I think the reason you don't see a lot of "me too" sites competing isn't because the UI is so great for the end user, it's really how could you possibly compete with a site as popular as craiglist? Some things tend to create natural monopolies because there's an advantage to everyone using one resource. Ebay is one of those kinds of things, craigslist is another. It's a feedback loop where both parties benefit.
I agree somewhat, but I think craigslist got popular, in part, because of the easy interface. After some critical point, it became a household word and a standard resource for many people, which cements it into its niche pretty tightly.
It is in no way a natural monopoly, tho'; nor is eBay. For one thing, the cost to enter the market as a competitor is not exceptionally high. For another, natural monopolies are industries, not companies. I daresay both companies are monopolies, for what it's worth.
It seems unlikely to me that the first time anyone put the words zero and gravity together in a sentence was in a work of fiction.
I agree. Using "zero-gravity" or "zero-g" instead of "0g" is hardly coining a phrase. I'm not sure of the origin of "g" for gravity, but I'm sure Newton used it.
If anyone else wants to put all their books online, then they should just *do* it, and settle their own lawsuit with the Authors Guild. They'll have precedent on their side.
No, they won't. A settlement agreement does not, by any stretch, establish precedent. What they'll have on their side is their own, lonesome self, up against lawyers from the Authors Guild, publishing houses, and Google. None of whom will likely see any benefit to a similar licensing deal, and would much rather have cold, hard, cash damages.
So basically, you're saying that Google put up a lot of time, effort, money, lawyers, all at a huge risk. And no one else can compete with them because they'd have to to put up the time, effort, money, lawyers at a huge risk just like Google did?
Heh, you could make that same argument about a lot of Microsoft's shennanigens. Sure, they acted unlawfully, but they weaseled out of it with a huge legal budget and turned it to their advantage. At great risk! Why shouldn't others be able to use the weight of their legal budget to break the law and come out ahead?
As I understand it, it is "exclusive" in that the Authors Guild, as the class representative in the suit, is only empowered to negotiate with Google. It's not a clause in the agreement that says they can't negotiate a license with anyone else. It isn't legally possible to make a non-exclusive deal here.
Ah, my mistake, then. That does make me feel better about it.
I question that last statement, tho'; I can imagine verbiage in a settlement that would allow nonexclusivity. For example, if AG et al agreed to dismiss the suit and provide these publication rights to any purchaser in exchange for (some standard amount formula), while Google agreed to purchase these rights at that rate.
Given the questionable nature of the settlement at all, I'd think nonexclusivity would be a good goal. Honestly, this sort of thing should pass through the legislature; attempting to alter copyright law and practice via a settlement agreement is kind of sketchy. It lends itself much less to attack, IMO, if the agreement binds the Authors Guild n' pals to allow others to do the same.
It seems fine that Google could sell the books if the existing copyright has expired or can't be upheld. But there should be no problem with someone else downloading the material and reselling it or giving it out or copying it. Once the copyright expires, doesn't the work go into the public domain? Google can charge for access, but they can't charge for the work persay.
That's true, for copyright-expired works. At issue are orphaned works, still protected under copyright but "abandoned". The deal would not give Google full copyright over those, but would give them exclusive rights to electronically publish 'em. This would allow them to sue anyone who competes with them by scanning orphaned books.
Instead of bashing someone who decides to spend the money to implement a solution, why don't you just compete with them. Scan these books yourself and offer them online.
Because, if the deal is approved, Google will have the right to sue anyone who tries to compete with them. That's what folks're upset about.
Anyone remember the old arcade Dig Dug bug? By squashing and a sploding a bad guy simultaneously, you could make all the enemies vanish and have the level to yourself.
Pac-Man had some crazy bugs, too, mostly involving overflows.
This is slander, and interference with a contractual business relationship. I'd expect them to get slapped down very hard over that one.
It's also a clear violation of the Bar rules of ethics (4.4) in Washington DC, where these lawyers are. They could get admonished, suspended, or even disbarred, and I hope they do. I encourage Jon to file a Bar complaint in addition to litigation.
IMO, a better way to date-stamp a hardcopy is by going to your nearest UPS Store and paying for notary services.
That's pretty pricey, though. It's okay if you've just written your first short story or whatever, but when you're cranking out dozens or more copyrighted works per year, often in incremental drafts/versions, with any accompanying documentation, it'll add up.
For bulk copyright, I'd suggest an established baliff service (assuming your work is/can be made digital). They notarize transactions, accept files in batches, and don't charge much. They're also fairly tightly regulated.
I can't believe their lawyers let them do that. It was a stupid mistake only done by kids and newbie business people.
It's worse than that; the lawyers are the guys sending these emails. Which opens 'em up to a bar complaint at least, if not actual liability. (In DC, rule 4.4 prohibits "means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person".)
Are you discounting relativity entirely? Einstein developed relativity using a thought experiment. To date, experiments have only served to verify that he got it right.
We're using different values of "thought experiment". The train-and-platform thought experiment is a real experiment which produces seemingly-bizarre results. The ansible thought experiment uses a fictitious device in a fictitious world to demonstrate bizarre results.
The latter is useless in any sense of contributing to the development of science. It's interesting and thought-provoking but can never be reproduced, falsified, or applied to the real world. Any FTL theory need not answer questions raised by the ansible concept; it should address relativity directly.
The former is completely different, in that it highlighted a discrepancy in our theories of the real world. It is indeed a thought experiment, but not in the sense I meant the phrase.
First, I don't really see this as an extension of Presidential power. I'm reasonably certain that, without this act, the President can simply declare a general state of emergency and use Executive Authority to do all this stuff.
The National Emergencies Act limits emergency declarations, including this one, so abuse isn't any more likely than before. Definition of "emergency" isn't needed because it's already defined in statute.
I don't see the privacy concerns, either. The Commerce Secretary gains critical network access only during an emergency. Leaving "critical" open-ended is not a bad idea, IMO. It allows the White House some leeway, but if they use it indiscriminate-like, the courts can rein things in by narrowing the definition of "critical".
Really, this act looks like a bureaucratic formality with the major purpose being to show that certain members of Congress are doing something about computer crime. It serves a couple purposes, I suppose: It allows the bureaucracy to prepare to mobilize for such an emergency; and it alerts the populace to expect such measures in an emergency.
This, however, really highlights the inexperience of the Obama administration, much as it pains me to admit it. Had this happened under Clinton or Bush, the President's network would've alerted them to the legislation long before draft, and a publicity circus would ensue.
First, pundits, columnists, and bloggers would demand a national computer emergency policy. The draft would follow and be announced in a fanfare and clever acronym, such as SAFE-KIDS. The President would harshly criticize the draft, asking for authority to move critical laptops and data to an undisclosed location, to maintain a national strategic pornography reserve, and to choose all the pizza toppings at press meetings.
The legislation would be redrafted, with the media so relieved that the pizza rider was dropped that they label the legislation as "tough", "forward-thinking", and "savvy". This is because the media describe legislation and Oprah Winfrey in equal terms. The major media outlets have never, to my knowledge, described an act of law as "sassy", but it's only a matter of time.
The President criticizes Congress for dropping the topping rider, and asks that he at least be given veto power, because the Wall Street Journal guy likes pineapple and ham. The press rabidly defends Congress' hardball tactics.
The legislation passes; the press hails it. The White House holds a press conference, announcing that its intrepid, caring administration will now be ready to protect American families. The President mispronounces "intrepid", then signs the bill with a statement that he'll damned well do what he pleases, he's the President, and he likes garlic on his pizzas.
And the end result is positive media, lots of attention, and whatever the law would have done anyway. This slipped into draft without Obama noticing/caring, with the result being bad press. Hell, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if the purpose of the draft is to garner bad press for Obama.
So... I don't see this as a bad thing, or an especially good thing. I do see the press as a mark of inexperience in the administration, though.
You can only roll the dice once. After that they are no longer entangled.
So Joe carries 1000 particles, which have twins back home, to Joe's Space TV/VCR Repair Center, which is out near Betelgeuse. I want to send him a message: "Pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels--bring home for Emma."
I "roll" particles to encode a 1 and leave 'em alone for 0. Sez I:
It's a thought experiment. The ansible is the thing that is violating relativity (because it is instantaneous); unless you have a real thing that violates relativity, you have to make something up for the thought experiment.
And thought experiments have as much value to science as umbrellas have for fish. I personally guarantee that any method found for FTL travel will not cause paradox. That's right, it's my promise to you.
Not necessarily. It may be that there are an uncountable number of possible outcomes, and each individual outcome has a zero probability
No, the individual outcomes can approach zero. Mathematicians like to treat zero and "really, really close to zero" the same, but that doesn't always work. Doing so dogmatically leads you to absurd results like "zero probability events happen all the time".
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or brewer's yeast, which is what they are using doesn't cause yeast infections. You are thinking of the pathogenic strain Candida albicans.
Sure, and that's good to know, but does the brewer's yeast die when you treat another, unrelated infection of candida albicans? And will other medicines affect/kill it?
It appears not. From what I can tell from a cursory look at the article, the yeast is isolated from the blood by an artificial semipermeable membrane. This also keeps the yeast's waste out of the blood. There may be a question of some medicines passing through the membrane; I dunno. I suspect most are too large.
Looks like a neat technology, but it's still quite a ways from the market. Eventually, it should lead to a new state of the art in all small implants.
Heh, maybe someone at AT&T remembers how much trouble and backlash is caused when a service provider tries to play law enforcement. Remember when Ma Bell was practically a regulatory agency? It'd be nice to think someone learned something from that.
The entity that determines the validity of a refund needs to have some skin in the decision.
Why is that? If the refunding authority has no stake, I would think refund decisions would be more fair to both the developer and customers. If they profit more by denying refunds (or by allowing them), they then have a motive to be unfair.
Of course, I think taking a slice of the app pie like that is bad form anyway (beyond distro costs). Development is good for their product, for one thing, and they sell dev tools on top a that. Apple profiting from third-party app sales directly is just greedy.
It will be big news when a climatologist actually publishes research disproving global warming in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
While ignoring that Dyson has published climate research in peer-reviewed scientific journals? And never mind that a degree in climatology didn't exist when Dyson studied. Ignore the fact that kids studying climatology today have to learn about Dyson, because he did some of the original research in the field.
He must be an amateur, because he doesn't call himself a climatologist.
Mind you, his research doesn't disprove global warming, nor does he claim the phenomenon is false. His research affirms global warming; he claims the phenomenon is exaggerated.
Oh look. Another non-climate-scientist who thinks nearly all of the climate scientists are wrong about the climate.
You believe Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist? Are you sure you don't mean you just disagree with him?
Dyson's led a number of climate-related research projects which issued peer-reviewed papers. While his conclusions are often criticized, his methodology is not. You're gonna need a better argument than dismissing one of the most renowned scientists in the world as an amateur.
Your understanding is incorrect but very understandable. The problem is that what is and isn't pornographic is highly subjective. Generally, as far as child pornography is concerned, it is merely enough that the pictures are of someone under 18 years of age and "intended to arouse sexual desire". Which does seems appallingly vague.
Your understanding is a little off; that definition could include a photo of a 17-year-old girl in a swimsuit. Here are the precise definitions used in the relevant laws.
In US v. Knox, the useful bit is:
...as used in the child pornography statute, the ordinary meaning of the phrase "lascivious exhibition" means a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area of children, in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer.
Now, you're right about how subjective it is, and a jury would ultimately decide whether the picture is pornographic if it came down to brass tacks.
I'm no lawyer, so if anyone needs advice, assume I'm a harmless, babbling lunatic. Which is true enough.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the reason you don't see a lot of "me too" sites competing isn't because the UI is so great for the end user, it's really how could you possibly compete with a site as popular as craiglist? Some things tend to create natural monopolies because there's an advantage to everyone using one resource. Ebay is one of those kinds of things, craigslist is another. It's a feedback loop where both parties benefit.
I agree somewhat, but I think craigslist got popular, in part, because of the easy interface. After some critical point, it became a household word and a standard resource for many people, which cements it into its niche pretty tightly.
It is in no way a natural monopoly, tho'; nor is eBay. For one thing, the cost to enter the market as a competitor is not exceptionally high. For another, natural monopolies are industries, not companies. I daresay both companies are monopolies, for what it's worth.
It seems unlikely to me that the first time anyone put the words zero and gravity together in a sentence was in a work of fiction.
I agree. Using "zero-gravity" or "zero-g" instead of "0g" is hardly coining a phrase. I'm not sure of the origin of "g" for gravity, but I'm sure Newton used it.
If anyone else wants to put all their books online, then they should just *do* it, and settle their own lawsuit with the Authors Guild. They'll have precedent on their side.
No, they won't. A settlement agreement does not, by any stretch, establish precedent. What they'll have on their side is their own, lonesome self, up against lawyers from the Authors Guild, publishing houses, and Google. None of whom will likely see any benefit to a similar licensing deal, and would much rather have cold, hard, cash damages.
So basically, you're saying that Google put up a lot of time, effort, money, lawyers, all at a huge risk. And no one else can compete with them because they'd have to to put up the time, effort, money, lawyers at a huge risk just like Google did?
Heh, you could make that same argument about a lot of Microsoft's shennanigens. Sure, they acted unlawfully, but they weaseled out of it with a huge legal budget and turned it to their advantage. At great risk! Why shouldn't others be able to use the weight of their legal budget to break the law and come out ahead?
As I understand it, it is "exclusive" in that the Authors Guild, as the class representative in the suit, is only empowered to negotiate with Google. It's not a clause in the agreement that says they can't negotiate a license with anyone else. It isn't legally possible to make a non-exclusive deal here.
Ah, my mistake, then. That does make me feel better about it.
I question that last statement, tho'; I can imagine verbiage in a settlement that would allow nonexclusivity. For example, if AG et al agreed to dismiss the suit and provide these publication rights to any purchaser in exchange for (some standard amount formula), while Google agreed to purchase these rights at that rate.
Given the questionable nature of the settlement at all, I'd think nonexclusivity would be a good goal. Honestly, this sort of thing should pass through the legislature; attempting to alter copyright law and practice via a settlement agreement is kind of sketchy. It lends itself much less to attack, IMO, if the agreement binds the Authors Guild n' pals to allow others to do the same.
It seems fine that Google could sell the books if the existing copyright has expired or can't be upheld. But there should be no problem with someone else downloading the material and reselling it or giving it out or copying it. Once the copyright expires, doesn't the work go into the public domain? Google can charge for access, but they can't charge for the work persay.
That's true, for copyright-expired works. At issue are orphaned works, still protected under copyright but "abandoned". The deal would not give Google full copyright over those, but would give them exclusive rights to electronically publish 'em. This would allow them to sue anyone who competes with them by scanning orphaned books.
If someone else wants to scan those books, they're also going to have to negotiate [license] from [book licensing people].
So Google, AFAIK, is the only organization with a license to do [stuff] with all those orphaned works.
And the settlement they're asking for is exclusive, so nobody else can negotiate for a similar "license".
Instead of bashing someone who decides to spend the money to implement a solution, why don't you just compete with them. Scan these books yourself and offer them online.
Because, if the deal is approved, Google will have the right to sue anyone who tries to compete with them. That's what folks're upset about.
Anyone remember the old arcade Dig Dug bug? By squashing and a sploding a bad guy simultaneously, you could make all the enemies vanish and have the level to yourself.
Pac-Man had some crazy bugs, too, mostly involving overflows.
This is slander, and interference with a contractual business relationship. I'd expect them to get slapped down very hard over that one.
It's also a clear violation of the Bar rules of ethics (4.4) in Washington DC, where these lawyers are. They could get admonished, suspended, or even disbarred, and I hope they do. I encourage Jon to file a Bar complaint in addition to litigation.
IMO, a better way to date-stamp a hardcopy is by going to your nearest UPS Store and paying for notary services.
That's pretty pricey, though. It's okay if you've just written your first short story or whatever, but when you're cranking out dozens or more copyrighted works per year, often in incremental drafts/versions, with any accompanying documentation, it'll add up.
For bulk copyright, I'd suggest an established baliff service (assuming your work is/can be made digital). They notarize transactions, accept files in batches, and don't charge much. They're also fairly tightly regulated.
I can't believe their lawyers let them do that. It was a stupid mistake only done by kids and newbie business people.
It's worse than that; the lawyers are the guys sending these emails. Which opens 'em up to a bar complaint at least, if not actual liability. (In DC, rule 4.4 prohibits "means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person".)
Legal offices know that if they are going to drop a case, often prolong the ending just to rack up billable hours.
The legal firm in question is working on contingency. They don't make a dime unless there's a settlement or a judgment in their favor.
Are you discounting relativity entirely? Einstein developed relativity using a thought experiment. To date, experiments have only served to verify that he got it right.
We're using different values of "thought experiment". The train-and-platform thought experiment is a real experiment which produces seemingly-bizarre results. The ansible thought experiment uses a fictitious device in a fictitious world to demonstrate bizarre results.
The latter is useless in any sense of contributing to the development of science. It's interesting and thought-provoking but can never be reproduced, falsified, or applied to the real world. Any FTL theory need not answer questions raised by the ansible concept; it should address relativity directly.
The former is completely different, in that it highlighted a discrepancy in our theories of the real world. It is indeed a thought experiment, but not in the sense I meant the phrase.
First, I don't really see this as an extension of Presidential power. I'm reasonably certain that, without this act, the President can simply declare a general state of emergency and use Executive Authority to do all this stuff.
The National Emergencies Act limits emergency declarations, including this one, so abuse isn't any more likely than before. Definition of "emergency" isn't needed because it's already defined in statute.
I don't see the privacy concerns, either. The Commerce Secretary gains critical network access only during an emergency. Leaving "critical" open-ended is not a bad idea, IMO. It allows the White House some leeway, but if they use it indiscriminate-like, the courts can rein things in by narrowing the definition of "critical".
Really, this act looks like a bureaucratic formality with the major purpose being to show that certain members of Congress are doing something about computer crime. It serves a couple purposes, I suppose: It allows the bureaucracy to prepare to mobilize for such an emergency; and it alerts the populace to expect such measures in an emergency.
This, however, really highlights the inexperience of the Obama administration, much as it pains me to admit it. Had this happened under Clinton or Bush, the President's network would've alerted them to the legislation long before draft, and a publicity circus would ensue.
First, pundits, columnists, and bloggers would demand a national computer emergency policy. The draft would follow and be announced in a fanfare and clever acronym, such as SAFE-KIDS. The President would harshly criticize the draft, asking for authority to move critical laptops and data to an undisclosed location, to maintain a national strategic pornography reserve, and to choose all the pizza toppings at press meetings.
The legislation would be redrafted, with the media so relieved that the pizza rider was dropped that they label the legislation as "tough", "forward-thinking", and "savvy". This is because the media describe legislation and Oprah Winfrey in equal terms. The major media outlets have never, to my knowledge, described an act of law as "sassy", but it's only a matter of time.
The President criticizes Congress for dropping the topping rider, and asks that he at least be given veto power, because the Wall Street Journal guy likes pineapple and ham. The press rabidly defends Congress' hardball tactics.
The legislation passes; the press hails it. The White House holds a press conference, announcing that its intrepid, caring administration will now be ready to protect American families. The President mispronounces "intrepid", then signs the bill with a statement that he'll damned well do what he pleases, he's the President, and he likes garlic on his pizzas.
And the end result is positive media, lots of attention, and whatever the law would have done anyway. This slipped into draft without Obama noticing/caring, with the result being bad press. Hell, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if the purpose of the draft is to garner bad press for Obama.
So... I don't see this as a bad thing, or an especially good thing. I do see the press as a mark of inexperience in the administration, though.
You can only roll the dice once. After that they are no longer entangled.
So Joe carries 1000 particles, which have twins back home, to Joe's Space TV/VCR Repair Center, which is out near Betelgeuse. I want to send him a message: "Pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels--bring home for Emma."
I "roll" particles to encode a 1 and leave 'em alone for 0. Sez I:
01010000 01101111 01110101 01101110 01100100 00100000 01110000 01100001 01110011 01110100 01110010 01100001 01101101 01101001 00101100 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101011 01110010 01100001 01110101 01110100 00101100 00100000 01110011 01101001 01111000 00100000 01100010 01100001 01100111 01100101 01101100 01110011 00101101 00101101 01100010 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101000 01101111 01101101 01100101 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01101101 01101101 01100001 00101110
It's a thought experiment. The ansible is the thing that is violating relativity (because it is instantaneous); unless you have a real thing that violates relativity, you have to make something up for the thought experiment.
And thought experiments have as much value to science as umbrellas have for fish. I personally guarantee that any method found for FTL travel will not cause paradox. That's right, it's my promise to you.
Not necessarily. It may be that there are an uncountable number of possible outcomes, and each individual outcome has a zero probability
No, the individual outcomes can approach zero. Mathematicians like to treat zero and "really, really close to zero" the same, but that doesn't always work. Doing so dogmatically leads you to absurd results like "zero probability events happen all the time".
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or brewer's yeast, which is what they are using doesn't cause yeast infections. You are thinking of the pathogenic strain Candida albicans.
Sure, and that's good to know, but does the brewer's yeast die when you treat another, unrelated infection of candida albicans? And will other medicines affect/kill it?
It appears not. From what I can tell from a cursory look at the article, the yeast is isolated from the blood by an artificial semipermeable membrane. This also keeps the yeast's waste out of the blood. There may be a question of some medicines passing through the membrane; I dunno. I suspect most are too large.
Looks like a neat technology, but it's still quite a ways from the market. Eventually, it should lead to a new state of the art in all small implants.
Heh, maybe someone at AT&T remembers how much trouble and backlash is caused when a service provider tries to play law enforcement. Remember when Ma Bell was practically a regulatory agency? It'd be nice to think someone learned something from that.
The entity that determines the validity of a refund needs to have some skin in the decision.
Why is that? If the refunding authority has no stake, I would think refund decisions would be more fair to both the developer and customers. If they profit more by denying refunds (or by allowing them), they then have a motive to be unfair.
Of course, I think taking a slice of the app pie like that is bad form anyway (beyond distro costs). Development is good for their product, for one thing, and they sell dev tools on top a that. Apple profiting from third-party app sales directly is just greedy.
It will be big news when a climatologist actually publishes research disproving global warming in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
While ignoring that Dyson has published climate research in peer-reviewed scientific journals? And never mind that a degree in climatology didn't exist when Dyson studied. Ignore the fact that kids studying climatology today have to learn about Dyson, because he did some of the original research in the field.
He must be an amateur, because he doesn't call himself a climatologist.
Mind you, his research doesn't disprove global warming, nor does he claim the phenomenon is false. His research affirms global warming; he claims the phenomenon is exaggerated.
Oh look. Another non-climate-scientist who thinks nearly all of the climate scientists are wrong about the climate.
You believe Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist? Are you sure you don't mean you just disagree with him?
Dyson's led a number of climate-related research projects which issued peer-reviewed papers. While his conclusions are often criticized, his methodology is not. You're gonna need a better argument than dismissing one of the most renowned scientists in the world as an amateur.
Because I was a boy, once.
Were you ever a girl?
Just the once, at Boy Scout cam -- uh, I mean, don't be silly.
Your understanding is incorrect but very understandable. The problem is that what is and isn't pornographic is highly subjective. Generally, as far as child pornography is concerned, it is merely enough that the pictures are of someone under 18 years of age and "intended to arouse sexual desire". Which does seems appallingly vague.
Your understanding is a little off; that definition could include a photo of a 17-year-old girl in a swimsuit. Here are the precise definitions used in the relevant laws.
In US v. Knox, the useful bit is:
...as used in the child pornography statute, the ordinary meaning of the phrase "lascivious exhibition" means a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area of children, in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer.
Now, you're right about how subjective it is, and a jury would ultimately decide whether the picture is pornographic if it came down to brass tacks.
I'm no lawyer, so if anyone needs advice, assume I'm a harmless, babbling lunatic. Which is true enough.