"Britannica is authored by an entity which takes responsibility for its errors and has a long history of accuracy. Its content is "vetted", meaning that there is a measure of academic validity to what was written. "
Oh really?
"The services and all information, products, and other content included in or accesible from the services are provided 'as is' and without warranties of any kind (express, implied, and statutotory, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose), all of wihch Britannica expressely disclaims to the fullest extent possible" - Britannica's terms of use
Look for yourself at the abortion article. It's a properly referenced, neutral article on abortion. The people who wrote it were clever, in that they forked off a seperate article on the "Abortion controversy" (thus moving the debate elsewhere).
Britannica changes very, very little from year to year. They entirely rewrite it only about once in a lifetime. They did so two times in the 20th century - in 1911 (a famous edition which was much lauded) and again in 1976 (the current version). So the Agent Orange entry has probably been around for going on 4 decades now.
(Obligatory IANAL) They (the RIAA) can appeal the a jury's decision only if they can find an error of law in the case (e.g, the judge has to make a reversable error). Furthermore, the appealant court cannot make a determination of facts in the case (under the 7th ammendment to the constitution, this right is resevered to juries in cases of more than $20 unless both parties wave their trial-by-jury right) - judges can only rule on matters of law.
IANAL, but if memory serves, once they lose that common carrier distinction, they become liable for all the really bad stuff that happens on their network -- on of their customers illegally downloads an mp3 from Kazaa, and BellSouth can be sued too; some guy uses them to launch trojans, they can be sued; 'etc.
IANAL, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but: Even if they release the spec under a creative commons license, that doesn't stop them from patenting the ideas expressed in 'said spec, does it?
Yes! Excellent! I was sitting here, pondering a definition of sport that would exclude things like Nascar and bowling (and video gaming), and you've just answered my question for me.
(I know this is almost guarenteed to get me modded down, but...)
Did you watch the same movie I did? I mean, the dialogue for the entire movie can fit comfortably on a 3x5 notecard. The multiple 15+ minute acid-trip musical interludes are just utterly unwatchable - I go to a movie to be entertained, not bored out of my mind waiting for the current scene to finish. The ending itself was utterly incomprehensible (which is what prompted the need for the novels, so that the movie would make sense). While the villian, Hal, was certainly novel (and much parodied since), I find the movie itself to be unwatchable. It took me 5 tries to get through the movie without falling asleep - the last time involved a great deal of 24x fast play. I think the movie is greatly overrated.
As the go-to person on Wikipedia for music and video uploads, I would have *LOVED* to put these up en masse. Unfortunately, the license is creative commons attribution-noncommericial, which makes it a non-starter for Wikipedia (Specifically, stuff on Wikipedia must be commerically reusable). What a shame.
There are two types of critics of the US space program - the ones who criticize them for the horrible decisions they have been making for the last 30 years (starting with decision to go ahead with the STS system) and hte ones who think the whole thing is a waste of money and should be cancelled. The problem is that when the former group speak out, they give the latter group all the ammunition they could want.
I can't speak to the UK, but in the US you are have a right against self incrimination. You have the right to refuse to answer police questions, and (short of being called to testify before a grand jury and being given blanket non-transactional immunity for your testimony) there's really no way to compel a person to talk to the government about anything they don't want to.
Write a full encyclopedia from scratch in 3 years? Not on your life.
Britannica's various editions are typically the previous year's version, repackaged and slightly updated. Rewriting it all from scratch they typically only do about once in a lifetime. They did it (rewrote it from scratch) in 1911, and they did it again in 1976 --- to my knowledge, 1976 was the last time they completely rewrote it.
Wikipedia doesn't exactly have deep pockets. All it would take is one costly copyright infringment suit to effectively bankrupt the project. Bear in mind that many times every day, someone will - without giving copyright law much thought - simply copy and paste stuff they find on other pages on the internet. Have you seen Wikipedia's list of possible copyright violations? It's huge.
"Will current posters please instead offer suggestions for how to get the Government to pay attention instead of whining?"
Easy answer - in discussions with 'said government officials, point to other innovative or useful applications of copyleft and the public domain. GNU and the GPL, Project Gutenberg, and Wikipedia are probably the best examples. (Full disclosure - I am a prolific Wikipedia contributor). The surging disaster that is copyright and patent protection threatens such projects. On the other hand, their redistributable nature has made them wonderful sources of the most unexpected applications - witness the incorporation into google of Wikipedia's database for Google Answers.
(Preface - I'm doing a PhD in computer engineering. Both my parents are teachers [high school - one teaches languge, the other biology], and it looks like I'll be teaching an undergraduate computer-engineering course within the next year).
The BIG problem is that the quality of math and science teaching has gone to hell in a hand-basket. I've taken dozens and dozens of science, engineering, and math courses, and *maybe* 8-10 of them had good teachers (only two of them below the university level). The teachers are failing to adaquentely instruct the students.
Over the last 3-4 years my entire department has seen a rather dramatic drop in the competency of the students at the higher levels. The students aren't getting dumber, they are just less capable - they don't the material as well as they should, and you can't teach them everything in a 15 week course. I put almost all of the blame on the teachers they had as freshmen and in high school (and before that, even - I remember seeing in a National Science Teacher Assocation flyer that most studies show the big "black hole" in science education occurs around the 5th-8th grade)
A gene patent is actually a patent on the method they use to detect the gene (essentially detection is done through a mirror DNA sequence if it sticks its what you where looking for)
Clarify something please -- is the mirror sequence itself patented, or does the patent only cover the method for constructing the mirror sequence?
I'm all for anti-trust laws, but I think this situation is a bit ridiculous -- the complaint is utterly without merit. Symantec and McAfee built their buisness models on Windows being a shoddy, insecure POS. Now, that Microsoft is tightening it down and including a virus scanner, and they are crying foul because it's going to put them out of buisness? I'm sorry, but that's the price they pay for being monolithic, for failing to diversify. Structural unemployment is a bitch.
Slashdot Mirror
"Britannica is authored by an entity which takes responsibility for its errors and has a long history of accuracy. Its content is "vetted", meaning that there is a measure of academic validity to what was written. "
Oh really?
"The services and all information, products, and other content included in or accesible from the services are provided 'as is' and without warranties of any kind (express, implied, and statutotory, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose), all of wihch Britannica expressely disclaims to the fullest extent possible" - Britannica's terms of use
You were saying?
Look for yourself at the abortion article. It's a properly referenced, neutral article on abortion. The people who wrote it were clever, in that they forked off a seperate article on the "Abortion controversy" (thus moving the debate elsewhere).
They had a seperate category for egregious errors like the latter - of which, (from TFA) 4 were found in Wikipedia and 4 in Britannica
Britannica changes very, very little from year to year. They entirely rewrite it only about once in a lifetime. They did so two times in the 20th century - in 1911 (a famous edition which was much lauded) and again in 1976 (the current version). So the Agent Orange entry has probably been around for going on 4 decades now.
So... when do I get my check?.... -- One of the higher ups
Just so you know, what you are describing is called a hasty generalization
Given this news, I can only imagine what the next round of layoffs at American Airlines will bring...
(Obligatory IANAL) They (the RIAA) can appeal the a jury's decision only if they can find an error of law in the case (e.g, the judge has to make a reversable error). Furthermore, the appealant court cannot make a determination of facts in the case (under the 7th ammendment to the constitution, this right is resevered to juries in cases of more than $20 unless both parties wave their trial-by-jury right) - judges can only rule on matters of law.
IANAL, but if memory serves, once they lose that common carrier distinction, they become liable for all the really bad stuff that happens on their network -- on of their customers illegally downloads an mp3 from Kazaa, and BellSouth can be sued too; some guy uses them to launch trojans, they can be sued; 'etc.
IANAL, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but: Even if they release the spec under a creative commons license, that doesn't stop them from patenting the ideas expressed in 'said spec, does it?
$100,000 per rootkit'd CD times 20,000,000 million CDs = $2,000,000,000,000 (2 trillion dollars)
Yes! Excellent! I was sitting here, pondering a definition of sport that would exclude things like Nascar and bowling (and video gaming), and you've just answered my question for me.
(I know this is almost guarenteed to get me modded down, but...)
Did you watch the same movie I did? I mean, the dialogue for the entire movie can fit comfortably on a 3x5 notecard. The multiple 15+ minute acid-trip musical interludes are just utterly unwatchable - I go to a movie to be entertained, not bored out of my mind waiting for the current scene to finish. The ending itself was utterly incomprehensible (which is what prompted the need for the novels, so that the movie would make sense). While the villian, Hal, was certainly novel (and much parodied since), I find the movie itself to be unwatchable. It took me 5 tries to get through the movie without falling asleep - the last time involved a great deal of 24x fast play. I think the movie is greatly overrated.
Sweet - I glanced over the license but didn't read it in its entirety (egg on my face). THanks for the info.
As the go-to person on Wikipedia for music and video uploads, I would have *LOVED* to put these up en masse. Unfortunately, the license is creative commons attribution-noncommericial, which makes it a non-starter for Wikipedia (Specifically, stuff on Wikipedia must be commerically reusable). What a shame.
There are two types of critics of the US space program - the ones who criticize them for the horrible decisions they have been making for the last 30 years (starting with decision to go ahead with the STS system) and hte ones who think the whole thing is a waste of money and should be cancelled. The problem is that when the former group speak out, they give the latter group all the ammunition they could want.
I can't speak to the UK, but in the US you are have a right against self incrimination. You have the right to refuse to answer police questions, and (short of being called to testify before a grand jury and being given blanket non-transactional immunity for your testimony) there's really no way to compel a person to talk to the government about anything they don't want to.
Write a full encyclopedia from scratch in 3 years? Not on your life.
Britannica's various editions are typically the previous year's version, repackaged and slightly updated. Rewriting it all from scratch they typically only do about once in a lifetime. They did it (rewrote it from scratch) in 1911, and they did it again in 1976 --- to my knowledge, 1976 was the last time they completely rewrote it.
Wikipedia doesn't exactly have deep pockets. All it would take is one costly copyright infringment suit to effectively bankrupt the project. Bear in mind that many times every day, someone will - without giving copyright law much thought - simply copy and paste stuff they find on other pages on the internet. Have you seen Wikipedia's list of possible copyright violations? It's huge.
"Will current posters please instead offer suggestions for how to get the Government to pay attention instead of whining?"
Easy answer - in discussions with 'said government officials, point to other innovative or useful applications of copyleft and the public domain. GNU and the GPL, Project Gutenberg, and Wikipedia are probably the best examples. (Full disclosure - I am a prolific Wikipedia contributor). The surging disaster that is copyright and patent protection threatens such projects. On the other hand, their redistributable nature has made them wonderful sources of the most unexpected applications - witness the incorporation into google of Wikipedia's database for Google Answers.
(Preface - I'm doing a PhD in computer engineering. Both my parents are teachers [high school - one teaches languge, the other biology], and it looks like I'll be teaching an undergraduate computer-engineering course within the next year).
The BIG problem is that the quality of math and science teaching has gone to hell in a hand-basket. I've taken dozens and dozens of science, engineering, and math courses, and *maybe* 8-10 of them had good teachers (only two of them below the university level). The teachers are failing to adaquentely instruct the students.
Over the last 3-4 years my entire department has seen a rather dramatic drop in the competency of the students at the higher levels. The students aren't getting dumber, they are just less capable - they don't the material as well as they should, and you can't teach them everything in a 15 week course. I put almost all of the blame on the teachers they had as freshmen and in high school (and before that, even - I remember seeing in a National Science Teacher Assocation flyer that most studies show the big "black hole" in science education occurs around the 5th-8th grade)
A gene patent is actually a patent on the method they use to detect the gene (essentially detection is done through a mirror DNA sequence if it sticks its what you where looking for)
Clarify something please -- is the mirror sequence itself patented, or does the patent only cover the method for constructing the mirror sequence?
[He] "will update the conference on his company's 'Unix and open source-related activities"
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE
I'm all for anti-trust laws, but I think this situation is a bit ridiculous -- the complaint is utterly without merit. Symantec and McAfee built their buisness models on Windows being a shoddy, insecure POS. Now, that Microsoft is tightening it down and including a virus scanner, and they are crying foul because it's going to put them out of buisness? I'm sorry, but that's the price they pay for being monolithic, for failing to diversify. Structural unemployment is a bitch.
It was mentioned in Outfoxed during an interview with someone from Mediwatch. You might have better luck perusing their site