> > Why should I as a copyright owner have to OPT OUT of Google violating my copyright?
> > Shouldn't Google ask me for permission before copying my content?
> Because you opted in to the Internet, or more specificaly the world wide web.
> And google won't find your pages unless someone links to them > [my emphasis], or the URL's are submitted to google.
I thought we were past the "just because it's on the web it's okay to copy it" stage. Yes, you've given implicit permission for people to view it (unless it's password-protected). But any more than that? Very questionable.
There's a fine line between caching for search purposes, and allowing access to those caches (going beyond the 'search' usage). I'd say allowing search engines unless stated otherwise is an implicit permission, but that's debatable.
Someone *else* linking to a page does *not* imply anything in particular. Submitting it to Google *might*, but not everyone has submitted their page to Google.
> If you didn't want people to view it you would take measures, such as not posting it online, or by password protecting it.
We were talking about caching, not viewing.
And, if everything's so cut and dried, consider a similar case. I posted a load of stuff to Usenet years back; no *explicit* permission was given to do stuff with what I posted. It tended to be fairly ephemeral then, the expectation being that articles would disappear after a while. Did I give permission for people to archive them for years, and make them available after ten years? Did I give permission for others to take my posts from Usenet, repackage them and post them on commercial websites (with advertisements tacked on), often made to appear as if they were posted to that website's groups rather than Usenet?
I still occasionally post to Usenet under an alias, and I still don't consider that I give implied permission (even now) for that last case. Just because "it happens" doesn't make it legal. On the other hand, the original Usenet "implied permissions" (e.g. copying my post from server to server across the world) still apply; some might argue that the newer ones do too.
Anyway, IANAL, but you can see that something fairly simple like that really isn't. You seem to think that putting something on the web implies a whole raft of implied permissions, but I'm sure that few of these would be entirely undisputed in court if push came to shove.
You obviously didn't think then. China isn't a communist country (if they ever were). "(Non-)Free Market Fascism" is way closer to what they are up to just now.
Even if they still call themselves communist; well, East Germany and North Korea had "democratic" in their names, and they transparently weren't.
I for one welcom or new chinese overlords.
I don't know quite how funny this was meant to be, but I do read some stuff on/. pretty much celebrating the Chinese government because of action X being more enlightened than US/EU/Western government policies.
Well, perhaps. Until you view it as part of the whole Chinese government regime which no westerner in their right mind would want to live under, regardless of a few more "enlightened" copyright laws. And they almost certainly implemented them because it was in their own interests to do so.
Once we realized the WMDs weren't in Iraq, we should have left.
No. Once you 'realised' (call me a sceptic, but I don't believe that those in power ever seriously believed that) that there were no WMDs, you (or rather, 'we'; I'm from the UK) had already invaded the country. It would have been grossly immoral to leave the country in that chaotic state; doubly so, since the premise of the war was flawed, if not falsified (i.e. turns out you/we didn't have the right to "kick down the door").
Yep, I'm glad Saddam's out, but that wasn't the basis for war (the fact that some in the US government implied it was, in retrospect, proves how dishonest they are).
Fucking hell man, I don't even LIKE hippies. They're extremists, and they piss me off. But don't even try to call them out regarding their integrity... 'cause damn, most criticism directed their way is from people who have no goddamn legs to stand on.
My criticism wasn't directed at all hippies; it was directed at the bandwagon-jumping rich Californian-types who played hippie for 3 years in the late 1960s (a good excuse to smoke pot and sleep around, but don't tell me they meant it more than that) then went back to their corporate ways.
Anyhow, B&J's have to give the Toyota Prius-driving "left-wing" types (left wing by US standards, perhaps) something to feel good about while they're driving to the mall.
this sterotype of hippies starting big companies I hear mostly from people who are on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
In fact, the only criticism of B&J's that I've found so far is by conservatives attacking their ideals.
That's interesting. What exactly do you think my political opinions are?
Hint; if I ever met an American "conservative", he'd probably think I was a communist (I'm not, I don't even consider myself socialist- probably centre-left by UK standards, but that's beside the point).
The myth of the Hippies going whoreporate is a coping mechanism for cube dwellers. It makes them think that everyone eventually will adopt their lifestyle.
What did happen in the 60s was a large number of maleable individuals tried adopting the Hippie lifestyle. Then they became disco freaks in the 70s before putting on collars and dress shoes to work as cogs in the great mill of capitalism.
That was pretty much the people I was referring to; the people who pretended to be hippies, who *thought of themselves as hippies*, and are possibly still kidding themselves.
Ben and Jerry probably still do think of themselves as counterculture types...
On the contrary, my stereotype of 'Burning Man' was, and is a bunch of Wired-reading Californian rich kids with iPods (*) and the like playing at being Pagans, and pretending to do the hippie thing for a few days.
Not that dissimilar to the more bandwagon-jumping hippies in the 1960s, who went on to found large, corporate companies and sell out (a la "Ben and Jerries", one of the worst examples of corporate hippie culture), whilst living off their supposed hippie credentials. Plus ca change...
(*) Okay, iPods are *way* mainstream now. Replace with whatever that pretentious rag is recommending they buy this month.
I believe that M$ has a clause in their contract that says you can't even look at GPL'd software. I know a few people at my school that were suckered into working there and now they can't work on OSS for a few years, or something.
Is that legal in the US? I doubt it would stand up in the UK if it was simply a cover-all "can't touch OSS", or whatever.
Bear in mind some companies will put all sorts of garbage into contracts and so on, in the hope that some of it sticks- or more likely, that people won't want to take the effort to prove that the clause is illegal.
Of course, if a company puts a transparently non-enforcable (by the laws of one's own country) clause in a contract, you could probably sign it, ignore it when you left, and tell the company where to go.
You see to think that design means asthetics. It doesn't.
I'd mod you up to 5 if it were possible.
"The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald Norman gives a number of examples of where designers have chosen aesthetics over usability.
For example, symmetrical doors that don't make clear where they are hinged.... or better, and more commonly, doors with pull handles on both sides, even when one side is meant to be pushed (although I suspect the latter example may be down to lack of thought on the part of the people who put in the doors).
If I thought harder, I'm sure I could come up with some good examples, but the point is.... you're absolutely right. Design is more than aesthetics.
No, we used Amigas. That way, we didn't have to wait five minutes till a locked-up telnet client that couldn't connect would hand back the co-operative multitasking. *shudder*
And BTW, I think the floppy disk reference was discussing its potential capacity using more advanced drive technology with the same disk.
Mmmm.... listen, a good troll is never that silly. It's got to be remotely believable.
If you can't manage yourself, there are sites dedicated to coming up with trolls that people like you can insert your own text into. I think you'd be better doing that until you gain some experience.
Its a shame chix dig cars and money over chips and body oder
And punctuation and spelling too....;)
Oh, hang on, they don't.
Anyway, if you're looking for a girl who enjoys eating chips and has body odour, you simply have to lower your standards a bit. Quite the opposite to the normal way round, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
> > Why should I as a copyright owner have to OPT OUT of Google violating my copyright?
> > Shouldn't Google ask me for permission before copying my content?
> Because you opted in to the Internet, or more specificaly the world wide web.
> And google won't find your pages unless someone links to them
> [my emphasis], or the URL's are submitted to google.
I thought we were past the "just because it's on the web it's okay to copy it" stage. Yes, you've given implicit permission for people to view it (unless it's password-protected). But any more than that? Very questionable.
There's a fine line between caching for search purposes, and allowing access to those caches (going beyond the 'search' usage). I'd say allowing search engines unless stated otherwise is an implicit permission, but that's debatable.
Someone *else* linking to a page does *not* imply anything in particular. Submitting it to Google *might*, but not everyone has submitted their page to Google.
> If you didn't want people to view it you would take measures, such as not posting it online, or by password protecting it.
We were talking about caching, not viewing.
And, if everything's so cut and dried, consider a similar case. I posted a load of stuff to Usenet years back; no *explicit* permission was given to do stuff with what I posted. It tended to be fairly ephemeral then, the expectation being that articles would disappear after a while. Did I give permission for people to archive them for years, and make them available after ten years? Did I give permission for others to take my posts from Usenet, repackage them and post them on commercial websites (with advertisements tacked on), often made to appear as if they were posted to that website's groups rather than Usenet?
I still occasionally post to Usenet under an alias, and I still don't consider that I give implied permission (even now) for that last case. Just because "it happens" doesn't make it legal. On the other hand, the original Usenet "implied permissions" (e.g. copying my post from server to server across the world) still apply; some might argue that the newer ones do too.
Anyway, IANAL, but you can see that something fairly simple like that really isn't. You seem to think that putting something on the web implies a whole raft of implied permissions, but I'm sure that few of these would be entirely undisputed in court if push came to shove.
Aye, they should ask for permission, but I doubt it would be so successful if it asks for permission.
You haven't answered his question; as devil's advocate he asked "Why should I as a copyright owner have to OPT OUT of Google violating my copyright?"
Maybe the copyright doesn't care about your point. Why should they, if they don't want their work copied?
More importanly, what about the legal position of caching stuff without permission?
I think China (that comunist country)
/. pretty much celebrating the Chinese government because of action X being more enlightened than US/EU/Western government policies.
You obviously didn't think then. China isn't a communist country (if they ever were). "(Non-)Free Market Fascism" is way closer to what they are up to just now.
Even if they still call themselves communist; well, East Germany and North Korea had "democratic" in their names, and they transparently weren't.
I for one welcom or new chinese overlords.
I don't know quite how funny this was meant to be, but I do read some stuff on
Well, perhaps. Until you view it as part of the whole Chinese government regime which no westerner in their right mind would want to live under, regardless of a few more "enlightened" copyright laws. And they almost certainly implemented them because it was in their own interests to do so.
but here in Oxford I thought google was only scanning really old stuff that is too fragile to be read
Bad news! I just found out that the stuff you're copying is actually *still copyrighted*.
Apparently, the person responsible had the King's ear, and persuaded him to extend the copyright on that material in exchange for financial support.
Documents state that the guy was an illustrator who made a fortune from drawing mice; his name was "Walte Disnye".
Have _you_ gone to burningman?
No, I think he went to Birmingham by mistake; that's why he was pissed off.
Once we realized the WMDs weren't in Iraq, we should have left.
No. Once you 'realised' (call me a sceptic, but I don't believe that those in power ever seriously believed that) that there were no WMDs, you (or rather, 'we'; I'm from the UK) had already invaded the country. It would have been grossly immoral to leave the country in that chaotic state; doubly so, since the premise of the war was flawed, if not falsified (i.e. turns out you/we didn't have the right to "kick down the door").
Yep, I'm glad Saddam's out, but that wasn't the basis for war (the fact that some in the US government implied it was, in retrospect, proves how dishonest they are).
Funny, I didn't spot a single iPod in that gallery.
Of course not; that's "so four years ago", which I believe I alluded to in the original message.
If they have iPods, they're probably iPod Nanos which are discreetly stored up their left nostril.
Fucking hell man, I don't even LIKE hippies. They're extremists, and they piss me off. But don't even try to call them out regarding their integrity... 'cause damn, most criticism directed their way is from people who have no goddamn legs to stand on.
My criticism wasn't directed at all hippies; it was directed at the bandwagon-jumping rich Californian-types who played hippie for 3 years in the late 1960s (a good excuse to smoke pot and sleep around, but don't tell me they meant it more than that) then went back to their corporate ways.
Anyhow, B&J's have to give the Toyota Prius-driving "left-wing" types (left wing by US standards, perhaps) something to feel good about while they're driving to the mall.
this sterotype of hippies starting big companies I hear mostly from people who are on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
In fact, the only criticism of B&J's that I've found so far is by conservatives attacking their ideals.
That's interesting. What exactly do you think my political opinions are?
Hint; if I ever met an American "conservative", he'd probably think I was a communist (I'm not, I don't even consider myself socialist- probably centre-left by UK standards, but that's beside the point).
The myth of the Hippies going whoreporate is a coping mechanism for cube dwellers. It makes them think that everyone eventually will adopt their lifestyle. What did happen in the 60s was a large number of maleable individuals tried adopting the Hippie lifestyle. Then they became disco freaks in the 70s before putting on collars and dress shoes to work as cogs in the great mill of capitalism.
That was pretty much the people I was referring to; the people who pretended to be hippies, who *thought of themselves as hippies*, and are possibly still kidding themselves.
Ben and Jerry probably still do think of themselves as counterculture types...
Oh yeah; slogan....
"Burning Man: It's like those villages in 'Firefly', but with more SUVs and naked hippies"
Natural selection? I vote that they go back to "burning man" 1973 style.
That should weed out the suburbanites from the real pagans (^_^)
On the contrary, my stereotype of 'Burning Man' was, and is a bunch of Wired-reading Californian rich kids with iPods (*) and the like playing at being Pagans, and pretending to do the hippie thing for a few days.
Not that dissimilar to the more bandwagon-jumping hippies in the 1960s, who went on to found large, corporate companies and sell out (a la "Ben and Jerries", one of the worst examples of corporate hippie culture), whilst living off their supposed hippie credentials. Plus ca change...
(*) Okay, iPods are *way* mainstream now. Replace with whatever that pretentious rag is recommending they buy this month.
I am not going to ask volunteers to change their home computer's OS just to one program
No, but they might change it for 100.
Not saying I agree with that point of view 100%, but it's a valid response to your criticism.
Some others would claim that porting open source to Windows acts as a gateway to adoption of (e.g.) Linux.
I believe that M$ has a clause in their contract that says you can't even look at GPL'd software. I know a few people at my school that were suckered into working there and now they can't work on OSS for a few years, or something.
Is that legal in the US? I doubt it would stand up in the UK if it was simply a cover-all "can't touch OSS", or whatever.
Bear in mind some companies will put all sorts of garbage into contracts and so on, in the hope that some of it sticks- or more likely, that people won't want to take the effort to prove that the clause is illegal.
Of course, if a company puts a transparently non-enforcable (by the laws of one's own country) clause in a contract, you could probably sign it, ignore it when you left, and tell the company where to go.
The whole purpose of uk.com is to mislead gullible people into thinking they are buying a real domain.
.co.uk.
You do realise that the large UK chain GAME chain used a uk.com address and had it printed on their bags at one stage?
The game.uk.com address redirects now; but the point is, they used it as their primary address not so long ago....
Though I agree with you.... uk.com always struck me as ropey 'unofficial' alternative to
You see to think that design means asthetics. It doesn't.
I'd mod you up to 5 if it were possible.
"The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald Norman gives a number of examples of where designers have chosen aesthetics over usability.
For example, symmetrical doors that don't make clear where they are hinged.... or better, and more commonly, doors with pull handles on both sides, even when one side is meant to be pushed (although I suspect the latter example may be down to lack of thought on the part of the people who put in the doors).
If I thought harder, I'm sure I could come up with some good examples, but the point is.... you're absolutely right. Design is more than aesthetics.
was anyone else here brought up on windows 3.1?
No, we used Amigas. That way, we didn't have to wait five minutes till a locked-up telnet client that couldn't connect would hand back the co-operative multitasking. *shudder*
And BTW, I think the floppy disk reference was discussing its potential capacity using more advanced drive technology with the same disk.
Mmmm.... listen, a good troll is never that silly. It's got to be remotely believable.
If you can't manage yourself, there are sites dedicated to coming up with trolls that people like you can insert your own text into. I think you'd be better doing that until you gain some experience.
Is that an iPod in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
Not with the iPod Nano, presumably.
"Is that an iPod Nano in your pocket, or do you just have a small penis?"
Most airlines don't allow devices with radio tuners to be used in-flight, and I LIKE to use my iPod in-flight. And the radio sucks anymore.
Is FM usable at all under those conditions? Even if it's receivable, you'd have to retune every few minutes as the plane was moving so fast.
AM might be a better bet, but who wants to listen to music on AM these days?
Its a shame chix dig cars and money over chips and body oder
;)
And punctuation and spelling too....
Oh, hang on, they don't.
Anyway, if you're looking for a girl who enjoys eating chips and has body odour, you simply have to lower your standards a bit. Quite the opposite to the normal way round, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Assuming that's what you wanted, of course....
I'm not sure about other English speaking parts of the world, but Australians still refer to "grog" as
Australians? I thought we were discussing English speaking parts of the world here...
*ducks*
Unless archaelogists can somehow prove nonexistence of "prior art"
Ugg the Caveman go patent business method for selling fermented fruit. You no like, you go prove!
You sue Ugg in patent court, Ugg hit patent lawyer with club (Patent #2; A device for hitting people).
Does anyone use BASIC nowadays?
Visual BASIC doesn't really count, as it's not really like traditional BASIC...
He claimed that Japanese women found him irresistable, which I found kind of amusing [..] Many old timers think he's all talk and no action
As did the Japanese women when he left...
there's no denying
His achievements? Truly an American icon.
Whatever happened to the "Stephen King found dead at his Maine home" trolls?