If we're sending people to teach their judges how to judge, then that's what we're doing. We're saying that they don't know what they're doing, and that we, because we're a SUPERPOWER and we're RIGHT, ought to show them how its supposed to be done.
Yea, hopefully this will kill off some of the "I am a unique snowflake" crap we all inherited from our parents. We're not unique snowflakes, we're goddamn genetic duplicates! We're virtually IDENTICAL! If the human race was a pile of xerox copies, an independant observer wouldn't notice a damn thing different about us.
I always look around and fume at how everyone is so damn me-centric. Astonishingly egoistic. Everybody wants what belongs to them, everyone wants their share. Some of this is a pure result of human nature and subjective experience, but lately we've added a nice sense of entitlement which really pisses me off.
Easier to monitor searches for the company, and for stock investment information relating to the company.
Most people research the buy a little first, and since Google is pretty much the dominant research tool, they'd likely get a good sense of what was going on from looking at those numbers rather than the notional idea of a bunch of businessman types talking about stock on their gmail accounts.
They don't cover undamaged items. Other items depend on your insurance coverage; e.g water damaged clothing may be replaced if you're covered for that, but plates/glasses whose packaging is destroyed might be exempted from coverage seeing as the product is undamaged.
I did some insurance reclamation after Hugo, in Charleston. If we could find it, and it wasn't totalled (kinda like your car), they would return it and pay a reduced payout.
I'm certainly fine with allowing authors to opt out, as is Google. I see no grounds for the absurd 90 billion dollars in liability they're claiming, but it's perfectly normal for our legal system, unfortunately.
Amazon is an interesting example, because a lot of the time, they're just the middle man for a transaction between seller and customer. I think this is very much like Google's role in the proposed catalog. So if one would be vulnerable to this sort of lawsuit, so would the other. Again I think this touches on the AG's lack of technical savvy.
I think your analogy with photocoping books breaks down in this instance, because it is not Googles intent to distribute whole works, but instead very limited excerpts. In my mind this is the equivalent of a research paper with an extensive, attributed quote, something clearly understood to fall under fair use. I think if it could be proven to be Google's intent to provide free complete copys of the book, then they would clearly be in the wrong, but this does not appear to be the case.
I think the sticking point is the whole "copying" issue, but I think making a copy for the purposes of an indexed search is completely different from making a copy for distribution or even personal reading. The functional purpose is diametrically opposite. If an indexed copy were printed out it would look nothing like a readable work, with its pages grouped by topic and keyword, duplicated over and over, out of order, etc. The fact that, in all that mess, they happen to have a full copy of the work is irrelevant.
The internet is rife with directorys and top ten lists, and a lot of those occur on pages which contain ads. If you want to argue that drawing people to a page using material to which you do not own the copyright means they should have a stake in the advertising revenue, that's going to apply pretty broadly. I see stuff of my own from here on good old/. reproduced on other peoples websites, with and without citiation. I'm not going to be psycho about it, since they're not selling it.
I think the AG should view it the same way. It's a service and an homage, not a 90 billion dollar assault.
I don't know; the whole purpose is for excerpts and topic searching. No doubt they'll close the loophole that's allowing whole book viewing, now that everyone is apparently abusing it.
Newspapers make their money off ad revinue that is driven by people reading about books/music/movies/other copyrighted IP, and has been for ages. There is nothing illegal about providing a service that relates to IP, and generates ad revenue based on that.
Historically, publishers and production studios have found this so desirable that they send out free copies of their stuff to the media, for them to review.
It seems to me that they should be grateful to be included in what is, frankly, the most popular searchable database in history.
It's a grey area. By this standard, looking in a book at a bookstore is a violation of copyright, because you're reading something to which you have no rights, and the bookstore is also in violation because they do not have permission from the publishers to allow you to use the books in that manner. Librarys do it differently; the books cost a hell of a lot more, as you'll know if you've ever lost one.
Now, this sort of copyright is generally not enforced. They're not publishing it in its entirety, they're not making a profit off it's reproduction (the profit they make is incidental to the reproduction), they're citing the authors, they're not claiming ownership.
Basically they're creating a big sexy card catalog with excerpts, something my college library had back in the day.
Now, ten years ago, you could have made goodly chunks of a book available on the web, cited the author, and no one would have cared regarding copyright (well, not much anyway). Replication for non-profit reasons, where the author was given credit, was allowed.
So the "why" is that, traditionally, this sort of indexing has always been allowed. If you wanted to make a huge index in your basement of every book in your local library, including a copy of a page or two from each, you were free to do this. Now it seems clear that Google's going to have to find a hard and fast way of limiting pageviewing so the whole book isn't browsable, but this shouldn't be too difficult.
The Authors Guild is just crying like a bunch of babies, because the PHBs at the top of the food chain don't understand the idea, and the authors underneath are by and large technophobic, so they probably think Googles running some kind of Napster operation with their IP, and are running around like a bunch of loons...(disclaimer: I used to be a member of the AG, though I've slipped below eligibility as my writing code has overrun my writing fiction).
Legally, in terms of caching, the way Google's always done it is: "If you don't say we can't cache it, we will. If later, you decide you don't like that, we'll take it out." I think it's perfectly reasonable for the semi-public domain of the internet, and frankly, for the copyrighted domain as well. They're providing a service for the copyright holders, that they should be on their knees thanking them for.
Communist manifesto LC Control Number: 67002459
Type of Material: Text (Book, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.
Main Title: Communist manifesto,
Uniform Title: [Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. English]
Published/Created: London, Allen and Unwin [1961]
Related Names: Engels, Friedrich, 1820-1895, joint author.
Moore, Samuel, tr.
Laski, Harold Joseph, 1893-1950.
Description: 159 p. 19 cm.
Subjects: Socialism.
LC Classification: HX276.M3 1961
CALL NUMBER: HX276.M3 1961
Copy 1
-- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms
-- Status: Not Charged
DATABASE NAME: Library of Congress Online Catalog
Looks like it's already there to me. The point that you missed in this whole exercise is that no one is unbiased, so the more different copies that are available, the better chance for all of us to be able to find the stuff the others don't want us to read.
Uhhhhhh, it's called "Capitalism", and it's based on the economic principles of "Supply" and "Demand".
Why does J.K Rowling make zillions of dollars? Because she sells zillions of books. Why do movie theaters cost 10 bucks a person? Because people pay it, and it makes the movies profitable. Why does Brad Pitt make millions for every movie? Because more people are willing to pay 10 dollars to see a movie with Brad Pitt than there are people willing to pay 10 dollars to see the same movie WITHOUT Brad Pitt.
Not that the MPAA wouldn't LOVE your idea. Pay Brad Pitt 100k...Think the cost of a ticket would go down at your local theater? Pay J.K Rowling 100k per book. Think they wouldn't still cost $27.99 in the store?
Don't blame the damn artists. Blame the system that's leeching off them.
That's some nice math snobbery there. Mathematical ability is not the same as intelligence, and algebra is not the same as mathemicatical ability. And the ability to do basic algebra without being taught is not something that everyone has, and that lack does not make them fit for nothing but working at McD's.
I hated Calc I, I was no good at it. I loved Calc II, I found it very intutive. Hated plain algebra, loved linear algebra and geometry. Does that mean something's wrong with me? No, it just means my math abilities are far greater when I can apply them to a real world problem.
That sort of printing on demand is really difficult. Hard cover books have a different sort of binding process than they use on paperbacks...On a paperback, they just slap some glue on it, and throw a cover on it...Not much reason this couldn't be done at least somewhat on demand.
The costs of print runs go up because of negatives and plates, etc, or just plates if you're in the "Modern" age. I heard some stuff about Xerox working on a machine to do one offs, but I don't know anythign about it. With current techniques though, you have to set up a ton of stuff and run a whole lot of things through in a specific order, and it involves a lot of people, etc.
I think in the long run, we'll end up going digital for all kinds of paperback crap. Why do we need those? They're so cheaply made that bookstores destroy them if they can't be sold and only send the covers back to the distributer.
On the other hand I think this'll create a niche market for nice hardcovers as well.
Still I'd much rather see the books freely available, especially in digital format.
First of all, don't be a dumbass; not all liberals are stupid.
Second of all, the conservative types probably think GOD did it to punish N.O. for liberal drinking laws, so I wouldn't be so quick to jump onto their side.
As a RATIONAL person, eg, a MODERATE, I understand that while Katrina is completely in accordance with the predicted cyclical upswing of hurricane activity, and nothign to do with global warming it is not a bad thing for the average shmo to see that nature is a bad enemy, and to think that maybe it's time to stop trying to beat nature, which isn't going to happen, and start trying to coexist with nature, which, if done intelligently in a non-hippy-commune manner, could have substantial benefits.
Considering that AMD's chips are generally faster, cooler, and more efficient than Intel's chips, the choice of AMD would seem like a nobrainer without the Pentium M.
Apple seems to be moving hard toward mobile computing now anyway, so going for the Pentium M is a smart move all around, and it doesn't take much imagination to see those in Mac Mini's and the like in the future.
Myself, I'd have split the difference and gone with AMD for the 64 bit server chips. I think that descision is going to do good things for Sun.
You're thinking 1998. These days Dells are vendor locked propeitary boxes with substandard components, backed by the worst tech support I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with. I just spent a week trying to get them to take back a laptop that was DOA. A FRICKING WEEK.
Where I work it's three times, and the lockout on the critical systems doesn't expire--you have to be reactivated by an admin. The exception is root, but root can only log on when sitting in front of the keyboard, in the multi-locked and monitored server room.
Most of our connectivity is onsite anyway...VPN access is pretty tightly regulated...so for us to be DOS vulnerable, the attacker would have to be inside the building, on the network, and by "on" I mean "plugged into" because my boss thinks "wireless security" is an oxymoron.
It's more maintenance and more of a pain in the butt to work with than a less secure system, but we never have security related problems.
One thing I've noticed is that people type their passwords differently from everything else they type. I type mine so often its like one long click, and I hit shift multiple times during it, and sometimes hold that for 3 characters or so. I'm not a pure traditionalist typer either...my little fingers are kinda arthritic, so they only get used occasionally.
I'd be interested to see if this would work, but I don't have any real faith in it working under practical conditions. To really try and snoop someone's password, you'd have to have a well-placed, very sensitive microphone, and it could never move. Sure you could hack someones desktop mic, but mines a headset and it lays where ever I throw it...Not conducive to this sort of use.
Meh. The reality is, someone will always be willing to shoot. If you embrace a pacifist ideal, then the next guy who comes along who doesn't is going to take you down without even thinking twice about it.
And sometimes there really isn't anything you can do about the problem. You make something someone else wants. They take it, violently if need be. You live where someone else wants to live. You have food when someone else wants to eat.
Sure you can give up something every time someone asks for it, but how long will you last in that case?
Competition is the way of the world, and all the creatures on it do it all the time. If you decide you don't want to play the game, then you need to be glad that there are people with guns whose job it is to make sure you have that right.
Uhhhhhh, what's your point? We're not talking about free will here, we're talking about religious people who don't understand the bible, yet still quote tiny little pieces in order to make their shallow points.
And in point of fact, God never spoke to Eve. Adam told Eve not to eat the fruit, and she, like any other woman, said, "Who the hell made you the boss of me?" And ate the fruit. Then Adam, like a dumbass, said, "Oh well, she did it, I might as well do it to."
God said the whole fruit thing in 2:17, but he didn't create Eve until 2:22
I live around Baptists every day, mind you, crazy southern baptists. If you're a more sedate/normal northern baptist, this doesn't apply so much.
You're full of it with regards to the bible however:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26
I can imagine you are a Baptist, because A) You seem to believe the bible=the old testament and B) You don't even know crap about the old testament.
You just got schooled in the bible by an agnostic. How does that make you feel?
It's a general practice not to let a source read/edit a story. They do this because people will dither and moan and fiddle with things for days trying to make themselves look good. Politicians hysterically demand that stupid things they said be taken out. Random witnesses try to change what they said. It becomes an unending nightmare. That said, if you have a good relationship with a journalist you can call them and ask them to read off the things they're attributing to you, and they'll do it.
I do think they should have a science person on staff to correct obvious errors. A lot of it depends on getting good sources though, sources who can themselves explain the science clearly enough for someone who hasn't devoted his/her life to it to be able to write an intelligent article about it.
In addition, you fail to apprecate that the journalist may not have final say in what goes into the paper. They could write a large complete article, and then two or three sets of editors could hack out huge chunks leaving errors of fact. This stuff happens all the time.
This is not to say that some journalists aren't lazy hacks. Some of them are. But there are a lot of factors contributing to the problem.
Well it's nice to see someone being rational, but you clearly ended up on the wrong site somehow. Don't you know that anyone who can do liberal arts is retarded, while anyone with a bunch of scientific letters after their name should be running the country?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, why is this a troll?
If we're sending people to teach their judges how to judge, then that's what we're doing. We're saying that they don't know what they're doing, and that we, because we're a SUPERPOWER and we're RIGHT, ought to show them how its supposed to be done.
I guess that's one way to stop other countries with lighter IP restrictions from out innovating us...take away their advantage!
Yea, hopefully this will kill off some of the "I am a unique snowflake" crap we all inherited from our parents. We're not unique snowflakes, we're goddamn genetic duplicates! We're virtually IDENTICAL! If the human race was a pile of xerox copies, an independant observer wouldn't notice a damn thing different about us.
I always look around and fume at how everyone is so damn me-centric. Astonishingly egoistic. Everybody wants what belongs to them, everyone wants their share. Some of this is a pure result of human nature and subjective experience, but lately we've added a nice sense of entitlement which really pisses me off.
Easier to monitor searches for the company, and for stock investment information relating to the company.
Most people research the buy a little first, and since Google is pretty much the dominant research tool, they'd likely get a good sense of what was going on from looking at those numbers rather than the notional idea of a bunch of businessman types talking about stock on their gmail accounts.
They don't cover undamaged items. Other items depend on your insurance coverage; e.g water damaged clothing may be replaced if you're covered for that, but plates/glasses whose packaging is destroyed might be exempted from coverage seeing as the product is undamaged.
I did some insurance reclamation after Hugo, in Charleston. If we could find it, and it wasn't totalled (kinda like your car), they would return it and pay a reduced payout.
I'm certainly fine with allowing authors to opt out, as is Google. I see no grounds for the absurd 90 billion dollars in liability they're claiming, but it's perfectly normal for our legal system, unfortunately.
/. reproduced on other peoples websites, with and without citiation. I'm not going to be psycho about it, since they're not selling it.
Amazon is an interesting example, because a lot of the time, they're just the middle man for a transaction between seller and customer. I think this is very much like Google's role in the proposed catalog. So if one would be vulnerable to this sort of lawsuit, so would the other. Again I think this touches on the AG's lack of technical savvy.
I think your analogy with photocoping books breaks down in this instance, because it is not Googles intent to distribute whole works, but instead very limited excerpts. In my mind this is the equivalent of a research paper with an extensive, attributed quote, something clearly understood to fall under fair use. I think if it could be proven to be Google's intent to provide free complete copys of the book, then they would clearly be in the wrong, but this does not appear to be the case.
I think the sticking point is the whole "copying" issue, but I think making a copy for the purposes of an indexed search is completely different from making a copy for distribution or even personal reading. The functional purpose is diametrically opposite. If an indexed copy were printed out it would look nothing like a readable work, with its pages grouped by topic and keyword, duplicated over and over, out of order, etc. The fact that, in all that mess, they happen to have a full copy of the work is irrelevant.
The internet is rife with directorys and top ten lists, and a lot of those occur on pages which contain ads. If you want to argue that drawing people to a page using material to which you do not own the copyright means they should have a stake in the advertising revenue, that's going to apply pretty broadly. I see stuff of my own from here on good old
I think the AG should view it the same way. It's a service and an homage, not a 90 billion dollar assault.
I don't know; the whole purpose is for excerpts and topic searching. No doubt they'll close the loophole that's allowing whole book viewing, now that everyone is apparently abusing it.
Newspapers make their money off ad revinue that is driven by people reading about books/music/movies/other copyrighted IP, and has been for ages. There is nothing illegal about providing a service that relates to IP, and generates ad revenue based on that.
Historically, publishers and production studios have found this so desirable that they send out free copies of their stuff to the media, for them to review.
It seems to me that they should be grateful to be included in what is, frankly, the most popular searchable database in history.
It's a grey area. By this standard, looking in a book at a bookstore is a violation of copyright, because you're reading something to which you have no rights, and the bookstore is also in violation because they do not have permission from the publishers to allow you to use the books in that manner. Librarys do it differently; the books cost a hell of a lot more, as you'll know if you've ever lost one.
Now, this sort of copyright is generally not enforced. They're not publishing it in its entirety, they're not making a profit off it's reproduction (the profit they make is incidental to the reproduction), they're citing the authors, they're not claiming ownership.
Basically they're creating a big sexy card catalog with excerpts, something my college library had back in the day.
Now, ten years ago, you could have made goodly chunks of a book available on the web, cited the author, and no one would have cared regarding copyright (well, not much anyway). Replication for non-profit reasons, where the author was given credit, was allowed.
So the "why" is that, traditionally, this sort of indexing has always been allowed. If you wanted to make a huge index in your basement of every book in your local library, including a copy of a page or two from each, you were free to do this. Now it seems clear that Google's going to have to find a hard and fast way of limiting pageviewing so the whole book isn't browsable, but this shouldn't be too difficult.
The Authors Guild is just crying like a bunch of babies, because the PHBs at the top of the food chain don't understand the idea, and the authors underneath are by and large technophobic, so they probably think Googles running some kind of Napster operation with their IP, and are running around like a bunch of loons...(disclaimer: I used to be a member of the AG, though I've slipped below eligibility as my writing code has overrun my writing fiction).
Legally, in terms of caching, the way Google's always done it is: "If you don't say we can't cache it, we will. If later, you decide you don't like that, we'll take it out." I think it's perfectly reasonable for the semi-public domain of the internet, and frankly, for the copyrighted domain as well. They're providing a service for the copyright holders, that they should be on their knees thanking them for.
Communist manifesto
.M3 1961
.M3 1961
LC Control Number: 67002459
Type of Material: Text (Book, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Marx, Karl, 1818-1883.
Main Title: Communist manifesto,
Uniform Title: [Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. English]
Published/Created: London, Allen and Unwin [1961]
Related Names: Engels, Friedrich, 1820-1895, joint author.
Moore, Samuel, tr.
Laski, Harold Joseph, 1893-1950.
Description: 159 p. 19 cm.
Subjects: Socialism.
LC Classification: HX276
CALL NUMBER: HX276
Copy 1
-- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms
-- Status: Not Charged
DATABASE NAME: Library of Congress Online Catalog
Looks like it's already there to me. The point that you missed in this whole exercise is that no one is unbiased, so the more different copies that are available, the better chance for all of us to be able to find the stuff the others don't want us to read.
Uhhhhhh, it's called "Capitalism", and it's based on the economic principles of "Supply" and "Demand".
Why does J.K Rowling make zillions of dollars? Because she sells zillions of books. Why do movie theaters cost 10 bucks a person? Because people pay it, and it makes the movies profitable. Why does Brad Pitt make millions for every movie? Because more people are willing to pay 10 dollars to see a movie with Brad Pitt than there are people willing to pay 10 dollars to see the same movie WITHOUT Brad Pitt.
Not that the MPAA wouldn't LOVE your idea. Pay Brad Pitt 100k...Think the cost of a ticket would go down at your local theater? Pay J.K Rowling 100k per book. Think they wouldn't still cost $27.99 in the store?
Don't blame the damn artists. Blame the system that's leeching off them.
That's some nice math snobbery there. Mathematical ability is not the same as intelligence, and algebra is not the same as mathemicatical ability. And the ability to do basic algebra without being taught is not something that everyone has, and that lack does not make them fit for nothing but working at McD's.
I hated Calc I, I was no good at it. I loved Calc II, I found it very intutive. Hated plain algebra, loved linear algebra and geometry. Does that mean something's wrong with me? No, it just means my math abilities are far greater when I can apply them to a real world problem.
That sort of printing on demand is really difficult. Hard cover books have a different sort of binding process than they use on paperbacks...On a paperback, they just slap some glue on it, and throw a cover on it...Not much reason this couldn't be done at least somewhat on demand.
The costs of print runs go up because of negatives and plates, etc, or just plates if you're in the "Modern" age. I heard some stuff about Xerox working on a machine to do one offs, but I don't know anythign about it. With current techniques though, you have to set up a ton of stuff and run a whole lot of things through in a specific order, and it involves a lot of people, etc.
I think in the long run, we'll end up going digital for all kinds of paperback crap. Why do we need those? They're so cheaply made that bookstores destroy them if they can't be sold and only send the covers back to the distributer.
On the other hand I think this'll create a niche market for nice hardcovers as well.
Still I'd much rather see the books freely available, especially in digital format.
I know a guy who makes a joke about that:
*Leans his ass up against the door to open it*
*Bleep*
"When I ordered these I told them I wanted RETINAL scanners...I guess they must have misheard."
Where I work the scanners are too high up for such shenanigans.
First of all, don't be a dumbass; not all liberals are stupid.
Second of all, the conservative types probably think GOD did it to punish N.O. for liberal drinking laws, so I wouldn't be so quick to jump onto their side.
As a RATIONAL person, eg, a MODERATE, I understand that while Katrina is completely in accordance with the predicted cyclical upswing of hurricane activity, and nothign to do with global warming it is not a bad thing for the average shmo to see that nature is a bad enemy, and to think that maybe it's time to stop trying to beat nature, which isn't going to happen, and start trying to coexist with nature, which, if done intelligently in a non-hippy-commune manner, could have substantial benefits.
Considering that AMD's chips are generally faster, cooler, and more efficient than Intel's chips, the choice of AMD would seem like a nobrainer without the Pentium M.
Apple seems to be moving hard toward mobile computing now anyway, so going for the Pentium M is a smart move all around, and it doesn't take much imagination to see those in Mac Mini's and the like in the future.
Myself, I'd have split the difference and gone with AMD for the 64 bit server chips. I think that descision is going to do good things for Sun.
I just snorted a lung through my nose.
better price-performance than everybody else
You're thinking 1998. These days Dells are vendor locked propeitary boxes with substandard components, backed by the worst tech support I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with. I just spent a week trying to get them to take back a laptop that was DOA. A FRICKING WEEK.
I'll never buy another Dell.
Where I work it's three times, and the lockout on the critical systems doesn't expire--you have to be reactivated by an admin. The exception is root, but root can only log on when sitting in front of the keyboard, in the multi-locked and monitored server room.
Most of our connectivity is onsite anyway...VPN access is pretty tightly regulated...so for us to be DOS vulnerable, the attacker would have to be inside the building, on the network, and by "on" I mean "plugged into" because my boss thinks "wireless security" is an oxymoron.
It's more maintenance and more of a pain in the butt to work with than a less secure system, but we never have security related problems.
One thing I've noticed is that people type their passwords differently from everything else they type. I type mine so often its like one long click, and I hit shift multiple times during it, and sometimes hold that for 3 characters or so. I'm not a pure traditionalist typer either...my little fingers are kinda arthritic, so they only get used occasionally.
I'd be interested to see if this would work, but I don't have any real faith in it working under practical conditions. To really try and snoop someone's password, you'd have to have a well-placed, very sensitive microphone, and it could never move. Sure you could hack someones desktop mic, but mines a headset and it lays where ever I throw it...Not conducive to this sort of use.
Meh. The reality is, someone will always be willing to shoot. If you embrace a pacifist ideal, then the next guy who comes along who doesn't is going to take you down without even thinking twice about it.
And sometimes there really isn't anything you can do about the problem. You make something someone else wants. They take it, violently if need be. You live where someone else wants to live. You have food when someone else wants to eat.
Sure you can give up something every time someone asks for it, but how long will you last in that case?
Competition is the way of the world, and all the creatures on it do it all the time. If you decide you don't want to play the game, then you need to be glad that there are people with guns whose job it is to make sure you have that right.
Hurricanes are cyclical. We're entering a 25 year up cycle. There was another one in the 70s and another in the 50s.
Global warming may have an effect, but it's not the root cause of the larger than average hurricane seasons.
Uhhhhhh, what's your point? We're not talking about free will here, we're talking about religious people who don't understand the bible, yet still quote tiny little pieces in order to make their shallow points.
And in point of fact, God never spoke to Eve. Adam told Eve not to eat the fruit, and she, like any other woman, said, "Who the hell made you the boss of me?" And ate the fruit. Then Adam, like a dumbass, said, "Oh well, she did it, I might as well do it to."
God said the whole fruit thing in 2:17, but he didn't create Eve until 2:22
I live around Baptists every day, mind you, crazy southern baptists. If you're a more sedate/normal northern baptist, this doesn't apply so much.
You're full of it with regards to the bible however:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:26
I can imagine you are a Baptist, because A) You seem to believe the bible=the old testament and B) You don't even know crap about the old testament.
You just got schooled in the bible by an agnostic. How does that make you feel?
It's a general practice not to let a source read/edit a story. They do this because people will dither and moan and fiddle with things for days trying to make themselves look good. Politicians hysterically demand that stupid things they said be taken out. Random witnesses try to change what they said. It becomes an unending nightmare. That said, if you have a good relationship with a journalist you can call them and ask them to read off the things they're attributing to you, and they'll do it.
I do think they should have a science person on staff to correct obvious errors. A lot of it depends on getting good sources though, sources who can themselves explain the science clearly enough for someone who hasn't devoted his/her life to it to be able to write an intelligent article about it.
In addition, you fail to apprecate that the journalist may not have final say in what goes into the paper. They could write a large complete article, and then two or three sets of editors could hack out huge chunks leaving errors of fact. This stuff happens all the time.
This is not to say that some journalists aren't lazy hacks. Some of them are. But there are a lot of factors contributing to the problem.
Well it's nice to see someone being rational, but you clearly ended up on the wrong site somehow. Don't you know that anyone who can do liberal arts is retarded, while anyone with a bunch of scientific letters after their name should be running the country?
Last I checked, Astrology was on the comics page. Clearly, judging by the placement of Garfield, a new dark age can't be far off.