Indeed, that law cannot be misused. What people might consider misuse of the law is exactly what it was intended for, and therefore is use, not misuse.
Gravitaiton doesn't use mass squared, it uses the product of two different masses (at least Newtonian gravitation, GR doesn't directly use mass at all, only energy and momentum). So naively inserting an imaginary mass into Newton's gravitational force for both particles will indeed give repulsion (i.e. two imaginary masses would repulse each other). However putting in one imaginary and one real mass (to find out how tachyons interact with an ordinary mass) would give an imaginary force. I have no idea what that would describe. Dragging particles into an imaginary direction?
(whatever the hell that is -- I know what the Lorentz Transformation is, I know what O(1,3) is, I know what a Lie algebra is, but "Lorentz Factor" -- capitalized, no less -- I can only assume that you mean \gamma)
Actually AFAIK the U.S. was not formed as a democracy, but as a "politeiacracy" (I just made up that word; I'm sure there's a correct word for it, too): It wasn't the people, but the states who decided on everything from the president to the senate. Now the states were deciding democratically, but as far as I understand, there weren't strictly required to. For example it would have been perfectly acceptable if one state had decided that its electors are determined by the government instead of by people's votes. Indeed, the very fact that there are electors instead of the people voting for the president directly is caused by this: It's the states (through the electors) who decide on the president, and it's the people in the state who decide for whom the state shall vote. Note that if the goal had been for the people to vote for the president, it would have been a much easier (and more fair, IMHO) solution to just count all votes, independent of which state they are given in, and the one who gets the most votes becomes president.
It is also funny because the organization that is providing him with a legal defense (FIRE) is one that I first became aware of because of promotion of it (and its mission) by a card carrying member of the NRA (Mike Adams), who appears to be an active member of FIRE (although I have been unable to find clear documentation of this, however, FIRE has a biography of him on its website and links to many of his columns).
Well, after all, he wants defence for a FIREfly poster. Of course he will get legal defence from FIRE.
Funny that someone who would rant about his first amendment rights would have a problem with the NRA.
What's funny about that? Now if someone who would rant about his second amendment rights would have problems with the NRA, that would be sort of funny.
That's not the proper definition of conservative. A conservative, in proper definition, cares about conserving the status quo, in other words, he wants things to mainly remain as they are. If there's currently freedom, the aims of a (proper defined) conservative and a (proper defined) liberal agree. Otherwise, they don't.
What about removing software from first tier, and at the same time increase the requirements of the second tier to those currently used on the first tier? 8 years is a much better time frame for software patents than 20 years, given the speed of development in the computer industry.
Of course, an even better solution would be to remove software patents completely, but I fear that won't happen (well, nor will my suggestion above, I guess).
A browser is a browser is a browser. The browser in this case was built on the platform of the web. If it were a native software package would you hold a different view?
No. It doesn't matter what type of software is used. It matters who has access to the result. Put the very same web server on your own computer, with access only to you, and there's no problem at all. (Well, except for the fact that he violated the robots.txt standard; that's something even private people shouldn't do).
The same is true where I live. From a photographer's perspective, it sucks. Some companies steal pictures all the time. When they get away with it, they pay nothing. When dragged before court, they only pay what they should have paid in the first place.
That would break a lot of things. For a start, Linux (being GPLed, not public domain) would probably no longer be available on the internet (at least not legally).
Note that public domain includes the possibility for others to take that work and put their name on it instead of yours. I think few people would like that to happen to their work.
And given the craziness of the U.S copyright law, I'd not even be surprised if then that other person could gain copyright on that work and order you to take your work, which now is infringing on their copyright, off the net.
From what I understood from TFA, Zoocasa didn't comply with the robots.txt standard, and that was a point considered in the ruling. Since Google does comply with the robots.txt standard, I don't think this ruling can be directly transferred to Google.
This is more like leaving your possessions on your front lawn with a "Take Me" sign attached.
No. Making it publicly readable, even by automated agents, doesn't imply that you can use what you've just read in any way you like, especially not redisplay it in different context.
If I'm on a public place, I have to accept that I might appear in photographs taken at that place. That doesn't mean that I can't object if such a photograph is then publicly put on display.
Slashdot Mirror
The EU isn't the Euro
Obviously, or else you could buy it for $1.34 :-)
Indeed, that law cannot be misused. What people might consider misuse of the law is exactly what it was intended for, and therefore is use, not misuse.
any country can do whatever they want at any time ...except the UK, until we manage to get some sensible politicians to vote for.
Huh? The UK has managed to get quite a few exceptions from the EU treaties.
Gravitaiton doesn't use mass squared, it uses the product of two different masses (at least Newtonian gravitation, GR doesn't directly use mass at all, only energy and momentum). So naively inserting an imaginary mass into Newton's gravitational force for both particles will indeed give repulsion (i.e. two imaginary masses would repulse each other). However putting in one imaginary and one real mass (to find out how tachyons interact with an ordinary mass) would give an imaginary force. I have no idea what that would describe. Dragging particles into an imaginary direction?
Dark energy is just "we don't know what happens, but if we insert this term into our equations, it works."
Theories now can produce universes?
What it the thickness of space? How do you measure it? What happens if space gets thinner?
Indeed.
And what is the most reasonable thing to do if you fear inflation? Well, get rid of your money before it loses its value.
-1: sexist
He or she didn't make any distinction between the two sexes. Therefore it was not sexist.
Actually AFAIK the U.S. was not formed as a democracy, but as a "politeiacracy" (I just made up that word; I'm sure there's a correct word for it, too): It wasn't the people, but the states who decided on everything from the president to the senate. Now the states were deciding democratically, but as far as I understand, there weren't strictly required to. For example it would have been perfectly acceptable if one state had decided that its electors are determined by the government instead of by people's votes. Indeed, the very fact that there are electors instead of the people voting for the president directly is caused by this: It's the states (through the electors) who decide on the president, and it's the people in the state who decide for whom the state shall vote. Note that if the goal had been for the people to vote for the president, it would have been a much easier (and more fair, IMHO) solution to just count all votes, independent of which state they are given in, and the one who gets the most votes becomes president.
Well, after all, he wants defence for a FIREfly poster. Of course he will get legal defence from FIRE.
What's funny about that? Now if someone who would rant about his second amendment rights would have problems with the NRA, that would be sort of funny.
But he's a theater professor! His whole job is about drama! :-)
So much for next season's production of "To Kill a Mockinbird."
Well, he could still advertise it as "To [censored] a Mockingbird"
Unless there's also an anti-mockingbird rule, that is.
The right to bare arms? You mean the right to wear short-sleeved shirts?
That's not the proper definition of conservative. A conservative, in proper definition, cares about conserving the status quo, in other words, he wants things to mainly remain as they are. If there's currently freedom, the aims of a (proper defined) conservative and a (proper defined) liberal agree. Otherwise, they don't.
What about removing software from first tier, and at the same time increase the requirements of the second tier to those currently used on the first tier? 8 years is a much better time frame for software patents than 20 years, given the speed of development in the computer industry.
Of course, an even better solution would be to remove software patents completely, but I fear that won't happen (well, nor will my suggestion above, I guess).
A browser is a browser is a browser. The browser in this case was built on the platform of the web. If it were a native software package would you hold a different view?
No. It doesn't matter what type of software is used. It matters who has access to the result. Put the very same web server on your own computer, with access only to you, and there's no problem at all. (Well, except for the fact that he violated the robots.txt standard; that's something even private people shouldn't do).
If you don't see the difference between using another browser to view the content and using a program to republish the content, I can't help you.
The same is true where I live. From a photographer's perspective, it sucks. Some companies steal pictures all the time. When they get away with it, they pay nothing. When dragged before court, they only pay what they should have paid in the first place.
Don't they additionally have to pay court costs?
That would break a lot of things. For a start, Linux (being GPLed, not public domain) would probably no longer be available on the internet (at least not legally).
Note that public domain includes the possibility for others to take that work and put their name on it instead of yours. I think few people would like that to happen to their work.
And given the craziness of the U.S copyright law, I'd not even be surprised if then that other person could gain copyright on that work and order you to take your work, which now is infringing on their copyright, off the net.
From what I understood from TFA, Zoocasa didn't comply with the robots.txt standard, and that was a point considered in the ruling. Since Google does comply with the robots.txt standard, I don't think this ruling can be directly transferred to Google.
The images of the houses are definitely copyrightable.
No. Making it publicly readable, even by automated agents, doesn't imply that you can use what you've just read in any way you like, especially not redisplay it in different context.
If I'm on a public place, I have to accept that I might appear in photographs taken at that place. That doesn't mean that I can't object if such a photograph is then publicly put on display.