When I read the list of changes they had made, I was horrified. It seemed as if they intentionally went out of their way to destroy everything that made the original.
Being about 15 at the time, I recall thinking how silly, derivative and completely embarrassing the "orignal" series was.
Look at the URL, "http://www.tpu.fi/~t4jlaaks/ep3/". Looks like a free home page. Obviously it's going to be offline the moment this goes live, with 88 photos, each about 150k.
Mirrordot got it all. Slashdot is never going to do anything about this; it's been in their FAQ for about 4 years as something to think about. They don't fact check, spell check or dupe check, so expecting them to cache a page somewhere is just wishful thinking.
Of course, some of the regulations can not be fully enforced, but that does not mean they shouldn't be legislated.
That IS the reason they shouldn't be legislated. It's asking for selective enforcement; giving the government a perfect excuse to shut down any ISP whenever they feel like it. Or allowing any group with an agenda to make official complaints against an ISP and do the same thing.
I *always* see a diplomatic plate parked in some ridiculous fashion
UN staff don't get diplomatic plates (unless Kofi Annan does). Those are ambassadorial staff, direct employees of foreign nations; the UN has no control over them. Same thing happens in every capital city in the world.
In Hong Kong we get 3M/s DSL for about $12/month. A few dollars more for 6M, and then you can get TV over broadband too. Most of the urban area also has cable broadband at higher speeds available.
least you can do is leave them in the file and let the downloader decide what to do with them.
1) Then you're violating the copyrights of the advertisers too
2) There are no Nielson ratings for bittorrent. So you won't help the network
3) Unless you actually buy something, you don't help the advertisers
4) The ads are likely to be localised, and completely irrelevant to viewers in other states, let alone other countries.
I know how caches work. I also know that Google's cache never expires unless you specifically opt out of it.
Yes it does. If you remove your page, eventually it will disappear from the search results, and the cache as well. But the cache is renewed on every crawl, so there will be one as long as your page exists, and a brief time after, if that was what you meant.
If someone downloads my work to read it, that's fine. What Google has done goes far beyond that. They have downloaded copies of millions of pages solely so that they can retransmit them without the author's permission.
That's not how I see it. No different to me than reading from a caching proxy server at my ISP. What's your objection to them doing this anyway? How are you hurt? Note that Google's cache doesn't include images, so if you have advertising banners, they're still pulled (if they're online) from the original address and you get any clicks.
Offering a way to opt out is not requesting permission.
By putting your pages on the web you implicitly allow servers to copy and retransmit them.
Anyway, as I suppose you're aware,
2. I don't want Google to keep a cached version of my page.:
If you do not want your content to be accessible through Google's cache, you can use the NOARCHIVE meta-tag. Place this in the <HEAD> section of your documents:
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">
The idea being that any archive robot should honour this (though the NSA will probably not).
You are part of society; your work is influenced by the work of other artists. In fact, though I know nothing about your work, I feel safe in claiming that your work could not exist if not for the culture you grew up in. With artists like Andy Warhol, or music "samplers" this is so obvious that it can't be denied. With others, you may just be considered to be in a particular "school" or "style".
Anyway, this doesn't mean that an artist has no moral right (we're not discussing law here) to exploit his art as he wishes, but that he should realise that at some point he should not complain, indeed he should be flattered, that his work becomes a part of the culture, and other works reference it. Only the huge media companies benefit from locking up all cultural creations indefinitely; independent artists without the power to keep their work in the public's eye will have their 15 minutes and be forgotten forever.
That's funny, the word "personal" is never once referenced by the Fair Use Clause:
However, it might be relevant: "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include...
whether such use is of a commercial nature...
the effect of the use upon the potential market
-- if for "personal use" these two considerations would tend to weigh on the side of determining that it is "fair use"; at least they wouldn't go against it.
What if I want Google to index my site (so that users can find my content) but not cache my site?
Google does cache -- and so does a whole bunch of servers when anyone request a page. A cache is kept for a limited time; your ISP may cache pages for a few hours or days, Google for up to a month, till the next time it crawls the page.
Fair Use in most countries (including the U.S.) doesn't extend to a complete copy of an original work.
If that was strictly applied, no one could ever see your website unless they were looking at it on your computer.
The writer isn't a journalist: "Steve Rubel is a PR strategist with nearly 15 years of public relations, marketing, journalism and communications experience." It looks like he just copied it from a blog withot checking it out. He can't spell either ("Gary eludes to it").
EFF Compiles Endangered Gizmos List On February 19th, 2005 with 61 comments
Hungry Student writes "The EFF has published an "Endangered Gizmos" list of technology that is at risk of extinction from the lobbyists of the entertainment...
EFF Creates Endangered Gizmos List On January 28th, 2005 with 213 comments
linuxwrangler writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation this week announced the creation of the Endangered Gizmos List. According to their press release, this...
Environmental groups, for instance, have a very vested interested in making sure global warming turns out to be fact and not fiction. Do you think such groups are going to be sending grants to folks who are busily disproving their alarmism? I think not.
Neither do I, because these groups operate on a shoestring; if you think they fund any of this research, pro or con, please provide some evidence.
How many of the 'Independants' get their money from (or are members of) GreenPeace, the Audobon Society, the Sierra Club and other environmentalist organizations?
If you're followong the money, how much do you think a bunch of birdwatchers have, compared with Shell, say? Anyway; assume they all are raving greenies, why would they make up figures? A massive conspiracy against SUV owners? More likely, bin Laden is behind it all -- after all, if you're not with Halliburton, you must be with the terrorists.
. I want a resource that compiles all of these studies and presents the results, and that's somehow biased, while your assumption isn't biased?
All joking aside; do you trust the abjectivity of academic scientists or the oil industy more? Do you deny Bush, his dad and half the current administration are heavily in hock to the oil industry? (This is to address the "bias" question.)
Anyway, I didn't take your original post seriously because there really aren't any reputable studies that refute the basic ideas of global warming. The argument is now how bad and how fast.
I guess you didn't RTFA:
"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
I find it hard to believe that computer models can't tell me whether or not it will rain on Thursday, but can suddenly "absolutely nail" the predictions for temperature patterns of oceans.
I can't tell you whether flipping a coin will be a head or a tail, but I can tell you that if you flipped it 2000 times, close to 1000 would be heads.
It seems that every day we have someone coming out with a study that either affirms or denies global warming. Isn't there a scorecard to keep track of all of these?
Yes:
Independent scientists: 100% believe in global warming
Scientists paid by the oil industry: 100% say it's hokum.
Even more important: no censorship. I watched the Sopranos on broadcast TV, and got used to hearing "freaking" while seeing "fucking", and not seeing some scenes at all. Then I got the DVDs, it was a whole different show. The same for Six Feet Under and others from cable networks.
True as that may be, but when the likes of Bill Gates are referring to OSS as "communist",
Don't let Gates define what "communist" or "OSS" mean. (Re)defining words is a way of changing the terms of debate, demonising your opponent before he starts. Eg "guerrilla -> terrorist", "infringe copyright -> steal", etc.
I guess you can understand the low volume in the U.S., the television programs, though low in quality, are high in production value. I've never seen a high-production value British program.
In the US, you can see everything you want on cable first runs. If you want a copy you can TiVO it. In the rest of the world, we have to wait months, or up to two years for them to show up on our sets. In Hong Kong I can buy the Sopranos and Six Feet Under on DVD six months or a year before they're shown on TV. I'm not devoted enough to download them though.
But as for production quality; there are many, especially historical, British TV series of world class and the nature documentaries are the best in the world; often if you look at the credits you'll note they're co-productions with American, Canadian, Australian networks to spread the cost.
OSS is the exact opposite of communism. Communism is a command structure (think a small group of ppl telling you what you will buy
Well that may be the case of most (all?) countries that call themselves "communist", but it's not what the concept is -- the state is supposed to wither away after a transition period, when we achieve the true workers' paradise.
Just about any political concept can become a "command structure" in practice, it's just human nature for power-crazy psychos to rise to the top when given the opportunity (do I need to mention the current US leadership...) After a revolition it's particularly likely when the former ruthless leaders of a guerrilla movement take power and find they enjoy it, regardless of their espoused democratic principles. Kudos to the original American revolutionaries -- they saw that coming and managed to avoid it -- even GWB will be gone in three years
Slashdot Mirror
Seemed reminiscent of Cordwainer Smith's Instrumentality of Mankind.
Being about 15 at the time, I recall thinking how silly, derivative and completely embarrassing the "orignal" series was.
Welshman.
Mirrordot got it all. Slashdot is never going to do anything about this; it's been in their FAQ for about 4 years as something to think about. They don't fact check, spell check or dupe check, so expecting them to cache a page somewhere is just wishful thinking.
That IS the reason they shouldn't be legislated. It's asking for selective enforcement; giving the government a perfect excuse to shut down any ISP whenever they feel like it. Or allowing any group with an agenda to make official complaints against an ISP and do the same thing.
UN staff don't get diplomatic plates (unless Kofi Annan does). Those are ambassadorial staff, direct employees of foreign nations; the UN has no control over them. Same thing happens in every capital city in the world.
In Hong Kong we get 3M/s DSL for about $12/month. A few dollars more for 6M, and then you can get TV over broadband too. Most of the urban area also has cable broadband at higher speeds available.
1) Then you're violating the copyrights of the advertisers too
2) There are no Nielson ratings for bittorrent. So you won't help the network
3) Unless you actually buy something, you don't help the advertisers
4) The ads are likely to be localised, and completely irrelevant to viewers in other states, let alone other countries.
Yes it does. If you remove your page, eventually it will disappear from the search results, and the cache as well. But the cache is renewed on every crawl, so there will be one as long as your page exists, and a brief time after, if that was what you meant.
If someone downloads my work to read it, that's fine. What Google has done goes far beyond that. They have downloaded copies of millions of pages solely so that they can retransmit them without the author's permission.
That's not how I see it. No different to me than reading from a caching proxy server at my ISP. What's your objection to them doing this anyway? How are you hurt? Note that Google's cache doesn't include images, so if you have advertising banners, they're still pulled (if they're online) from the original address and you get any clicks.
Offering a way to opt out is not requesting permission.
By putting your pages on the web you implicitly allow servers to copy and retransmit them.
Anyway, as I suppose you're aware,
The idea being that any archive robot should honour this (though the NSA will probably not).You are part of society; your work is influenced by the work of other artists. In fact, though I know nothing about your work, I feel safe in claiming that your work could not exist if not for the culture you grew up in. With artists like Andy Warhol, or music "samplers" this is so obvious that it can't be denied. With others, you may just be considered to be in a particular "school" or "style".
Anyway, this doesn't mean that an artist has no moral right (we're not discussing law here) to exploit his art as he wishes, but that he should realise that at some point he should not complain, indeed he should be flattered, that his work becomes a part of the culture, and other works reference it. Only the huge media companies benefit from locking up all cultural creations indefinitely; independent artists without the power to keep their work in the public's eye will have their 15 minutes and be forgotten forever.
However, it might be relevant: "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include...
whether such use is of a commercial nature...
the effect of the use upon the potential market
-- if for "personal use" these two considerations would tend to weigh on the side of determining that it is "fair use"; at least they wouldn't go against it.
Google does cache -- and so does a whole bunch of servers when anyone request a page. A cache is kept for a limited time; your ISP may cache pages for a few hours or days, Google for up to a month, till the next time it crawls the page.
Fair Use in most countries (including the U.S.) doesn't extend to a complete copy of an original work.
If that was strictly applied, no one could ever see your website unless they were looking at it on your computer.
Right. Every page on the web would need to have the "opt out" tag put in it.
The writer isn't a journalist: "Steve Rubel is a PR strategist with nearly 15 years of public relations, marketing, journalism and communications experience." It looks like he just copied it from a blog withot checking it out. He can't spell either ("Gary eludes to it").
EFF Compiles Endangered Gizmos List
On February 19th, 2005 with 61 comments
Hungry Student writes "The EFF has published an "Endangered Gizmos" list of technology that is at risk of extinction from the lobbyists of the entertainment...
EFF Creates Endangered Gizmos List
On January 28th, 2005 with 213 comments
linuxwrangler writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation this week announced the creation of the Endangered Gizmos List. According to their press release, this...
Dipshit editors.
Neither do I, because these groups operate on a shoestring; if you think they fund any of this research, pro or con, please provide some evidence.
If you're followong the money, how much do you think a bunch of birdwatchers have, compared with Shell, say? Anyway; assume they all are raving greenies, why would they make up figures? A massive conspiracy against SUV owners? More likely, bin Laden is behind it all -- after all, if you're not with Halliburton, you must be with the terrorists.
All joking aside; do you trust the abjectivity of academic scientists or the oil industy more? Do you deny Bush, his dad and half the current administration are heavily in hock to the oil industry? (This is to address the "bias" question.)
Anyway, I didn't take your original post seriously because there really aren't any reputable studies that refute the basic ideas of global warming. The argument is now how bad and how fast.
I guess you didn't RTFA:
I can't tell you whether flipping a coin will be a head or a tail, but I can tell you that if you flipped it 2000 times, close to 1000 would be heads.
Maybe you should just have said a scorecard that discounts results you don't want to think about.
Anyway, GWB has been funded by oil all his life, he's in power till 2008, so it's a dead issue.
Yes:
Independent scientists: 100% believe in global warming
Scientists paid by the oil industry: 100% say it's hokum.
Yes, it is hard to know who to believe.
Even more important: no censorship. I watched the Sopranos on broadcast TV, and got used to hearing "freaking" while seeing "fucking", and not seeing some scenes at all. Then I got the DVDs, it was a whole different show. The same for Six Feet Under and others from cable networks.
Don't let Gates define what "communist" or "OSS" mean. (Re)defining words is a way of changing the terms of debate, demonising your opponent before he starts. Eg "guerrilla -> terrorist", "infringe copyright -> steal", etc.
In the US, you can see everything you want on cable first runs. If you want a copy you can TiVO it. In the rest of the world, we have to wait months, or up to two years for them to show up on our sets. In Hong Kong I can buy the Sopranos and Six Feet Under on DVD six months or a year before they're shown on TV. I'm not devoted enough to download them though.
But as for production quality; there are many, especially historical, British TV series of world class and the nature documentaries are the best in the world; often if you look at the credits you'll note they're co-productions with American, Canadian, Australian networks to spread the cost.
Well that may be the case of most (all?) countries that call themselves "communist", but it's not what the concept is -- the state is supposed to wither away after a transition period, when we achieve the true workers' paradise.
Just about any political concept can become a "command structure" in practice, it's just human nature for power-crazy psychos to rise to the top when given the opportunity (do I need to mention the current US leadership...) After a revolition it's particularly likely when the former ruthless leaders of a guerrilla movement take power and find they enjoy it, regardless of their espoused democratic principles. Kudos to the original American revolutionaries -- they saw that coming and managed to avoid it -- even GWB will be gone in three years