If you publish the fact that it was published, then you are publishing facts. For example, if you say "George Bush is the anti-Christ" you are not publishing a fact, but if you say "Uncyclopedia says that George Bush is the anti-Christ" you are indeed publishing facts.
Unfortunately, last I knew in the US at least, it was not that easy. IANAL either, or a journalist, but I played a journalist in college (and don't really miss it), and if you publish that according to so-and-so, an event happened, you can still be sued if the event did not happen. That's why you need to be really careful what you say in print--you can't just get Mr X. on the street to say something happened and then quote him and get off the hook.
I'm not going to say this doesn't happen, because it does, but according to the legal folks advising us during my college years that was still a legal suit waiting to happen.
Publishing something does not make it a fact. It simply makes it published. If the information is not true, you can still get your pants sued off, as these newspapers are finding out.
That's why you should always check your sources. Learn to protect yourself from libel suits.
Have you read the work in question? And have you read the encyclopedias that already exist regarding Harry Potter that Rowling's corporate masters have chosen not to sue (for comparison's sake)?
Actually, the encyclopedia is currently available as a blog/website, and I have taken a look at it. It's the Harry Potter Lexicon.
As to encyclopedias they have chosen not to sue, I've certainly looked at some of the other books that they haven't, like the Complete Idiot's Guide to Harry Potter (which has a lot more on folklore and mythology as a basis for ideas) and Quidditch Through the Ages (which was put out by her publisher, so I assume was personally okayed.) To me, it's a matter of degree how much originality and analysis was put into it. While the owner of the Lexicon put a lot of work into it, much of it is what Rowling wrote reorganized but not necessarily analyzed in any way. (Of course, maybe I had really bad luck in what pages I chose to look at but the ones I did had no analysis at all.)
Don't get me wrong--I think it's a beautiful work, and if done with her permission would be fantastic. As fanfic, it's amazing. But if I'd created HP, I'd probably go to court over it, too.
When do you think this Bill Shakespeare guy will get around to suing Cliff and his "Notes"? Based on your expert legal assessment of the situation, I'd say he's got an excellent case.
Except that:
1) Cliffs Notes do not simply take characters, items, places, etc. and compile them into an encyclopedia about the work. They also provide a historical context for the work as well as literary commentary (including critical theories and interpretations) as to what happens in each scene. I just picked up the Cliffs Notes on Hamlet. The section on Hamlet's soliloquy definitely counts as literary analysis, not plagiarism.
2) As everyone else has already pointed out, Cliffs Notes generally cover works in the public domain and get licenses for those that are not.
You cannot take someone's works and compile the creations within them into a work that you call your own if it does not involve significant analysis or creation on your part. You can parody. You can analyze parts. You can borrow motifs, themes, ideas, archetypes, etc. You can't take every freaking item and pretend it's yours, though, just because you put it in a different order, which is essentially what this person did.
Even if Orson Scott Card says you can. He's on crack. Borrowing an idea and adding your own touches? Yeah. Everyone does that. Borrowing all your specifically named characters, items, places, etc.? Um, no.
And for the record, many authors have specific guidelines regarding fanfic. If you stick to those, you're fine. If you do not, then yes, fanfic writers can be sued.
There's a news article here from 2004 that mentions how flattered Rowling is that people are writing fan fiction. It includes a statement from her agency's spokesman that says, "Her concern would be to make sure that it remains a non-commercial activity to ensure fans are not exploited and it is not being published in the strict sense of traditional print publishing." The next sentence adds, "He said writers had to ensure that the stories were not obscene and were credited to the author and not to JK Rowling."
I'd say that makes it pretty clear that the encyclopedia author violated even the standards of her fanfic expectations by publishing it commercially and through a traditional print publisher.
That said, IMHO, playing WoW is worse than having a meaningful relationship with another person, and better than drinking yourself into a stupor every weekend in the hopes of finding a meaningful relationship with someone.
You're assuming that I'm not actually playing WoW with my significant other as part of our meaningful relationship. We can't always just sit there, staring lovingly into each other's eyes, you know. Sometimes you have to get the gang together and go kick Gruul's ass (or Moroes's ass, or Gandling's. We're not so picky.).
Why, yes, we've already signed up for Origins too. How did you know?
The social aspect is a joke. Congratulations if you somehow found people to talk to. I've met less than six people this year that could even type, let alone communicate above the level of chimp.
That's strange. I have fairly in-depth conversations about books, politics, and the game with people all the time. And yes, they're all educated people who can spell and communicate well.
Then I'd see a female night elf with a cool name like bloodsiren, think "whoa, she's hot" followed by "agh, it's probably a guy!...". ...
Um, yeah. I'd probably pretend to be AFK to avoid talking to you. That quote made you sound like Creepy Guy Looking for a Date on WoW.
Inderal has also been prescribed by doctors for patients with recurring migraines to try to reduce the number of migraines they get. Beta blockers are used for all sorts of things.
The inference in the article was that people were taking them explicitly for the purpose of boosting cognitive performance. With beta blockers, you generally take them every day. So I'd be curious to see exactly how the survey was worded. It would be very easy to pick up people admitting that they took beta blockers and saying they felt that had a positive effect on their cognitive functions--but not asking if that was the actual reason they took it or just a lucky side effect.
I often find when people talk about the Good Old Days that they are remembering things through the halcyon haze of nostalgia. People have always been corrupt. Horrible things have always happened. What was considered "lewd" behavior always occurred. There has always been abuse, poverty, murder, sin, terror, pain, and genocide.
Using a negative world view as an excuse to increase policing is a poor argument. Creating a police state does not stop crime or terrorism. It simply creates a miserable existance for the people under it who must constantly worry about the corrupt abusing their powers.
Instead of handing over power to imperfect people, aren't we better off with reasonable restrictions on use and sensible reactions? (You know, locks on doors as opposed to an armed guard in your living room, questioning everyone you invite over.)
Maybe it's time you stopped believing the alarmist news stories designed to play on people's fears and titillate their secret curiousities accurately reflected what's going on in every house in the nation instead of being fairly rare. Instead, hold a barbecue and meet your neighbors. Mine are pretty nice.
How can you write an otherwise coherent followup to my comment and miss that?!
You know, I haven't a bloody clue, especially since I read that line several times. What the hell? I've gotta cut WAY back on the crack, I see. (Librarians with reading skillz? Unpossible!) I apologise.
Way to go and rock on, then.:)
The thought process should not be "put up with DRM because distributor wants it their for the distributor's purposes/benefit even if it encumbers it to the point of being useless", but "What is the best way, within legal boundaries, to serve my patrons".
Actually, my thought process is more that SO many of my patrons want it and DO manage to use it even with the godsforsaken DRM on it that it's sort of a deal with the devil. Do I go without it and cut everyone off, or do we go with it, bitch, and pressure them to dump DRM and make it fully useable? I've opted for #2 (not that it's fully my choice, being part of a county-wide library consortium, but even if it were...). So although it wasn't fully expressed so that you understood it, my thought is to best serve my patrons... all of them, by getting what they want and trying by damndest to get it changed so it works for them.
Of course, the thought of quitting e-audiobooks altogether is always tempting when I'm dealing with a problem over the phone, but when I'm not, sense prevails and I vote for some over none. (Rather like how I'd like to get rid of all our tax forms every time some idiot screams at me because we ran out of a specific form and are waiting for the state to send more and can only print it off the Internet for him/her. But when I'm not being screamed at, I know there are people out there who need a place to go pick up a paper copy, and the public library is now the only place to get it now that the legislators' offices, post offices, and state liquor stores all stopped carrying them.) Just don't let me vote when my eye is still twitching.
Um, no. School librarians can't copy an entire audiobook multiple times and lend it out multiple times and claim that's fair use. Sorry. Not going to fly. There's a limit to how much of the whole you can copy and still have it be fair use for educational purposes. Also, the multiple copies for classroom use generally applies to things like photocopies of an essay from a collection or an article from a magazine that is copied for the whole class to read.
I'll back my words up. If you look through the Copyright Office Circular 21: Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians, you'll see that the guidelines for use for both books and music fair use include the phrases "Copying shall not:(a) substitute for the purchase of books, publishers' reprints or periodicals;" (page 8) and "Copying for the purpose of substituting for the purchase of music, except as in A(1) and A(2) above." (page 9, and the exceptions wouldn't count for you.)
Also, under the GUIDELINES FOR CLASSROOM COPYING IN NOT-FOR-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WITH RESPECT TO BOOKS AND PERIODICALS, Multiple Copies for Classroom Use it limits copying of prose: "(ii) Prose: (a) Either a complete article, story or essay of less than 2,500 words, or (b) an excerpt from any prose work of not more than 1,000 words or 10% of the work, whichever is less, but in any event a minimum of 500 words." (page 8, first column)
The GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATIONAL USES OF MUSIC limits the copying of music to the following: "2. For academic purposes other than performance, single or multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section*, movement or aria, but in no case more than 10 percent of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil.**" (page 9, second column)
So as you can see, the precedent is essentially that even for classroom use, you cannot create multiple whole copies of an entire work. At most, you can make multiple copies of about 10% of it. There are other sections that further limit things like how often a teacher can do it (not every year for the same work).
So buying one audiobook and copying it a bunch of times onto various iPods/mp3 players and lending it out to multiple students is a breach of copyright, even if done for their education. Sorry.
As the unwilling DRM expert in the school district I work for, I've told all the Librarians to NOT buy from either the Apple iTunes store or Audible.com, to instead buy the books as CD's or even Cassette Tapes and then make their own DRM-less MP3 files for use on the players the district checks out to students.
And as a librarian, I'm appalled if they listen to you. Is it easier? Yes. Is it still copyright infringement if you aren't very strict? Yes.
I think DRM is wrong, and this move is making my day. When this news first ran, I printed out the article, and I will shortly be referring to it to pressure the library e-audiobook suppliers to drop DRM from their books so that my patrons can use any mp3 player they want to listen to them.
I know DRM is a pain in the ass. Every time I get a call from a patron who can't get the (*^&^% license to download properly for their e-audiobook, I mentally imagine slapping a publisher. I am the queen of multiple versions of screenshot-heavy step-by-step instructions for senior citizens on how to find, download, transfer, and listen to e-audiobooks on various systems with various pieces of software. But sadly, that only gives me a reason to be very pointed in my conversations with reps and to examine any alternatives that pop up. It still doesn't give me the right to break copyright.
Maybe I misunderstood the way your librarians are using the books on tape/CD, though. I assumed you were using one book on CD to make multiple copies on multiple mp3 players to lend. Maybe that isn't the case. If not, I apologise.:)
Well, there are some alternatives to eBay. The ones that I know about that people are happiest with are really niche auction sites like etsy.com, which is an auction site for handmade crafts. Apparently eBay sucks for selling those as bidders don't appreciate the time spent on them. Those who wander to etsy do... so while you have a smaller pool of bidders, the overall amount bid tends to be higher. (That's what I'm told by my friend who 1) teaches a class on eBay and 2) sells jewellery online.)
After looking at the eBay fee increases (and doing the math to show a friend how much that really meant even on small items), I'd certainly be willing to check the fees and my luck over at auctions.overstock.com. Too bad Yahoo Auctions closed last year.
I can fully understand not having sufficent funds to operate all departments at 100% at all hours, but this doesn't mean you can't operate some departments without operating other departments....
That's what some libraries already do for evening or weekend hours.
Part of the problem is that if you have the building open, you may not expect those services, but other patrons might. Also, keep in mind that for each additional hour that the library is open, there are associated costs in utilities. It's not always just staff cost.
My library has two very large floors. In the evenings, we often have only two people on upstairs--one in the Computer Center and one on at Reference. Since all non-self-checkout Circulation is done downstairs, we couldn't just go without people in those departments (especially since the Computer Center has 20-30 people in it at a time, 15 on "slow" nights.) We also have difficulty controlling theft from our AV department already as it is.
Just some things to think about. A lot depends on the size and structure of your library and its security system. The more doors on the more levels, the more people you will need.:)
I'm not completely sure it's just that teenagers are not the ones paying for the account. I think it's also likely that they may not realize what they are doing is not considered acceptable by everyone, and if caught, would stop.
Most of the upstairs of my public library is a no-cell-phone zone. We ask that people take their cell phones to the area that is designated for cell phone use up here. A lot of people are simply oblivious to the rule (regardless of signs), so the staff are used to politely asking them to please take their cell phone to said location. Teenagers are MUCH more likely to react positively than older adults. It's like a light goes off in their heads, "Oh! Yes! I can go there and not bother people!" and they go. Adults aged 30+ are a mixed bag of responses, but in general they are less polite and sometimes very rude about out it. (To quote one man, "Jesus Christ, lady! Look, Mitch, I'm getting bitched at for using a cell phone in the library. I'll have to call you back." That was the response to, "Excuse me, sir, but we ask cell phone users to please step over into the vestibule area." I am such a beeyotch.)
So in my experience, teenagers are more likely to bow to societal pressure, whereas older people have a somewhat greater chance of deciding that they will do what they want, where they want, screw you for even thinking about interfering with them and their rights.
I hope you get the point. The Crusades were not a proactive attack but rather they were a defense and recapture of previously held territory.
That's one of the most simplistic explanations of the Crusades I've ever read. Let's just say there was a lot more Gold, God, and Glory in it than your post made it sound. It certainly wasn't a clearcut attempt for most people to regain lands once under their control. And yes, my bachelor's degree was in medieval history (useful, I know), so I do know somewhat what I'm talking about.
Let's see. I said, "Ah, yes. That cutting-edge research from 2002 with one out of three reviews on the page commenting on how biased it is. There's a good source of information." And later in my comment, I stated that "You need to have a context and know where the chart came from."
Your response? To quote only the last comment and then say: Oh, I fully agree. Do you have that context and did you trace the sources of the charts? Nope, you did not. You read a review and deferred to its authority. Did you verify the research you quote that found no association between vaccines and risks? Nope, you believe them as they have been published by "reputable scientists".
1. Directing someone to information from 2002 on a medical subject is sketchy. Particularly when of the reviews on the page promoting the book, 33% of them thought it was slanted. I never claimed to have looked at the book and verified the charts in it. As a librarian, I'm trained to know what is and is not worth my time to look at--and that, as old as it is and with a no-name publisher, with only 3 reviews, and with 1 of those 3 being negative, indicates that the book would not make the shelves in a library as being a reputable source.
2. For some reason, they won't let me give people vaccinations myself to test this, but since I've read enough information on several different studies (not just the ones listed here) on autism and vaccines, and the correlations that SHOULD be there just are not. But yes, who is funding the study is important information to know. However, I was keeping my post short and thought that links to a few sources might be enough to get people started on current research and articles on the subject.
3. While I do not trust drug companies in general and think they'd do almost anything to make a buck, I think your conviction on this topic falls on the lines of paranoid conspiracy theory.
I think there's a distinct difference between "being treated badly" and "not letting someone treat me like a doormat."
There are some women in America who treat men badly, just as there are some men in America who treat women badly. Then there are people who treat other people well. Those are the people you should really spend your time and energy on.
I'm not sure why any Slashdot post mentioning gender always turns into people bitching about what women are like or what men are like. In my experience, the individual variation far outweighs any gender differences. Especially in a study as laughably poor in science as this one. (I asked my 22 best friends to come over and play this game...)
Maybe instead of people focusing on how they are treated by the opposite (or same) gender, they should start focusing on the person treating them that way? Take a deep breath, stop blaming all of XX- or XY-kind, and say to yourself (or them, if truly warranted), "Wow. What a jackass." And then walk away.
Those who don't like what I've said here can express their own theories about why there is a social breakdown in the United States. (Dollar falling in value, highest percentage of population in prison, and so on and on.)
There are a lot of reasons. Life usually works that way. Lots of grey in there. Simply insinuating that it's because the women aren't nice enough to the men is very simplistic.
I mean, do you think Brazil would have a lower crime rate if your women were "meaner" to your men? Maybe you could get that murder rate down to a mere three times that of the U.S. instead of it being more than four times the American rate. It sounds kind of silly when it's turned around like that, doesn't it?
(Either that or we've got a new slogan: America's women: Keeping the murder rate down since 1920!*)
*somewhat arbitrary year--chosen since it was the year American women received the right to vote
Ah, yes. That cutting-edge research from 2002 with one out of three reviews on the page commenting on how biased it is. There's a good source of information.
Actually, there have been a number of studies recently looking at the association between vaccines and various illnesses/diseases/symptoms, particularly vaccines and autism. Every single one that I've seen published by a reputable scientist has found no link.
There's also an article in the Jan 2008 Skeptical Inquirer about vaccine safety (particularly regarding autism).
Right now, I could call up Verizon and get FiOS. In about 6 months I'll be able to call up Verizon and get FiOS TV. Hell, theyre currently installing FiOS in my parents tiny village of about 5000.
On the other hand, I can get... um, cable. Verizon is the only viable telco in my area, and they don't offer DSL service or FiOS for me. The area has the infrastructure for FiOS because the local public library paid them to put it in (and I live roughly 300 yards from said library), but since I live in an apartment building, they apparently cannot offer FiOS to me.
But hey, love the ads for High Speed Internet that they keep sending me. *rolls her eyes* I can go back to, what, 2000 and cached servers? I don't think so.
And Comcast has the local government-approved cable monopoly in the area.
Why is it somehow better to have to go down to a local library and search through books for an answer, than a quick google search? I'm doing my PhD, and pretty much everything that I need for my research is a google search away. In particular google scholar rocks.
Who said using the library meant going down there and searching through books for an answer? Most libraries pay for access to electronic databases nowadays. You can probably access them from home with your library card.
If you're finding everything you need for PhD research via Google, I'm interested in seeing what your research is on and comparing its quality to what can be found using both Google and library-financed resources. There are a lot of things published in academic journals that could very well be applicable to your research. A college or university-affiliated library is your best bet to have access to those through online databases. Google doesn't.
She says that the guide may be well-intentioned but is not well put together. She agrees with them that there are some games that children should not be allowed to play without supervision. She points out that restricting the sale of M-rated games to minors does not impact whether or not they are played at a friends house or at home if a parent purchases the item. So rather than restricting the sale, we should work on educating parents how to research titles--and do it by giving them accurate information.
I don't think that counts as being biased the other way. Biased the other way would be something more along the lines of someone saying that kids should have access to any games they want because if you shelter them, they'll just go wild later. And besides, they played GSA 2 at the age of 6 and they turned out just fine, thank you...
You don't have to agree with this mom, but acting like she's the complete opposite isn't accurate. She's educated about the games and advocates parents playing with their children and being informed about the games before condoning them.
And that we on Slashdot will continue to discuss the incorrect 36.4% of all PCs without correcting it anywhere?
It just drives me nuts when people don't bother to even check. Particularly if you're going to publish on it. I'm not saying I don't expect people to occasionally make mistakes, but I am saying that if you write an entire article using outdated information (that should throw up red flags when you LOOK at it), you look like an idiot.
"36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire installed"
That's some damned weak logic, since LimeWire's real reason for existance (and the RIAA's opposition to it) is for independant artists to get their music out.
Even worse, it's the wrong statistic. It's 36.4% of all computers with at least one p2p application installed. And that statistic was clarified over a week ago.
See my longer post on the subject here. It has the link to the clarification (and the text of it).
Certainly you understand that statistics and expressed opinions have nothing to do with constitutional rights. They're free to make estimates and inferences all they want.
Sure. Of course, I'd like it if the statistics were vaguely accurate before people go writing whole articles on them. I mean, I read that LimeWire was installed on over a third of the world's PCs and boggled at the sheer impossibility of that statistic and went looking to find what it REALLY is.
Oh, look. There's a clarification posted here from December 17 which reads:
Clarifications, Corrections In our recent report covering LimeWire installation levels, we inadvertently noted that LimeWire was found on one-third of all PCs, instead of one-third of all PCs with at least one P2P application installed. The overall installation level is 17.8%, and the data is treated properly within the report.
I'd say that 17.8% still seems stupidly high for LimeWire, but whatever. Essentially the Ars article used an obviously wrong statistic from an article that was corrected over a week ago and then added to that the assumption that having a specific piece of software on your computer means you are using it in violation of intellectual property laws.
In other words, if I were the author, I'd be really really embarrassed right now because that was one crappy piece of writing.
Slashdot Mirror
If you publish the fact that it was published, then you are publishing facts. For example, if you say "George Bush is the anti-Christ" you are not publishing a fact, but if you say "Uncyclopedia says that George Bush is the anti-Christ" you are indeed publishing facts.
Unfortunately, last I knew in the US at least, it was not that easy. IANAL either, or a journalist, but I played a journalist in college (and don't really miss it), and if you publish that according to so-and-so, an event happened, you can still be sued if the event did not happen. That's why you need to be really careful what you say in print--you can't just get Mr X. on the street to say something happened and then quote him and get off the hook.
I'm not going to say this doesn't happen, because it does, but according to the legal folks advising us during my college years that was still a legal suit waiting to happen.
Publishing something does not make it a fact. It simply makes it published. If the information is not true, you can still get your pants sued off, as these newspapers are finding out.
That's why you should always check your sources. Learn to protect yourself from libel suits.
Have you read the work in question? And have you read the encyclopedias that already exist regarding Harry Potter that Rowling's corporate masters have chosen not to sue (for comparison's sake)?
Actually, the encyclopedia is currently available as a blog/website, and I have taken a look at it. It's the Harry Potter Lexicon.
As to encyclopedias they have chosen not to sue, I've certainly looked at some of the other books that they haven't, like the Complete Idiot's Guide to Harry Potter (which has a lot more on folklore and mythology as a basis for ideas) and Quidditch Through the Ages (which was put out by her publisher, so I assume was personally okayed.) To me, it's a matter of degree how much originality and analysis was put into it. While the owner of the Lexicon put a lot of work into it, much of it is what Rowling wrote reorganized but not necessarily analyzed in any way. (Of course, maybe I had really bad luck in what pages I chose to look at but the ones I did had no analysis at all.)
Don't get me wrong--I think it's a beautiful work, and if done with her permission would be fantastic. As fanfic, it's amazing. But if I'd created HP, I'd probably go to court over it, too.
When do you think this Bill Shakespeare guy will get around to suing Cliff and his "Notes"? Based on your expert legal assessment of the situation, I'd say he's got an excellent case.
Except that:
1) Cliffs Notes do not simply take characters, items, places, etc. and compile them into an encyclopedia about the work. They also provide a historical context for the work as well as literary commentary (including critical theories and interpretations) as to what happens in each scene. I just picked up the Cliffs Notes on Hamlet. The section on Hamlet's soliloquy definitely counts as literary analysis, not plagiarism.
2) As everyone else has already pointed out, Cliffs Notes generally cover works in the public domain and get licenses for those that are not.
You cannot take someone's works and compile the creations within them into a work that you call your own if it does not involve significant analysis or creation on your part. You can parody. You can analyze parts. You can borrow motifs, themes, ideas, archetypes, etc. You can't take every freaking item and pretend it's yours, though, just because you put it in a different order, which is essentially what this person did.
Even if Orson Scott Card says you can. He's on crack. Borrowing an idea and adding your own touches? Yeah. Everyone does that. Borrowing all your specifically named characters, items, places, etc.? Um, no.
And for the record, many authors have specific guidelines regarding fanfic. If you stick to those, you're fine. If you do not, then yes, fanfic writers can be sued.
There's a news article here from 2004 that mentions how flattered Rowling is that people are writing fan fiction. It includes a statement from her agency's spokesman that says, "Her concern would be to make sure that it remains a non-commercial activity to ensure fans are not exploited and it is not being published in the strict sense of traditional print publishing." The next sentence adds, "He said writers had to ensure that the stories were not obscene and were credited to the author and not to JK Rowling."
I'd say that makes it pretty clear that the encyclopedia author violated even the standards of her fanfic expectations by publishing it commercially and through a traditional print publisher.
That said, IMHO, playing WoW is worse than having a meaningful relationship with another person, and better than drinking yourself into a stupor every weekend in the hopes of finding a meaningful relationship with someone.
You're assuming that I'm not actually playing WoW with my significant other as part of our meaningful relationship. We can't always just sit there, staring lovingly into each other's eyes, you know. Sometimes you have to get the gang together and go kick Gruul's ass (or Moroes's ass, or Gandling's. We're not so picky.).
Why, yes, we've already signed up for Origins too. How did you know?
The social aspect is a joke. Congratulations if you somehow found people to talk to. I've met less than six people this year that could even type, let alone communicate above the level of chimp.
...
That's strange. I have fairly in-depth conversations about books, politics, and the game with people all the time. And yes, they're all educated people who can spell and communicate well.
Then I'd see a female night elf with a cool name like bloodsiren, think "whoa, she's hot" followed by "agh, it's probably a guy!...".
Um, yeah. I'd probably pretend to be AFK to avoid talking to you. That quote made you sound like Creepy Guy Looking for a Date on WoW.
Inderal has also been prescribed by doctors for patients with recurring migraines to try to reduce the number of migraines they get. Beta blockers are used for all sorts of things.
The inference in the article was that people were taking them explicitly for the purpose of boosting cognitive performance. With beta blockers, you generally take them every day. So I'd be curious to see exactly how the survey was worded. It would be very easy to pick up people admitting that they took beta blockers and saying they felt that had a positive effect on their cognitive functions--but not asking if that was the actual reason they took it or just a lucky side effect.
I often find when people talk about the Good Old Days that they are remembering things through the halcyon haze of nostalgia. People have always been corrupt. Horrible things have always happened. What was considered "lewd" behavior always occurred. There has always been abuse, poverty, murder, sin, terror, pain, and genocide.
Using a negative world view as an excuse to increase policing is a poor argument. Creating a police state does not stop crime or terrorism. It simply creates a miserable existance for the people under it who must constantly worry about the corrupt abusing their powers.
Instead of handing over power to imperfect people, aren't we better off with reasonable restrictions on use and sensible reactions? (You know, locks on doors as opposed to an armed guard in your living room, questioning everyone you invite over.)
Maybe it's time you stopped believing the alarmist news stories designed to play on people's fears and titillate their secret curiousities accurately reflected what's going on in every house in the nation instead of being fairly rare. Instead, hold a barbecue and meet your neighbors. Mine are pretty nice.
How can you write an otherwise coherent followup to my comment and miss that?!
:)
You know, I haven't a bloody clue, especially since I read that line several times. What the hell? I've gotta cut WAY back on the crack, I see. (Librarians with reading skillz? Unpossible!) I apologise.
Way to go and rock on, then.
The thought process should not be "put up with DRM because distributor wants it their for the distributor's purposes/benefit even if it encumbers it to the point of being useless", but "What is the best way, within legal boundaries, to serve my patrons".
Actually, my thought process is more that SO many of my patrons want it and DO manage to use it even with the godsforsaken DRM on it that it's sort of a deal with the devil. Do I go without it and cut everyone off, or do we go with it, bitch, and pressure them to dump DRM and make it fully useable? I've opted for #2 (not that it's fully my choice, being part of a county-wide library consortium, but even if it were...). So although it wasn't fully expressed so that you understood it, my thought is to best serve my patrons... all of them, by getting what they want and trying by damndest to get it changed so it works for them.
Of course, the thought of quitting e-audiobooks altogether is always tempting when I'm dealing with a problem over the phone, but when I'm not, sense prevails and I vote for some over none. (Rather like how I'd like to get rid of all our tax forms every time some idiot screams at me because we ran out of a specific form and are waiting for the state to send more and can only print it off the Internet for him/her. But when I'm not being screamed at, I know there are people out there who need a place to go pick up a paper copy, and the public library is now the only place to get it now that the legislators' offices, post offices, and state liquor stores all stopped carrying them.) Just don't let me vote when my eye is still twitching.
Um, no. School librarians can't copy an entire audiobook multiple times and lend it out multiple times and claim that's fair use. Sorry. Not going to fly. There's a limit to how much of the whole you can copy and still have it be fair use for educational purposes. Also, the multiple copies for classroom use generally applies to things like photocopies of an essay from a collection or an article from a magazine that is copied for the whole class to read.
I'll back my words up. If you look through the Copyright Office Circular 21: Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians, you'll see that the guidelines for use for both books and music fair use include the phrases "Copying shall not:(a) substitute for the purchase of books, publishers' reprints or periodicals;" (page 8) and "Copying for the purpose of substituting for the purchase of music, except as in A(1) and A(2) above." (page 9, and the exceptions wouldn't count for you.)
Also, under the GUIDELINES FOR CLASSROOM COPYING IN NOT-FOR-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
WITH RESPECT TO BOOKS AND PERIODICALS, Multiple Copies for Classroom Use it limits copying of prose: "(ii) Prose: (a) Either a complete article, story or essay of less than 2,500 words, or (b) an excerpt from any prose work of not more than 1,000 words or 10% of the work, whichever is less, but in any event a minimum of 500 words." (page 8, first column)
The GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATIONAL USES OF MUSIC limits the copying of music to the following: "2. For academic purposes other than performance, single or multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section*, movement or aria, but in no case more than 10 percent of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil.**" (page 9, second column)
So as you can see, the precedent is essentially that even for classroom use, you cannot create multiple whole copies of an entire work. At most, you can make multiple copies of about 10% of it. There are other sections that further limit things like how often a teacher can do it (not every year for the same work).
So buying one audiobook and copying it a bunch of times onto various iPods/mp3 players and lending it out to multiple students is a breach of copyright, even if done for their education. Sorry.
As the unwilling DRM expert in the school district I work for, I've told all the Librarians to NOT buy from either the Apple iTunes store or Audible.com, to instead buy the books as CD's or even Cassette Tapes and then make their own DRM-less MP3 files for use on the players the district checks out to students.
:)
And as a librarian, I'm appalled if they listen to you. Is it easier? Yes. Is it still copyright infringement if you aren't very strict? Yes.
I think DRM is wrong, and this move is making my day. When this news first ran, I printed out the article, and I will shortly be referring to it to pressure the library e-audiobook suppliers to drop DRM from their books so that my patrons can use any mp3 player they want to listen to them.
I know DRM is a pain in the ass. Every time I get a call from a patron who can't get the (*^&^% license to download properly for their e-audiobook, I mentally imagine slapping a publisher. I am the queen of multiple versions of screenshot-heavy step-by-step instructions for senior citizens on how to find, download, transfer, and listen to e-audiobooks on various systems with various pieces of software. But sadly, that only gives me a reason to be very pointed in my conversations with reps and to examine any alternatives that pop up. It still doesn't give me the right to break copyright.
Maybe I misunderstood the way your librarians are using the books on tape/CD, though. I assumed you were using one book on CD to make multiple copies on multiple mp3 players to lend. Maybe that isn't the case. If not, I apologise.
Whoops. You're right. My bad.
That said, I can't see how anyone actually SELLING something there could miss that it isn't an auction site. *blinks*
Well, there are some alternatives to eBay. The ones that I know about that people are happiest with are really niche auction sites like etsy.com, which is an auction site for handmade crafts. Apparently eBay sucks for selling those as bidders don't appreciate the time spent on them. Those who wander to etsy do... so while you have a smaller pool of bidders, the overall amount bid tends to be higher. (That's what I'm told by my friend who 1) teaches a class on eBay and 2) sells jewellery online.)
After looking at the eBay fee increases (and doing the math to show a friend how much that really meant even on small items), I'd certainly be willing to check the fees and my luck over at auctions.overstock.com. Too bad Yahoo Auctions closed last year.
I can fully understand not having sufficent funds to operate all departments at 100% at all hours, but this doesn't mean you can't operate some departments without operating other departments....
:)
That's what some libraries already do for evening or weekend hours.
Part of the problem is that if you have the building open, you may not expect those services, but other patrons might. Also, keep in mind that for each additional hour that the library is open, there are associated costs in utilities. It's not always just staff cost.
My library has two very large floors. In the evenings, we often have only two people on upstairs--one in the Computer Center and one on at Reference. Since all non-self-checkout Circulation is done downstairs, we couldn't just go without people in those departments (especially since the Computer Center has 20-30 people in it at a time, 15 on "slow" nights.) We also have difficulty controlling theft from our AV department already as it is.
Just some things to think about. A lot depends on the size and structure of your library and its security system. The more doors on the more levels, the more people you will need.
I'm not completely sure it's just that teenagers are not the ones paying for the account. I think it's also likely that they may not realize what they are doing is not considered acceptable by everyone, and if caught, would stop.
Most of the upstairs of my public library is a no-cell-phone zone. We ask that people take their cell phones to the area that is designated for cell phone use up here. A lot of people are simply oblivious to the rule (regardless of signs), so the staff are used to politely asking them to please take their cell phone to said location. Teenagers are MUCH more likely to react positively than older adults. It's like a light goes off in their heads, "Oh! Yes! I can go there and not bother people!" and they go. Adults aged 30+ are a mixed bag of responses, but in general they are less polite and sometimes very rude about out it. (To quote one man, "Jesus Christ, lady! Look, Mitch, I'm getting bitched at for using a cell phone in the library. I'll have to call you back." That was the response to, "Excuse me, sir, but we ask cell phone users to please step over into the vestibule area." I am such a beeyotch.)
So in my experience, teenagers are more likely to bow to societal pressure, whereas older people have a somewhat greater chance of deciding that they will do what they want, where they want, screw you for even thinking about interfering with them and their rights.
I hope you get the point. The Crusades were not a proactive attack but rather they were a defense and recapture of previously held territory.
That's one of the most simplistic explanations of the Crusades I've ever read. Let's just say there was a lot more Gold, God, and Glory in it than your post made it sound. It certainly wasn't a clearcut attempt for most people to regain lands once under their control. And yes, my bachelor's degree was in medieval history (useful, I know), so I do know somewhat what I'm talking about.
Let's see. I said, "Ah, yes. That cutting-edge research from 2002 with one out of three reviews on the page commenting on how biased it is. There's a good source of information." And later in my comment, I stated that "You need to have a context and know where the chart came from."
Your response? To quote only the last comment and then say: Oh, I fully agree. Do you have that context and did you trace the sources of the charts? Nope, you did not. You read a review and deferred to its authority. Did you verify the research you quote that found no association between vaccines and risks? Nope, you believe them as they have been published by "reputable scientists".
1. Directing someone to information from 2002 on a medical subject is sketchy. Particularly when of the reviews on the page promoting the book, 33% of them thought it was slanted. I never claimed to have looked at the book and verified the charts in it. As a librarian, I'm trained to know what is and is not worth my time to look at--and that, as old as it is and with a no-name publisher, with only 3 reviews, and with 1 of those 3 being negative, indicates that the book would not make the shelves in a library as being a reputable source.
2. For some reason, they won't let me give people vaccinations myself to test this, but since I've read enough information on several different studies (not just the ones listed here) on autism and vaccines, and the correlations that SHOULD be there just are not. But yes, who is funding the study is important information to know. However, I was keeping my post short and thought that links to a few sources might be enough to get people started on current research and articles on the subject.
3. While I do not trust drug companies in general and think they'd do almost anything to make a buck, I think your conviction on this topic falls on the lines of paranoid conspiracy theory.
I think there's a distinct difference between "being treated badly" and "not letting someone treat me like a doormat."
There are some women in America who treat men badly, just as there are some men in America who treat women badly. Then there are people who treat other people well. Those are the people you should really spend your time and energy on.
I'm not sure why any Slashdot post mentioning gender always turns into people bitching about what women are like or what men are like. In my experience, the individual variation far outweighs any gender differences. Especially in a study as laughably poor in science as this one. (I asked my 22 best friends to come over and play this game...)
Maybe instead of people focusing on how they are treated by the opposite (or same) gender, they should start focusing on the person treating them that way? Take a deep breath, stop blaming all of XX- or XY-kind, and say to yourself (or them, if truly warranted), "Wow. What a jackass." And then walk away.
Those who don't like what I've said here can express their own theories about why there is a social breakdown in the United States. (Dollar falling in value, highest percentage of population in prison, and so on and on.)
There are a lot of reasons. Life usually works that way. Lots of grey in there. Simply insinuating that it's because the women aren't nice enough to the men is very simplistic.
I mean, do you think Brazil would have a lower crime rate if your women were "meaner" to your men? Maybe you could get that murder rate down to a mere three times that of the U.S. instead of it being more than four times the American rate. It sounds kind of silly when it's turned around like that, doesn't it?
(Either that or we've got a new slogan: America's women: Keeping the murder rate down since 1920!*)
*somewhat arbitrary year--chosen since it was the year American women received the right to vote
For vaccines, a good well-sourced overview can be found here: http://astore.amazon.com/medical-bookstore-20/detail/1881217302 [amazon.com].
Ah, yes. That cutting-edge research from 2002 with one out of three reviews on the page commenting on how biased it is. There's a good source of information.
Actually, there have been a number of studies recently looking at the association between vaccines and various illnesses/diseases/symptoms, particularly vaccines and autism. Every single one that I've seen published by a reputable scientist has found no link.
There's also an article in the Jan 2008 Skeptical Inquirer about vaccine safety (particularly regarding autism).
Lots of random charts in a book do not necessarily prove anything, except, possibly, that the shrinking number of pirates caused the rise in average global temperature. You need to have a context and know where the chart came from.
Right now, I could call up Verizon and get FiOS. In about 6 months I'll be able to call up Verizon and get FiOS TV. Hell, theyre currently installing FiOS in my parents tiny village of about 5000.
On the other hand, I can get... um, cable. Verizon is the only viable telco in my area, and they don't offer DSL service or FiOS for me. The area has the infrastructure for FiOS because the local public library paid them to put it in (and I live roughly 300 yards from said library), but since I live in an apartment building, they apparently cannot offer FiOS to me.
But hey, love the ads for High Speed Internet that they keep sending me. *rolls her eyes* I can go back to, what, 2000 and cached servers? I don't think so.
And Comcast has the local government-approved cable monopoly in the area.
Why is it somehow better to have to go down to a local library and search through books for an answer, than a quick google search?
I'm doing my PhD, and pretty much everything that I need for my research is a google search away. In particular google scholar rocks.
Who said using the library meant going down there and searching through books for an answer? Most libraries pay for access to electronic databases nowadays. You can probably access them from home with your library card.
If you're finding everything you need for PhD research via Google, I'm interested in seeing what your research is on and comparing its quality to what can be found using both Google and library-financed resources. There are a lot of things published in academic journals that could very well be applicable to your research. A college or university-affiliated library is your best bet to have access to those through online databases. Google doesn't.
How is she "completely biased the other way"?
She says that the guide may be well-intentioned but is not well put together. She agrees with them that there are some games that children should not be allowed to play without supervision. She points out that restricting the sale of M-rated games to minors does not impact whether or not they are played at a friends house or at home if a parent purchases the item. So rather than restricting the sale, we should work on educating parents how to research titles--and do it by giving them accurate information.
I don't think that counts as being biased the other way. Biased the other way would be something more along the lines of someone saying that kids should have access to any games they want because if you shelter them, they'll just go wild later. And besides, they played GSA 2 at the age of 6 and they turned out just fine, thank you...
You don't have to agree with this mom, but acting like she's the complete opposite isn't accurate. She's educated about the games and advocates parents playing with their children and being informed about the games before condoning them.
And that we on Slashdot will continue to discuss the incorrect 36.4% of all PCs without correcting it anywhere?
It just drives me nuts when people don't bother to even check. Particularly if you're going to publish on it. I'm not saying I don't expect people to occasionally make mistakes, but I am saying that if you write an entire article using outdated information (that should throw up red flags when you LOOK at it), you look like an idiot.
"36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire installed"
That's some damned weak logic, since LimeWire's real reason for existance (and the RIAA's opposition to it) is for independant artists to get their music out.
Even worse, it's the wrong statistic. It's 36.4% of all computers with at least one p2p application installed. And that statistic was clarified over a week ago.
See my longer post on the subject here. It has the link to the clarification (and the text of it).
Certainly you understand that statistics and expressed opinions have nothing to do with constitutional rights. They're free to make estimates and inferences all they want.
Sure. Of course, I'd like it if the statistics were vaguely accurate before people go writing whole articles on them. I mean, I read that LimeWire was installed on over a third of the world's PCs and boggled at the sheer impossibility of that statistic and went looking to find what it REALLY is.
Oh, look. There's a clarification posted here from December 17 which reads:
Clarifications, Corrections
In our recent report covering LimeWire installation levels, we inadvertently noted that LimeWire was found on one-third of all PCs, instead of one-third of all PCs with at least one P2P application installed. The overall installation level is 17.8%, and the data is treated properly within the report.
I'd say that 17.8% still seems stupidly high for LimeWire, but whatever. Essentially the Ars article used an obviously wrong statistic from an article that was corrected over a week ago and then added to that the assumption that having a specific piece of software on your computer means you are using it in violation of intellectual property laws.
In other words, if I were the author, I'd be really really embarrassed right now because that was one crappy piece of writing.