That's mostly because you don't understand the issue. The newspapers in question were not objecting to Google pointing to their content, but to Google serving their content. There's a huge difference between the two.
I don't understand either. If I look at news.google.com, it lists major stories; headlines of articles about these stories which are links to the source (newspapers, etc), and 1.5 lines of text from each story. There are NO cache links as there are for ordinary Google searches. And I looked at several national versions, including.be; all the same. The only "content" served was the headline and the 1.5 lines of text (occasionally a thumbnailed image, but I don;t know if htey do that for all sources.) So WTF is the complaint?
While I know nothing of the case in question, many people like to take pictures of themselves in front of interesting sculptures, buildings, etc. These items, or their design, may be under some sort of copyright or other protection that means that someone other than you holds some rights to your picture.
Well, maybe Belgium has a law like that. But I think it more likely just intimidation. See Photographers' rights for details. (US, UK and Australia specifically.)
Another example of this would be if you took a picture in Norway that prominently displayed, among other things, me. Even if you are also in the picture, I may hold some rights to it since my face is in it.
Unless he made some slanderous caption like "Drunken American sex tourist leering at me", I think you have no case. Your face belongs to you, a photograph of it taken in a public place does not.
I said "the" road, not "my" road. Sounds to me like you're reading what you want to see
You said "the". But ordering me to keep off it does imply you imaginine it belongs to you.
"or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe"
Those are the conditions.
When you start paying tag and registration fees for your bicycle
When bicycles kill as many people as cars, registration might be necessary. Otherwise it's public land, and roads are contsructed with public money. My money. And considering the minuscule amount spent on bicycle infrastructure, I don't get my money's worth.
I've been rated as a troll. Good job moderators, show your true liberal colors
You're a troll because you're talking crap. Someone like you comes into every UK civil liberties story and posts something like that; when asked to back it up they may cite a few anecdotes and retreat to "I'm being censord by liberals".
The US has totally fucked up gun laws. I'm far enough away that it doesn't affect me personally. Don't try to export your insane murderous ideology.
>Obviously I wouldn't choose to ride on a narrow busy road if there was any alternative. The alternative is to get a vehicle capable of keeping up with the flow of traffic. Your pet choice doesn't give you some exalted status.
You're the one who wants exalted status, to tell me to get off "your" road. Sorry, no, it's not your road.
Well, the road wasn't built for bicycles.
Most roads were. Did they have cars in the 19th Century?
If you cannot keep up with the flow of traffic, you are breaking the law
Maybe on a freeway, which I don't have any desire to ride on anyway.
They're not breaching your privacy anymore than before
It seems a bit like the recent kerfluffle about Facebook notifying "friends" about changes in your realtionships. The data was there for anyone nosy enough, but the subjects could ignore it. When you get immediate feedback you start paying attention.
Bike lights are next to useless at night, useless in a city at night (any secondary reflection of a shop light will get noticed 100 times better) and just plain invisible and a waste in daylight.
However, in many places they're legally required. Here the cops occasionally have a blitz and charge cyclists riding at night without lights. And you would be in a poorer legal position if there was an accident. Besides, I use sidestreets, parks, as much as possible, and there headlights really are necessary.
Or the responsibility to not impede traffic flow by going 20mph slower than everyone else (yes, this is illegal, and saying "go around" doesn't cut it since it's nearly impossible on most roads
Tough. Obviously I wouldn't choose to ride on a narrow busy road if there was any alternative. Sometimes the only way to get from A to B is on a narrow busy road. And if there isn't room to safely pass, the only way to safely travel is to ride in the middle of a lane and prevent drivers from forcing me off the road. Generally such choke points are a few hundred yards at most. You might lose a few seconds by having to slow down for that stretch. If you don't like it, lobby for a wider road.
not at the expense of other people's sanity and ability to get where they're going
So because of your insanity, I'm not allowed to use roads? Well, at least you're honest in your reasons.
Or maybe you should accept that roads were built for cars, not your puny velocipede.
No, I don't. They were built with my taxes, they are built on public land. I don't care how much you paid for your car, I have a right to use public roads in my puny velocipede.
That being said, I think he has a point that a simple programming language should be included in consumer operating systems.
As many other posts point out, there are innumerable free, simple languages one can download and install. I've got perl and C myself for a few hobby things. Back in the day, many PC purchasers were coding, now we're a minority. Brin's specific problem was compatibility with an old textbook; this is not a reason to burden every install with it. Really, the teacher should have supplied a CD with all the code and an interpreter.
Why should the EU care about not Vista not being shipped to them?
Apparent, because they will miss out on the possible 50,000 jobs it would create.
If MS can sell that, I can advance my plan to replace PCs with offices full of Bob Cratchetts doing accounts with fountain pens and abacuses. I can create 5 million jobs overnight.
It depends on how you define the problem. If the problem is "this computer has malware", then buying a new computer is not a solution. If the problem is "the computer I use most of the time has malware", then it is.
It's nether of those; if you look at the top of the page, the problem is:
How can I figure what is causing this window to pop-up all the time?
And the reason we're discussing it at all is the idea that something interesting or sneaky is going on, and can the Great Minds of Slashdot find out what.
Unfortunately for right or wrong you are judged by the company you keep
Exactly. As TFA says, these guys are friends with Karl Rowe et al. They're the kind of people they have to influence, so Google hires people who know them. If Google needed to influence the Dalai Lama, they probably would have chosen a different firm.
Actually, he's apparently writing something like twenty hours of new content at this moment, for the full first season of a Star Wars TV Series.
I actually enjoyed Young Indiana Jomes, so if it happens I'll give it a try. But the main attraction of YIJ was the real history; Star Wars fanwankery doesn't appeal so much to me. With any luck he'll get some real writers, he can just give them a list of CGI effects they have to use.
Surely if you live under an oppresive regeime and your life depends on it, it's worth the hassle?
If you live under an oppressive regime, using an anonymous proxy or whatever is asking to beaten with a rubber hose, and have your computer confiscated and dismantled. And if you live outside the US, it could be almost as bad.
Damnit Lucas, let the studio technicians re-master the movie and give us more original content!
It seems obvious he doesn't have any left. And he had some good writers on the original Star Wars, we see what crud he writes now when given his head and no one is up to tell him how bad it is.
Goals of this site:
First, it's a place to park the big orange button that says "Buy a Name Now!" so people that want to get a name that means something to them, can..... First-Year-For-$5 promotion was born....Normally, an = i-name costs about $20 per year.
you could retroactively criminalize almost any use of a web site by saying "Well, you should have known that you weren't supposed to look at that page!
Back in the 70s, when I was at university we had login acounts and the word got around of a way to login that gave you a 9600 baud connection instead of 2400 (using a different server, I think). So naturally I used this until one day a tutor noticed and asked me what the hell I was doing on this system. I said using my account, he asked why that system; I said becasue it was faster. To this he said I should have known it was too good for undergrads to have access to. So I apologised, but asked why my password worked on this system if I wasn't supposed to use it. No answer was given... security by obscurity works if backed up by threats.
They said it was "password protected" and the FBI was getting involved.
I guess there was an index page, password protected. But the actual MP3 files were in an open directory. Happens all the time. You often find ineresting things by looking at the URLs for sample images, for instance. (See Fusker sites for an application.)
Saying that security through obscurity doesn't offer legal protection against intrusions is like saying that if I hide my house key under the door mat, then anyone is implicitly welcome to use it to come into my house (perhaps even to take my stuff, depending on how far you extend the analogy).
Very bad analogy. First, you start by talking about "my house". This was a public web server."Take my stuff". Nothing was "taken". Your analogy is about having things stolen from your home, eliciting a strong emotuional response.
So how about "your cafe". And you, the owner, left a magazine on the counter, I wandered over and idly looked at it while drinking a coffee and found out you were into things you would rather not admit to. Basically, you have a much weaker expectation of privacy, and if you're also an elected official, almost none. Of course, I'm beibg a sticky-beak, but have done nothing illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
There aren't any ads at all on news.google.*.
There aren't any articles either, just headlines and one or two lines of text. To RTFA, you have to go to the source.
I don't understand either. If I look at news.google.com, it lists major stories; headlines of articles about these stories which are links to the source (newspapers, etc), and 1.5 lines of text from each story. There are NO cache links as there are for ordinary Google searches. And I looked at several national versions, including .be; all the same. The only "content" served was the headline and the 1.5 lines of text (occasionally a thumbnailed image, but I don;t know if htey do that for all sources.) So WTF is the complaint?
Well, maybe Belgium has a law like that. But I think it more likely just intimidation. See Photographers' rights for details. (US, UK and Australia specifically.)
Another example of this would be if you took a picture in Norway that prominently displayed, among other things, me. Even if you are also in the picture, I may hold some rights to it since my face is in it.
Unless he made some slanderous caption like "Drunken American sex tourist leering at me", I think you have no case. Your face belongs to you, a photograph of it taken in a public place does not.
You said "the". But ordering me to keep off it does imply you imaginine it belongs to you.
"or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe"
Those are the conditions.
When you start paying tag and registration fees for your bicycle
When bicycles kill as many people as cars, registration might be necessary. Otherwise it's public land, and roads are contsructed with public money. My money. And considering the minuscule amount spent on bicycle infrastructure, I don't get my money's worth.
You're a troll because you're talking crap. Someone like you comes into every UK civil liberties story and posts something like that; when asked to back it up they may cite a few anecdotes and retreat to "I'm being censord by liberals".
The US has totally fucked up gun laws. I'm far enough away that it doesn't affect me personally. Don't try to export your insane murderous ideology.
The alternative is to get a vehicle capable of keeping up with the flow of traffic. Your pet choice doesn't give you some exalted status.
You're the one who wants exalted status, to tell me to get off "your" road. Sorry, no, it's not your road.
Well, the road wasn't built for bicycles.
Most roads were. Did they have cars in the 19th Century?
If you cannot keep up with the flow of traffic, you are breaking the law
Maybe on a freeway, which I don't have any desire to ride on anyway.
Citation for this law, please.
Fucking gun nuts take every opportunuity to hijack a thread.
It seems a bit like the recent kerfluffle about Facebook notifying "friends" about changes in your realtionships. The data was there for anyone nosy enough, but the subjects could ignore it. When you get immediate feedback you start paying attention.
On highways, sure. So maybe we're not talking about the same kind of roads.
However, in many places they're legally required. Here the cops occasionally have a blitz and charge cyclists riding at night without lights. And you would be in a poorer legal position if there was an accident. Besides, I use sidestreets, parks, as much as possible, and there headlights really are necessary.
Tough. Obviously I wouldn't choose to ride on a narrow busy road if there was any alternative. Sometimes the only way to get from A to B is on a narrow busy road. And if there isn't room to safely pass, the only way to safely travel is to ride in the middle of a lane and prevent drivers from forcing me off the road. Generally such choke points are a few hundred yards at most. You might lose a few seconds by having to slow down for that stretch. If you don't like it, lobby for a wider road. not at the expense of other people's sanity and ability to get where they're going
So because of your insanity, I'm not allowed to use roads? Well, at least you're honest in your reasons.
Or maybe you should accept that roads were built for cars, not your puny velocipede.
No, I don't. They were built with my taxes, they are built on public land. I don't care how much you paid for your car, I have a right to use public roads in my puny velocipede.
As many other posts point out, there are innumerable free, simple languages one can download and install. I've got perl and C myself for a few hobby things. Back in the day, many PC purchasers were coding, now we're a minority. Brin's specific problem was compatibility with an old textbook; this is not a reason to burden every install with it. Really, the teacher should have supplied a CD with all the code and an interpreter.
If MS can sell that, I can advance my plan to replace PCs with offices full of Bob Cratchetts doing accounts with fountain pens and abacuses. I can create 5 million jobs overnight.
It's nether of those; if you look at the top of the page, the problem is:
And the reason we're discussing it at all is the idea that something interesting or sneaky is going on, and can the Great Minds of Slashdot find out what.Exactly. As TFA says, these guys are friends with Karl Rowe et al. They're the kind of people they have to influence, so Google hires people who know them. If Google needed to influence the Dalai Lama, they probably would have chosen a different firm.
I actually enjoyed Young Indiana Jomes, so if it happens I'll give it a try. But the main attraction of YIJ was the real history; Star Wars fanwankery doesn't appeal so much to me. With any luck he'll get some real writers, he can just give them a list of CGI effects they have to use.
Illiteracy rules Slashdot.
Because there are elections in 7 weeks.
Try http://www.google.com/webhp
If you live under an oppressive regime, using an anonymous proxy or whatever is asking to beaten with a rubber hose, and have your computer confiscated and dismantled. And if you live outside the US, it could be almost as bad.
It seems obvious he doesn't have any left. And he had some good writers on the original Star Wars, we see what crud he writes now when given his head and no one is up to tell him how bad it is.
Back in the 70s, when I was at university we had login acounts and the word got around of a way to login that gave you a 9600 baud connection instead of 2400 (using a different server, I think). So naturally I used this until one day a tutor noticed and asked me what the hell I was doing on this system. I said using my account, he asked why that system; I said becasue it was faster. To this he said I should have known it was too good for undergrads to have access to. So I apologised, but asked why my password worked on this system if I wasn't supposed to use it. No answer was given... security by obscurity works if backed up by threats.
I guess there was an index page, password protected. But the actual MP3 files were in an open directory. Happens all the time. You often find ineresting things by looking at the URLs for sample images, for instance. (See Fusker sites for an application.)
Very bad analogy. First, you start by talking about "my house". This was a public web server."Take my stuff". Nothing was "taken". Your analogy is about having things stolen from your home, eliciting a strong emotuional response.
So how about "your cafe". And you, the owner, left a magazine on the counter, I wandered over and idly looked at it while drinking a coffee and found out you were into things you would rather not admit to. Basically, you have a much weaker expectation of privacy, and if you're also an elected official, almost none. Of course, I'm beibg a sticky-beak, but have done nothing illegal.