with no option to skip that process) and in a situation best summed up by Cory Doctorow: “Anytime someone puts a lock on something you own, against your wishes, and doesn’t give you the key, they’re not doing it for your benefit.”
That's a rather short-sighted perspective on things.
Old library catalogs and databases, which are still around, work this way. The problem is that unless you've been trained to do non-intuitive things like omit initial articles from titles ("Old Man and the Sea" instead of "The Old Man and the Sea"), they don't work. This causes far more problems than an expert searcher grousing about having to occasionally add back in +/- operators to search for a known it
The webm video kept sticking for me (right around the part about sacrificing convenience . . .) so I found the TEDx Talks video.
Here's a similar gem, made by Steve Case in 1997, in response to gripes from people unable to connect to swamped AOL servers after their switch to unlimited hours:
In other words, it's your fault for trying to use what you've paid for.
Was a university's primate research laboratory. They were doing studies on addiction. So you had these metal cages, not much bigger than the monkeys, just stacked together in a room.
Assuming you guys are talking about McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign, that was indeed before the Santelli rant, which happened on 2/19/2009.
Yes, point taken... "My entire profession" should be "Libraries" above.
As a reference librarian, my main goal is to be Bablyon 5. I'd love it if we succeeded in creating a powerful enough search and retrieval tool with an intuitive interface that negated the need for library user instruction. My career mission is to work towards this ideal. It would, just as how B5 succeeded in its mission so much so that it was no longer necessary, make a large part of what librarians now do obsolete.
I'm a librarian. My entire profession would not exist if not for similar provisions.
Remember all the outrage over colorizing Casablanca in the 1980s? There were even congressional hearings that warned of the dire consequences of unmitigated technology (someone even imagined at the time dead actors being re-inserted in new movies, unthinkable at the time). Sounds crazy....
Hmm, does that mean that the RIAA is willing to take on the 11th Amendment and go through state government to sue students? Something tells me the campus lawyer has this ace up her sleeve when advising students to refuse settlement offers.
Makes you wonder if this (Business)Week's cover story is right, Is Google Too Powerful?
Ditto on Clarke and Asimov. The 2001 movie is nice too, even if they don't understand all of it.
Considering its age, the depiction of space travel is really astounding. The only Hollywood concession I'm aware of is the opening shot of Discovery One, in which the front is lit as if it's facing the sun. There's something in one of the commentaries about this.
Reminds me of the ROTK commentary where Frodo is lying on the ground in one scene, and is also mysteriously well-lit. Elijah asked someone where the light was coming from once, and the response was, "the same place the music does."
Shorts like "They're Made Out of Meat" are good along with "The Last Question". Blade Runner is also a good introduction to some philosophical concepts.
Here ya go, 48 State Privacy Laws Regarding Library Records. Since the USA PATRIOT Act (and in the 1970s during the FBI's "Library Awareness" investigations), however, federal law (NSA letters, for example) can trump these statutes. So the OP is partially right.
Librarians learned in the 60s not to keep patron records like this. It turns us in to sleeper agents for a snooping government. Pre-9/11 this was the widespread sentiment too.
I guess that the 9/11 hijackers used library computers doesn't help, nor does the current "Library 2.0" movement to offer customized services.
Sounds like an old joke I read somewhere.
Video version of the above commentary here.
before doing anything drastic. If someone is qualified on paper and you choose to interview them, it's not really your place to lambast them. If you mention things that aren't in the job ad for a reason they weren't picked, that seems kinda dangerous to me, this day and age.
:)
To answer your question, though, yes, you can do so. Don't offer them the job.
gj, you just described any large company (or organization for that matter, as large unis invariably have departments and units which operate akin to feudal baronies)
I love the new additions to the landscape. We need them!
If I can add a little plug... With the potential rise of Citizendium and the continued media circus surrounding Wikipedia's foibles, it's a good time to review the current state of Wikimania and consider what these disruptive technologies mean for the future of "authoritative" information sources. If you've ever wanted for a general overview of Wikipedia or needed something to point to when asked, "Wikipedia? Isn't that just a bunch of lies?" then the 1-hour screencast titled "Why Wiki?" is for you. The online video is my perspective on the pros and cons of Wikipedia and how it stacks up to traditional publication formats.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The plaintiff's cousin's former roommate being the lawyer would be a coincidence. That someone doing what he normally does doens't consisitute a coincidence.
A typical academic library spends at least six figures to get the (free) Google News equivalent for peer-reviewed journals -- which usually charge to have their contents indexed -- in the form of subscription research databases... many of which don't even provide the full text of articles.
With the advent of Google Scholar and Microsoft Live Academic this may be changing (hopefully), but cases like this show its a constant tug of war between the profiteers and those that support the free distribution of information -- an old idea that would never get off the gound today.
As I understand it, when a full text content provider republishes copyright-free works, they copyright their newly bundled publication. So I can't, say, go in to ProQuest Historical Newspapers and download everything and host it providing free access. Further reproduction is prohibited. (But how you can prove you took *their* republished text is another issue I suppose.)
It's why a search for "Alice in Wonderland" in Google Books gets you only a few pages, while Project Gutenberg delivers the whole text. The books in Google (for the copyright-free text) are for copyrighted books (or presentations, rather).
A lot of organizations have made money off of reproducing copyright-free materials. You can reprint government documents (US federal ones are usually copyright-free) and re-sell them, for example. The publisher of the 9-11 report (available freely online, not that it was widely advertised as such) got a real "royalty-free windfall" from the bestseller.
I believe the comma in lieu of a period in a European thing. Kinda looks pretentious, but submitter has a .nl address. Not the best copy edit to use them interchangeably however.
My math says that Google would be cheaper for anything over $100.
Last year my health insurance company, in response to a billing dispute, send me a full page from their billing database. The record for my family took up just one paragraph, and above and below it I could see other patient names, billing codes, account numbers, and more.
I asked them to explain this, and got no response. I sent the sheet of paper to the US Department of Health & Human Services. A few months later I got a letter back in the mail from them, stating that they had investigated the situation, the provider (Humana) admitted making a mistake which resulted in a privacy violation, and they weren't going to do a damn thing about it.
So, I'm hardly surprised by this article. Still it's sad to see I was in the 73 percent of cases.
I hated the voice-over too, and list it as one of the worst voiceovers of all time. Good points in this thread about the "film noir" genre bending that it added, but it still doesn't cut it for me.
:0
I'm still waiting on my ST:OT DVDs with the new special effects, original Boba Fett voice, Han shooting first, and Sebastian Shaw as Anakin's ghost. Not sure about the Gungans and Ewoks though.