...than yet another Google/Apple/MS press release? Perhaps this is off topic, but I'm glad/. now lists the "small" topics because the "big" ones aren't worth their hype lately.
Let's see... saving lives or advancing the cause of celebrity? Which is more important in a Slashdot world?
Interesting, I've never seen that happen before. In my own defense I said "as far as I've seen," but yeah you're right to an extent. Obviously in this case you could lose out on potential revenue if the user goes to cache before the direct link, but who does that if the site is up? What's really ironic is that Google's own ads aren't accessible from Google's own cache.
explain to me again why if this is fair use, why i can't make photocopies of every book in the bookstore
I'd say let's not be ridiculous but it looks like we're far too late for that. Books are "Products," aka items sold in exchange for access to intellectual or artistic property. If you don't own the book you can't give others access to it in the first place.
Maybe you didn't get the memo, but the ENTIRE INTERNET was designed to promote the free dissemination of publicly available information. Sites are not "Products," they are frameworks that allow access to content, which may or may not be free. When FREE CONTENT is sent unchanged from one computer to the next that means the web is working. If one party wants to restrict access to their content, they slap a password and encryption over it. It's common knowledge that this is how the web works: free until stated otherwise.
Your argument boils down to restricting the redistribution of content that is explicitly intended to be freely sent through dozens of computer systems before it's burned onto my monitor. By your argument, google should not only have to remove its cache, but all links to content that owners might not want to be accessible at any given moment, which adds up to every page on the net.
Let's keep things in perspective here. No one is losing due to missed revenue stream because Google's cache links preserve the original content in its entirety, including the content host's advertisements. As far as I've seen, Google strips all multimedia from cached pages and replaces it with links to the original server. So hosts still get click throughs and view-based ad revenues. Also, google does not advertise on top of cached pages, just provides links to the original page.
Besides, people (aka 'me') probably only use Google Cache when the original content provider is offline. If anything, content providers should be thanking Google for the backup.
Maybe, but it's also worth noting that you can disable this "unique" identification quite easily by checking the appropriate box in WMP preferences. Despite the best (or worst?) intentions of M$, you can still wiggle your way around some of these "features".
I believe that computer gaming has advanced to the point where the environment of a game (beit fps or rpg) can be so submersive that addiction is possible. I am not saying that today's eye-candy is to blame, but simply that pc's and consoles are so widespread now that an industry has arisen to support large "all-gaming all-the-time" communities that just weren't possible in the 80's or early 90's. Q3 and Ultima Online are prime examples of such a standard. Everyone knows there are certain someones (hey, don't look at me!!!) who spend every spare minute playing that special something.
Instead of blindly saying "They're addicts", though, I think it's worth looking at two things:
1)How much does it interfere with their lives
2)What would they be doing otherwise
For some, gaming might be a form of escapism, much like reading is to others. No one would say, "She's a book addict!", but they might say "She's a social outcast." It's the same deal with RPG's or MUD's.
Lots of people turn to gaming simply to procrastinate, too. If there weren't such great products they might simply watch TV(that other, less worthy form of addiction;]) or find something else to waste time with.
It seems so far that most of this discussion focuses on this technology's application to automotives, which are, obviously, an enormous source of fuel consumption. But what about more fundamental wastes of heat?
Quite nearly every home contains dozens of devices that let off lots of energy while in use. Think of your oven, dryer, toaster, refrigerator, furnace... dare I say woodstove?!? Lining these heat-driven devices with such a product could prove valuable.
Consider the open flame of a gas range literally belching heat, much of which escapes into the air or is absorbed by the metal around it. What if the oven and catch-plates below each burner were lined with a hard-coated version of the device? Maybe in the common home this would prove impractical, but surely in commercial kitchens where ovens and stoves are perpetually fired such an implementation would drastically cut down on the total electricity used.
In older homes where radiators are the norm, this might even provide an economical way to prevent burns from leaning up against those pesky pipes!!!
I don't mean to be argumentative, but most of the federal government's income really DOES come from fees and taxes as shown by kiplinger over here.
That's what the whole fuss over a budget surplus was about not too long ago, since the government was taxing more than it spent. Also, so long as the budget is balanced, most federal bonds that are floated simply pay off older debts.
Unfortunately, it looks like recent events have thrown out any hope for a balanced budget any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
see mmell's post, two clicks above yours
...than yet another Google/Apple/MS press release? Perhaps this is off topic, but I'm glad /. now lists the "small" topics because the "big" ones aren't worth their hype lately.
Let's see... saving lives or advancing the cause of celebrity? Which is more important in a Slashdot world?
Interesting, I've never seen that happen before. In my own defense I said "as far as I've seen," but yeah you're right to an extent. Obviously in this case you could lose out on potential revenue if the user goes to cache before the direct link, but who does that if the site is up? What's really ironic is that Google's own ads aren't accessible from Google's own cache.
explain to me again why if this is fair use, why i can't make photocopies of every book in the bookstore
I'd say let's not be ridiculous but it looks like we're far too late for that. Books are "Products," aka items sold in exchange for access to intellectual or artistic property. If you don't own the book you can't give others access to it in the first place.
Maybe you didn't get the memo, but the ENTIRE INTERNET was designed to promote the free dissemination of publicly available information. Sites are not "Products," they are frameworks that allow access to content, which may or may not be free. When FREE CONTENT is sent unchanged from one computer to the next that means the web is working. If one party wants to restrict access to their content, they slap a password and encryption over it. It's common knowledge that this is how the web works: free until stated otherwise.
Your argument boils down to restricting the redistribution of content that is explicitly intended to be freely sent through dozens of computer systems before it's burned onto my monitor. By your argument, google should not only have to remove its cache, but all links to content that owners might not want to be accessible at any given moment, which adds up to every page on the net.
Let's keep things in perspective here. No one is losing due to missed revenue stream because Google's cache links preserve the original content in its entirety, including the content host's advertisements. As far as I've seen, Google strips all multimedia from cached pages and replaces it with links to the original server. So hosts still get click throughs and view-based ad revenues. Also, google does not advertise on top of cached pages, just provides links to the original page.
Besides, people (aka 'me') probably only use Google Cache when the original content provider is offline. If anything, content providers should be thanking Google for the backup.
But if the witch simply 'blew blue candles well'...
Maybe, but it's also worth noting that you can disable this "unique" identification quite easily by checking the appropriate box in WMP preferences. Despite the best (or worst?) intentions of M$, you can still wiggle your way around some of these "features".
.
I believe that computer gaming has advanced to the point where the environment of a game (beit fps or rpg) can be so submersive that addiction is possible. I am not saying that today's eye-candy is to blame, but simply that pc's and consoles are so widespread now that an industry has arisen to support large "all-gaming all-the-time" communities that just weren't possible in the 80's or early 90's. Q3 and Ultima Online are prime examples of such a standard. Everyone knows there are certain someones (hey, don't look at me!!!) who spend every spare minute playing that special something.
;]) or find something else to waste time with.
Instead of blindly saying "They're addicts", though, I think it's worth looking at two things:
1)How much does it interfere with their lives
2)What would they be doing otherwise
For some, gaming might be a form of escapism, much like reading is to others. No one would say, "She's a book addict!", but they might say "She's a social outcast." It's the same deal with RPG's or MUD's.
Lots of people turn to gaming simply to procrastinate, too. If there weren't such great products they might simply watch TV(that other, less worthy form of addiction
.
It seems so far that most of this discussion focuses on this technology's application to automotives, which are, obviously, an enormous source of fuel consumption. But what about more fundamental wastes of heat?
Quite nearly every home contains dozens of devices that let off lots of energy while in use. Think of your oven, dryer, toaster, refrigerator, furnace... dare I say woodstove?!? Lining these heat-driven devices with such a product could prove valuable.
Consider the open flame of a gas range literally belching heat, much of which escapes into the air or is absorbed by the metal around it. What if the oven and catch-plates below each burner were lined with a hard-coated version of the device? Maybe in the common home this would prove impractical, but surely in commercial kitchens where ovens and stoves are perpetually fired such an implementation would drastically cut down on the total electricity used.
In older homes where radiators are the norm, this might even provide an economical way to prevent burns from leaning up against those pesky pipes!!!
.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but most of the federal government's income really DOES come from fees and taxes as shown by kiplinger over here.
That's what the whole fuss over a budget surplus was about not too long ago, since the government was taxing more than it spent. Also, so long as the budget is balanced, most federal bonds that are floated simply pay off older debts.
Unfortunately, it looks like recent events have thrown out any hope for a balanced budget any time soon.