For those of us who aren't American, just how big is a "football-field size"?
(Yes, I can Google for it, but for fuck's sake, you might crash fewer space probes if you used "metres" instead of "football fields" as a unit of measure. Just a thought.)
Please... it is idiotic administrators that allow such problems to spread.
MS markets its software to idiotic administrators; i.e. home and SOHO users.
Getting back to liability, that's the reason you have these warnings and disclaimers prominently placed on power tools (let alone hammers -- "Wear safety goggles!"), but because there is no liability, security has always lost out to marketing and ease of use.
Really? Even if it were, in strict interpretation of law, has anyone ever been prosecuted for making a copy, for their own exclusive use, of part of a book they own? This sounds very like the "back up" of software, or ripping MP3s of your own CDs, which are perfectly legal in most places.
Not only that but his analogy ignores that an entirely separate entity actively and maliciously misused or exploited the software to gain access to his personal information. Suing the software company would be like suing the acid manufacturer for doing enough to make sure it wouldn't hurt children!
More like suing a builder for advertising a "secure" home that had an unlocked backdoor you weren't told about (supposed to have been removed during construction, but they forgot) and vandals enter this, steal your credit cards and run up bills on your phone.
MS has been aware of the risks it creates for its customers for years. They haven't cared enough to fix them before release, because it actually gives them a selling point for the upgrade to the next version.
True, but they're not claiming rights beyond those provided in the law - they're just reminding Joe Reader of the rights they do have
Perhaps, but it's their interpretation. Why should storing a scan of a book I've bought in my own "information retrieval system" be "prohibited"? It's only distributing a copy of that that's a violation. Not to mention if this applies to a partial copy, one page? one paragraph? Actually, very few publishers have any real knowledge of copyright law, it's just boilerplate text, probably copied from some other book, with no real idea of what if any laws it refers to. And I do know that for a fact, having drafted just such guff for many books I've worked on.
If I were an author, and worried about my IP rights, my only objection would be that although they're providing me a service by allowing searches to bring up my book and thereby advertising it, any security problem might expose my work and allow it to be downloaded freely.
As opposed to borrowing a book from a library and photocopying it, or OCRing it, which happens a lot already, every bestseller is scanned and uploaded promptly. Or bookshops displaying books for anyone to pick up and browse without paying.
Depending on how Google structured their service, it might even prevent me from asserting my IP rights against people redistributing the work.
Whatever Google did would not affect the copyright of the work. It would still be illegal to redistribute it.
Imagine if "Why do men have nipples" was searchable by medical question - there'd be no real reason to buy the book
And who would buy a a book if they just needed that fact? They'd find it on a free webpage; or if a dead-trees reference was preferred, read it at a library, the old-fashioned way.
Smaller publishers are as free to opt-in as the big publishers are
Because copyright, in the US at least, now covers almost everything since the 1920s, a lot of books were published by small publishers who have long since disappeared, certainly they're not at the address printed in the book, and without spending a small fortune to track down the heirs, if any, uncontactable. So their books aren't public domain, but they're out of print, and will not be "opted in". People keep thinking this is about making bestsellers free and online; like Britney Spears on Napster, but the whole point is to make obscure and rare books available, an extended Gutenberg Project (with admittedly, ads). Opt-in will just leave this to new books by big publishers, and very old books, leaving the bulk of books published in the 20th C neglected.
They are keeping a full, OCR'd copy of the scanned book on servers that can be reached via the public Internet. They are deciding on how much text to show arbitrarily,
Size matters. It's a few lines. Fair use allows that.
And yes, they are making the full content of the book available online. You might not be able to access the entire work from a single web request, but the full content is searchable and displayable.
Are you implying that someone could recover the entire book by making thousands of searches? I doubt it's feasible, but if enabling any method of copying, however inconvenient, makes one liable, then libraries would have to do a strip search before they allowed access, not allow you to take notes; certainly never allow you to take a book home.
The logic of the fair use and other exemptions is that uses that do not amount to republishing a significant part of the work are allowed. It's a grey area, but generally a page or two from a book is considered fair and not requiring explicit permission.
provide the full content of a copyrighted book available on the web - even if it is just for searching or indexing purposes?
I'm not sure if you've RTFA, but the full content is certainly not available on the web. Each search returns no more than a paragraph. The index, presumably the entire OCR text, is not made available at all. Whether that index, used by Google internally, is fair use might be contested, but I think it would fit the definition myself.
If you read the front cover of most books, you'll find that making them available through an "information retrieval system" is prohibited....
What the publisher puts inside a book has no legal force, it's not even a EULA. They can't claim rights beyond those allowed by law just by saying they have them.
Two hours coding, three hours debugging, and four hours pedaling the stationary bicycle
"The laptops will have a 10 to 1 crank rate, so that a child will crank the handle for one minute to get 10 minutes of power and use." So 30 minutes for the 5 hours use you mention, though you might be able to crank while running a compile.
wait till the end of the automated telemarketing message, frequently they will say "Press 2 to be removed from our calling list" or something to that effect. It seemed to work well.
Maybe you don't have to wait. Just start punching numbers and see if it responds. Lots of automated services have a long intro that you can abort if you know the numbers to go to the next level.
THERE IS NO CENTRIFUGAL FORCE!!!...will come back on your first phyics assignment.
Then next year you'll learn that all frames of reference and apparent forces are equally valid and can be used in calculation if convenient. You can even consider the earth stationary and the universe rotating about it once a day if you like.
Essentially the road system really is mostly paid for by gasoline taxes.
I rather doubt that. Especially the cost of land, which is often "donated" by the government. More than 1/4 of most cities, up to 1/2 in some like LA, IIRC, is taken up by cars and their facilities. Also lots of tax deductions are available for car users. But I don't have the figures to back this up, and I'm sure it's different in every jurisdiction. And of course, no way is the cost of pollution factored in.
It pales in comparison to the thousands of dollars per person which is spent every year to subsidize automobile usage. We should eliminate all of these subsidies and let the free market dictate which transit methods are used.
The only roads free markets will build are toll roads. If not, then the full costs of land, construction and maintenance of road and parking facilites would have to be billed on auto users, simplest perhaps as a gasoline tax, which would be unfair, but encourage fuel efficiency.
I still don't believe microsoft "started over from scratch".
We may recall how Gates said security was job #1 a while ago. Obviously they are paying more attention to that now, but a large part is to deflect blame for their daily exploits. And in this case the article says how all the nice new features of Vista have fallen by the wayside, it's years late, but the spin is, as always, "the next version will be better than anything ever made". The classic FUD, and in the WSJ; so the CEOs can tell their geeks not to worry about migrating to Linux, or OSX, because Alchin says Vista will be all that and more.
The point not at all investigated is the deliberate encouragement of spaghetti code over the last years, to hook IE, WMP, and coming DRM inextricably into the OS, the very opposite of the clean modular code advocated. Interesting to see which principle will give way.
"On the first day, God created the Earth..."
I live on Titan you insensitive clod
The actual line is
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth , which includes Titan as well. Maybe you could be baptised on ammonia or methane.
It'll never happen. The government in the US would rather have every single American be killed by terrorists than risk seeing a nude human body
Heinlein's 1951 novel The Puppet Masters had earth invaded by parasitic aliens who attached themselves to the back and controlled their hosts via the spine. Eventually the only way to be sure that people weren't infected was to strip off above the waist, which when the aliens adapted by attaching to the lower spine, was extended to full nudity all the time. This was interesting preview of Heinlein's sad dirty-old-man phase of the 70s and 80s.
Totally fucked in Opera 6. Half the front page is literally blacked out, on topic pages sometimes it works, sometimes black (as in black text on black background). I can only read and post this by toggling to "user mode" which is really ugly. Yeah, I know, I should upgrade; I've tried but have issues with later versions.
What's weird is that using TCP, the resulting file should never be different than the one on the server.
In a perfect world. But when you're downloadng an 800 MB ISO, you may be interrupted several times and your software may not handle this gracefully, though mostly it's okay.
What always amuses me is that most mirror sites also mirror the checksum files as well.
If I don't trust a site I won't download anything from it. If I do, and if it's large, especially an ISO, I get the accompanying MD5s to check that it got downloaded correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
For those of us who aren't American, just how big is a "football-field size"? (Yes, I can Google for it, but for fuck's sake, you might crash fewer space probes if you used "metres" instead of "football fields" as a unit of measure. Just a thought.)
MS markets its software to idiotic administrators; i.e. home and SOHO users.
Getting back to liability, that's the reason you have these warnings and disclaimers prominently placed on power tools (let alone hammers -- "Wear safety goggles!"), but because there is no liability, security has always lost out to marketing and ease of use.
Really? Even if it were, in strict interpretation of law, has anyone ever been prosecuted for making a copy, for their own exclusive use, of part of a book they own? This sounds very like the "back up" of software, or ripping MP3s of your own CDs, which are perfectly legal in most places.
More like suing a builder for advertising a "secure" home that had an unlocked backdoor you weren't told about (supposed to have been removed during construction, but they forgot) and vandals enter this, steal your credit cards and run up bills on your phone.
MS has been aware of the risks it creates for its customers for years. They haven't cared enough to fix them before release, because it actually gives them a selling point for the upgrade to the next version.
Perhaps, but it's their interpretation. Why should storing a scan of a book I've bought in my own "information retrieval system" be "prohibited"? It's only distributing a copy of that that's a violation. Not to mention if this applies to a partial copy, one page? one paragraph? Actually, very few publishers have any real knowledge of copyright law, it's just boilerplate text, probably copied from some other book, with no real idea of what if any laws it refers to. And I do know that for a fact, having drafted just such guff for many books I've worked on.
As opposed to borrowing a book from a library and photocopying it, or OCRing it, which happens a lot already, every bestseller is scanned and uploaded promptly. Or bookshops displaying books for anyone to pick up and browse without paying.
Depending on how Google structured their service, it might even prevent me from asserting my IP rights against people redistributing the work.
Whatever Google did would not affect the copyright of the work. It would still be illegal to redistribute it.
And who would buy a a book if they just needed that fact? They'd find it on a free webpage; or if a dead-trees reference was preferred, read it at a library, the old-fashioned way.
Because copyright, in the US at least, now covers almost everything since the 1920s, a lot of books were published by small publishers who have long since disappeared, certainly they're not at the address printed in the book, and without spending a small fortune to track down the heirs, if any, uncontactable. So their books aren't public domain, but they're out of print, and will not be "opted in". People keep thinking this is about making bestsellers free and online; like Britney Spears on Napster, but the whole point is to make obscure and rare books available, an extended Gutenberg Project (with admittedly, ads). Opt-in will just leave this to new books by big publishers, and very old books, leaving the bulk of books published in the 20th C neglected.
They are keeping a full, OCR'd copy of the scanned book on servers that can be reached via the public Internet. They are deciding on how much text to show arbitrarily,
Size matters. It's a few lines. Fair use allows that.
Are you implying that someone could recover the entire book by making thousands of searches? I doubt it's feasible, but if enabling any method of copying, however inconvenient, makes one liable, then libraries would have to do a strip search before they allowed access, not allow you to take notes; certainly never allow you to take a book home.
The logic of the fair use and other exemptions is that uses that do not amount to republishing a significant part of the work are allowed. It's a grey area, but generally a page or two from a book is considered fair and not requiring explicit permission.
I'm not sure if you've RTFA, but the full content is certainly not available on the web. Each search returns no more than a paragraph. The index, presumably the entire OCR text, is not made available at all. Whether that index, used by Google internally, is fair use might be contested, but I think it would fit the definition myself.
What the publisher puts inside a book has no legal force, it's not even a EULA. They can't claim rights beyond those allowed by law just by saying they have them.
"The laptops will have a 10 to 1 crank rate, so that a child will crank the handle for one minute to get 10 minutes of power and use." So 30 minutes for the 5 hours use you mention, though you might be able to crank while running a compile.
Maybe you don't have to wait. Just start punching numbers and see if it responds. Lots of automated services have a long intro that you can abort if you know the numbers to go to the next level.
Really? Mostly theoretical and only some tiny strands made, as far as I've heard.
Then next year you'll learn that all frames of reference and apparent forces are equally valid and can be used in calculation if convenient. You can even consider the earth stationary and the universe rotating about it once a day if you like.
I rather doubt that. Especially the cost of land, which is often "donated" by the government. More than 1/4 of most cities, up to 1/2 in some like LA, IIRC, is taken up by cars and their facilities. Also lots of tax deductions are available for car users. But I don't have the figures to back this up, and I'm sure it's different in every jurisdiction. And of course, no way is the cost of pollution factored in.
The only roads free markets will build are toll roads. If not, then the full costs of land, construction and maintenance of road and parking facilites would have to be billed on auto users, simplest perhaps as a gasoline tax, which would be unfair, but encourage fuel efficiency.
We may recall how Gates said security was job #1 a while ago. Obviously they are paying more attention to that now, but a large part is to deflect blame for their daily exploits. And in this case the article says how all the nice new features of Vista have fallen by the wayside, it's years late, but the spin is, as always, "the next version will be better than anything ever made". The classic FUD, and in the WSJ; so the CEOs can tell their geeks not to worry about migrating to Linux, or OSX, because Alchin says Vista will be all that and more.
The point not at all investigated is the deliberate encouragement of spaghetti code over the last years, to hook IE, WMP, and coming DRM inextricably into the OS, the very opposite of the clean modular code advocated. Interesting to see which principle will give way.
I live on Titan you insensitive clod
The actual line is
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
, which includes Titan as well. Maybe you could be baptised on ammonia or methane.
Heinlein's 1951 novel The Puppet Masters had earth invaded by parasitic aliens who attached themselves to the back and controlled their hosts via the spine. Eventually the only way to be sure that people weren't infected was to strip off above the waist, which when the aliens adapted by attaching to the lower spine, was extended to full nudity all the time. This was interesting preview of Heinlein's sad dirty-old-man phase of the 70s and 80s.
Totally fucked in Opera 6. Half the front page is literally blacked out, on topic pages sometimes it works, sometimes black (as in black text on black background). I can only read and post this by toggling to "user mode" which is really ugly. Yeah, I know, I should upgrade; I've tried but have issues with later versions.
In a perfect world. But when you're downloadng an 800 MB ISO, you may be interrupted several times and your software may not handle this gracefully, though mostly it's okay.
The maths is pretty simple. It's the materials science that's the hard part.
Maybe you should check a "British" dictionary.
Since he can't spell, and is too lazy to use the spellcheck, more likely American.
If I don't trust a site I won't download anything from it. If I do, and if it's large, especially an ISO, I get the accompanying MD5s to check that it got downloaded correctly.