Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking)
on
Safe Cigarettes?
·
· Score: 1
Dietary. Very low-fat diets with a good mix of nutrients along with a social stigma against overeating. They smoke, but lead rather healthy lives aside from that.
I'm really sick of hearing this argument when people point out inaccuracies. He did fix it. Good for him. I'm not going to fix it, because I think wikipedia is bunk and that for every intelligent bit of information there's going to be at least an equal amount of subjective, incorrect or inaccurate junk. I'm not going to waste my time working on fixing something I don't believe in, and pointing out an error in it doesn't give me an obligation to.
Still need a warrant from a federal judge, albeit in some cases a secret one. If you don't have one, you can go for the immediacy excuse, but then you have to explain later or get slapped. Federal Judges aren't monkeys, you know.
Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And if there was an actual call to 911 for an emergency that you weren't aware of?
It would help if the people disparaging handwriting recognition had actually used Decuma. Right now my biggest problem with my PDA (Dell Axim WinMobile2003) is that Decuma doesn't support Mobile 2003 devices, so I can no longer use it. For both Japanese AND English, the software is spot-on. Right now I'm using a hacked version of the Japanese IME that a very clever hacker got working for Japanese and the standard transcriber, and my note-taking (in english) has been slowed down immensely with transcriber over decuma's english system. I'm considering just getting a Palm when I upgrade so I have it for input again. It's really that good.
A corporation is a legal entity. It can be sued, taxed, and by its officers as proxy, jailed. It is a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated, and gains many of the same protections human citizens do.
for the first, in my opinion it would not be an indirect commercial purpose if google was doing it strictly pro-bono, without any money from the linked site or cut of the sale's profits, because google's copying did not cause google to be enriched in any way. If, like you mentioned, a vendor paid google to put a link next to the exerpt, that would be a problem. If they simply got a cut of the profits, that would be kinda shady (legal term), since the link itself isn't making google any money, and at that point it's just a referral service, much like a librarian telling you the nearest bookstore. It's more specific, however, and since google gets money off it I think it would likewise disqualify the service. Ads next to the book queries would be a direct commercial purpose, because google makes money directly off advertising revenue and it is making an effort to pair the information in its archive with specific advertisements that make them money.
But, like I said, this is my opinion. I like a poster below's sig... "I am a lawyer, but I am not YOUR lawyer." so it's not legal advice or painstakingly researched.
You're correct that copying without permission into their digital archive would not be allowed if they have done it with even indirect commercial purposes. They are, however, allowed to do so if it is not for commercial purposes, since an archive is allowed if its access it is administered on a nonprofit basis and any queries/research done with it are also not for profit. They're actually two different prongs of the copyright law, google copying for commercial purpose is a violation of the right to make copies, whereas allowing people to use their not-for-profit service for commercial use is a violation of the distribution right. That argument also applies to the "pristine digital copy" that you referred to. Motive and action are the important questions regarding its legal status.
It was an arkansas suit, he had no property in-state and they didn't want to go federal... the case was Grace v. MacArthur, I believe. I believe it's still good law. My point was mostly to illustrate that ideas adapt.
The "up to the heavens" idea is still around, it's just been modified so that it's the area within possible use. I recall a person being served process in an airplane over Arkansas while he was passing over it to give jurisdiction.
Old ideas don't go away, that's not how our system works. They get modified.
There seems to be a bit (hah!) of confusion regarding Fair Use Rights. People seem to think that it means that you can just copy part of something and that's all hunky-dorey, which it isn't. Fair use is a doctrine (though in the past 3 decades codified) which describes an exception to the basic copyright. What Google is doing here isn't directly covered under section 108 of the copyright act (archival/library copying) is therefore definitely not solid. Those that fall outside the exemption were dealt with by a 4-4 Supreme Court tie in Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States. A big mess.
Additionally, the reproduction of works must be targetted, and fair use doesn't extend to research that is done for commercial purpose. So google would have to make sure that any research that was done with its engine was not-for-profit and for educational purpose. From section 108 of the copyright act: "[applicable if] the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage." So not only is copying for a commercial purpose a violation (ala Texaco), the section that defines copyright also includes as part of the balance "(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." Harper & Row in particular ruled that 300 words was enough for infringement if the words were important and there was a significant economic impact either to the benefit of the infringer or detriment of the rightsholder.
There really needs to be some education about copyright laws before fair use doctrine gets thrown around as a justification for copying world+dog. People seem to think variously that there's a constitutional right, a blanket gaurantee of it, no limitations on it, and a hard and fast rule for its application. The response to all of those beliefs is a very emphatic NO.
A professional group which an aggrieved party belongs to may bring suit jointly or on their behalf because they have an interest in the party member. This is pretty standard. It can even be a separate incorporation that has a sufficiently close relationship to the group, like, say, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
This all ignores a real problem- that sources (such as News Corp's rag) had been. for a long while, actively whoring the psp and deriding the ds. In one cares there was a "comparison" when the psp wasn't out in *any* market.
Unsurprisingly, I believe the psp got a 9 or somesuch.
As another poster said, the UN is a treaty organization.
So would it not then be ideal for this sort of job? After all, what is a global telecommunications network if not a large number of countries entering into legal agreements to connect/share/whatever resources? So, then, what happens when a dispute arises between the US and another country or countries about it? Right now, we would just tell them to shove off, and that works reasonably well. For now.
While we may have made the internet and control most of it, but that won't stand up forever. By divesting some amount of control, however, we can effectively create a hedge against someone else's complete control and make sure any of our interests are properly protected.
Educational use and parody aren't fair use. Parody is actually covered by derivative works and educational use is spelled out separately.
Fair use is actually not very fuzzy at all. Time shifting was justified by a very logical extention of the concept... ie, you "own" a viewing of a show, since you are entitled to it should you be present, and not being present by otherwise seeing it is simply an extention of that "right."
You can do that with any book, actually, though only smallish bookstores make use of it. If people want an example of publishers looking out for the "little guy," that would probably be it... the refund helps retain profits spectacularly for stores that don't have lots of branches and sinkholes to dump unused books into.
How are bloat and innovation mutually exclusive? I would argue that they are completely independent, as innovation can take the form of both loads of innovative features (which may bloat) or excellent performance (innovate programming/interoperability).
WindowsCE was also a latecomer to the market, with a handful of systems already available when it hit market. Additionally, the advantages of the windows monopoly is mostly in developer support for the platform and software library. Many developers don't deal with handheld devices at all, and CE software isn't directly portable, so there's no preexisting library. Sure, there are foundations, but there are so many limitations on the handheld that it's a huge change.
If you're going to just whine and moan about Microsoft, wait until you have a point. Yelling "Monopoly!" at everything they say doesn't help anyone in the discussion.
Every once in a while, someone asks this question...
I'm a big fan of mwave.com. You can almost always find good deals on something at least similar to the model you want, it's easy to build a complete system because they a) market their own cheap (yet reliable) brand of cases and b) will stick the CPU and RAM on the board you buy and test the whole thing before shipping it out.
And even if you don't do that, and you get a defective motherboard (like I did), they'll replace it very, very quickly, no questions asked (I believe they had the replacement ready and sent it right after my defective one arrived).
As a Japanese scholar, I don't get why people are obsessed with adding "-san" to peoples' names. It's not English, people! You want English, use Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. or whatever!
It would be like someone talking about a German, in English, and calling them Herr [whatever]. It just doesn't make sense.
It wouldn't be a copyright violation, though it would be a type of possesion, because you are a consumer (browser) which is currently recieving *and* holding, for at least a temporary amount of time, an item (page) or service (downloading) from an originator with the right (holds a copyright) to distribute copies.
An illegal originator could even be one's self, in the internet's case. Cracking into a pay-site would count, since you are obtaining the item in question without paying the cost for it. It would be the same idea as counterfeiting.
Copyright infingement would be weird in this case, you would have to do something like point apache's docroot to your temporary file directory, thus making you both a legal consumer (recieved item from copyrighted originator) and an *illegal* producer (becoming an uncopyrighted originator.
This would, however, clear up a possible defense that file-sharers could concievably (thought probably not with much success) use against a copyright violation lawsuit; possession of an item from an illegal originator is also illegal, so a filesharing-type person who didn't share anything but rather horded all their files would also be vulnarable.
As it is, you have to be actively sharing files (copyright violation) to get in trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
Dietary. Very low-fat diets with a good mix of nutrients along with a social stigma against overeating. They smoke, but lead rather healthy lives aside from that.
I'm really sick of hearing this argument when people point out inaccuracies. He did fix it. Good for him. I'm not going to fix it, because I think wikipedia is bunk and that for every intelligent bit of information there's going to be at least an equal amount of subjective, incorrect or inaccurate junk. I'm not going to waste my time working on fixing something I don't believe in, and pointing out an error in it doesn't give me an obligation to.
Yes, who can forget the great culture war between the religious right and Lucent. Technology was never the same.
More games like Shenmue? So what you'd really like to see is more Sailors?
Still need a warrant from a federal judge, albeit in some cases a secret one. If you don't have one, you can go for the immediacy excuse, but then you have to explain later or get slapped. Federal Judges aren't monkeys, you know.
And if there was an actual call to 911 for an emergency that you weren't aware of?
It's "unreasonable" search. Not "any search."
It would help if the people disparaging handwriting recognition had actually used Decuma. Right now my biggest problem with my PDA (Dell Axim WinMobile2003) is that Decuma doesn't support Mobile 2003 devices, so I can no longer use it. For both Japanese AND English, the software is spot-on. Right now I'm using a hacked version of the Japanese IME that a very clever hacker got working for Japanese and the standard transcriber, and my note-taking (in english) has been slowed down immensely with transcriber over decuma's english system. I'm considering just getting a Palm when I upgrade so I have it for input again. It's really that good.
I was just about to comment that--
[Remainder of post unavailable at your security clearance. The Computer is your friend.]
And I'm sure they'll share it with Nintendo, since the original PSX started as a jointly-designed disc drive for the SNES!
Wait....
A corporation is a legal entity. It can be sued, taxed, and by its officers as proxy, jailed. It is a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated, and gains many of the same protections human citizens do.
for the first, in my opinion it would not be an indirect commercial purpose if google was doing it strictly pro-bono, without any money from the linked site or cut of the sale's profits, because google's copying did not cause google to be enriched in any way. If, like you mentioned, a vendor paid google to put a link next to the exerpt, that would be a problem. If they simply got a cut of the profits, that would be kinda shady (legal term), since the link itself isn't making google any money, and at that point it's just a referral service, much like a librarian telling you the nearest bookstore. It's more specific, however, and since google gets money off it I think it would likewise disqualify the service. Ads next to the book queries would be a direct commercial purpose, because google makes money directly off advertising revenue and it is making an effort to pair the information in its archive with specific advertisements that make them money.
But, like I said, this is my opinion. I like a poster below's sig... "I am a lawyer, but I am not YOUR lawyer." so it's not legal advice or painstakingly researched.
You're correct that copying without permission into their digital archive would not be allowed if they have done it with even indirect commercial purposes. They are, however, allowed to do so if it is not for commercial purposes, since an archive is allowed if its access it is administered on a nonprofit basis and any queries/research done with it are also not for profit. They're actually two different prongs of the copyright law, google copying for commercial purpose is a violation of the right to make copies, whereas allowing people to use their not-for-profit service for commercial use is a violation of the distribution right. That argument also applies to the "pristine digital copy" that you referred to. Motive and action are the important questions regarding its legal status.
It was an arkansas suit, he had no property in-state and they didn't want to go federal... the case was Grace v. MacArthur, I believe. I believe it's still good law. My point was mostly to illustrate that ideas adapt.
The "up to the heavens" idea is still around, it's just been modified so that it's the area within possible use. I recall a person being served process in an airplane over Arkansas while he was passing over it to give jurisdiction.
Old ideas don't go away, that's not how our system works. They get modified.
There seems to be a bit (hah!) of confusion regarding Fair Use Rights. People seem to think that it means that you can just copy part of something and that's all hunky-dorey, which it isn't. Fair use is a doctrine (though in the past 3 decades codified) which describes an exception to the basic copyright. What Google is doing here isn't directly covered under section 108 of the copyright act (archival/library copying) is therefore definitely not solid. Those that fall outside the exemption were dealt with by a 4-4 Supreme Court tie in Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States. A big mess.
Additionally, the reproduction of works must be targetted, and fair use doesn't extend to research that is done for commercial purpose. So google would have to make sure that any research that was done with its engine was not-for-profit and for educational purpose. From section 108 of the copyright act: "[applicable if] the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage." So not only is copying for a commercial purpose a violation (ala Texaco), the section that defines copyright also includes as part of the balance "(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." Harper & Row in particular ruled that 300 words was enough for infringement if the words were important and there was a significant economic impact either to the benefit of the infringer or detriment of the rightsholder.
There really needs to be some education about copyright laws before fair use doctrine gets thrown around as a justification for copying world+dog. People seem to think variously that there's a constitutional right, a blanket gaurantee of it, no limitations on it, and a hard and fast rule for its application. The response to all of those beliefs is a very emphatic NO.
A professional group which an aggrieved party belongs to may bring suit jointly or on their behalf because they have an interest in the party member. This is pretty standard. It can even be a separate incorporation that has a sufficiently close relationship to the group, like, say, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
This all ignores a real problem- that sources (such as News Corp's rag) had been. for a long while, actively whoring the psp and deriding the ds. In one cares there was a "comparison" when the psp wasn't out in *any* market.
Unsurprisingly, I believe the psp got a 9 or somesuch.
Then again, this IS the land of Edge....
As another poster said, the UN is a treaty organization.
So would it not then be ideal for this sort of job? After all, what is a global telecommunications network if not a large number of countries entering into legal agreements to connect/share/whatever resources? So, then, what happens when a dispute arises between the US and another country or countries about it? Right now, we would just tell them to shove off, and that works reasonably well. For now.
While we may have made the internet and control most of it, but that won't stand up forever. By divesting some amount of control, however, we can effectively create a hedge against someone else's complete control and make sure any of our interests are properly protected.
Educational use and parody aren't fair use. Parody is actually covered by derivative works and educational use is spelled out separately.
Fair use is actually not very fuzzy at all. Time shifting was justified by a very logical extention of the concept... ie, you "own" a viewing of a show, since you are entitled to it should you be present, and not being present by otherwise seeing it is simply an extention of that "right."
You can do that with any book, actually, though only smallish bookstores make use of it. If people want an example of publishers looking out for the "little guy," that would probably be it... the refund helps retain profits spectacularly for stores that don't have lots of branches and sinkholes to dump unused books into.
How are bloat and innovation mutually exclusive? I would argue that they are completely independent, as innovation can take the form of both loads of innovative features (which may bloat) or excellent performance (innovate programming/interoperability).
WindowsCE was also a latecomer to the market, with a handful of systems already available when it hit market. Additionally, the advantages of the windows monopoly is mostly in developer support for the platform and software library. Many developers don't deal with handheld devices at all, and CE software isn't directly portable, so there's no preexisting library. Sure, there are foundations, but there are so many limitations on the handheld that it's a huge change.
If you're going to just whine and moan about Microsoft, wait until you have a point. Yelling "Monopoly!" at everything they say doesn't help anyone in the discussion.
Every once in a while, someone asks this question...
I'm a big fan of mwave.com. You can almost always find good deals on something at least similar to the model you want, it's easy to build a complete system because they a) market their own cheap (yet reliable) brand of cases and b) will stick the CPU and RAM on the board you buy and test the whole thing before shipping it out.
And even if you don't do that, and you get a defective motherboard (like I did), they'll replace it very, very quickly, no questions asked (I believe they had the replacement ready and sent it right after my defective one arrived).
As a Japanese scholar, I don't get why people are obsessed with adding "-san" to peoples' names. It's not English, people! You want English, use Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. or whatever!
It would be like someone talking about a German, in English, and calling them Herr [whatever]. It just doesn't make sense.
Don't worry, I don't think ANYONE can.
It wouldn't be a copyright violation, though it would be a type of possesion, because you are a consumer (browser) which is currently recieving *and* holding, for at least a temporary amount of time, an item (page) or service (downloading) from an originator with the right (holds a copyright) to distribute copies.
An illegal originator could even be one's self, in the internet's case. Cracking into a pay-site would count, since you are obtaining the item in question without paying the cost for it. It would be the same idea as counterfeiting.
Copyright infingement would be weird in this case, you would have to do something like point apache's docroot to your temporary file directory, thus making you both a legal consumer (recieved item from copyrighted originator) and an *illegal* producer (becoming an uncopyrighted originator.
This would, however, clear up a possible defense that file-sharers could concievably (thought probably not with much success) use against a copyright violation lawsuit; possession of an item from an illegal originator is also illegal, so a filesharing-type person who didn't share anything but rather horded all their files would also be vulnarable.
As it is, you have to be actively sharing files (copyright violation) to get in trouble.
Hope that helps.