"There is nothing in copyright law that generally prohibits others from profiting from your writings; such a notion is contrary to the very idea of copyright laws. Your rights in your copyrighted materials are limited."
Yeah, limited to controlling the distribution of your work. You know? *You* get to say how it's distributed, not Google.
"Google has spent billions on creating free software. That alone more than makes up for any moral quibbles you may have with them."
"Now we have the ability to make research easier than it's ever been in the history of mankind..."
Boy, that *sounds* nice - until you remember it was science fiction writers who complained.
Research? Bullshit. Wholesale copying of any and all books is not done for research, it's done to bring people into using Google and generating revenue *for* Google.
"We could be having the same argument about libraries: why shouldn't copyright owners be consulted about whether they want their books loaned out?"
Libraries purchase the book, Google does not. That single purchased copy is loaned out and returned. Google does not.
"...fair use and first-sale rights provide all the basis..."
That doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. (from Wikipedia).
Google does not purchase the books so no, first-sale rights would not apply. Fair use would depend on the extend of their display of text.
Which in the bulk of cases also means "It works in the majority of browsers. Done." It's a business decision.
Graceful degradation is nice theory. That's all it is until you apply some form of constraints because it's discussed as if it remains abstract. Be realistically, how big a percentage of users will actually require access to a fully degraded website?
Small. Very.
Because the great majority of them use a browser similar to the CEO's. It's not really a bad measure unless the CEO is a techo-geek or Luddite. Few are.
Strictly a point of view which depends on why you buy and play a game.
I've played Alic in both versions and the current is much like wandering a world. The first, wandering a child's story book. I purchased the current version simply to look at the graphics.
It's almost irritating to have to 'fight' my way through, I'd rather just wander. I have a very powerful machine for my art graphics and I'd rather it didn't just feed me comic book pages.
"Mainly because it takes them soooo long to do it and requires so much effort."
No, it's mainly because it makes them look illiterate and they *know* it makes them look illiterate. The kids aren't stupid, they're undereducated and embarrassed.
This is preaching at the Open choir here. It's a group of people who won't accept that there's no real functional difference in word processors, spread sheets, etc. I use OpenOffice, MS and Lotus. Not a lot of difference (barring GUI).
That's called irrelevant in court. Tech's also have to understand that encryption is not something useful for every damned thing. Do you REALLY think your e-mail (or mine) needs encryption, or is it just a cool gadget? Most of the time it's number two.
E-mail is a lousy form for conducting a client interview, which is pretty much what you're describing. Anything can be used incorrectly.
"I'm a programmer who sometimes needs to understand requirements and problems from other people who might not be all that technical."
Client interview: face to face.
Document of understanding: paper.
Clarifications: paper or email.
It's your job to control the needs discussion. If you're starting with e-mail, you're doing it incorrectly. So yeah, you indeed have weak written communication skills for the position.
"I believe if they have something that they need to keep, they print it and file it."
This is called keeping an email.
Your initial post relied on the pedantry of assuming the email was kept on a server for its correctness. Remove the pedantry and you're demonstrably wrong, as you just showed.
Sorry, I don't believe you. If I send an email to an opposing law firm, just because the case won't go to court in a month gives them no leeway whatsoever to delete said email.
This is axiomatically incorrect. One of the first things I do when talking with potential clients is to give them my business e-mail. They apparently have none of the hang-ups you describe and respond with no problem.
"charm and personal feel"
This describes neither Facebook or IM. So, it ain't about that.
Next time you think about elevating yourself to an Aristotelian level, you should consider your audience might know more about the subject than you do.
For instance, one of them - say, me - might have written the FCAT essay question on the history and development of the US Highway System.
As it predates the Iraq War by some fifty years, your inclusion of that fallacious little talking point was strictly political.
In your entire post, you got only one thing right: "Subsidy doesn't quite describe the situation". Your correction however, wasn't.
"My time also costs money, and failing to provide appropriate tools is wasting that money today."
You understand emphasis does nothing for argument?
If you have an economic case, that is exactly what you need to work up and hand to management. If your case wins, you will get your wishes. If you can't make your case on paper with math, then you're just wishing and really, no one need concern themselves.
"Explain why we can't have what we want, instead of just brushing off our concerns with "policy" or "too expensive to support", and then engage us in dialog about what you can provide!"
"But in that case, you need at least to let me have Cygwin or something."
Why? See, you don't give a reason. My guess? You just want to run applications on your employer-owned machine that are not approved for said machine. Which is not your machine.
Slashdot Mirror
"Being able to flip through a few pages to get a feel for the book is an essential part of the buying process for me."
..."
Flipping through books that are meeting the copyright holder's distribution desires, not violating it.
"I'm chalking this up to
Then, you would be wrong.
"There is nothing in copyright law that generally prohibits others from profiting from your writings; such a notion is contrary to the very idea of copyright laws. Your rights in your copyrighted materials are limited."
Yeah, limited to controlling the distribution of your work. You know? *You* get to say how it's distributed, not Google.
"Google has spent billions on creating free software. That alone more than makes up for any moral quibbles you may have with them."
Horse - fucking - shit.
"Now we have the ability to make research easier than it's ever been in the history of mankind..."
Boy, that *sounds* nice - until you remember it was science fiction writers who complained.
Research? Bullshit. Wholesale copying of any and all books is not done for research, it's done to bring people into using Google and generating revenue *for* Google.
"And ask if there's any chance we'll ever get the latter, if the only way to do it is to track down ever single copyright holder."
The inability to accomplish a dream is no reason to abrogate the rights of people.
Unless allowed by the copyright holder, copyright violation.
Give one single real example.
"We could be having the same argument about libraries: why shouldn't copyright owners be consulted about whether they want their books loaned out?"
Libraries purchase the book, Google does not. That single purchased copy is loaned out and returned. Google does not.
"...fair use and first-sale rights provide all the basis..."
That doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. (from Wikipedia).
Google does not purchase the books so no, first-sale rights would not apply. Fair use would depend on the extend of their display of text.
Not exactly cut and dry.
Which in the bulk of cases also means "It works in the majority of browsers. Done." It's a business decision.
Graceful degradation is nice theory. That's all it is until you apply some form of constraints because it's discussed as if it remains abstract. Be realistically, how big a percentage of users will actually require access to a fully degraded website?
Small. Very.
Because the great majority of them use a browser similar to the CEO's. It's not really a bad measure unless the CEO is a techo-geek or Luddite. Few are.
Aren't you the guy who suggested that web sites should be paying you to visit?
"the PC will end up being left to the geeks again..."
Geeks like mom and pop running their store or business.
Safeway?
Strictly a point of view which depends on why you buy and play a game.
I've played Alic in both versions and the current is much like wandering a world. The first, wandering a child's story book. I purchased the current version simply to look at the graphics.
It's almost irritating to have to 'fight' my way through, I'd rather just wander. I have a very powerful machine for my art graphics and I'd rather it didn't just feed me comic book pages.
Easy. Disallow those distractions in school and enforce learning of the basics. IOW, revamp the school systems and return to basics.
"Mainly because it takes them soooo long to do it and requires so much effort."
No, it's mainly because it makes them look illiterate and they *know* it makes them look illiterate. The kids aren't stupid, they're undereducated and embarrassed.
This is preaching at the Open choir here. It's a group of people who won't accept that there's no real functional difference in word processors, spread sheets, etc. I use OpenOffice, MS and Lotus. Not a lot of difference (barring GUI).
"Add in the CYA factor of being able to save, and forward old e-mails, and I can't see why anyone would want to move away from e-mail."
Actually, I believe that *is* the reason for most people wanting to move away. The rest is whitewash.
That's called irrelevant in court. Tech's also have to understand that encryption is not something useful for every damned thing. Do you REALLY think your e-mail (or mine) needs encryption, or is it just a cool gadget? Most of the time it's number two.
E-mail is a lousy form for conducting a client interview, which is pretty much what you're describing. Anything can be used incorrectly.
"I'm a programmer who sometimes needs to understand requirements and problems from other people who might not be all that technical."
Client interview: face to face.
Document of understanding: paper.
Clarifications: paper or email.
It's your job to control the needs discussion. If you're starting with e-mail, you're doing it incorrectly. So yeah, you indeed have weak written communication skills for the position.
If you want to do business with him, yes you will. Your point?
"I believe if they have something that they need to keep, they print it and file it."
This is called keeping an email.
Your initial post relied on the pedantry of assuming the email was kept on a server for its correctness. Remove the pedantry and you're demonstrably wrong, as you just showed.
Sorry, I don't believe you. If I send an email to an opposing law firm, just because the case won't go to court in a month gives them no leeway whatsoever to delete said email.
"No one wants to use email anymore."
This is axiomatically incorrect. One of the first things I do when talking with potential clients is to give them my business e-mail. They apparently have none of the hang-ups you describe and respond with no problem.
"charm and personal feel"
This describes neither Facebook or IM. So, it ain't about that.
Next time you think about elevating yourself to an Aristotelian level, you should consider your audience might know more about the subject than you do.
For instance, one of them - say, me - might have written the FCAT essay question on the history and development of the US Highway System.
As it predates the Iraq War by some fifty years, your inclusion of that fallacious little talking point was strictly political.
In your entire post, you got only one thing right: "Subsidy doesn't quite describe the situation". Your correction however, wasn't.
"Every time there's what we perceive as a random quantum event it is simply the branching of the multiverse."
Actually, no. It's the invisible green unicorn running up and nudging things with its golden, magical horn.
"My time also costs money, and failing to provide appropriate tools is wasting that money today."
You understand emphasis does nothing for argument?
If you have an economic case, that is exactly what you need to work up and hand to management. If your case wins, you will get your wishes. If you can't make your case on paper with math, then you're just wishing and really, no one need concern themselves.
"Explain why we can't have what we want, instead of just brushing off our concerns with "policy" or "too expensive to support", and then engage us in dialog about what you can provide!"
"But in that case, you need at least to let me have Cygwin or something."
Why? See, you don't give a reason. My guess? You just want to run applications on your employer-owned machine that are not approved for said machine.
Which is not your machine.