The Nomads, Tribesmen, and Native Americans still made up a majority of the diverse world. They were still living on a "Atkins-like" diet, while suffering fewer illnesses and being physically superior to the "civilized world".
What was the life expectancy of these superior nomads? Forty? Fifty? The infant mortality is/was fierce too. The society gave an appearance of health, because invalids were shortly dead. (As eskimos setting the elderly adrift on icefloats.)
But there were many other differences in lifestyle than diet. Exercise mostly. Also, the relatively isolated communities had much lower incidence of viruses (but a lot more fleas, tapeworms and other parasites); when they came in contact with Western explorers most were devastated by flu, smallpox, etc -- they did not have superior resistance to disease, just less exposure.
>>"The main problem is that the American 50 hour work week is destroying the social structure."
>That would explain why social conditionsfor the chronicly unemployed are so great.
And it also explains why people remain unemployed, because companies can just get existing staff to work themselves into an early grave instead of hiring new staff, under the implied or explicit threat of losing their job completely.
I'm talking about professional offset printers (which most people outside of the print industry don't even know exist)... they tend only to accept jobs in Quark, Illustrator, and Photoshop. maybe InDesign. definitely NOT Freehand, Ventura Publisher, M$ Publisher, Corel Draw, Word, PowerPoint, or whatever
Strange, I've been working in publishing over 10 years. I've found offset printers don't care what software you use, just give them separated film that works. Maybe the ones you use integrate output or work direct to plate; and I've found output centres (that make film) eager for work. Often their operators don't know how to use anything except the standard apps you list, but in the end the film (or platemaking) machines are Postscript printers. So I just dumped my output to PS. Then looked up the manual for the film RIP and showed the operator how to output it. More recently with PDF it's become rather easier, as PDF workflow has become standard. As for placing files, I make either EPS or TIFF, and no one has any problems with using them. I've done over 40 books and countless smaller jobs this way. FYI, I used an ancient DOS version of Ventura and CorelDraw for most of them. Sneer away -- they work, and the quality is higher than most large publishers'. The key is knowing what are the standard (mostly open) file formats, and use them for interchange, create them how you will.
They're basically taking whole web sites and presenting them as part of their own site, for profit...
There is a large disclaimer at the top of the cached page saying that the page is NOT "part of [Google's] own site".
fair use...
Obviously this is getting into legalities. Google has lawyers, so I'm sure they will defend themselves should it come to court. Perhaps that no one, to my knowledge, has sued them for this shows that they have a good grounds. Personally, I think that it's not much of an extension of the ordinary way a page is propagated through the Internet. On the web, "archiving", "distributing", "publishing", "reading", all quite distinct for paper publishing, are technically distinguished more by intent than process.
The general criterion of assessing damages in a copyright case is whether the copyright owner has been damaged. I don't see how they are. Especially as the vast majority (RTFA) of people click on the direct link rather than the cache, thus they get more traffic. Also, not everyone WANTS more traffic. (Could they then sue for Google (or Slashdot) sending them more traffic?)
Are you saying that you think it's OK for one commercial body to republish material written by another, on its own web site and presumably for its own commercial benefit, without permission?
Under some conditions, basically satisfying "fair use" in copyright.
Or are you saying that putting up any material on the web in any form grants others an arbitrary licence to copy and republish it?
I did study that, long ago. But I thought the suggestion was fusion? Here we're probably dealing with plasma in magnetic bottles rather than lumps of metal, which I think is rather more volatile. Anyway, if a reactor (of either type) can be built at all I think that the reactions must be well-understood enough that quite simple automated controls would do better and more reliably than a biological system.
Have you ever seen the movie China Syndrome?
Yes, but more to the point: Chernobyl, where turning off the automated systems and trusting he operators was probably the cause of the disaster.
Now the Google cache isn't really helping bandwidth much,
It's not intended to, but if it does, that IS a benfit to the original site.
but it's still stealing the traffic.
If it's displaying the original ads, then what's the problem?
Anyone else starting to feel that caches really aren't worth it?
Caches are for the benefit of the browser, not the webmaster. Once you pit something on the web, free for anyone to view, you give up a degree of control over the distribution. Not entirely, of course, but once it's being carried by servers and all the other intermediaries on the Internet, as it must, then you must also assume that copies of it will be created for shorter or longer periods. Otherwise, put your content on a dial-up BBS.
Do you think that the point of "The Matrix" was the specific details about how humans can generate sufficient energy for a race of AI computers when "combined with a form of fusion"?
No. So can you stop using me as your straw man now?
there's no reason to believe that a human mind couldn't adapt to new inputs to both successfully interact with an artificial reality and also successfully balance input potentials to a fusion reactor balanced on the explosive razor's edge of instability.
I have rather strong reasons -- nuclear reactions proceed in nanoseconds. Human brains react in milliseconds at best. Secondly, the circuitry that you'd need to process the raw data from the reactor into something analog the brain could deal with, then do the reverse to control the reactor would be more complex than a purely digital system that didn't use brains at all. And if you really did want to put brains in the loop, use something simpler like cockroaches or goldfish that don't need to be entertained.
>>If there's one thing that annoys the heck out of me, then its websites that take more than 5 seconds to load.
>Maybe if you actually visited them, so they could get some revenue from their advertising, they could afford more bandwidth?
I'm pretty sure that Google's web cache (not images.google.com) does not cache images. I often notice when loading a page from Google's cache link that it pauses, and I see the line "waiting for response from [the original site]), and if I abort that I see the page with some missing images.
So if you look at a cached page, the images, and specifically banners, are coming from the original site, and so you still see their ads.
The article talks about Google's caching of articles that have expired to the NYT archives (which you have to pay to access).
Just thought I'd share a method I use to read "Archived" articles. Often I get a reference to NYT article, but following it leads to NYT's page telling me I have to pay to read it from their archive. But the NYT search on their site gives you a paragraph or two of text from the article. Copy a slab of that, paste it into Google. You almost always find the entire article in question, either on another newspaper's site (that has syndicated the article from the NYT) that doesn't have registration at all, or even pasted into a blog, or usenet post, etc.
Sites should be able to opt in, not out. The default should be no cache versions.
I completely disagree. The utility of the cache is not for big sites like the NYT, but the myriad of small sites, posted on flaky webservers on distant parts of the web. The "webmasters" may have specific knowledge you want to look up, but their HTML is quite likely some abortion exported from Word; they would have no clue if asked about caching.
the inflammatory words would still be accessible trough Google's cache....Now, some of you may argue that I could just write Google and ask them to remove the page
That was a point raised in the article. But it's bogus for two reasons: 1) When Google re-spiders the page in question, it updates its cache, or deletes it if the page is gone. There will be a lag, but usually within a few weeks 2) That the text you want to retract is still available is fine, it's not your responsibility, just as if you'd written it in a newspaper you can't go down to the library and rip out the page from their bound issues. Once you've published it in any form you can't unpublish it. You can write a retraction, and withdraw it from sale (or your website) but you can't do a Ministry of Truth (We have always been at war with Eurasia!) on it.
they just need to add ONE LINE of text to ONE plaintext file
Specifically, this one.
Here's the current nytimes.com/robots.txt. Notice for instance it allows all robots ("User-agent : *"), but bars them from the "partners" and "archive" sections.
PS
Well, I did have the file pasted here, but Slashdot's fucking lameness filter prevents me from posting it, so use the link above if you're interested.
It's not the spam that's the problem, if you use your head, you get no spam. It's the hassle of logging on
If you let the NYT have a cookie, and tick the "no thanks" boxes allowing them to send email, it is complely transparent. Since the cookie is linked to a throwaway email account and all the name, address, etc is fake, I can't see any issue at all. Since registering a year ago I've never received any email from them. (The account redirects to my normal one.)
And lastly, once a site requires registration, even if free, Copyright ptohibits quoting entire articles on the web. This indeed could be the prime reason for this.
Registration has nothing to do with copyright, either strengthening or weakening it. What law is this? Please provide a citation for this claim.
It's not at all silly. It's just been overtaken by evidence (such as the 3 degree background radiation). I don't know whether Gold still defends it, but when proposed (back in the 1940s) it was entirely reasonable.
First, if webcasting is "so expensive that the small guys are forced out", how come the same price structure is so cool for playing songs legally?
Because the idea is that each listener becomes a broadcaster, and pays their share, which is minuscule. Webcasting is expensive as the webcaster has to pay the fee for per listener for hundreds or thousands of his audioence. Another way to look at it is webcasting on a subscription base.
This is an (honestly weak) attempt to limit people from requesting songs and then keeping them on their computer for reuse
Yes, you might imagine that judges would look dimly on this (as they do on tax dodging schemes that follow the letter but not intent of the law). However, Apple has created and sold the highly popular iPod, which has several gig capacity, and can easlily be used to copy mp3s from machine to machine. TO prevent this it has an admonition like "Please don't steal music" stuck on it. So there is a good precedent, and Apple's lawyers might even come to the defence.
Fantasy-ish shows dealing with interesting issues through the use of cartoonish characters that serve as a foil for the seriousness of situations always seemed to be at the heart of science fiction for me.
No, a thousand times no.
While stuff like that can be good (as Dr Who, Red Dwarf and other British series -- if the Americans have ever done anything watchable on those lines I must have missed it), the heart of (TV) SF is stuff like Babylon 5, and in eras past, The Twilight Zone, some Star Trek (TOS) and mostly serious drama like these. The equation of science-fiction with "cartoonish" is teeth-grinding, and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Slashdot Mirror
What was the life expectancy of these superior nomads? Forty? Fifty? The infant mortality is/was fierce too. The society gave an appearance of health, because invalids were shortly dead. (As eskimos setting the elderly adrift on icefloats.)
But there were many other differences in lifestyle than diet. Exercise mostly. Also, the relatively isolated communities had much lower incidence of viruses (but a lot more fleas, tapeworms and other parasites); when they came in contact with Western explorers most were devastated by flu, smallpox, etc -- they did not have superior resistance to disease, just less exposure.
money we are loosing
Sure. But none of the fake papers you mentioned were US passports. Evidently then they're already secure enough.
>That would explain why social conditionsfor the chronicly unemployed are so great.
And it also explains why people remain unemployed, because companies can just get existing staff to work themselves into an early grave instead of hiring new staff, under the implied or explicit threat of losing their job completely.
Strange, I've been working in publishing over 10 years. I've found offset printers don't care what software you use, just give them separated film that works. Maybe the ones you use integrate output or work direct to plate; and I've found output centres (that make film) eager for work. Often their operators don't know how to use anything except the standard apps you list, but in the end the film (or platemaking) machines are Postscript printers. So I just dumped my output to PS. Then looked up the manual for the film RIP and showed the operator how to output it. More recently with PDF it's become rather easier, as PDF workflow has become standard. As for placing files, I make either EPS or TIFF, and no one has any problems with using them. I've done over 40 books and countless smaller jobs this way. FYI, I used an ancient DOS version of Ventura and CorelDraw for most of them. Sneer away -- they work, and the quality is higher than most large publishers'. The key is knowing what are the standard (mostly open) file formats, and use them for interchange, create them how you will.
There is a large disclaimer at the top of the cached page saying that the page is NOT "part of [Google's] own site".
fair use...
Obviously this is getting into legalities. Google has lawyers, so I'm sure they will defend themselves should it come to court. Perhaps that no one, to my knowledge, has sued them for this shows that they have a good grounds. Personally, I think that it's not much of an extension of the ordinary way a page is propagated through the Internet. On the web, "archiving", "distributing", "publishing", "reading", all quite distinct for paper publishing, are technically distinguished more by intent than process.
The general criterion of assessing damages in a copyright case is whether the copyright owner has been damaged. I don't see how they are. Especially as the vast majority (RTFA) of people click on the direct link rather than the cache, thus they get more traffic. Also, not everyone WANTS more traffic. (Could they then sue for Google (or Slashdot) sending them more traffic?)
Under some conditions, basically satisfying "fair use" in copyright.
Or are you saying that putting up any material on the web in any form grants others an arbitrary licence to copy and republish it?
No, I didn't say that at all.
I did study that, long ago. But I thought the suggestion was fusion? Here we're probably dealing with plasma in magnetic bottles rather than lumps of metal, which I think is rather more volatile. Anyway, if a reactor (of either type) can be built at all I think that the reactions must be well-understood enough that quite simple automated controls would do better and more reliably than a biological system. Have you ever seen the movie China Syndrome?
Yes, but more to the point: Chernobyl, where turning off the automated systems and trusting he operators was probably the cause of the disaster.
It's not intended to, but if it does, that IS a benfit to the original site.
but it's still stealing the traffic.
If it's displaying the original ads, then what's the problem?
Anyone else starting to feel that caches really aren't worth it?
Caches are for the benefit of the browser, not the webmaster. Once you pit something on the web, free for anyone to view, you give up a degree of control over the distribution. Not entirely, of course, but once it's being carried by servers and all the other intermediaries on the Internet, as it must, then you must also assume that copies of it will be created for shorter or longer periods. Otherwise, put your content on a dial-up BBS.
No. So can you stop using me as your straw man now?
1. I wasn't critiquing the movie, but a suggestion made in the post I was replying to.
2. So what is "the larger point"?
I have rather strong reasons -- nuclear reactions proceed in nanoseconds. Human brains react in milliseconds at best. Secondly, the circuitry that you'd need to process the raw data from the reactor into something analog the brain could deal with, then do the reverse to control the reactor would be more complex than a purely digital system that didn't use brains at all. And if you really did want to put brains in the loop, use something simpler like cockroaches or goldfish that don't need to be entertained.
Yes. I'd rather not have a Star Trek image; especially not this one.
>Maybe if you actually visited them, so they could get some revenue from their advertising, they could afford more bandwidth?
I'm pretty sure that Google's web cache (not images.google.com) does not cache images. I often notice when loading a page from Google's cache link that it pauses, and I see the line "waiting for response from [the original site]), and if I abort that I see the page with some missing images.
So if you look at a cached page, the images, and specifically banners, are coming from the original site, and so you still see their ads.
Just thought I'd share a method I use to read "Archived" articles. Often I get a reference to NYT article, but following it leads to NYT's page telling me I have to pay to read it from their archive. But the NYT search on their site gives you a paragraph or two of text from the article. Copy a slab of that, paste it into Google. You almost always find the entire article in question, either on another newspaper's site (that has syndicated the article from the NYT) that doesn't have registration at all, or even pasted into a blog, or usenet post, etc.
I completely disagree. The utility of the cache is not for big sites like the NYT, but the myriad of small sites, posted on flaky webservers on distant parts of the web. The "webmasters" may have specific knowledge you want to look up, but their HTML is quite likely some abortion exported from Word; they would have no clue if asked about caching.
the inflammatory words would still be accessible trough Google's cache....Now, some of you may argue that I could just write Google and ask them to remove the page
That was a point raised in the article. But it's bogus for two reasons: 1) When Google re-spiders the page in question, it updates its cache, or deletes it if the page is gone. There will be a lag, but usually within a few weeks 2) That the text you want to retract is still available is fine, it's not your responsibility, just as if you'd written it in a newspaper you can't go down to the library and rip out the page from their bound issues. Once you've published it in any form you can't unpublish it. You can write a retraction, and withdraw it from sale (or your website) but you can't do a Ministry of Truth (We have always been at war with Eurasia!) on it.
Specifically, this one.
Here's the current nytimes.com/robots.txt. Notice for instance it allows all robots ("User-agent : *"), but bars them from the "partners" and "archive" sections.
PS
Well, I did have the file pasted here, but Slashdot's fucking lameness filter prevents me from posting it, so use the link above if you're interested.
If you let the NYT have a cookie, and tick the "no thanks" boxes allowing them to send email, it is complely transparent. Since the cookie is linked to a throwaway email account and all the name, address, etc is fake, I can't see any issue at all. Since registering a year ago I've never received any email from them. (The account redirects to my normal one.)
Registration has nothing to do with copyright, either strengthening or weakening it. What law is this? Please provide a citation for this claim.
It's not at all silly. It's just been overtaken by evidence (such as the 3 degree background radiation). I don't know whether Gold still defends it, but when proposed (back in the 1940s) it was entirely reasonable.
Because the idea is that each listener becomes a broadcaster, and pays their share, which is minuscule. Webcasting is expensive as the webcaster has to pay the fee for per listener for hundreds or thousands of his audioence. Another way to look at it is webcasting on a subscription base.
Reading TFA
Yes, you might imagine that judges would look dimly on this (as they do on tax dodging schemes that follow the letter but not intent of the law). However, Apple has created and sold the highly popular iPod, which has several gig capacity, and can easlily be used to copy mp3s from machine to machine. TO prevent this it has an admonition like "Please don't steal music" stuck on it. So there is a good precedent, and Apple's lawyers might even come to the defence.
rem lootmp3.bat
copy c:\Music\*.mpx c:\mp3\*.mp3
No, a thousand times no.
While stuff like that can be good (as Dr Who, Red Dwarf and other British series -- if the Americans have ever done anything watchable on those lines I must have missed it), the heart of (TV) SF is stuff like Babylon 5, and in eras past, The Twilight Zone, some Star Trek (TOS) and mostly serious drama like these. The equation of science-fiction with "cartoonish" is teeth-grinding, and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.