And I do not see it as a problem or unfairness, since strict adherence to the (conservative reading of) law would leave us with zero such repositories. Personally, I do not believe that non-commercial copying of anything should be against the law. But I am trying to be reasonable, I am happier with a compromise than without, and I welcome every little step towards that goal.
Yes, thanks to Google, we will have a single online database with "orphaned" books. As opposed to a non-existent online database of said books. Granted, I would rather have a non-profit government entity to maintain this library, but since librarians are not doing a diddly squat to make it happen, I will gladly accept Google's work.
Saying that Google will have a "monopoly" is dubious, imho. As far as I understand, Google will not own copyright on any of these works, but merely will have a court decision allowing it to display them. How the hell is that bad? Up until now, no one could put these things online. Google effectively breached the wall of copyright, with a clear benefit for the public. It is not even a lesser evil we have to settle for, it is a clear win for everyone...
...Except for publishers, of course, who are afraid of competition from perfectly good books that are free to access. Oh heavenly muses, how will they ever sell new books if anyone can access old books with comparable content? Does it mean they will have to top them? To seek out and publish writings that are superior to the stuff that is 50 years old? Oh boy, what a gloomy future it must be for them, nothing but hard work ahead. Good bye, millions of dollars for sitting on your ass in a hot tub and frying your brain at coke parties.
Yeah, well, they are getting smarter. Especially with video streams, they have an option of gluing the ad stream to the content, which would render ABP useless. But then again, there are otherplaces to get your TV fix, completely ad free[1].
Besides streaming, they have no hope. Just like with spam, but even more so, website ads are susceptible to filtering by content. It would be a nice project to have: a trainable plug-in which allows the user to mark ads by clicking on them (if they are objects) or by selecting pieces of text. If a well-trained filter can block, say, 95% of all ads on your favorite website, then you feel 20 times better and they are totally boned. What are they going to do?, post 20 times more ads?
[1] Although the websites themselves may be littered with ads:)
No heaven? Ridiculous. We have so many ads for it here on earth. For a guy who has no real competition, God is throwing a lot of cash on marketing and PR.
I stand corrected. I meant to say that USA did not participate much, relative to the involvement of the main cast. In downplaying USA's participation, I did not mean to deny it altogether.
I cannot say I share your unbridled optimism with regard to the H-bomb. I would be surprised not to see a global conflict in my lifetime. It is going to be terrible, just unbelievably awful, but that alone will not stop it from happening. It does not matter if anyone can truly benefit from the conflict. The only big net winner in WWII was USA, and that only because the war did not go anywhere near it. Germany and Russia wanted war and lost. Allies were against the war, and they also lost, even though they won on paper.
Just give us a few decades to cram a few more billion people onto the planet and outline a few ideological differences on the subject of a bearded man in the sky. Then take your lawn chair onto the roof and enjoy the show.
P.S. It does not have to a nuclear war, by the way, could as well be biological, especially because it is cheaper, I suppose. My point is, the history shows that after weapons are stockpiled for a while there always comes a time when they are used to capacity.
Hahaha they are a hopeful bunch. If they want people to stop sharing files, they have to outlaw the most pervasive piece of file-sharing software ever, a little thing called OS.
The term's primary meaning is the name of one island. It is also used as a synonym for the name of one sovereign state, which is a notion entirely different from island and archipelago. Note how much EB sucks when it mixes up geographical and political notions.
Great Britain
island, Europe
also called Britain
Main
island lying off the western coast of Europe and consisting of England, Scotland, and Wales. The term is often used as a synonym for the United Kingdom, which also includes Northern Ireland and a number of offshore islands.
"Great Britain." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 31 Mar. 2009
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/243007/Great-Britain
Great Britain is an island lying to the northwest of Continental Europe. It is the ninth largest island in the world, and the largest in Europe. With a population of approximately 58.9 million people, it is the third most populated island on Earth. Ireland is to its west, and it is surrounded by over 1000 smaller islands and islets.
31 Mar. 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_britain
I agree:) Art is a great way to propagate complex ideas. After reading your reply I looked at a print I have on my wall, and thought that if I wanted to explain to a layperson what we do with foundations of mathematics, I could as well start by showing a picture.
I did not read the article and I do not know much about Quantum Physics, but I know a thing or two about Hausdorff dimension. While it is an intriguing idea, I really doubt that it is instrumental to "making sense", unless by that they mean an explanation that only graduate students in Topology can understand.
I agree, except that it will be trivial for worms to evolve to be sexier than spammers, which, for the latter, ruins any possibility of getting the girls.
This rule does not make much sense. If I build a computer, bounds on the HD space will be determined according to the intended use, and a purchase will be made within these bounds, while getting a nice ratio of price to size. I found though that having 2 hard drives is extremely useful for a different reason: it makes OS transition a walk in the park.
This, I think, is the reason why OSS is generally of poor quality (generally speaking) compared to closed source competition. Whereas OSS is driven by addressing specific needs, closed source must compete on its merits and advantages. This leads to very utilitarian software for OSS (Ubuntu) and much more colorful and creative software for closed source (Apple's OSX).
I respectfully disagree. I am not sure how exactly you compare Ubuntu to OS X, but in my book Ubuntu is more stable, more responsive, supports more hardware, has more software (that I actually want to use for my work), and if you want to talk bells and whistles, Ubuntu + Compiz totally dwarfs MS's and Apples puny attempts at desktop eye candy.
You see, Ubuntu is like a common weasel, because it is graceful and kind of brownish, where as OS X is more like platypus, something god threw together right after he created weed.
This example is better than you likely realize. After I heard the first witness, I was totally convinced, but the second witness completely reversed the argument. If I was on the panel, I'd have no idea whom to believe.
Far from being the death of news, what you're hearing is the death-knell of the free-as-in-beer news content on the internet.
What are the chances of that happening, i.e. free-as-in-beer news disappearing? Probably much worse than free Hollywood blockbusters going away. You say you are working for the guys. Is it a well-perceived problem, that as long as you put anything online, it will be aggregated somewhere else for free? You see, I completely agree with you when it comes to journalism requiring significant compensation (if only because of costs involved), but who is going to pay if it is free elsewhere?
If what you say comes true, they will tax the internet heavily (forget that it is unfair to the highest degree, since the internet is a bundle of distilled goodness which helps everyone by making the entire mass of Human culture available to everyone, everywhere, at a nominal cost). This is when the real game will begin: hijacking internet connections and using them for free. Hey, I'll be there.
Seriously. I think Doom 3 was the only Doom I actually played all the way through without cheating, even though I spent an unholy number of hours on 1 and 2. And mod me down, but I liked how they handled the flashlight.
You are a continuing source of inspiration to our entire team. Just like when Cartman was tricked by Scott Tenorman, and got back at him by killing his parents, processing them into chili, feeding it to the boy, and then humiliating him in front of Radiohead.
Slashdot Mirror
And I do not see it as a problem or unfairness, since strict adherence to the (conservative reading of) law would leave us with zero such repositories. Personally, I do not believe that non-commercial copying of anything should be against the law. But I am trying to be reasonable, I am happier with a compromise than without, and I welcome every little step towards that goal.
Yes, thanks to Google, we will have a single online database with "orphaned" books. As opposed to a non-existent online database of said books. Granted, I would rather have a non-profit government entity to maintain this library, but since librarians are not doing a diddly squat to make it happen, I will gladly accept Google's work.
Saying that Google will have a "monopoly" is dubious, imho. As far as I understand, Google will not own copyright on any of these works, but merely will have a court decision allowing it to display them. How the hell is that bad? Up until now, no one could put these things online. Google effectively breached the wall of copyright, with a clear benefit for the public. It is not even a lesser evil we have to settle for, it is a clear win for everyone...
...Except for publishers, of course, who are afraid of competition from perfectly good books that are free to access. Oh heavenly muses, how will they ever sell new books if anyone can access old books with comparable content? Does it mean they will have to top them? To seek out and publish writings that are superior to the stuff that is 50 years old? Oh boy, what a gloomy future it must be for them, nothing but hard work ahead. Good bye, millions of dollars for sitting on your ass in a hot tub and frying your brain at coke parties.
Yeah, well, they are getting smarter. Especially with video streams, they have an option of gluing the ad stream to the content, which would render ABP useless. But then again, there are other places to get your TV fix, completely ad free[1].
Besides streaming, they have no hope. Just like with spam, but even more so, website ads are susceptible to filtering by content. It would be a nice project to have: a trainable plug-in which allows the user to mark ads by clicking on them (if they are objects) or by selecting pieces of text. If a well-trained filter can block, say, 95% of all ads on your favorite website, then you feel 20 times better and they are totally boned. What are they going to do?, post 20 times more ads?
[1] Although the websites themselves may be littered with ads :)
No heaven? Ridiculous. We have so many ads for it here on earth. For a guy who has no real competition, God is throwing a lot of cash on marketing and PR.
How do you know there are no ads in Heaven?
I stand corrected. I meant to say that USA did not participate much, relative to the involvement of the main cast. In downplaying USA's participation, I did not mean to deny it altogether.
I cannot say I share your unbridled optimism with regard to the H-bomb. I would be surprised not to see a global conflict in my lifetime. It is going to be terrible, just unbelievably awful, but that alone will not stop it from happening. It does not matter if anyone can truly benefit from the conflict. The only big net winner in WWII was USA, and that only because the war did not go anywhere near it. Germany and Russia wanted war and lost. Allies were against the war, and they also lost, even though they won on paper.
Just give us a few decades to cram a few more billion people onto the planet and outline a few ideological differences on the subject of a bearded man in the sky. Then take your lawn chair onto the roof and enjoy the show.
P.S. It does not have to a nuclear war, by the way, could as well be biological, especially because it is cheaper, I suppose. My point is, the history shows that after weapons are stockpiled for a while there always comes a time when they are used to capacity.
They decide to make filesharing software illegal.
Hahaha they are a hopeful bunch. If they want people to stop sharing files, they have to outlaw the most pervasive piece of file-sharing software ever, a little thing called OS.
Yes!
Man, I am not a geographer. I am just quoting Wiki, who says that Greenland is (geographically) a part of North America.
Great Britain
island, Europe
also called Britain
Main
island lying off the western coast of Europe and consisting of England, Scotland, and Wales. The term is often used as a synonym for the United Kingdom, which also includes Northern Ireland and a number of offshore islands.
"Great Britain." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 31 Mar. 2009
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/243007/Great-Britain
Great Britain is an island lying to the northwest of Continental Europe. It is the ninth largest island in the world, and the largest in Europe. With a population of approximately 58.9 million people, it is the third most populated island on Earth. Ireland is to its west, and it is surrounded by over 1000 smaller islands and islets.
31 Mar. 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_britain
The term "Great Britain" seems only to exist to piss off the Irish
From Wikipedia: Great Britain is an island. I hope that cleared things up a bit.
I agree :) Art is a great way to propagate complex ideas. After reading your reply I looked at a print I have on my wall, and thought that if I wanted to explain to a layperson what we do with foundations of mathematics, I could as well start by showing a picture.
I did not read the article and I do not know much about Quantum Physics, but I know a thing or two about Hausdorff dimension. While it is an intriguing idea, I really doubt that it is instrumental to "making sense", unless by that they mean an explanation that only graduate students in Topology can understand.
I agree, except that it will be trivial for worms to evolve to be sexier than spammers, which, for the latter, ruins any possibility of getting the girls.
This rule does not make much sense. If I build a computer, bounds on the HD space will be determined according to the intended use, and a purchase will be made within these bounds, while getting a nice ratio of price to size. I found though that having 2 hard drives is extremely useful for a different reason: it makes OS transition a walk in the park.
This, I think, is the reason why OSS is generally of poor quality (generally speaking) compared to closed source competition. Whereas OSS is driven by addressing specific needs, closed source must compete on its merits and advantages. This leads to very utilitarian software for OSS (Ubuntu) and much more colorful and creative software for closed source (Apple's OSX).
I respectfully disagree. I am not sure how exactly you compare Ubuntu to OS X, but in my book Ubuntu is more stable, more responsive, supports more hardware, has more software (that I actually want to use for my work), and if you want to talk bells and whistles, Ubuntu + Compiz totally dwarfs MS's and Apples puny attempts at desktop eye candy.
You see, Ubuntu is like a common weasel, because it is graceful and kind of brownish, where as OS X is more like platypus, something god threw together right after he created weed.
This example is better than you likely realize. After I heard the first witness, I was totally convinced, but the second witness completely reversed the argument. If I was on the panel, I'd have no idea whom to believe.
Far from being the death of news, what you're hearing is the death-knell of the free-as-in-beer news content on the internet.
What are the chances of that happening, i.e. free-as-in-beer news disappearing? Probably much worse than free Hollywood blockbusters going away. You say you are working for the guys. Is it a well-perceived problem, that as long as you put anything online, it will be aggregated somewhere else for free? You see, I completely agree with you when it comes to journalism requiring significant compensation (if only because of costs involved), but who is going to pay if it is free elsewhere?
Yea, friend, you speak the truth. Diablo 3 will be the first game I will seriously consider buying since WoW.
If what you say comes true, they will tax the internet heavily (forget that it is unfair to the highest degree, since the internet is a bundle of distilled goodness which helps everyone by making the entire mass of Human culture available to everyone, everywhere, at a nominal cost). This is when the real game will begin: hijacking internet connections and using them for free. Hey, I'll be there.
Within a week? I wouldn't expect to wait that long.
Seriously. I think Doom 3 was the only Doom I actually played all the way through without cheating, even though I spent an unholy number of hours on 1 and 2. And mod me down, but I liked how they handled the flashlight.
You are a continuing source of inspiration to our entire team. Just like when Cartman was tricked by Scott Tenorman, and got back at him by killing his parents, processing them into chili, feeding it to the boy, and then humiliating him in front of Radiohead.
Hmm. I don't think it's a big enough of a lie.