Given your theory, can you explain why medicare is the lowest overhead medial care system in the US and the highest rated on customer satisfaction? The fact of the matter is that large organizations always have lots of efficiency loss (even super far right libertarian economists admit this) but sometimes there is also a size gain that outweighs this.
you are assuming they don't know how to do accounting. They do say they saved the money on energy costs, and methane is an energy source. They also could have included capital costs in their accounting.
Um, no, the point is the technologies are, "holographic data storage", "fusion power stations", and "AI that passes the touring test." That is what I mean by "fusion" = fusion with Q > 1. We do not have fusion power. It's not like there are fusion power stations out there but it costs $10 per kWh. It's that there is no such thing.
Just going to point out we already have holographic storage. There is just no commercial products that do it yet. Contrast with fusion and Turing test passing AI.
Nature did a study and found Wikipedia was slightly less reliable than Britannica. The editors of Britannica objected to the methods, and I'm not sure I like them ether, but I think it was an honest attempt. I think all of the articles were science articles and this is from 2005, so it is not exactly what you were asking for (its not 2010).
I see, so if the law isn't the way you want it to be, it is moronic. The thing is that many artists want to share their work there way. If they can not be granted that right, they will not share their work. This means that you can't republish my book after editing it or changing around the prose, even if you first buy a copy of my book for every copy of your book that you distribute. Same thing for songs. There is no automatic license to change and redistribute if you buy a CD for every CD you distribute. One example of this is that my name goes out on that book and your style of my artwork might be absolute rubbish. It isn't just about credit, it is about expression--an essential part of art. Alternately, I might have written a beautiful story with very jerky prose at points to make a political point that I want to make very clear at those points. You can't republish it after smoothing out or removing those points--I can use the work for my purpose and you can't use it for yours.
What do you suppose is at stake in this case? Isn't storage, retrieval, and searching of the book happening? All of these are way outside of the traditional grant of fair use where someone presumably decides that the particular use does not diminish the value of the original art, or that the particular quote makes sense to quote. I agree fair use and criticism can not be excluded, but they are limited to not diminishing the value of the art. As an example, quotes as short as 300 words form books have been found to not be fair use.
Not sure what you are saying. The copyright law grants artists right of expression, the copyright law also grants fair use. I'm arguing that the DOJ is making a valid point. Where did moral rights come from?
This is a bit like saying this: I want to hike across the country from coast to coast. To do this I need to get right of way for the trip. It is difficult to find everyone to ask so I'm just going to walk the way I want and if anyone wants to, they can stop me--but the onus is on them. If I walk through their locked house (copyrighted material which says no other use is allowed) they can ask me to stop after I've entered if they notice me.
The fact that something is difficult to do legally doesn't give you license to change the law.
I think the point is actually that people who have not yet published are implicitly agreeing to this--it amounts to a change in copyright law which requires an act of congress, not google.
You are assuming that the author only wants rights for the purpose of profit. If a band only wanted their album to appear on vinyl then sellers could not sell the vinyl with a copy on CD (the end user might be able to do this, but for personal use)--the artist gets to control not just the money making from the art but also gets some control of the expression. There are i.e. albums that are not released and just a few people have hear them--the copyright holder can do this and nobody can stop them. If you made a copy of such a work (surreptitiously) you could not legally store it even if just for the purpose of searching for phrases in it--the owner can exclude you from doing that.
But if I am the copyright holder, I might want my art to not appear in excerpts (say I think it destroys the feeling of the piece). Obviously this argument is stupid for a CS textbook but might make sense for a well crafted novel or a painting where I might not want others to make black and white copies of portions of it and distribute them with information about how to buy the work from me. While I can't stop excerpting for criticism, I should be able to stop it for other uses--it is my art after all.
The point is when you create art, you have control of its expression as art. You have not only the right to exclusive sale of it but also how your work is expressed. If I own, i.e., a play and I license it, a company that produces it can not legally change the words to the play without my permission--it is my play and I can choose how it is presented.
Bullies use power to torture you. That is exactly what the school would be doing to the student who was not the aggressor.
Plus, if a kid spits on you, the right response is to ask him to stop and then move your body away from him, not to punch him. Punching him deserves punishment even if you were being spit on.
Say what? If what you say is true then you must think that if you twice tap the + button on a CC twice +4 MPH is a good idea but if you hit it that third time then more than +20 MPH is a good idea? I hope you don't work in UI design.
Re:But will it get you high when you snort it?
on
Spray-On Liquid Glass
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but that is 0.0001 g/m3 * 1/60.0843 g/molecule * 6.02*10^23 molecues/mol = 10^18 molecules / cubic meter. at 10-30 atoms thick, and assuming a each molecule takes up about 10 pm square (is that right?) you get about 2*10^25 of atoms/meter. Wait, can that be right? I must have a bad assumption or math somewhere...
I guess it depends on what you think might break. If you think the accelerator sensor might break then this is a good test. If you think the computer itself might break then it is a worthless test.
Worst thing in the world is FWD with a load in the back, swaying its way down the icy road.
I'd take bucking over fish tailing down a road any day of the week. Plus if it is really that bad then you brakes aren't going to work at all and you probably should be going pretty slow.
Even RWD enthusiast car magazines admit that they prefer AWD or even the pedestrian FWD in the snow.
Uh, if you need to apply the break just to get moving (I've never had this happen), you should stay exactly where you are--the road is going to have spots where braking is going to be a nightmare. These spots are where other drivers have skidded, which is before and in intersections--so best to stay at home. I'm sticking with my absolute (glad you love it BTW).
It is never necessary to have your foot on both. One applies positive acceleration, the other negative acceleration. The difference is the number of wheels / balance of force. On ice, trust me, you want the balance of brakes when braking and FWD or AWD when accelerating.
Slashdot Mirror
But then we'd need -1 bad car analogy, and -1 stupid nit pick on car analogy.
Given your theory, can you explain why medicare is the lowest overhead medial care system in the US and the highest rated on customer satisfaction? The fact of the matter is that large organizations always have lots of efficiency loss (even super far right libertarian economists admit this) but sometimes there is also a size gain that outweighs this.
And supreme court judges are selected by god? They are all appointees and they all have to have lots and lots of experience.
you are assuming they don't know how to do accounting. They do say they saved the money on energy costs, and methane is an energy source. They also could have included capital costs in their accounting.
What time range? Checkout the returns on a 30 year bond. He is about right (if a slightly high).
Um, no, the point is the technologies are, "holographic data storage", "fusion power stations", and "AI that passes the touring test." That is what I mean by "fusion" = fusion with Q > 1. We do not have fusion power. It's not like there are fusion power stations out there but it costs $10 per kWh. It's that there is no such thing.
"fusion" means something with sustained output > input, we have not had that. o/w we have had fusion since the 1950s.
Just going to point out we already have holographic storage. There is just no commercial products that do it yet. Contrast with fusion and Turing test passing AI.
I've registered in Chicago, and it was very easy. Voting after that registration required a drivers license though.
Nature did a study and found Wikipedia was slightly less reliable than Britannica. The editors of Britannica objected to the methods, and I'm not sure I like them ether, but I think it was an honest attempt. I think all of the articles were science articles and this is from 2005, so it is not exactly what you were asking for (its not 2010).
Since when is the civil war was recent?
I see, so if the law isn't the way you want it to be, it is moronic. The thing is that many artists want to share their work there way. If they can not be granted that right, they will not share their work. This means that you can't republish my book after editing it or changing around the prose, even if you first buy a copy of my book for every copy of your book that you distribute. Same thing for songs. There is no automatic license to change and redistribute if you buy a CD for every CD you distribute. One example of this is that my name goes out on that book and your style of my artwork might be absolute rubbish. It isn't just about credit, it is about expression--an essential part of art. Alternately, I might have written a beautiful story with very jerky prose at points to make a political point that I want to make very clear at those points. You can't republish it after smoothing out or removing those points--I can use the work for my purpose and you can't use it for yours.
What do you suppose is at stake in this case? Isn't storage, retrieval, and searching of the book happening? All of these are way outside of the traditional grant of fair use where someone presumably decides that the particular use does not diminish the value of the original art, or that the particular quote makes sense to quote. I agree fair use and criticism can not be excluded, but they are limited to not diminishing the value of the art. As an example, quotes as short as 300 words form books have been found to not be fair use.
Not sure what you are saying. The copyright law grants artists right of expression, the copyright law also grants fair use. I'm arguing that the DOJ is making a valid point. Where did moral rights come from?
The fact that something is difficult to do legally doesn't give you license to change the law.
I think the point is actually that people who have not yet published are implicitly agreeing to this--it amounts to a change in copyright law which requires an act of congress, not google.
You are assuming that the author only wants rights for the purpose of profit. If a band only wanted their album to appear on vinyl then sellers could not sell the vinyl with a copy on CD (the end user might be able to do this, but for personal use)--the artist gets to control not just the money making from the art but also gets some control of the expression. There are i.e. albums that are not released and just a few people have hear them--the copyright holder can do this and nobody can stop them. If you made a copy of such a work (surreptitiously) you could not legally store it even if just for the purpose of searching for phrases in it--the owner can exclude you from doing that.
The point is when you create art, you have control of its expression as art. You have not only the right to exclusive sale of it but also how your work is expressed. If I own, i.e., a play and I license it, a company that produces it can not legally change the words to the play without my permission--it is my play and I can choose how it is presented.
Plus, if a kid spits on you, the right response is to ask him to stop and then move your body away from him, not to punch him. Punching him deserves punishment even if you were being spit on.
Say what? If what you say is true then you must think that if you twice tap the + button on a CC twice +4 MPH is a good idea but if you hit it that third time then more than +20 MPH is a good idea? I hope you don't work in UI design.
Yes, but that is 0.0001 g/m3 * 1/60.0843 g/molecule * 6.02*10^23 molecues/mol = 10^18 molecules / cubic meter. at 10-30 atoms thick, and assuming a each molecule takes up about 10 pm square (is that right?) you get about 2*10^25 of atoms/meter. Wait, can that be right? I must have a bad assumption or math somewhere...
I guess it depends on what you think might break. If you think the accelerator sensor might break then this is a good test. If you think the computer itself might break then it is a worthless test.
Worst thing in the world is FWD with a load in the back, swaying its way down the icy road.
I'd take bucking over fish tailing down a road any day of the week. Plus if it is really that bad then you brakes aren't going to work at all and you probably should be going pretty slow.
Even RWD enthusiast car magazines admit that they prefer AWD or even the pedestrian FWD in the snow.
Uh, if you need to apply the break just to get moving (I've never had this happen), you should stay exactly where you are--the road is going to have spots where braking is going to be a nightmare. These spots are where other drivers have skidded, which is before and in intersections--so best to stay at home. I'm sticking with my absolute (glad you love it BTW).
It is never necessary to have your foot on both. One applies positive acceleration, the other negative acceleration. The difference is the number of wheels / balance of force. On ice, trust me, you want the balance of brakes when braking and FWD or AWD when accelerating.