"What the World Wants" is irrelevant. That is exactly what you're non-sensically bitching about. The US has authority over only the US, and the government trying to extend itself over othre countries is a massive problem. So you're saying that the US should extend itself over other countries, but just with money instead of military force? No, the US cannot, and should not, solve the world's problems. The US shouldn't be a member of *any* organization that has any authority over their sovereignity; it would be unconstitutional.
First, the most obvious answer for maintaining a biological agent is for vaccination and research purposes. It's the same reason that there is quantities of things like Plague and Ebola maintained. Second, the US didn't sell Anthrax to anyone to be used as a weapon, the US sold vaccine to various places. The media was not threatened; stop making things up.
The trillion dollar bet was a mathemetical stock model. It was created by three people in the 1970s. The money in the market came from investors, not some nut-job conspiracy magic. Interest is also just the way of borrowing, and there's nothing wrong with it. Why would a company loan money at zero profit? That makes no sense.
Conclusion: - The US does fuck with world politics, and that is largely why we have problems. - The stock market has nothing to do with this. - Yes, we need anthrax vaccines; it is not an eradicated disease. - It isn't happening because fixing the world's problems would involve taking over the world. Once again, "What the World Wants" is lunacy at its best. "What our Country Wants" is what is important, and it needs to be the primary concern of the US government.
No, that wasn't the question nor the issue. The issue was whether or not the woman is free to do what she wants to herself. If that is true, except when she is pregnant, then she *isn't* free. If nothing else, that would make women less free than men, and that is unacceptable. Yeah, it sucks that the woman might decide to do something that harms the baby, but it sucks a lot more if the woman has no choice in what she does to her own body because you decided to force her to comply with your beliefs. Each woman can decide if she is pro-life or pro-choice when the situation arises.
Should the government just go around and take every pregnant woman into custody, "for the children"? No, of course not, and very few people would say otherwise. You'd have a few of the "anti-everything except the government running your life" nuts that start going on about "for the children", but they do that now, and they almost certainly have only themselves at heart.
*You* just made the issue about the baby. I was talking about forms of government and the current overall political climate. *You* turned a political discussion into something about a particular controversial topic. Typical modern politics tactic: distract everyone from the real issue with the popular non-issue.
Just to point this out, but "pro-life" legislated by government is a big first step *back* down the road to the government dictating what is moral. It is an intrustion into personal rights, and a return to a "nanny state". Those sorts of things should *never* under any circumstance be done at the Federal level. Make it a law in your town, if you hate freedom that much, and then people can move away when they don't like your law.
Go discuss abortion, or gay rights, or whatever, somewhere else; my stance solves all of that very effectively, by returning personal freedom. People need to be free to do what they want with themselves. Great, most of the modern-day major "TV issues" solved. Now lets move on to foreign policy, Federal bloat, taxes, States' rights, energy, education, *anything else*, because *everything* matters more than what you decided to latch on to. You want to debate personal freedom, then fine, but none of these specific examples that have been oh so carefully selected to trip up people that advocate personal freedom. I maintain my stance across all personal freedoms, as difficult as that is, and as annoying as it sometimes is. Personal freedom is an all of none: either you're free, or the government is telling you what you're allowed to do.
If they put the lines over your property without purchase, without you giving easement, or without your municipality taking it with eminent domain, then do what you can do any other time there is criminal trespass.
You can try this, which may not be legal: Notify the bastards in writing that you will remove their illegal equipment from your premesis on such and such a date. File a lawsuit immediately, and seek to keep it tied up in court, in case the municipality starts proceedings for a land taking. Then, barring an injunction being placed, do what you have to do to make sure those lines do not cross your property, without leaving your property, of course.
You can also start calling the police, and filing a report a few times a day about the trespass. Make a *huge* stink about this. Get it into papers and the whole bit.
I certainly wouldn't just let them put it there. I don't want to live near those kinds of lines, for many reasons. There is good evidence that it's a health hazard, I don't want the risk of something happening to the lines, they're UGLY, they make a lot of noise, they seriously devalue the property, and they inject a lot of RF noise into various equipment.
If nobody stands up to bastards like that, then they will always get their way.
Telling a woman what she can do to herself is abridgment of freedom, same as so may other things, and should not be something the government is involved in. It doesn't matter if is Demopublicans or Republicrats that are saying it, abridgment of freedom is wrong. Every person needs to be free to do whatever they please with themselves, their property, and other consenting parties, up to the point that it impinges the freedom of another citizen. This means that you need to be able to do anything to yourself. You might not like abortion, and I don't like aborting, but I *really* don't like forcing my beliefs on someone else.
Just because someone did it in the past doesn't mean they were right. FDR did quite a large number of very wrong things. Pres. Bush continues those bad policies, and that makes him just as bad, same as it made Pres. Clinton. It would be wrong to say they are anyone other than Pres. Rooselvelt's fault, but everyone since shares in the blame for continuing things.
We see bloating of the Federal, the requisite reduction in State's rights, numerous reductions in freedoms, and any number of other bad laws whenever Congress is controlled by the same party as the Presidency. This would be much less of a problem if those Populist idiots hadn't gotten there way in the beginning of the 20th century. Yay for the 17th amendment, that which guaranteed the end of our federalist government.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. The US is displaying all of the major definition points of what fascism is.
"(From dictionary.com:) fascism, noun
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
1) This country isn't quite ruled by a dictator, yet. We *are* ruled by a small group of people that do impose their will however they see fit. They've put into law various things that allow them to do as they please. The President can do basically whatever he wants to whomever he wants.
2) The Federal is legislating morality and attempting to use force to alter social issues. They are also meddling heavily in the economy.
3) The Federal can arbitrarily take your land and other property, imprison you, has the power to censor things, and tries quite regularly to do so. Most people believe that they are breaking a law by almost anything they do, and they aren't far from the truth.
4) The Federal does not care about other countries; it will do anything to benefit the US, at the expense of foreign countries, peoples, and freedoms. It has routinely tried and/or succeeded at overthrowing foreign governments. The populace is pro-US, anti-everyone else, so long as they benefit in some way. "Who cares about the Mid-East, as long as we get our oil; just bomb 'em and take the stuff." It is increasingly more "The USA v. everyone else".
Now, I certainly don't want this country to be fascist, but it is what it is. I want our freedoms back, I want to shut down most of the Federal and bring it back to the States and Towns, and I want this country to get the hell out of other countries' government affairs. (and I want other things too;-) We *are* becoming the victims of fascism, and we need to do something about it rather than argue that it isn't happening!
No, no you would not have to convince the company to do anything. All you have to do is convince the user that your "bad" file is the same as the company's "good" file because they both compute to the same hash. *That* is why this attack is so annoying and dangerous; you can make the file seem legit by generating a "bad" file with the same checksum.
Once your file appears to be legit, since it matches the checksum on the real site, you can get yourself ranked in search engines. Most people find things by going to a search engine and running a query. Then even the mildly paranoid people that actually check MD5s, or installers that check them, can be fooled.
Yeah, Firefox does have a lot of that, and it bugs me quite a lot. I used to use Galeon because of the load times, but that was when the alternative was the Mozilla suite. I do sometimes see UI slowdowns, but it's from being swapped out. Sometimes it takes 30-45 seconds for Firefox to stop screwing around after I've left it overnight.
On a side note, does anyone ever finish their software before starting to add silly features?
First off, thanks for a rational reply instead of a flame. I really appreciate that!:) I figured that submitting a post that says bad things about Java was certain to earn me flamebait or troll status, or at least some nasty replies.
I never meant to say that Azureus isn't a good client; I think it's fine. I use BitComet under Windows, personally. They both use too much memory, but BitComet is more responsive in the UI.
20% is still a big increase in memory use, though. I might have a good amount of memory, but I don't like the idea of programs being 20% larger without a very good reason. For what Java gives me, I'd rather have cross-platform C and save myself the resources. I also get annoyed when people start saying how it isn't important because computers are fast. The problem is that if every program, OS function, and layer of abstraction shared that sentiment, computers would suck to work on. Just because we have more power doesn't mean we should squander it. Leave that power for things that *need* more resources. Computers were finally powerful enough for real-time 3D, and that was a good reason to use the power. That sort of thing. I'm also not saying that Java isn't a good use of the power, but it is no excuse for laziness in programming. I want a fast and responsive computer, and I don't want to upgrade for no good reason. (I'm not implying that Java was lazy or anything, just ranting about it being ok to waste resources.)
Perceived performace is what really counts in a UI, though. We also can't expect the OS to change for an application. If the way Java is doing something is slow on a major platform, then Sun needs to find a way around it. Especially since that kind of thing really hurts Java adoption, and a company like MS is certainly not going to help out their competitor, nor deteriorate the platform dominance. I'll definitely agree that GDI, and GDI with MFC is so much worse.
The average person still associates Java with "those goddamn annoying things that my web browser starts and makes it lock up". Those crappy web browser Java plugins really tarnish Java's image. Java applications work so much better than applets, but most people have never run one.
I happen to be of the opinion that I want to see C toolkits keep improving so that the apps are more and more portable. I don't want more abstraction and bytecode; I want good native code and minimal overhead. This can be done fairly well today, and you can get your cross-platform C app to compile and run on more platforms than Java currently has a JRE for.
Nailgun looks close to exactly what I had in mind. They have quite a bit of work left to do, but when finished, it should be great!
As far as Azureus, I'm not really worried about that particular program. That was footprint right after I started it, which leaves a bit to be desired, but it isn't scary. The footprint of OOo, on the other hand, is disgusting. I don't know if that has to do with the Java integration, but I don't remember it taking up nearly as much in 1.x as in 2.x beta builds.
No, it's quite to the point provable and true. For example, I use Azureus because I haven't found another suitable client under Linux. I would never run it under Windows because the UI is slower, the startup is horrid, and it takes more resources than other programs. It is responsable for 60MB of RAM and a 380MB VM footprint. It is consuming 1.3% of my Athlon 2600, and 7% of my total 768MB of RAM.
Java is slow to start and requires more memory than an equally competently written native code program. This is always going to be the case, because it imposes both the overhead of the C libraries and the overhead of the JVM itself.
The case where Java is *not* slower is where it can do run-time optimizations. Then it is sometimes faster than native code. In the other cases, Java is just not *as* slow as it used to be, that's what has changed.
It could be said that the "Java is fast" people are being equally unreasonable because they're ignoring many of the more important places that Java is slower in. The right answer is that Java is faster than C for some things, slower than C for others. During execution, they are comparable. In shutdown and startup, Java is slower. Java also has the issue of the UI handling, which is not as nice as the established UI toolkits available to other languages. The UI response is also not as good as a native program.
Also, this is the same NASA that is known for so many inefficiency and poor choices. Are you meaning to imply that Java is another of these? The thing is that NASA could have chosen almost any language and accomplished the same thing. They just decided to use Java. Is that supposed to prove something? Or was that supposed to be that you named three apps that were written in Java, and have better native equivalents on many OS'? I already mentioned Azureus, WURM is OpenGL with Java logic, and jdiskreport is yet another program that solves a solved problem.
That's like my saying "No, C/C++ is just the right answer, because Windows, Linux, OSX, BSD, QNX, BeOS, Firefox, Gaim, Office, etc. is written with them." It has no bearing on anything.
If you want counterpoint, fine, I don't think I've ever used a Java app where the UI was decently responsive. That includes Azureus, LDAP Browser, Dell OpenManage, HP WebAdmin, parts of OpenOffice (like the DB portion in 2.0 beta), the Java control panel, and the Solaris installer.
So no, Java is still slow enough to be impractical on the desktop. The Java UI toolkits suck, and the whole language suffers as a result. Fix the UI, fix the load times, and fix that you need another instance of the JVM for each app. Then you have it good for desktop apps.
Lyx is just a GUI for LaTeX, so you certainly don't have to use that program to get the benefits. It's simply much easier to ease people into a system like LaTeX by using a program like Lyx.
If you put together your document in Lyx or LaTeX, you can easily transform it into whatever format you want. It sounds exactly like what you like, and you're already a good way to it.
If you run the validator against one of the other subdomain URLs, then it will work. Validating against it.slashdot.org gives 13 errors with the default DOCTYPE of HTML 4.01 Strict. Setting it to HTML 4.01 Transitional gives 0 errors. Great job!
Thanks, I realized that I remembered that incorrectly a while after I posted, while doing more research. That certainly does make the mp3.com case a lot worse. The copy you received was technically a different work than what you purchased initially.
It's so frustrating... all of these things are good ideas, and cause no harm to the rights holders. What a bastardised system.:(
I came to the conclusion that they weren't the same as a result of the way that current search engine indexes are handled. So while you need to have the collected total of the content for a complete index, it seemed that it was a special case.
Why isn't that safe harbor applicable? It's the same intent, and largely the same process. Is there specific wording in one of the court precedents that clarifies where the safe harbor applies? I've been looking for something about it, but haven't found it yet.
I understand the Guild's point that the Google database would have to contain what amounted to a complete copy of the content. I have to admit that I'm not sure why they would be willing to risk losing all that potential revenue by jumping into a lawsuit. I'd understand if it were a trademark issue, but this?
If Google set up the libraries so that the library had the servers hosting the database, but allowed Google to run queries, that would seem to be perfectly legal. I suppose they could do that if things didn't work out well for them in court.
They need to do a better system of limiting access to the content, regardless of anything else. The snippets aren't a bad idea, though.
They also aren't transmitting the whole work to your browser, so you don't have the browser cache and related issues. They're just running a query and telling you which books match as a result; you don't do any transmission of works or copying for that. Then they provide the excerpts, which are definitely legal under Fair Use. I think your iTunes comparision is a *lot* more valid than this silly mp3.com one that people keep mentioning.
It seems that, mostly, people just keep confusing searching an index with sending the user a copy. Out of curiousity, besides the Guild lawsuit, where are you seeing that they're transmitting enough of the work to constitute infringement? That's contradictory to everything that I've dug up about Google Print...
However, the library can scan them, burn them, index them, and whatever else they want, short of duplicating them, or significant portions therein.
Google is indexing the work, which is the same thing that has been proven legal for them to do with images, web pages, newsgroups, news feeds, store prices, and various other content.
That's what makes this case interesting. Google has been doing this with many other forms of copyrighted works. There are substantial benefits to the authors, libraries, and even publishers. There also isn't a dissemination of the works by Google.
They're pushing that Google can't have an index of their work, as it constitutes an infringement. If the Guild wins, what does that do to the other works that search engines index? This suit has an effect that reaches much further than is implied by the articles and statements.
It would seem that they couldn't really consider touching Google if Google went and bought a single copy of each book. That would also imply that if Google destroyed their copy of the index, and then beefed up all the libraries' servers and queried those, they couldn't be touched. After all, then Google would never posses even an index of the books.
I understand that Google doesn't own a copy of the books, but does an index constitute an infringing copy? As I said, for other copyrighted works, the answer has been a firm "no".
My point about Google going out of the way is that under their assumption that they're in the right, they are still providing a mechanism to remove a work from the index. If Google is correct in their assertation, they have no obligation to do that for the copyright holders.
So the whole thing would seem to hinge on whether an index is an infringing copy. I believe that it isn't.
Your example would be making a duplicate of the book, and not an index of the book. Court precedent has already stated that indexing images of any type, and indexing web pages of any type, are both legal.
Regardless of whether Google or the library possess the database, precedent says that it is in accordance with the law.
BTW, your example would be illegal if they were simply creating a duplicate of the book. The point of contention is whether the indexing of a book is that same as the indexing of everything else.
Sigh, go learn the english language better, along with some basic logic and reasoning skills.
My example does not preclude Google's process. I gave you an example that is very close to the matter at hand to dispute the insistance that such things would be illegal.
To clarify:
A = "making a duplicate of a third party's content"
Z = "making an index of a third party's content"
"duplicate != index", therefore "A != Z".
Google is doing the same procedural thing as they do with indexing web sites. The method of information access is the only difference. Since indexing of web sites was shown to be quite legal, and indexing of images was also shown to be quite legal, even court precedent would say that indexing books would be quite legal.
Do you also believe that Google is infringing on the copyright of nearly every web page on the internet? That argument has been tossed out of court quite handily.
They certainly do make copies, and they do it exactly the way that Google is doing this. Hell, Google is aiding a bunch of libraries in their existing projects to digitize their collections. This has been going on for quite a few years. If you go to the Google Print page, you can catch links to various libraries and read about it first hand.
Nobody is making copies on demand, and I'm certainly not trying to say that it would be legal to do so.
Nah, the truth is in the details. I'll mention a couple things that aren't directly about your question, but that people seem to keep going on about.
1) For library scanned books, they do not have ads. That is only for works that are submitted by the publisher.
2) Neither Google nor a library gets anything from a referral that leads to purchase. It is simply a convenience feature for users.
3) Google goes out of their way to try and prevent people from acquiring significant sections of works under copyright.
4) Libraries have complete control over what is scanned.
5) Google is working with these libraries to speed up their digitization projects. The library gets more of their books digitized, more quickly, for significantly less money. Google gets a searchable index of those books.
Google is treating this index, correctly, I believe, as the same as indexes of web sites. Both cases are copyrighted content being indexed into a database for search purposes. The only difference between the two, procedurally, is that Google has to physically go to the content rather than electronically go to it.
The libraries are backing this extremely hard. You have the NYC Public Library system, Harvard, Oxford, and others, that support Google fully, and believe there is no copyright issue. This Guild might be big, but they're up against quite a few other heavy players, including schools with massive legal programs.
You say it would be, but I really doubt it would be. I believe many libraries already do this, to a varying extents, but that isn't relevent. If you really believe it's illegal, then please throw me a link to the appropriate section of law. I would certainly like to learn more about it, either way.
Google is telling you which books were matched by your query, which isn't showing you any content. They are also providing excerpts, which does show content, but are explicitly allowed under US Code. Had they provided you with the full text, or even significant portions of the text, then you would be 100% correct.
The ad revenue is secondary, as it wouldn't make the difference between infringing and non-infringing use, but may amplify damages if they are found guilty.
Could you go a bookstore, buy the book, come home, and then scan or copy it? If you can't, then that sucks, but Google wouldn't be able to do their thing in Germany. If you can, then Google would be in compliance with the law.
Google *isn't doing* 'A', that is the whole point. Since 'A' is possessing a third party's content, well, Google does not do this, so it is not relevent.
Google's method is precisely equal to me taking my books, me scanning them, me indexing them into my database, and then me putting a form on my web server so that you can search my books. I don't make you a copy of the book and I don't let you read the book.
There is very little similarity between the mp3.com case and this Google case, save for both being about copyright infringement.
However, Google isn't retransmitting the content, nor are they storing someone else's copy of the content. They are creating a copy of their own content in their database, or aiding a party to copy the content that party owns into the 3rd party's database. Then they are setting up so that they can transmit a search query to that database. In the case of the library data, they aren't in possession of the content.
Slashdot Mirror
"What the World Wants" is irrelevant. That is exactly what you're non-sensically bitching about. The US has authority over only the US, and the government trying to extend itself over othre countries is a massive problem. So you're saying that the US should extend itself over other countries, but just with money instead of military force? No, the US cannot, and should not, solve the world's problems. The US shouldn't be a member of *any* organization that has any authority over their sovereignity; it would be unconstitutional.
First, the most obvious answer for maintaining a biological agent is for vaccination and research purposes. It's the same reason that there is quantities of things like Plague and Ebola maintained. Second, the US didn't sell Anthrax to anyone to be used as a weapon, the US sold vaccine to various places. The media was not threatened; stop making things up.
The trillion dollar bet was a mathemetical stock model. It was created by three people in the 1970s. The money in the market came from investors, not some nut-job conspiracy magic. Interest is also just the way of borrowing, and there's nothing wrong with it. Why would a company loan money at zero profit? That makes no sense.
Conclusion:
- The US does fuck with world politics, and that is largely why we have problems.
- The stock market has nothing to do with this.
- Yes, we need anthrax vaccines; it is not an eradicated disease.
- It isn't happening because fixing the world's problems would involve taking over the world. Once again, "What the World Wants" is lunacy at its best. "What our Country Wants" is what is important, and it needs to be the primary concern of the US government.
No, that wasn't the question nor the issue. The issue was whether or not the woman is free to do what she wants to herself. If that is true, except when she is pregnant, then she *isn't* free. If nothing else, that would make women less free than men, and that is unacceptable. Yeah, it sucks that the woman might decide to do something that harms the baby, but it sucks a lot more if the woman has no choice in what she does to her own body because you decided to force her to comply with your beliefs. Each woman can decide if she is pro-life or pro-choice when the situation arises.
Should the government just go around and take every pregnant woman into custody, "for the children"? No, of course not, and very few people would say otherwise. You'd have a few of the "anti-everything except the government running your life" nuts that start going on about "for the children", but they do that now, and they almost certainly have only themselves at heart.
*You* just made the issue about the baby. I was talking about forms of government and the current overall political climate. *You* turned a political discussion into something about a particular controversial topic. Typical modern politics tactic: distract everyone from the real issue with the popular non-issue.
Just to point this out, but "pro-life" legislated by government is a big first step *back* down the road to the government dictating what is moral. It is an intrustion into personal rights, and a return to a "nanny state". Those sorts of things should *never* under any circumstance be done at the Federal level. Make it a law in your town, if you hate freedom that much, and then people can move away when they don't like your law.
Go discuss abortion, or gay rights, or whatever, somewhere else; my stance solves all of that very effectively, by returning personal freedom. People need to be free to do what they want with themselves. Great, most of the modern-day major "TV issues" solved. Now lets move on to foreign policy, Federal bloat, taxes, States' rights, energy, education, *anything else*, because *everything* matters more than what you decided to latch on to. You want to debate personal freedom, then fine, but none of these specific examples that have been oh so carefully selected to trip up people that advocate personal freedom. I maintain my stance across all personal freedoms, as difficult as that is, and as annoying as it sometimes is. Personal freedom is an all of none: either you're free, or the government is telling you what you're allowed to do.
Have you looked into this one?
If they put the lines over your property without purchase, without you giving easement, or without your municipality taking it with eminent domain, then do what you can do any other time there is criminal trespass.
You can try this, which may not be legal:
Notify the bastards in writing that you will remove their illegal equipment from your premesis on such and such a date. File a lawsuit immediately, and seek to keep it tied up in court, in case the municipality starts proceedings for a land taking. Then, barring an injunction being placed, do what you have to do to make sure those lines do not cross your property, without leaving your property, of course.
You can also start calling the police, and filing a report a few times a day about the trespass. Make a *huge* stink about this. Get it into papers and the whole bit.
I certainly wouldn't just let them put it there. I don't want to live near those kinds of lines, for many reasons. There is good evidence that it's a health hazard, I don't want the risk of something happening to the lines, they're UGLY, they make a lot of noise, they seriously devalue the property, and they inject a lot of RF noise into various equipment.
If nobody stands up to bastards like that, then they will always get their way.
Telling a woman what she can do to herself is abridgment of freedom, same as so may other things, and should not be something the government is involved in. It doesn't matter if is Demopublicans or Republicrats that are saying it, abridgment of freedom is wrong. Every person needs to be free to do whatever they please with themselves, their property, and other consenting parties, up to the point that it impinges the freedom of another citizen. This means that you need to be able to do anything to yourself. You might not like abortion, and I don't like aborting, but I *really* don't like forcing my beliefs on someone else.
;-) We *are* becoming the victims of fascism, and we need to do something about it rather than argue that it isn't happening!
Just because someone did it in the past doesn't mean they were right. FDR did quite a large number of very wrong things. Pres. Bush continues those bad policies, and that makes him just as bad, same as it made Pres. Clinton. It would be wrong to say they are anyone other than Pres. Rooselvelt's fault, but everyone since shares in the blame for continuing things.
We see bloating of the Federal, the requisite reduction in State's rights, numerous reductions in freedoms, and any number of other bad laws whenever Congress is controlled by the same party as the Presidency. This would be much less of a problem if those Populist idiots hadn't gotten there way in the beginning of the 20th century. Yay for the 17th amendment, that which guaranteed the end of our federalist government.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. The US is displaying all of the major definition points of what fascism is.
"(From dictionary.com:) fascism, noun
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
1) This country isn't quite ruled by a dictator, yet. We *are* ruled by a small group of people that do impose their will however they see fit. They've put into law various things that allow them to do as they please. The President can do basically whatever he wants to whomever he wants.
2) The Federal is legislating morality and attempting to use force to alter social issues. They are also meddling heavily in the economy.
3) The Federal can arbitrarily take your land and other property, imprison you, has the power to censor things, and tries quite regularly to do so. Most people believe that they are breaking a law by almost anything they do, and they aren't far from the truth.
4) The Federal does not care about other countries; it will do anything to benefit the US, at the expense of foreign countries, peoples, and freedoms. It has routinely tried and/or succeeded at overthrowing foreign governments. The populace is pro-US, anti-everyone else, so long as they benefit in some way. "Who cares about the Mid-East, as long as we get our oil; just bomb 'em and take the stuff." It is increasingly more "The USA v. everyone else".
Now, I certainly don't want this country to be fascist, but it is what it is. I want our freedoms back, I want to shut down most of the Federal and bring it back to the States and Towns, and I want this country to get the hell out of other countries' government affairs. (and I want other things too
No, no you would not have to convince the company to do anything. All you have to do is convince the user that your "bad" file is the same as the company's "good" file because they both compute to the same hash. *That* is why this attack is so annoying and dangerous; you can make the file seem legit by generating a "bad" file with the same checksum.
Once your file appears to be legit, since it matches the checksum on the real site, you can get yourself ranked in search engines. Most people find things by going to a search engine and running a query. Then even the mildly paranoid people that actually check MD5s, or installers that check them, can be fooled.
Yeah, Firefox does have a lot of that, and it bugs me quite a lot. I used to use Galeon because of the load times, but that was when the alternative was the Mozilla suite. I do sometimes see UI slowdowns, but it's from being swapped out. Sometimes it takes 30-45 seconds for Firefox to stop screwing around after I've left it overnight.
On a side note, does anyone ever finish their software before starting to add silly features?
First off, thanks for a rational reply instead of a flame. I really appreciate that! :) I figured that submitting a post that says bad things about Java was certain to earn me flamebait or troll status, or at least some nasty replies.
I never meant to say that Azureus isn't a good client; I think it's fine. I use BitComet under Windows, personally. They both use too much memory, but BitComet is more responsive in the UI.
20% is still a big increase in memory use, though. I might have a good amount of memory, but I don't like the idea of programs being 20% larger without a very good reason. For what Java gives me, I'd rather have cross-platform C and save myself the resources. I also get annoyed when people start saying how it isn't important because computers are fast. The problem is that if every program, OS function, and layer of abstraction shared that sentiment, computers would suck to work on. Just because we have more power doesn't mean we should squander it. Leave that power for things that *need* more resources. Computers were finally powerful enough for real-time 3D, and that was a good reason to use the power. That sort of thing. I'm also not saying that Java isn't a good use of the power, but it is no excuse for laziness in programming. I want a fast and responsive computer, and I don't want to upgrade for no good reason. (I'm not implying that Java was lazy or anything, just ranting about it being ok to waste resources.)
Perceived performace is what really counts in a UI, though. We also can't expect the OS to change for an application. If the way Java is doing something is slow on a major platform, then Sun needs to find a way around it. Especially since that kind of thing really hurts Java adoption, and a company like MS is certainly not going to help out their competitor, nor deteriorate the platform dominance. I'll definitely agree that GDI, and GDI with MFC is so much worse.
The average person still associates Java with "those goddamn annoying things that my web browser starts and makes it lock up". Those crappy web browser Java plugins really tarnish Java's image. Java applications work so much better than applets, but most people have never run one.
I happen to be of the opinion that I want to see C toolkits keep improving so that the apps are more and more portable. I don't want more abstraction and bytecode; I want good native code and minimal overhead. This can be done fairly well today, and you can get your cross-platform C app to compile and run on more platforms than Java currently has a JRE for.
Nailgun looks close to exactly what I had in mind. They have quite a bit of work left to do, but when finished, it should be great!
As far as Azureus, I'm not really worried about that particular program. That was footprint right after I started it, which leaves a bit to be desired, but it isn't scary. The footprint of OOo, on the other hand, is disgusting. I don't know if that has to do with the Java integration, but I don't remember it taking up nearly as much in 1.x as in 2.x beta builds.
No, it's quite to the point provable and true. For example, I use Azureus because I haven't found another suitable client under Linux. I would never run it under Windows because the UI is slower, the startup is horrid, and it takes more resources than other programs. It is responsable for 60MB of RAM and a 380MB VM footprint. It is consuming 1.3% of my Athlon 2600, and 7% of my total 768MB of RAM.
Java is slow to start and requires more memory than an equally competently written native code program. This is always going to be the case, because it imposes both the overhead of the C libraries and the overhead of the JVM itself.
The case where Java is *not* slower is where it can do run-time optimizations. Then it is sometimes faster than native code. In the other cases, Java is just not *as* slow as it used to be, that's what has changed.
It could be said that the "Java is fast" people are being equally unreasonable because they're ignoring many of the more important places that Java is slower in. The right answer is that Java is faster than C for some things, slower than C for others. During execution, they are comparable. In shutdown and startup, Java is slower. Java also has the issue of the UI handling, which is not as nice as the established UI toolkits available to other languages. The UI response is also not as good as a native program.
Also, this is the same NASA that is known for so many inefficiency and poor choices. Are you meaning to imply that Java is another of these? The thing is that NASA could have chosen almost any language and accomplished the same thing. They just decided to use Java. Is that supposed to prove something? Or was that supposed to be that you named three apps that were written in Java, and have better native equivalents on many OS'? I already mentioned Azureus, WURM is OpenGL with Java logic, and jdiskreport is yet another program that solves a solved problem.
That's like my saying "No, C/C++ is just the right answer, because Windows, Linux, OSX, BSD, QNX, BeOS, Firefox, Gaim, Office, etc. is written with them." It has no bearing on anything.
If you want counterpoint, fine, I don't think I've ever used a Java app where the UI was decently responsive. That includes Azureus, LDAP Browser, Dell OpenManage, HP WebAdmin, parts of OpenOffice (like the DB portion in 2.0 beta), the Java control panel, and the Solaris installer.
So no, Java is still slow enough to be impractical on the desktop. The Java UI toolkits suck, and the whole language suffers as a result. Fix the UI, fix the load times, and fix that you need another instance of the JVM for each app. Then you have it good for desktop apps.
Lyx is just a GUI for LaTeX, so you certainly don't have to use that program to get the benefits. It's simply much easier to ease people into a system like LaTeX by using a program like Lyx.
If you put together your document in Lyx or LaTeX, you can easily transform it into whatever format you want. It sounds exactly like what you like, and you're already a good way to it.
If you run the validator against one of the other subdomain URLs, then it will work. Validating against it.slashdot.org gives 13 errors with the default DOCTYPE of HTML 4.01 Strict. Setting it to HTML 4.01 Transitional gives 0 errors.
Great job!
However, 17 USC 108 would exempt the libraries' use. Well, as long as there isn't something elsewhere that supersedes that.
That one doesn't really help in arguing for Google, as they couldn't argue that they get no direct or indirect commercial gain.
Thanks, I realized that I remembered that incorrectly a while after I posted, while doing more research. That certainly does make the mp3.com case a lot worse. The copy you received was technically a different work than what you purchased initially.
:(
It's so frustrating... all of these things are good ideas, and cause no harm to the rights holders. What a bastardised system.
I came to the conclusion that they weren't the same as a result of the way that current search engine indexes are handled. So while you need to have the collected total of the content for a complete index, it seemed that it was a special case.
Why isn't that safe harbor applicable? It's the same intent, and largely the same process. Is there specific wording in one of the court precedents that clarifies where the safe harbor applies? I've been looking for something about it, but haven't found it yet.
I understand the Guild's point that the Google database would have to contain what amounted to a complete copy of the content. I have to admit that I'm not sure why they would be willing to risk losing all that potential revenue by jumping into a lawsuit. I'd understand if it were a trademark issue, but this?
If Google set up the libraries so that the library had the servers hosting the database, but allowed Google to run queries, that would seem to be perfectly legal. I suppose they could do that if things didn't work out well for them in court.
They need to do a better system of limiting access to the content, regardless of anything else. The snippets aren't a bad idea, though.
They also aren't transmitting the whole work to your browser, so you don't have the browser cache and related issues. They're just running a query and telling you which books match as a result; you don't do any transmission of works or copying for that. Then they provide the excerpts, which are definitely legal under Fair Use. I think your iTunes comparision is a *lot* more valid than this silly mp3.com one that people keep mentioning.
It seems that, mostly, people just keep confusing searching an index with sending the user a copy. Out of curiousity, besides the Guild lawsuit, where are you seeing that they're transmitting enough of the work to constitute infringement? That's contradictory to everything that I've dug up about Google Print...
However, the library can scan them, burn them, index them, and whatever else they want, short of duplicating them, or significant portions therein.
Google is indexing the work, which is the same thing that has been proven legal for them to do with images, web pages, newsgroups, news feeds, store prices, and various other content.
That's what makes this case interesting. Google has been doing this with many other forms of copyrighted works. There are substantial benefits to the authors, libraries, and even publishers. There also isn't a dissemination of the works by Google.
They're pushing that Google can't have an index of their work, as it constitutes an infringement. If the Guild wins, what does that do to the other works that search engines index? This suit has an effect that reaches much further than is implied by the articles and statements.
It would seem that they couldn't really consider touching Google if Google went and bought a single copy of each book. That would also imply that if Google destroyed their copy of the index, and then beefed up all the libraries' servers and queried those, they couldn't be touched. After all, then Google would never posses even an index of the books.
I understand that Google doesn't own a copy of the books, but does an index constitute an infringing copy? As I said, for other copyrighted works, the answer has been a firm "no".
My point about Google going out of the way is that under their assumption that they're in the right, they are still providing a mechanism to remove a work from the index. If Google is correct in their assertation, they have no obligation to do that for the copyright holders.
So the whole thing would seem to hinge on whether an index is an infringing copy. I believe that it isn't.
Your example would be making a duplicate of the book, and not an index of the book. Court precedent has already stated that indexing images of any type, and indexing web pages of any type, are both legal.
Regardless of whether Google or the library possess the database, precedent says that it is in accordance with the law.
BTW, your example would be illegal if they were simply creating a duplicate of the book. The point of contention is whether the indexing of a book is that same as the indexing of everything else.
Sigh, go learn the english language better, along with some basic logic and reasoning skills.
My example does not preclude Google's process. I gave you an example that is very close to the matter at hand to dispute the insistance that such things would be illegal.
To clarify:
A = "making a duplicate of a third party's content"
Z = "making an index of a third party's content"
"duplicate != index", therefore "A != Z".
Google is doing the same procedural thing as they do with indexing web sites. The method of information access is the only difference. Since indexing of web sites was shown to be quite legal, and indexing of images was also shown to be quite legal, even court precedent would say that indexing books would be quite legal.
Do you also believe that Google is infringing on the copyright of nearly every web page on the internet? That argument has been tossed out of court quite handily.
They certainly do make copies, and they do it exactly the way that Google is doing this. Hell, Google is aiding a bunch of libraries in their existing projects to digitize their collections. This has been going on for quite a few years. If you go to the Google Print page, you can catch links to various libraries and read about it first hand.
Nobody is making copies on demand, and I'm certainly not trying to say that it would be legal to do so.
Nah, the truth is in the details. I'll mention a couple things that aren't directly about your question, but that people seem to keep going on about.
1) For library scanned books, they do not have ads. That is only for works that are submitted by the publisher.
2) Neither Google nor a library gets anything from a referral that leads to purchase. It is simply a convenience feature for users.
3) Google goes out of their way to try and prevent people from acquiring significant sections of works under copyright.
4) Libraries have complete control over what is scanned.
5) Google is working with these libraries to speed up their digitization projects. The library gets more of their books digitized, more quickly, for significantly less money. Google gets a searchable index of those books.
Google is treating this index, correctly, I believe, as the same as indexes of web sites. Both cases are copyrighted content being indexed into a database for search purposes. The only difference between the two, procedurally, is that Google has to physically go to the content rather than electronically go to it.
The libraries are backing this extremely hard. You have the NYC Public Library system, Harvard, Oxford, and others, that support Google fully, and believe there is no copyright issue. This Guild might be big, but they're up against quite a few other heavy players, including schools with massive legal programs.
You say it would be, but I really doubt it would be. I believe many libraries already do this, to a varying extents, but that isn't relevent. If you really believe it's illegal, then please throw me a link to the appropriate section of law. I would certainly like to learn more about it, either way.
Google is telling you which books were matched by your query, which isn't showing you any content. They are also providing excerpts, which does show content, but are explicitly allowed under US Code. Had they provided you with the full text, or even significant portions of the text, then you would be 100% correct.
The ad revenue is secondary, as it wouldn't make the difference between infringing and non-infringing use, but may amplify damages if they are found guilty.
Could you go a bookstore, buy the book, come home, and then scan or copy it? If you can't, then that sucks, but Google wouldn't be able to do their thing in Germany. If you can, then Google would be in compliance with the law.
Google *isn't doing* 'A', that is the whole point. Since 'A' is possessing a third party's content, well, Google does not do this, so it is not relevent.
Google's method is precisely equal to me taking my books, me scanning them, me indexing them into my database, and then me putting a form on my web server so that you can search my books. I don't make you a copy of the book and I don't let you read the book.
There is very little similarity between the mp3.com case and this Google case, save for both being about copyright infringement.
However, Google isn't retransmitting the content, nor are they storing someone else's copy of the content. They are creating a copy of their own content in their database, or aiding a party to copy the content that party owns into the 3rd party's database. Then they are setting up so that they can transmit a search query to that database. In the case of the library data, they aren't in possession of the content.