Particularly brain dead politicians. Wasn't it also a local Italian prosecutor that decided the best way of dealing with a video of some kids bullying another one, was to sue Google?
I'm not saying Italy has a monopoly on boneheaded politico's but their particular brand of antics seem to stick on my mind.
There are plenty of places in the world (including the US) with Escheatment laws I spent a month tracking down $1,000 that was 'turned over' to the State after a bank improperly applied these laws. It was a po'dunk community bank, by law they were suppose to inform me 30-days prior to any action, however their process was simply to close any account over a set number of months inactive and forward the money to the state.
But the short of it is, this isn't a wild hair idea, escheatment is an ages old doctrine, if we can apply it to real property, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't apply to something as intangible copyright. If control of the work goes to the "State" till the author takes action to reclaim it, then that would solve so many issues.
No, now that Google has put the brunt of their weight and money on the issue, I would dare to say the next person who comes along will simply need to pay for the scanning service and access to the library.
In other words, Google isn't locking anyone out of anything. The only barrier to entry will be the standard "I need money to make money" barrier that has nothing to do with Google.
They aren't co-opting anything. They don't claim copyright on the orphaned books, they simply republish them with the majority of the funds going to the copyright holder (if they can be identified).
It was unlikely to have been released for free, period. The target audience for Stirling wasn't one which thrived on 'free' products.
And to clarify for you and those who either haven't quite caught onto the history of Microsoft or have forgotten it, the reason Microsoft isn't suppose to release products bundled with Windows (as opposed to a free product you can go online to download) is only peripherally tied to anti-trust law.
Specifically, Microsoft got caught blatantly abusing their monopoly of Windows to push sales of MS-DOS. When they got called out on it by the government, rather than fight it out in court, they chose to settle with the DOJ with the specific agreement to never tie their products together again.
This is why IE got them in trouble, if they had released a free version of IE that you could install AFTER Windows, they wouldn't have had issues. But instead they bundled it with Windows in an attempt to kill off Netscape and did a lot of hand waving in an attempt to pretend it was completely integrated into Windows and not a separate product.
The basic instinct being, know where the protectors are. Pre-teen humans, while brighter than a chicken, have different evolutionary/survival priorities.
No one's saying the chick's doing the math in it's head: "Ok, that was one container from that side, and there go two to that side...", it's definately instinct given these are four day old chicks with no other training.
But then again, a computer isn't thinking about the math it does either, so does it matter if the math is being done conciously or not?
Isn't the old adage: "The wonder is not how well the bear dances, but that it dances at all!"
They did attempt several methods of 'throwing' the chicks off. It didn't work.
There was no 'trail' for the chicks to follow.
They accounted for the "maybe they just 'sensed' where the most eggs are", they covered their bases.
If you had actually read about the study rather than spouting bullshit based on the summary, you'd have known that.
In a series of simple maths tests, Rugani's team attached a fishing line to each of the plastic capsules and used it to move them behind two screens that the chick could see from behind a clear plastic door. When all of the containers had been hidden, the chick was set free to investigate.
Rugani's team found that when the chicks went in search of the capsules, they peered first behind the screen that concealed the larger number of containers.
In a more difficult test, the researchers moved the containers back and forth behind the two screens while the chicks watched. When they were released into the enclosure, the chicks still made for the screen obscuring the most containers, suggesting they had been able to keep track of the number of capsules behind each by adding and subtracting them as they moved.
I realize that it's unfashionable to actually read the article, but perhaps you might want to read one of the two that were linked in the summary. That way, when you are bitching about flawed studies, you don't look like an armchair scientist who did decide to pursue their dream of being a hairdresser, and is now regretting it.
FLR bypasses most measures you've put into place to protect your privacy. Driving a car down a street with a 360 cammera and taking pictures once every couple of feet doesn't.
Because a few vacation photos, over a hundred tourists, equates to the same thing. Because you already have several non-viloent ways of actually politely requesting they don't. Because regardless how many little unspoken rules you've made about your life remain 'unbroken', none of the rest of us actually agreed to crap. Because I'd like to see where I'm going when I plan my tourist trip. Because it really isn't harming you. Because no one really cares about your shit in your yard. Because the world really isn't about you. Or me.
The lack of respect being shown isn't for their 'wishes' it's a lack of respect for how they choose to enact the fullfillment of those wishes.
They were idiots, they may be normal people. That's OK, normal people can be idiots too. But they were idiots. A small group of people made a decision for the entire community. They probably broke the law by impeding traffic, and all for what? Because they didn't want their homes to show up on Google? They could have just logged in and actually indicated that.
It's not as if Google doesn't pull photos all the time from Streetview due to people requesting it.
And this BS about 'being worried this would attract burglers'. Come the eff on. No one but the locals knew about your place. And the locals already had plenty of ways of casing your joint without Google. In fact, the ones that were responsible for the six burglies in the article not only managed to do it without Google Streetview, but it's likely they got away with it right under the resident's nose.
But now, everyone in a huge radius knows that this place not only is an easy mark (after all they've been knocked over six times already) but there's still stuff left for the taking since people are paraniod about who is coming through.
To anyone that agrees with this. Have you ever used streetview? If so you are a horrible fucking hypocrite and I hope you die (Sorry if that possibly sounded a little harsh). If you haven't for shame what kind of nerd are you, its cool and somewhat useful.
Don't want to have people seeing your private shit? Don't keep it out in the open, in public view.
Don't want interlopers driving through your community? Make it gated and pay for your own maintenance instead of expecting the local government to take care of it for you.
Dudes, Vista is a fossil already. By the time your law is passed, it'll be 'end of life'ed. Ban upgrading from XP, not upgrading to Vista. Then do the Macarena as Microsoft slips a thick stack of bills in your pocket to ensure the bill dies in committee. Like you ever had an intention of passing that law in Texas.
The one-battery-per-server is a nice idea though. I may look into that for future builds. Most PC's have 5v and 12v output. That power supply only indicated a 12v output, and didn't have any wires that indicated anything different.
The PS only provides 12v, according to the article the motherboard itself does the stepdown to 5v where necessary (i.e. custom motherboard built to spec). Though I do hope this becomes a standard.
do you also run a multibillion dollar server farm?
Having re-read the article three times now, I still see no reference to Google saying squat about saving space using this. Saving money, saving power, but no saving space.
Please, do tell me, where do you find that? Or, perhaps you should reread my comment and realize I wasn't poo pahing the idea, but pointing out this is not a space saving issue.
And yes, yes I do run a multibillion dollar server farm. Sadly unlike Google I can't show it too you till my robotic overlords complete their plans to over throw the human race. But once that happens, you are welcome to come by for a tour. Ask for ID221200212211122 (the overlords prefer base three systems); I'll even treat you to a glass of solyent green.
I think it's cool too, but I'm not so certain you are getting a space savings here. Efficency, yes. But I can't see the total sized taken by the individual batteries (which in the pictures look like they hang off the edge of the case) taking less room than a large "single serve" UPS for the same number of machines.
Google is basically re-implementing the efficiency that already exists in a laptop
...
You want to know what's more advanced than Google? My middle fignerrrr.
You have a laptop with >1000 processors, consisting of several times that many cores, with its own built-in gigabit ethernet running on built-in gigabit switches?
I'd hate to sit next to you on an airplane!
It's ok, appearently he stores it in his middle finger.
Slashdot Mirror
Particularly brain dead politicians. Wasn't it also a local Italian prosecutor that decided the best way of dealing with a video of some kids bullying another one, was to sue Google?
I'm not saying Italy has a monopoly on boneheaded politico's but their particular brand of antics seem to stick on my mind.
There are plenty of places in the world (including the US) with Escheatment laws I spent a month tracking down $1,000 that was 'turned over' to the State after a bank improperly applied these laws. It was a po'dunk community bank, by law they were suppose to inform me 30-days prior to any action, however their process was simply to close any account over a set number of months inactive and forward the money to the state.
But the short of it is, this isn't a wild hair idea, escheatment is an ages old doctrine, if we can apply it to real property, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't apply to something as intangible copyright. If control of the work goes to the "State" till the author takes action to reclaim it, then that would solve so many issues.
Thats where the "You need money to make money" section of my comment comes into play.
How do you think Google was granted the ability to republish 'orphaned' works in the first place?
Do you follow why the above question is relevant to the emphasized section of your quote?
No, now that Google has put the brunt of their weight and money on the issue, I would dare to say the next person who comes along will simply need to pay for the scanning service and access to the library.
In other words, Google isn't locking anyone out of anything. The only barrier to entry will be the standard "I need money to make money" barrier that has nothing to do with Google.
They aren't co-opting anything. They don't claim copyright on the orphaned books, they simply republish them with the majority of the funds going to the copyright holder (if they can be identified).
It was unlikely to have been released for free, period. The target audience for Stirling wasn't one which thrived on 'free' products.
And to clarify for you and those who either haven't quite caught onto the history of Microsoft or have forgotten it, the reason Microsoft isn't suppose to release products bundled with Windows (as opposed to a free product you can go online to download) is only peripherally tied to anti-trust law.
Specifically, Microsoft got caught blatantly abusing their monopoly of Windows to push sales of MS-DOS. When they got called out on it by the government, rather than fight it out in court, they chose to settle with the DOJ with the specific agreement to never tie their products together again.
This is why IE got them in trouble, if they had released a free version of IE that you could install AFTER Windows, they wouldn't have had issues. But instead they bundled it with Windows in an attempt to kill off Netscape and did a lot of hand waving in an attempt to pretend it was completely integrated into Windows and not a separate product.
Yes, as an achievement. Sadly even then, only 0.001% of us will ever see it.
The basic instinct being, know where the protectors are. Pre-teen humans, while brighter than a chicken, have different evolutionary/survival priorities.
No one's saying the chick's doing the math in it's head: "Ok, that was one container from that side, and there go two to that side...", it's definately instinct given these are four day old chicks with no other training.
But then again, a computer isn't thinking about the math it does either, so does it matter if the math is being done conciously or not?
Isn't the old adage: "The wonder is not how well the bear dances, but that it dances at all!"
Ok then, the study wasn't flawed.
They did attempt several methods of 'throwing' the chicks off. It didn't work.
There was no 'trail' for the chicks to follow.
They accounted for the "maybe they just 'sensed' where the most eggs are", they covered their bases.
If you had actually read about the study rather than spouting bullshit based on the summary, you'd have known that.
I realize that it's unfashionable to actually read the article, but perhaps you might want to read one of the two that were linked in the summary. That way, when you are bitching about flawed studies, you don't look like an armchair scientist who did decide to pursue their dream of being a hairdresser, and is now regretting it.
FLR bypasses most measures you've put into place to protect your privacy. Driving a car down a street with a 360 cammera and taking pictures once every couple of feet doesn't.
Because a few vacation photos, over a hundred tourists, equates to the same thing.
Because you already have several non-viloent ways of actually politely requesting they don't.
Because regardless how many little unspoken rules you've made about your life remain 'unbroken', none of the rest of us actually agreed to crap.
Because I'd like to see where I'm going when I plan my tourist trip.
Because it really isn't harming you.
Because no one really cares about your shit in your yard.
Because the world really isn't about you. Or me.
The lack of respect being shown isn't for their 'wishes' it's a lack of respect for how they choose to enact the fullfillment of those wishes.
They were idiots, they may be normal people. That's OK, normal people can be idiots too. But they were idiots. A small group of people made a decision for the entire community. They probably broke the law by impeding traffic, and all for what? Because they didn't want their homes to show up on Google? They could have just logged in and actually indicated that.
It's not as if Google doesn't pull photos all the time from Streetview due to people requesting it.
And this BS about 'being worried this would attract burglers'. Come the eff on. No one but the locals knew about your place. And the locals already had plenty of ways of casing your joint without Google. In fact, the ones that were responsible for the six burglies in the article not only managed to do it without Google Streetview, but it's likely they got away with it right under the resident's nose.
But now, everyone in a huge radius knows that this place not only is an easy mark (after all they've been knocked over six times already) but there's still stuff left for the taking since people are paraniod about who is coming through.
To burgle with!
I think the obvious solution here is to equip Google cars with sharks. I don't care how angry your mob is, lets see it mess with a shark.
Don't want to have people seeing your private shit? Don't keep it out in the open, in public view.
Don't want interlopers driving through your community? Make it gated and pay for your own maintenance instead of expecting the local government to take care of it for you.
Dear lord, I have no idea how I managed to mangle that link that badly.
The Chewbacca Defense
Are you sure he just hasn't gone for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
>Chewbacca Defense?
Dudes, Vista is a fossil already. By the time your law is passed, it'll be 'end of life'ed. Ban upgrading from XP, not upgrading to Vista. Then do the Macarena as Microsoft slips a thick stack of bills in your pocket to ensure the bill dies in committee. Like you ever had an intention of passing that law in Texas.
The PS only provides 12v, according to the article the motherboard itself does the stepdown to 5v where necessary (i.e. custom motherboard built to spec). Though I do hope this becomes a standard.
Having re-read the article three times now, I still see no reference to Google saying squat about saving space using this. Saving money, saving power, but no saving space.
Please, do tell me, where do you find that? Or, perhaps you should reread my comment and realize I wasn't poo pahing the idea, but pointing out this is not a space saving issue.
And yes, yes I do run a multibillion dollar server farm. Sadly unlike Google I can't show it too you till my robotic overlords complete their plans to over throw the human race. But once that happens, you are welcome to come by for a tour. Ask for ID221200212211122 (the overlords prefer base three systems); I'll even treat you to a glass of solyent green.
I think it's cool too, but I'm not so certain you are getting a space savings here. Efficency, yes. But I can't see the total sized taken by the individual batteries (which in the pictures look like they hang off the edge of the case) taking less room than a large "single serve" UPS for the same number of machines.
You parsed it wrong: he worked 14 'one hour days' over two and a half years.
On the other hand... getting away with that deserves a beer too...
It's ok, appearently he stores it in his middle finger.