Bollocks. You say why they're not -- nukes don't emit much to the environment (unless they melt down). Fossil fuel plants emit just about all their waste into the air.
Nuclear is just too freaking expensive to operate with any semblance of reasonable safety.
Nuclear has to pay to clean up the mess. Whereas a coal plant can dump megatonnes of CO2 and sulphur into the air and just collect the money from selling power, leaving the rest of us to pay the cost for the next centuries.
I don't recall seeing the Kindle being advertised as a maths/science textbook replacement anywhere.
"Amazon" didn't create the book, the publisher did. It's not up to Amazon to audit every text book they sell to see if it's correct. The publisher should have proofread it -- it's pretty simple to do, on the Kindle emulator that Amazon supplies for exactly that purpose. Kindle itself uses a subset of HTML in a specific font to display text. If that doesn't work, you have to use images. It does support GIF, JPEG, PNG.
Probably the publisher just ran it through some automatic converter that couldn't handle the symbols. For specialised stuff like that you have to do a lot of custom coding.
And that's why Netflix didn't just use Google translate to make their own subtitles -- I've done that when I had no alternative, and while you can follow what's happening, obviously idioms are a problem, you get lots of wacky stuff like that..
That's what I was thinking. Technically, the copyright owner owns the rights to derivative works.
No, he does not. Because it involves the creative work of the translator. This translation is probably an infringing derivative work, and the original copyright owner could stop it being published, but could not claim it as his own property.
If I write a Spider-Man fanfic, Marvel cant just take it and publish it as their own. They might sue me, but they can't take my work.
Or is my only obligation to you a link that may or may not provide you with revenue?
Actually, not even that.
Lets say that my summary of your work brings me a ten thousand bucks. Shouldn't you be entitled to a cut of that ten thousand bucks?
When newspapers do a review of a movie or TV show, do they give a cut of ther advertising revenues to the producers? Actually, the film makers will give the papers al kinds of inducements to help them do more articles. same for book reviews. How about restaurant reviews? Should newspapers pay the restaurants when they do them?
This whole thing is idiotic. Google just gives a sentence or two at most of the article. It's fair use in any country that recognises the concept.
The French media could block Google with Robots.txt and set up their own news search portal and then they can sell ads and divide up the income, if there's so much money to be had.
However, you did single out the Koran and the Bible
"Single out? Should I have added L Ron Hubbard, The Book or Mormon, The Bhagavad Gita ?
might embrace communism or some other utopian myth? Or you might embrace an atheism (not the agnosticism of saying you don't know, but the illogical form of atheism that says there is no god)? Why choose the Bible and the Koran?
I just mentioned the two most well known religious texts (in the Western World at least).
Okay, honestly, which are more likely to reject science: atheists or fundamentalist Christians or Muslims? Basically atheism is a product of science. And communism was an attempt to make a scientific political philosophy (not successful, but that was what Marx was trying to do anyway).
wasn't medieval Europe home to the birth of science
Of course Christianity in general isn't opposed to science. (Though it took them a while to come around: remember what the Church did to Galileo.) BUT those that are, seem to be pretty much all fundamentalist believers in one revelation of another.
I'm sure there are covens of wiccans who are pretty anti-science, if that makes you feel less "singled out".
A man hires three prostitutes and wants to have sex with all three of them. They all might have different sexually transmitted diseases and they all want to use condoms. Unluckily, they have only two condoms. Plus, they are in the forest and canâ(TM)t buy new condoms. Can the man have sex with all three of the women without danger to any of the four?
Who did I attack and how? I assume you're offended by "Or you end up just studying the Bible/Koran and that's sure to bring on an earthly paradise."
Isn't that what the faithful of those religions believe?
The point is that if you eliminate science as the basis for making decisions, what do you use? Many WILL resort to religion. And a brief glance at history -- medieval Europe, modern Middle East -- shows how that goes. I didn't say that religion per se was wrong, but if it's the only thing that you use to make decisions, by definition you are a fundamentalist, and a fundamentalist will happily, for instance, commit genocide on unbelievers.
So your kid doesn't like chemistry and would rather take a class that's much harder, like public speaking.
So the kid can become a great public speaker, get elected to public office, then make decisions about things like "climate change", "nuclear energy", health -- diet, smoking. with a completely clear (empty) mind. Even if you're not president, just a voter, you need to UNDERSTAND HOW THE WORLD WORKS to make rational choices.Or you end up just studying the Bible/Koran and that's sure to bring on an earthly paradise.
Yes, a fine against the police department will certainly show them! Oh wait.. isn't it the taxpayers who pay for their budget
It'll come out of their budget. And in a bureaucracy, that's your status. It will certainly make the police take data security seriously, which is the point of the fine, not to collect money for the Exchequer to refund to taxpayers.
ServerBeach further said that Edublogs uses "a failover system that allowed Web traffic to still reach the allegedly infringing material."
That would still make it available, and infringing.
CYA bullshit."Available" if you knew a backdoor to the server. Which would be a concern if we were talking about missile launch codes, but no reason to take a million blogs offline after it's been "available" for five fucking years without anyone noticing already.
Here's the text, courtesy of Scribd. Just as a comment on how absurd and disproportionate this all is..
1. I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm. 2. I might as well give up because there is nothing I can do about making things for myself. 3. When things are going badly, I am helped by knowing that they cannot stay there whatsoever. 4. I can't imagine what my life would be in 10 years. 5. I have enough time to accomplish the things I want to do. 6. In future, I expect to succeed in what concerns me most. 7. My future seems dark to me. 8. I happen to be particularly lucky and I expect to get better. 9. I just can't get the breaks and there is no reason I will in the future. 10. My past experiences have prepared me well for the future. 11. All I can see ahead of me is unpleasantness rather than pleasantness. 12. I don't expect to get what I really I want. 13. When I look ahead to the future, I expect I will be happier than I am now. 14. Things just don't work out the way I want them to. 15. I have great faith in future. 16. I never get what I want, so it is foolish to want anything at all. 17. It is very unlikely that I still get any satisfaction in future. 18. The future seems vague and uncertain to me. 19. I look forward to more times than bad times. 20. There is no use really trying to get anything I want because I probably won't get it.
So what if it was "in a cache that no one knew about"
So what? It was offline. That's what a DMCA "take down" is supposed to achieve. You don't have to erase every copy of the file in existence, just stop making it available, which they did.
The hosting company has apologised, so you're saying they were wrong to do so?
The key line missing from the summery is "ServerBeach said it had had to act because two requests to remove the content had been ignored."
So, fuck Edublogs, they had their chance.
Edublogs took the offending text off their website when they were requested to. There was a backup copy though which WAS NOT ONLINE that triggered the takedown. So, fuck Pearson, fuck the hoster, and, on Edublogs' behalf, fuck you .
say it was a case of mistaken identity or a prank or a troll or anything else you like.
It's one thing to not tell your parents something, it's quite another to directly lie to them. Besides, it would probably be pretty easy to verify the facts, e.g. look at the gay group's site, see picture of your daughter at an event.
For the final death of a boondoggle that sucked up untold billions (everything that wasn't pissed away on the ISS) and prevented the development of a sustainable space capability?
In a parliamentary system with multiple (i.e more than two) parties, this is a good idea. It tends to work. It works even better if the single transferrable vote system is implemented (something you may wish to look up if you are unfamiliar with it).
Which we do have in Australia.
Then there's another deal you may not have considered, and certainly haven't addressed. If someone is apathetic enough that they will not vote unless threatened with a fine, what makes you think they have bothered to inform themselves about who the candidates are and what they stand for? Do you think lots of uninformed voters is a good thing? I really, really don't. It's at least as bad as people who vote for parties mindlessly with no consideration of the candidate.
Since everyone votes, the parties can't just ignore the "apathetic" voters, as they do in America. Anyway, the "threat" of a fine isn't the real motivation, it's a reminder. Believe it or not, most people do it as a civic duty. The fine is like that for letting your kids play truant, it reinforces the responsible behaviour that most people would follow anyway.
And while of course in theory it would be better to limit the franchise to "informed" voters, in practice... you know where that leads.
Then there's another deal you may not have considered, and certainly haven't addressed. If someone is apathetic enough that they will not vote unless threatened with a fine, what makes you think they have bothered to inform themselves about who the candidates are and what they stand for? Do you think lots of uninformed voters is a good thing? I really, really don't. It's at least as bad as people who vote for parties mindlessly with no consideration of the candidate.
Since everyone votes, the parties can't just ignore the "apathetic" voters, as they do in America. Anyway, the "threat" of a fine isn't the real motivation, it's a reminder. Believe it or not, most people do it as a civic duty. The fine is like that for letting your kids play truant, it reinforces the responsible behaviour that most people would follow anyway.
And while of course in theory it would be better to limit the franchise to "informed" voters, in practice... you know where that leads.
Of course. Because if anything were ever possible with manufacturing technology it would already be done today. At least that's what they said in 1880 and 1917 and 1965.
Yeah, because home hobbyists have the technological edge on a Fortune 500 companies.
Slashdot Mirror
They're both similar.
Bollocks. You say why they're not -- nukes don't emit much to the environment (unless they melt down). Fossil fuel plants emit just about all their waste into the air.
Coal is no alternative to nuclear regarding the environment.
Why reply to my post with this ? I never suggested anything like that.
Nuclear is just too freaking expensive to operate with any semblance of reasonable safety.
Nuclear has to pay to clean up the mess. Whereas a coal plant can dump megatonnes of CO2 and sulphur into the air and just collect the money from selling power, leaving the rest of us to pay the cost for the next centuries.
I don't recall seeing the Kindle being advertised as a maths/science textbook replacement anywhere.
"Amazon" didn't create the book, the publisher did. It's not up to Amazon to audit every text book they sell to see if it's correct. The publisher should have proofread it -- it's pretty simple to do, on the Kindle emulator that Amazon supplies for exactly that purpose. Kindle itself uses a subset of HTML in a specific font to display text. If that doesn't work, you have to use images. It does support GIF, JPEG, PNG.
Probably the publisher just ran it through some automatic converter that couldn't handle the symbols. For specialised stuff like that you have to do a lot of custom coding.
It's a subtle error.
Unauthorized use of his pants down?
And that's why Netflix didn't just use Google translate to make their own subtitles -- I've done that when I had no alternative, and while you can follow what's happening, obviously idioms are a problem, you get lots of wacky stuff like that..
That's what I was thinking. Technically, the copyright owner owns the rights to derivative works.
No, he does not. Because it involves the creative work of the translator. This translation is probably an infringing derivative work, and the original copyright owner could stop it being published, but could not claim it as his own property.
If I write a Spider-Man fanfic, Marvel cant just take it and publish it as their own. They might sue me, but they can't take my work.
I would think you're 100x safer with a phone in your hand, if for no other reason than you can call the cops.
If you can survive waiting several minutes, at least, for the cops to turn up, you weren't in real danger anyway.
It's not "undercover cops" its "unmarked police cars". Basically its for traffic offences, not moles in international terrorist conspiracies.
I certainly didn't associate the name with PGP, I associated it with the previous article, and I'm sure others did as well.
I associated it with Bob Dylan myself.
Or is my only obligation to you a link that may or may not provide you with revenue?
Actually, not even that.
Lets say that my summary of your work brings me a ten thousand bucks. Shouldn't you be entitled to a cut of that ten thousand bucks?
When newspapers do a review of a movie or TV show, do they give a cut of ther advertising revenues to the producers? Actually, the film makers will give the papers al kinds of inducements to help them do more articles. same for book reviews. How about restaurant reviews? Should newspapers pay the restaurants when they do them?
This whole thing is idiotic. Google just gives a sentence or two at most of the article. It's fair use in any country that recognises the concept.
The French media could block Google with Robots.txt and set up their own news search portal and then they can sell ads and divide up the income, if there's so much money to be had.
However, you did single out the Koran and the Bible
"Single out? Should I have added L Ron Hubbard, The Book or Mormon, The Bhagavad Gita ?
might embrace communism or some other utopian myth? Or you might embrace an atheism (not the agnosticism of saying you don't know, but the illogical form of atheism that says there is no god)? Why choose the Bible and the Koran?
I just mentioned the two most well known religious texts (in the Western World at least).
Okay, honestly, which are more likely to reject science: atheists or fundamentalist Christians or Muslims? Basically atheism is a product of science. And communism was an attempt to make a scientific political philosophy (not successful, but that was what Marx was trying to do anyway).
wasn't medieval Europe home to the birth of science
Of course Christianity in general isn't opposed to science. (Though it took them a while to come around: remember what the Church did to Galileo.) BUT those that are, seem to be pretty much all fundamentalist believers in one revelation of another.
I'm sure there are covens of wiccans who are pretty anti-science, if that makes you feel less "singled out".
Takes off one condom, has sex with #2
Turns the first condom inside out and puts it on top. Has sex with #3.
-- Note that #3 was exposed to the client's fluids, but we assume he is "clean".
I recall a version of this with three (cheap) mathematicians at a conference who hire one prostitute. It's a very old joke/puzzle.
A man hires three prostitutes and wants to have sex with all three of them. They all might have different sexually transmitted diseases and they all want to use condoms. Unluckily, they have only two condoms. Plus, they are in the forest and canâ(TM)t buy new condoms. Can the man have sex with all three of the women without danger to any of the four?
not to make groundless gratuitous attacks
Who did I attack and how? I assume you're offended by "Or you end up just studying the Bible/Koran and that's sure to bring on an earthly paradise."
Isn't that what the faithful of those religions believe?
The point is that if you eliminate science as the basis for making decisions, what do you use? Many WILL resort to religion. And a brief glance at history -- medieval Europe, modern Middle East -- shows how that goes. I didn't say that religion per se was wrong, but if it's the only thing that you use to make decisions, by definition you are a fundamentalist, and a fundamentalist will happily, for instance, commit genocide on unbelievers.
So your kid doesn't like chemistry and would rather take a class that's much harder, like public speaking.
So the kid can become a great public speaker, get elected to public office, then make decisions about things like "climate change", "nuclear energy", health -- diet, smoking. with a completely clear (empty) mind. Even if you're not president, just a voter, you need to UNDERSTAND HOW THE WORLD WORKS to make rational choices.Or you end up just studying the Bible/Koran and that's sure to bring on an earthly paradise.
Yes, a fine against the police department will certainly show them! Oh wait.. isn't it the taxpayers who pay for their budget
It'll come out of their budget. And in a bureaucracy, that's your status. It will certainly make the police take data security seriously, which is the point of the fine, not to collect money for the Exchequer to refund to taxpayers.
ServerBeach further said that Edublogs uses "a failover system that allowed Web traffic to still reach the allegedly infringing material."
That would still make it available, and infringing.
CYA bullshit."Available" if you knew a backdoor to the server. Which would be a concern if we were talking about missile launch codes, but no reason to take a million blogs offline after it's been "available" for five fucking years without anyone noticing already.
Here's the text, courtesy of Scribd. Just as a comment on how absurd and disproportionate this all is..
1.
I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm.
2.
I might as well give up because there is nothing I can do about
making things for myself.
3.
When things are going badly, I am helped by knowing that they
cannot stay there whatsoever.
4.
I can't imagine what my life would be in 10 years.
5.
I have enough time to accomplish the things I want to do.
6.
In future, I expect to succeed in what concerns me most.
7.
My future seems dark to me.
8.
I happen to be particularly lucky and I expect to get better.
9.
I just can't get the breaks and there is no reason I will in the future.
10.
My past experiences have prepared me well for the future.
11.
All I can see ahead of me is unpleasantness rather than pleasantness.
12.
I don't expect to get what I really I want.
13.
When I look ahead to the future, I expect I will be happier than I
am now.
14.
Things just don't work out the way I want them to.
15.
I have great faith in future.
16.
I never get what I want, so it is foolish to want anything at all.
17.
It is very unlikely that I still get any satisfaction in future.
18.
The future seems vague and uncertain to me.
19.
I look forward to more times than bad times.
20.
There is no use really trying to get anything I want because I
probably won't get it.
So what if it was "in a cache that no one knew about"
So what? It was offline. That's what a DMCA "take down" is supposed to achieve. You don't have to erase every copy of the file in existence, just stop making it available, which they did.
The hosting company has apologised, so you're saying they were wrong to do so?
The key line missing from the summery is "ServerBeach said it had had to act because two requests to remove the content had been ignored." So, fuck Edublogs, they had their chance.
Edublogs took the offending text off their website when they were requested to. There was a backup copy though which WAS NOT ONLINE that triggered the takedown. So, fuck Pearson, fuck the hoster, and, on Edublogs' behalf, fuck you .
say it was a case of mistaken identity or a prank or a troll or anything else you like.
It's one thing to not tell your parents something, it's quite another to directly lie to them. Besides, it would probably be pretty easy to verify the facts, e.g. look at the gay group's site, see picture of your daughter at an event.
It should've had a ticker tape parade.
For the final death of a boondoggle that sucked up untold billions (everything that wasn't pissed away on the ISS) and prevented the development of a sustainable space capability?
In a parliamentary system with multiple (i.e more than two) parties, this is a good idea. It tends to work. It works even better if the single transferrable vote system is implemented (something you may wish to look up if you are unfamiliar with it).
Which we do have in Australia.
Then there's another deal you may not have considered, and certainly haven't addressed. If someone is apathetic enough that they will not vote unless threatened with a fine, what makes you think they have bothered to inform themselves about who the candidates are and what they stand for? Do you think lots of uninformed voters is a good thing? I really, really don't. It's at least as bad as people who vote for parties mindlessly with no consideration of the candidate.
Since everyone votes, the parties can't just ignore the "apathetic" voters, as they do in America. Anyway, the "threat" of a fine isn't the real motivation, it's a reminder. Believe it or not, most people do it as a civic duty. The fine is like that for letting your kids play truant, it reinforces the responsible behaviour that most people would follow anyway.
And while of course in theory it would be better to limit the franchise to "informed" voters, in practice... you know where that leads.
Then there's another deal you may not have considered, and certainly haven't addressed. If someone is apathetic enough that they will not vote unless threatened with a fine, what makes you think they have bothered to inform themselves about who the candidates are and what they stand for? Do you think lots of uninformed voters is a good thing? I really, really don't. It's at least as bad as people who vote for parties mindlessly with no consideration of the candidate.
Since everyone votes, the parties can't just ignore the "apathetic" voters, as they do in America. Anyway, the "threat" of a fine isn't the real motivation, it's a reminder. Believe it or not, most people do it as a civic duty. The fine is like that for letting your kids play truant, it reinforces the responsible behaviour that most people would follow anyway.
And while of course in theory it would be better to limit the franchise to "informed" voters, in practice... you know where that leads.
Of course. Because if anything were ever possible with manufacturing technology it would already be done today. At least that's what they said in 1880 and 1917 and 1965.
Yeah, because home hobbyists have the technological edge on a Fortune 500 companies.