"...and the coders of Photoshop would be out of work and unpaid"
This is the problem with many economic "beliefs". They are limited in scope. Companies that pay for Photoshop now would get a free (new and improved) GIMP and have lower overhead costs, which allows them to charge less or hire more. The people who pay less for their services also save money so have more to do things with. And so on, and so on. Not to mention that there'd be more people that could or would learn it, start companies, and so on and so on.
It's such a highly non-linear feedback driven system. Simple analysis won't do.
Re:no laughing matter (and how to avoid it)
on
Merck's Deleted Data
·
· Score: 1
Not all information you want to keep hidden is illegal. In fact, in the corporate environment, I would think illegal stuff would make up a negligible percentage of secret/proprietary information. Not to mention simple mistakes, wordings that someone wanted changed so as not to offend a client, or things of that nature.
There are at least two huge holes in your reasoning. First, "theft" or "stealing" require you to deprive the owner of the use of said item. Copyright infringement does not. In fact, the owner may not even know about it. Loss of potential income from hypothetical sales that might have happened if the infringement did not occur is not the same thing. It is not the purpose of the laws.
Second, copyright law does not give author's a right to royalties or recognition. Copyright law is explicit that it is only a right of refusal. That is, it gives authors the right to refuse to allow others to copy it. It does not provide a right to income from it. That is merely one way in which authors have exploited their right of refusal, by refusing everyone except those who pay them. The difference is important.
"So, yeah she wasn't deprived of much. Its all perception."
That's a straw-man argument. The "something" deprived of in theft is the usage of the item that was stolen. Nobody is deprived of the use of the copyrighted material when it is copied. It is not theft. Loss of potential income from hypothetical sales that might have happened had the copyright infringement not happened is *not* the same thing as the deprivation of the use of said item.
But thanks for repeating the same mistaken straw-man argument that the media industry continues to make.
Does anybody actually use screen-savers anymore with LCD screens? OK, some people still use CRTs, including me as a second monitor. But if someone still hasn't updated their monitor to "modern" technology, are they going to update their mouse? Who is the target audience?
"A 30 year span is insignificant in terms of global climate TRENDS."
Actually, you just made the argument against the conclusions of the study. The argument for humans causing global warming goes something like this:
- The temperature is higher now than it's been in x years of records. (X here is usually in about 1000 years of measurements, though there's arguments about a few periods in there where it might have been warmer.)
- The greenhouse gases are higher now that they've been in Y years. (Y = 650,000 years from this study.)
- Humans have been creating a lot of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution started a couple of hundred years ago.
- Aha! We must be causing it.
That 30 years is insignificant over these time scales also means that 200 years or so is insignificant as well, which is the entire argument about us causing global warming. You can't claim 200 years is significant and 30 isn't whenn compared to these time-scales.
There are many missing pieces from the argument so far to keep it from being a solid argument of some sort:
(1) What is the time-correlation of the greenhouse gases. Fine, they're higher now than any time in the last 650,000 years. Did they keep within some normal fluctuations until about 200 years ago and then steeply climb, or did they start climbing 200,000 years ago, and are slowly leveling off? What's the pattern? If it's the former, one could correlate it to the industrial revolution and us. (Not necessarily causation, but higher correlation is more convincing.) If it's the latter, it essentially removes any use of the study as an argument for humans being the cause since we didn't produce greenhouse gases 200,000 years ago. This is highly important to the argument.
For instance, when I moved away to university, I was taller than I had been in my previous 18 years. Therefore, university causes growth spurts. If I suddenly grew tall right after moving, perhaps it's true(but not necessarily). If I grew taller over years and was leveling off when I moved, it has nothing to do with it. The correlation over time with events is the most important part of the argument and we don't have it for gases.
(2) We do have some of the correlation over time with events for temperature, and there is a rough correlation of temp with increased greenhouse gases, but not a firm one and there are correlations with other things (such as increased solar activity). If human-produced greenhouse gasses are the cause, what happened in the 30 years from 1940 to 1970. We can't claim to understand the causation of climate change over 200 years but can't understand causation over 30 years. Either we understand what affects climate or we don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
(3) How can such a small fraction of greenhouse gases, as produced by humans in comparison to naturally occuring, cause such large changes? Why is the climate so much more sensitive to these small amounts?
There are probably more missing pieces. Incidently, I actually do believe that humans are having a bad effect on climate. I hate SUV's, waste, inefficiency, and so on. However, I also have a firm understanding of deductive reasoning and the scientific method and can't throw that out just because I believe something is true. The argument for human causation is so full of holes right now it isn't convincing. That doesn't make it wrong or that we shouldn't be trying to be more efficient and less polluting; but there's either insufficient evidence yet for the argument or it's not being presented properly.
"... in comparison the way the company has responded..."
You mean like, for instance, taking a first step to just ask her to take it off the website? Like they actually did first? I don't see anywhere they said "OFF WITH HER HEAD". In fact, I don't see anywhere they've said anything nasty about her. According to TFA, when she refused to take the statements off her site they said they had no alternative but to sue to seek remedy.
Just for a second, consider if you were running such a company, and you were, for the sake of argument, doing nothing wrong and somebody said this about you. What would your response be? First ask her to stop? They did. Then threaten to sue if she didn't? They did. What would you do differently? It's one thing to complain about the way people do things, but it's empty without an explanation of what the "right" way to do things is.
I'm not saying that's the case here. She could be completely right in which case I'd be behind her 100%. Or she could be completely wrong.
No. And I don't have any reason to doubt the company either. That's the point. Does anyone here know anything about the company or the woman?
"Are you saying she's a liar?"
No again. I didn't say she was wrong and the company is right. I said she might be wrong and the company right. We just don't know the facts of the case. I know of good and bad construction companies, and good and bad people.
As for the rest of the "Are you saying..." questions, see above. All I said is we don't know the facts of the case. The company could be wrong, or she could be. I'm not siding with anybody because I don't know the evidence. Why does almost everybody else here think they do?
As for the "Are you sure..." questions, yes, actually I am sure about those ones. You, of course, are not. But, if I were any of those, I would have actually said that she was wrong and the company was right, and not that "has anyone considered that she might, in fact, have done harm". I didn't realize being objective and considering both sides was a bad thing.
"The point is to check your assumptions."
I'm not sure which assumptions you are referring to. I didn't make any. In fact, I pointed out that we (including me) don't know the facts and evidence so we can't make an assertion either way.
"I haven't seen her site, but I'd be surprised if they were using any safety equipment at all."
Nice. Do I even need to comment on the absurdity of this statement? Since you missed it the first time, I guess I have to. Check your assumptions. You are saying that she is probably right because you saw a UK TV show exposing safety problems with construction companies, and therefore since this involves a construction company she must be right. How could anyone possible argue with that airtight logic? You certainly got me beat. Who needs actual facts or evidence? Let's just turn to similar cases on TV from now on.
I would have thought this falls under fair use. Looking at the four factors for fair use, it isn't entirely clear if this meets them. It seems very obvious to me that it should be fair use and there's substantial argument for it, but as the above reference points out, it's open to interpretation.
Four (five?) factors:
1. The purpose and character of your use. Since this is done to help protect people, it seems this is a slam dunk. And since the Supreme Court indicated in 1994 that this is the "primary indicator of fair use", I suspect it is enough.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work. Again, considering the spyware issue, this seems a slam dunk for fair use.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion taken. In this case they took the whole thing, but that only makes sense in this context. You can't take part of a program very easily. This factor probably has less meaning in electronic formats. You can, for instance, copy only a page of a PDF from a website if the PDF the supply is a whole book. Similar with software. It's generally all or nothing.
4. The effect on the use upon the potential market. Well, I guess that's the point here. This might actually act against the use of it, but it's a "bad" market, so this probably won't play up well. Which leads to the fifth unnoficial factor.
(5.) Are you good or bad? (Not a real factor, but often used to rationalize decisions.) This one speaks for itself. Given the judges discretion, I'd hope this one is obvious to them.
"The saddest part of all of this is that this mom is just trying to fight back"
Has anyone here considered that she might, in fact, have done harm to an innocent company? We don't know anything about her or the company. I've known people who think they know everything, what is safe and what isn't, what's the law and what isn't (sound familiar anyone?), and just get in everyone's face. It's quite possible that she is wrong. TFA states that she said roofers weren't using proper safety equipment. Does she know what's proper safety equipment for a worksite? The point is, everyone is just assuming she's right and the company is wrong. Check your assumptions.
As for the "better law" argument, neither is better or worse. The U.S. system gives you more freedom to say whatever but at the cost of having people (or companies) slandered without remedy. The Canadian (and English) system requires that you be more careful about what you say, but means you are less likely to be unjustly attacked or at least remedied if you are. Neither is perfect.
No. If that's the argument, then everything in science is wrong. There is no existing model that is 100% perfect. You are missing your own point that science isn't about absolute truths. Then you claim that his model is wrong because it isn't an absolute truth (like 100 + 100 = 200, not 199). Science is about understanding how nature works, and Newton's model does a fantastic job of explaining how nature works for most applications we run into. If you go into chemistry, biology, geology, and other similar sciences, you'll see even models that are even much more approximate, but still do a great job of understanding natural behaviour.
"With all the money we throw at such horrible research, why the NSF can't throw $2 million this way is beyond me."
From the article:
"Lerner's persistent quest to find other federal monies has thus far been unfruitful. "This administration does not want to fund any serious competitor to oil or gas," Lerner said."
"If we were absolutely sure it were true, it wouldn't be called a theory, but rather a truth."
Ahhh! Somebody has to shoot those worse than useless science teachers or imbecile media from which people get these ideas. There are an overabundance of people who think a theory is a concept that somebody came up with and a fact (or truth) is a theory that has been proven to be true. This is garbage. Science doesn't deal in facts. It's all models of how reality works. Newton wasn't wrong. His model works and works well for most things we'd normally encounter. Relativity improved upon it where Newton's model breaks down. But even relativity and quantum mechanics are in conflict so neither is a perfect model.
"Theory" is not, I repeat not, and idea or concept. "Theory" is a description of the principles behind the model of how things work. I've studied gas turbine theory, for instance. Does anybody believe gas turbines don't exist? A thought up idea or concept to explain things is an hypothesis. Some will argue this is symantics; that "theory" is used by laypersons to mean what scientists would refer to as an hypothesis. Fine, except that the two meanings of "theory" are getting mixed. Big Bang theory is a description of the big bang model, not a reference that it is merely an hypothesis. Evolution theory is a description of the model of how evolution works, not a reference to it just being an hypothesis (which it isn't).
Models always have flaws, and models get better. But none are ever meant to describe a fact or truth. The same results can occur from a Big Bang progressing forwards, or an intelligent designer creating all things a few thousand years ago to look exactly as if they had been produced by the Big Bang. The latter case is irrelevant to science because it can neither be examined, tested, or provide predictive results. The former case can do all of them. Note that this says intelligent design, for example, is possible but cannot be scientific nor can it be a required explanation. That it is internally inconsistent (and has been since the argument was formulated centeries ago) and doesn't do a thing for explaining where we came from also means it's not even intellectually useful.
"Computer language - something with very clear syntax rules - is the way to go.
"
I seriously hope you are joking. There's a bunch of problems with that idea that are immediately obvious. First, the main problem is that there is no hard line "right" and "wrong" in most cases. Whys is it safe to go 64.9 mph but 65.1 mph is unsafe? That's unreasonable. However, the law has to say something because going way to fast is definitely dangerous. The "reasonableness" is often part of the law. The only way to program that is with some sort of fuzzy logic.
Second, related to the first, is that the problem with the ambiguity of the law now is that it is, in fact, being written like computer syntax. Since there are few absolutes, all sorts of exceptions (if... then) and variability ("reasonable") have to be built in. Ambiguities tend to be these cases. "Don't kill" is easy. Except self-defense. Except defense of a third person. If you are insane, different punishment. How abonormal do you have to be to be insane? Who judges? And so forth. That is exactly why laws are unreadable, because they try to fill loopholes and cover all cases like a computer program needs to do.
Third, how they hell are people supposed to understand what the law says? People speak in English, they don't speak computer languages. Programmers might be able to reverse engineer it, so then the programmers would effectively become the lawyers, which in follow the second problem above, is exactly the case now. Lawyers reverse engineer the language of the law to see what it says.
In short, computer-like syntax is the problem here already. Unfortunately, since all situations are essentially different, and there are few absolute rights and wrongs, there is no real solution that works well.
"Legally, I wouldn't be so sure. But IANAL."
"...they might have the letter of the law with them."
Yes, I agree the letter of the law might be with the authors, though it's a bit of a gray area here. My point was that the law has been subverted from the intention of such laws and what Google is doing is exactly what they were intended to promote. It's a shame, especially if the authors win.
As a bit of an aside, I'm wondering if such laws are consitutional. While Eldred v. Ashcroft lost the constitutional fight on the grounds that Congress can only create such laws for a limited time and they are effectively unlimted now, I think the better argument is that Congress is only allowed to create such laws "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (Clause 8). If Google is stopped it is a clear demonstration that the laws violate this principle and are therefore unconstitutional. IANAL either, but the principle is quite clear in layman's terms, and even in Eldred the judges hinted to Lessig that he might have a better chance by arguing this over the "effectively unlimited" theory, as he outlines in Free Culture.
"Who the hell are Google to decide what's 'good' for the author"
They're not doing it for the authour. Obviously they're doing it, ultimately, for themselves. That it is useful to authours in addition to users should make it less controversial. A better question is "Who the hell are the authors to decide how their works can be used?" The idea of owning an idea or expression of an idea is absurd, un-natural, and counter to societal progress. Did you miss the grandparent post including the Thomas Jefferson quote? Google is doing exactly what IP law exists to promote.
"...why is it greedy to want to be the one who determines how what you created should be used..."
Because ideas and expressions are the least natural thing that fits the concept of ownership and control. It's counter to the public good and progress. It is only supposed to be allowed for a limited time (which is arguably effecitvely unlimited now) to provide incentive for creators to make their works public for all to benefit from, not just them. Taking things away from others for your own gain is exactly what greed is.
"... and perhaps why it shouldn't be used to generate revenue for someone else"
Which, again, is the point of IP law. Authors creations have stimulated the progressive creation of a convenient, easy to use, searchable index database of all such works. The point of IP law is to stimulate such progress for the good of the public whole. Those who are trying to stop this are acting counter to the intention of IP laws in the first place.
Funny that all of this was explained up about three levels and you missed (or ignored) them all.
"A small distinction perhaps, but an inportant one IMO."
True enough. And like many/.ers, I'm a fan of technical correctness so I like your explanation better. And in that case, the article is wrong in that IBM didn't slow the speed of light. Why does the media have to sensationalize everything. (=
"But there is also no law that forbids them to make money from your work, as long as they don't break your copyright."
And in fact there shouldn't be, as this is more or less the point of copyright law anyway. Many people seem to believe that copyrights exist because the creators "own" their creation like tangible property. That is an absurd notion. To quote Thomas Edison:
"It would be curious then, if
an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of
natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If
nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps
it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into
the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess
himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses
the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who
receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without
lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light
without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to
another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man,
and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and
benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire,
expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any
point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our
physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
In this case, he was referring to patents specifically, but the words have equal or greater meaning when applied to copyrighted works. Copyright law, and IP law in general, exists for the sole purpose of disseminating creations for the benefit of everyone to use and develop. The protections offered in IP law are merely the incentives for the creators to make their works public so that other people can't sell their works directly (without their permission) or provide copies to subvert their sales, for a limited time. Google isn't doing either. The point of IP law isn't to stop others from making money in other ways from your work, so the whole argument of Google making money off copies of the work completely misunderstands the purpose of such laws.
Unfortunately, IP law has been subverted and distorted, largely by the content creators to get more and longer protection to have more control and make more money, and consequently reduce the amount of creative works available for public use instead of increase it as was the intention. Google's creation of a searchable indexing system for all books is not only incredibly useful for both users and creators, it is a perfect example of the progress that IP law was intended to create and is the sole purpose for which Congress is allowed to create such laws as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
Ottawa, Ontario can probably beat that. Record low: -32.9 F (-36.1 C), high: 100.0 F (37.8 C), and snowfall: 16.0 inches(40.6 cm). Average yearly snowfall is 87.2 inches (7.3 feet).
Note that these are not exactly very unusual values. It is regularly below -30 C in winter, mid-30 C in summer, and heavy snowfall. I might also add that the humidity is very very high, so the humidex (feels like) is mid-40's in the summer. So the only one not beat is the maximum daily snowfall by a few inches, but temps and average snowfall are worse.
On January 4, 1998 the first drops of freezing rain started to fall in Eastern Canada. Ten centimetres of freezing rain fell in less than a week, destroying trees, grounding airplanes, and leaving over a million people without electricity. Check out the links below for more about the event.
Slashdot Mirror
I still think I'd keep my 486DX2/66, P90, PII 233, PIII 400, and PIII 800.
This is the problem with many economic "beliefs". They are limited in scope. Companies that pay for Photoshop now would get a free (new and improved) GIMP and have lower overhead costs, which allows them to charge less or hire more. The people who pay less for their services also save money so have more to do things with. And so on, and so on. Not to mention that there'd be more people that could or would learn it, start companies, and so on and so on.
It's such a highly non-linear feedback driven system. Simple analysis won't do.
Not all information you want to keep hidden is illegal. In fact, in the corporate environment, I would think illegal stuff would make up a negligible percentage of secret/proprietary information. Not to mention simple mistakes, wordings that someone wanted changed so as not to offend a client, or things of that nature.
There are at least two huge holes in your reasoning. First, "theft" or "stealing" require you to deprive the owner of the use of said item. Copyright infringement does not. In fact, the owner may not even know about it. Loss of potential income from hypothetical sales that might have happened if the infringement did not occur is not the same thing. It is not the purpose of the laws.
Second, copyright law does not give author's a right to royalties or recognition. Copyright law is explicit that it is only a right of refusal. That is, it gives authors the right to refuse to allow others to copy it. It does not provide a right to income from it. That is merely one way in which authors have exploited their right of refusal, by refusing everyone except those who pay them. The difference is important.
That's a straw-man argument. The "something" deprived of in theft is the usage of the item that was stolen. Nobody is deprived of the use of the copyrighted material when it is copied. It is not theft. Loss of potential income from hypothetical sales that might have happened had the copyright infringement not happened is *not* the same thing as the deprivation of the use of said item.
But thanks for repeating the same mistaken straw-man argument that the media industry continues to make.
This'll ruin chase scenes in movies. I guess they can't film in Canada anymore. If they get this in L.A., what will they put on the news?
Does anybody actually use screen-savers anymore with LCD screens? OK, some people still use CRTs, including me as a second monitor. But if someone still hasn't updated their monitor to "modern" technology, are they going to update their mouse? Who is the target audience?
Actually, you just made the argument against the conclusions of the study. The argument for humans causing global warming goes something like this:
- The temperature is higher now than it's been in x years of records. (X here is usually in about 1000 years of measurements, though there's arguments about a few periods in there where it might have been warmer.)
- The greenhouse gases are higher now that they've been in Y years. (Y = 650,000 years from this study.)
- Humans have been creating a lot of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution started a couple of hundred years ago.
- Aha! We must be causing it.
That 30 years is insignificant over these time scales also means that 200 years or so is insignificant as well, which is the entire argument about us causing global warming. You can't claim 200 years is significant and 30 isn't whenn compared to these time-scales.
There are many missing pieces from the argument so far to keep it from being a solid argument of some sort:
(1) What is the time-correlation of the greenhouse gases. Fine, they're higher now than any time in the last 650,000 years. Did they keep within some normal fluctuations until about 200 years ago and then steeply climb, or did they start climbing 200,000 years ago, and are slowly leveling off? What's the pattern? If it's the former, one could correlate it to the industrial revolution and us. (Not necessarily causation, but higher correlation is more convincing.) If it's the latter, it essentially removes any use of the study as an argument for humans being the cause since we didn't produce greenhouse gases 200,000 years ago. This is highly important to the argument.
For instance, when I moved away to university, I was taller than I had been in my previous 18 years. Therefore, university causes growth spurts. If I suddenly grew tall right after moving, perhaps it's true(but not necessarily). If I grew taller over years and was leveling off when I moved, it has nothing to do with it. The correlation over time with events is the most important part of the argument and we don't have it for gases.
(2) We do have some of the correlation over time with events for temperature, and there is a rough correlation of temp with increased greenhouse gases, but not a firm one and there are correlations with other things (such as increased solar activity). If human-produced greenhouse gasses are the cause, what happened in the 30 years from 1940 to 1970. We can't claim to understand the causation of climate change over 200 years but can't understand causation over 30 years. Either we understand what affects climate or we don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
(3) How can such a small fraction of greenhouse gases, as produced by humans in comparison to naturally occuring, cause such large changes? Why is the climate so much more sensitive to these small amounts?
There are probably more missing pieces. Incidently, I actually do believe that humans are having a bad effect on climate. I hate SUV's, waste, inefficiency, and so on. However, I also have a firm understanding of deductive reasoning and the scientific method and can't throw that out just because I believe something is true. The argument for human causation is so full of holes right now it isn't convincing. That doesn't make it wrong or that we shouldn't be trying to be more efficient and less polluting; but there's either insufficient evidence yet for the argument or it's not being presented properly.
You mean like, for instance, taking a first step to just ask her to take it off the website? Like they actually did first? I don't see anywhere they said "OFF WITH HER HEAD". In fact, I don't see anywhere they've said anything nasty about her. According to TFA, when she refused to take the statements off her site they said they had no alternative but to sue to seek remedy.
Just for a second, consider if you were running such a company, and you were, for the sake of argument, doing nothing wrong and somebody said this about you. What would your response be? First ask her to stop? They did. Then threaten to sue if she didn't? They did. What would you do differently? It's one thing to complain about the way people do things, but it's empty without an explanation of what the "right" way to do things is.
I'm not saying that's the case here. She could be completely right in which case I'd be behind her 100%. Or she could be completely wrong.
No. And I don't have any reason to doubt the company either. That's the point. Does anyone here know anything about the company or the woman?
"Are you saying she's a liar?"
No again. I didn't say she was wrong and the company is right. I said she might be wrong and the company right. We just don't know the facts of the case. I know of good and bad construction companies, and good and bad people.
As for the rest of the "Are you saying ..." questions, see above. All I said is we don't know the facts of the case. The company could be wrong, or she could be. I'm not siding with anybody because I don't know the evidence. Why does almost everybody else here think they do?
As for the "Are you sure ..." questions, yes, actually I am sure about those ones. You, of course, are not. But, if I were any of those, I would have actually said that she was wrong and the company was right, and not that "has anyone considered that she might, in fact, have done harm". I didn't realize being objective and considering both sides was a bad thing.
"The point is to check your assumptions."
I'm not sure which assumptions you are referring to. I didn't make any. In fact, I pointed out that we (including me) don't know the facts and evidence so we can't make an assertion either way.
Nice. Do I even need to comment on the absurdity of this statement? Since you missed it the first time, I guess I have to. Check your assumptions. You are saying that she is probably right because you saw a UK TV show exposing safety problems with construction companies, and therefore since this involves a construction company she must be right. How could anyone possible argue with that airtight logic? You certainly got me beat. Who needs actual facts or evidence? Let's just turn to similar cases on TV from now on.
Four (five?) factors:
1. The purpose and character of your use. Since this is done to help protect people, it seems this is a slam dunk. And since the Supreme Court indicated in 1994 that this is the "primary indicator of fair use", I suspect it is enough.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work. Again, considering the spyware issue, this seems a slam dunk for fair use.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion taken. In this case they took the whole thing, but that only makes sense in this context. You can't take part of a program very easily. This factor probably has less meaning in electronic formats. You can, for instance, copy only a page of a PDF from a website if the PDF the supply is a whole book. Similar with software. It's generally all or nothing.
4. The effect on the use upon the potential market. Well, I guess that's the point here. This might actually act against the use of it, but it's a "bad" market, so this probably won't play up well. Which leads to the fifth unnoficial factor.
(5.) Are you good or bad? (Not a real factor, but often used to rationalize decisions.) This one speaks for itself. Given the judges discretion, I'd hope this one is obvious to them.
Has anyone here considered that she might, in fact, have done harm to an innocent company? We don't know anything about her or the company. I've known people who think they know everything, what is safe and what isn't, what's the law and what isn't (sound familiar anyone?), and just get in everyone's face. It's quite possible that she is wrong. TFA states that she said roofers weren't using proper safety equipment. Does she know what's proper safety equipment for a worksite? The point is, everyone is just assuming she's right and the company is wrong. Check your assumptions.
As for the "better law" argument, neither is better or worse. The U.S. system gives you more freedom to say whatever but at the cost of having people (or companies) slandered without remedy. The Canadian (and English) system requires that you be more careful about what you say, but means you are less likely to be unjustly attacked or at least remedied if you are. Neither is perfect.
No. If that's the argument, then everything in science is wrong. There is no existing model that is 100% perfect. You are missing your own point that science isn't about absolute truths. Then you claim that his model is wrong because it isn't an absolute truth (like 100 + 100 = 200, not 199). Science is about understanding how nature works, and Newton's model does a fantastic job of explaining how nature works for most applications we run into. If you go into chemistry, biology, geology, and other similar sciences, you'll see even models that are even much more approximate, but still do a great job of understanding natural behaviour.
If you had said 900 Ft Jesus, you might be right.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. (=
From the article:
Ahhh! Somebody has to shoot those worse than useless science teachers or imbecile media from which people get these ideas. There are an overabundance of people who think a theory is a concept that somebody came up with and a fact (or truth) is a theory that has been proven to be true. This is garbage. Science doesn't deal in facts. It's all models of how reality works. Newton wasn't wrong. His model works and works well for most things we'd normally encounter. Relativity improved upon it where Newton's model breaks down. But even relativity and quantum mechanics are in conflict so neither is a perfect model.
"Theory" is not, I repeat not, and idea or concept. "Theory" is a description of the principles behind the model of how things work. I've studied gas turbine theory, for instance. Does anybody believe gas turbines don't exist? A thought up idea or concept to explain things is an hypothesis. Some will argue this is symantics; that "theory" is used by laypersons to mean what scientists would refer to as an hypothesis. Fine, except that the two meanings of "theory" are getting mixed. Big Bang theory is a description of the big bang model, not a reference that it is merely an hypothesis. Evolution theory is a description of the model of how evolution works, not a reference to it just being an hypothesis (which it isn't).
Models always have flaws, and models get better. But none are ever meant to describe a fact or truth. The same results can occur from a Big Bang progressing forwards, or an intelligent designer creating all things a few thousand years ago to look exactly as if they had been produced by the Big Bang. The latter case is irrelevant to science because it can neither be examined, tested, or provide predictive results. The former case can do all of them. Note that this says intelligent design, for example, is possible but cannot be scientific nor can it be a required explanation. That it is internally inconsistent (and has been since the argument was formulated centeries ago) and doesn't do a thing for explaining where we came from also means it's not even intellectually useful.
I seriously hope you are joking. There's a bunch of problems with that idea that are immediately obvious. First, the main problem is that there is no hard line "right" and "wrong" in most cases. Whys is it safe to go 64.9 mph but 65.1 mph is unsafe? That's unreasonable. However, the law has to say something because going way to fast is definitely dangerous. The "reasonableness" is often part of the law. The only way to program that is with some sort of fuzzy logic.
Second, related to the first, is that the problem with the ambiguity of the law now is that it is, in fact, being written like computer syntax. Since there are few absolutes, all sorts of exceptions (if ... then) and variability ("reasonable") have to be built in. Ambiguities tend to be these cases. "Don't kill" is easy. Except self-defense. Except defense of a third person. If you are insane, different punishment. How abonormal do you have to be to be insane? Who judges? And so forth. That is exactly why laws are unreadable, because they try to fill loopholes and cover all cases like a computer program needs to do.
Third, how they hell are people supposed to understand what the law says? People speak in English, they don't speak computer languages. Programmers might be able to reverse engineer it, so then the programmers would effectively become the lawyers, which in follow the second problem above, is exactly the case now. Lawyers reverse engineer the language of the law to see what it says.
In short, computer-like syntax is the problem here already. Unfortunately, since all situations are essentially different, and there are few absolute rights and wrongs, there is no real solution that works well.
"...they might have the letter of the law with them."
Yes, I agree the letter of the law might be with the authors, though it's a bit of a gray area here. My point was that the law has been subverted from the intention of such laws and what Google is doing is exactly what they were intended to promote. It's a shame, especially if the authors win.
As a bit of an aside, I'm wondering if such laws are consitutional. While Eldred v. Ashcroft lost the constitutional fight on the grounds that Congress can only create such laws for a limited time and they are effectively unlimted now, I think the better argument is that Congress is only allowed to create such laws "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (Clause 8). If Google is stopped it is a clear demonstration that the laws violate this principle and are therefore unconstitutional. IANAL either, but the principle is quite clear in layman's terms, and even in Eldred the judges hinted to Lessig that he might have a better chance by arguing this over the "effectively unlimited" theory, as he outlines in Free Culture.
They're not doing it for the authour. Obviously they're doing it, ultimately, for themselves. That it is useful to authours in addition to users should make it less controversial. A better question is "Who the hell are the authors to decide how their works can be used?" The idea of owning an idea or expression of an idea is absurd, un-natural, and counter to societal progress. Did you miss the grandparent post including the Thomas Jefferson quote? Google is doing exactly what IP law exists to promote.
"...why is it greedy to want to be the one who determines how what you created should be used..."
Because ideas and expressions are the least natural thing that fits the concept of ownership and control. It's counter to the public good and progress. It is only supposed to be allowed for a limited time (which is arguably effecitvely unlimited now) to provide incentive for creators to make their works public for all to benefit from, not just them. Taking things away from others for your own gain is exactly what greed is.
"... and perhaps why it shouldn't be used to generate revenue for someone else"
Which, again, is the point of IP law. Authors creations have stimulated the progressive creation of a convenient, easy to use, searchable index database of all such works. The point of IP law is to stimulate such progress for the good of the public whole. Those who are trying to stop this are acting counter to the intention of IP laws in the first place.
Funny that all of this was explained up about three levels and you missed (or ignored) them all.
True enough. And like many /.ers, I'm a fan of technical correctness so I like your explanation better. And in that case, the article is wrong in that IBM didn't slow the speed of light. Why does the media have to sensationalize everything. (=
And in fact there shouldn't be, as this is more or less the point of copyright law anyway. Many people seem to believe that copyrights exist because the creators "own" their creation like tangible property. That is an absurd notion. To quote Thomas Edison:
In this case, he was referring to patents specifically, but the words have equal or greater meaning when applied to copyrighted works. Copyright law, and IP law in general, exists for the sole purpose of disseminating creations for the benefit of everyone to use and develop. The protections offered in IP law are merely the incentives for the creators to make their works public so that other people can't sell their works directly (without their permission) or provide copies to subvert their sales, for a limited time. Google isn't doing either. The point of IP law isn't to stop others from making money in other ways from your work, so the whole argument of Google making money off copies of the work completely misunderstands the purpose of such laws.
Unfortunately, IP law has been subverted and distorted, largely by the content creators to get more and longer protection to have more control and make more money, and consequently reduce the amount of creative works available for public use instead of increase it as was the intention. Google's creation of a searchable indexing system for all books is not only incredibly useful for both users and creators, it is a perfect example of the progress that IP law was intended to create and is the sole purpose for which Congress is allowed to create such laws as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
Joke aside, it's always been a variable. It changes depending on the medium it's traveling through. 'c' is just the speed of light in a vacuum.
Ottawa, Ontario can probably beat that. Record low: -32.9 F (-36.1 C), high: 100.0 F (37.8 C), and snowfall: 16.0 inches(40.6 cm). Average yearly snowfall is 87.2 inches (7.3 feet).
Note that these are not exactly very unusual values. It is regularly below -30 C in winter, mid-30 C in summer, and heavy snowfall. I might also add that the humidity is very very high, so the humidex (feels like) is mid-40's in the summer. So the only one not beat is the maximum daily snowfall by a few inches, but temps and average snowfall are worse.
For storms, how about this one: