> Knowing them, probably a rolling trash compactor.
I.e., something that might actually be useful. What's with the Japanese fascination with "humanoid" robots, anyway? For most purposes other shapes are better.
> When i was in school if there was a fight teachers broke it up, and if you > hit a teacher they hauled your ass physically into the office and you had > your dad showing up from work to get you, and he would usually tell the > teacher that he'd be giving you the beating that the teacher wasn't allowed > to.
"Darryl", one of the thugs in my homeroom, once (and only once) made the mistake of directing an obscene remark at Mr. Van Sitters, the homeroom teacher. Darryl's landing was softened by the dozen or so chairs he knocked over as he slid across the room (he got to put them all back where they belonged). And no, I'm not exaggerating.
Let alone evidence that would last a million years. A probe could have come through a thousand years ago, hung around taking pictures and measurements for a few years and moved on. We'd never know.
More problematic is the absence of any concept of fair use. The court did not say that 11 word quotations were necessarily infringinig, though: they pushed that decision back on the lower court.
> Good plan, block the countries sending the most spam.
No, just block countries that send a lot of spam and in which you have no correspondents. Obviously this will work well for some and poorly for others. If it won't work well for you don't do it.
> On the other hand, metals can be forced into electron-deprived states without too much > trouble. Ordinary vacuum tubes do this.
Ordinary vacuum tubes do not remove electrons from inner orbitals. They just knock the valence electrons off. This process removes inner electrons without disturbing the outer ones.
> The problem here is that it is not just a matter of citing. The person in question wants > to use part, or all, of what he published in another paper to show how the various > studies he/she has done support the conclusion they are reaching in the current paper.
That's a classic example of fair use.
> The problem as I see it is that they are able to surrender their copyright to their own > work. That should not be possible.
Why do you want to take away my right to sell my copyright?
> Ultimately the problem comes back to the fact that copyright laws have made the length > of copyright excessive.
While the length of copyright is certainly grossly excessive the time spans involved here are typically only a few years.
d) Meetings need to have minutes summarizing what was discussed and what was decided. Managers tend to remember what they find it convenient to remember, not what actually happened. If necessary take notes yourself.
> As I said upthread, they should have given all of these people a > legit copy of the book at their own expense when they realized what > happened, but it's entirely possible that this was an unforeseen > consequence of the system.
It could only be an unforseen consequence if they failed to forsee that people might object to having material deleted from their Kindles with out notice or consent. That tells me a lot about them.
It cannot possibly have been a "brain fart". The decision to design the system so as to make this sort of thing possible has to have been conscious and deliberate. Giving their managers to the power to remove material from your Kindle was clearly a policy decision.
I'm sure Mr. Bezos can afford advisors who know that that is the key to "sincerity" and can coach him on how to achieve it.
However, they still consciously and deliberately designed their system so as to allow them to remove material from Kindle owners' machines without their knowledge or permission. Why would anyone trust a company that would do that? Have they removed that functionality and explained why it was there in the first place?
The circumference of Jupiter's orbit is about 760000 Earth radii so Jupiter is "shielding" about.000029 of its orbit, and that's assuming everything comes in exactly in the plane of Jupiter's orbit. It doesn't.
> This could be possible if the material was not directly generated by the NIST itself --- > for example, they paid a contractor to generate it and it is considered a "work for hire".
Which is why I wrote "if". Anyone who felt motivated could probably find out via FOIA requests (which also could get you unlicensed copies of the data).
Slashdot Mirror
How do you propose to take it down?
Or, more likely yet, a typical security bug that can be exploited to bypass the authentication.
> ...take out the hard drive, wrap it with thin anti-static foam, and put it in
> your pocket.
And then try to get through security.
> Knowing them, probably a rolling trash compactor.
I.e., something that might actually be useful. What's with the Japanese fascination with "humanoid" robots, anyway? For most purposes other shapes are better.
> When i was in school if there was a fight teachers broke it up, and if you
> hit a teacher they hauled your ass physically into the office and you had
> your dad showing up from work to get you, and he would usually tell the
> teacher that he'd be giving you the beating that the teacher wasn't allowed
> to.
"Darryl", one of the thugs in my homeroom, once (and only once) made the mistake of directing an obscene remark at Mr. Van Sitters, the homeroom teacher. Darryl's landing was softened by the dozen or so chairs he knocked over as he slid across the room (he got to put them all back where they belonged). And no, I'm not exaggerating.
NASA doesn't get the aircraft. You keep it, along with the patents.
> It takes huge resources to go from start system to the next...
You have no idea what resources a probe built by a civilization 100,000 years ahead of us requires.
...When everybody knows the hotels belong in orbit and the Pepsi ads on the moon.
Which should be protected from writing by a jumper or switch.
Let alone evidence that would last a million years. A probe could have come through a thousand years ago, hung around taking pictures and measurements for a few years and moved on. We'd never know.
Fair use can apply to an entire work. In your example it probably would.
You probably would also have difficulty enforcing copyright at all on most of your short "zingers".
More problematic is the absence of any concept of fair use. The court did not say that 11 word quotations were necessarily infringinig, though: they pushed that decision back on the lower court.
n/t
And follow up with a phone call to make sure they got the letter.
> Good plan, block the countries sending the most spam.
No, just block countries that send a lot of spam and in which you have no correspondents. Obviously this will work well for some and poorly for others. If it won't work well for you don't do it.
> On the other hand, metals can be forced into electron-deprived states without too much
> trouble. Ordinary vacuum tubes do this.
Ordinary vacuum tubes do not remove electrons from inner orbitals. They just knock the valence electrons off. This process removes inner electrons without disturbing the outer ones.
> Yes, your fuel may soon come from a genetically engineered non-algal microbe.
They'll be banned in Europe. Ain't natural.
> 5kwh per m^2 per day
That's 208 watts/m^2. Say so.
> The problem here is that it is not just a matter of citing. The person in question wants
> to use part, or all, of what he published in another paper to show how the various
> studies he/she has done support the conclusion they are reaching in the current paper.
That's a classic example of fair use.
> The problem as I see it is that they are able to surrender their copyright to their own
> work. That should not be possible.
Why do you want to take away my right to sell my copyright?
> Ultimately the problem comes back to the fact that copyright laws have made the length
> of copyright excessive.
While the length of copyright is certainly grossly excessive the time spans involved here are typically only a few years.
d) Meetings need to have minutes summarizing what was discussed and what was decided. Managers tend to remember what they find it convenient to remember, not what actually happened. If necessary take notes yourself.
> As I said upthread, they should have given all of these people a
> legit copy of the book at their own expense when they realized what
> happened, but it's entirely possible that this was an unforeseen
> consequence of the system.
It could only be an unforseen consequence if they failed to forsee that people might object to having material deleted from their Kindles with out notice or consent. That tells me a lot about them.
It cannot possibly have been a "brain fart". The decision to design the system so as to make this sort of thing possible has to have been conscious and deliberate. Giving their managers to the power to remove material from your Kindle was clearly a policy decision.
I'm sure Mr. Bezos can afford advisors who know that that is the key to "sincerity" and can coach him on how to achieve it.
However, they still consciously and deliberately designed their system so as to allow them to remove material from Kindle owners' machines without their knowledge or permission. Why would anyone trust a company that would do that? Have they removed that functionality and explained why it was there in the first place?
The circumference of Jupiter's orbit is about 760000 Earth radii so Jupiter is "shielding" about .000029 of its orbit, and that's assuming everything comes in exactly in the plane of Jupiter's orbit. It doesn't.
> This could be possible if the material was not directly generated by the NIST itself ---
> for example, they paid a contractor to generate it and it is considered a "work for hire".
Which is why I wrote "if". Anyone who felt motivated could probably find out via FOIA requests (which also could get you unlicensed copies of the data).