I remember reading recently that IE7 will not treat a site with an SSL cert as any more secure than one without one. (It was on a firefox dev's blog, and they talked about how it made sense.)
I don't think he gave an opinion on how it affected the regime. He was just stating that it did, indeed, cause suffering in Cuba. (I'm again astonished as to how much people read into posts.)
Well, I'd certainly rather live in the US than China. But to say there's a necessary distinction between "repression" and "enforcing the law" is a bit silly.
I think the point is that publishing rights don't necessarily apply to what google's doing... they're not publishing the material in the traditional sense. They're creating a huge database out of it, which is a type of derivative work. The author still needs to give permission for that sort of thing... I probably have the terms/details wrong, but I know that a publisher doesn't have exclusive rights on every form of reproduction.
Consider this: how much of the book is google copying into it's database? And for what purpose and use is google copying it? Then check the tests to determine fair use...
Regardless of the morality, there sure as hell is a legal distinction. Don't be so quick to assume that what you think should be right, is legal.
And as one legal blogger has pointed out many times, the publishers don't necessarily have anything to do with this. It's the authors who retain copyright, not the companies which sell their books.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "twisted and rotated." I mostly move my mouse by moving my forearm, not my wrist. But again, I play piano and it's probably just a matter of that having applications to using a mouse.
I'll agree with this. It's quite possible to hurt yourself playing the piano if your technique is bad. But once you learn the proper way of holding your arms and wrists, there's not much of a problem.
Opera and Firefox make good faith efforts to follow the standards. The problem is that implementing the complete CSS2.1 spec is hard. It's hard enough to even understand what the specs say should happen in some cases, let alone code a browser that renders it properly.
The Acid2 test is about weird corner cases, with several rules interacting. The bugs it represents aren't ones which cause big headaches for web developers... they should be fixed, but there's no urgency.
Newsflash; I use Firefox constantly, and have only 256MB of RAM. On average it eats 30-50MB, and I've never noticed a slowdown because of it.
Firefox will happily use the RAM which is available. That doesn't mean it does so greedily...
Without giving reasons your just spouting hot air. I'm not a proffesional, nor have I ever used photoshop. To actually add to the debate, you should either give some reasons why the GIMP isn't good enough, or at least link to some site which does the same. (I'm sure they exist, given how often I've seen this type of comment.)
The fact remains that every java built app I've downloaded has been both incredibly slow to start up, and takes a huge chunk of RAM. Sure, I'll probably replace my 4 year old computer soon, and then it won't matter. But in the meantime, it does.
300$ would have been quite a lot back then, though. While any monetary fine is probably less than someone less privelaged could have escaped with, it's not as trivial as it sounds.
You should have kept on going. I never knew that the depression was a fake, until now. ^_^ (Although in seriousness, I guess it was supposed to be posted in irony rather than trollage?)
Occasionally you get the odd person editing a physics/math article who thinks they know what they're talking about, which can cause problem. I feel it happens more often in physics; the more abstract the subject of a technical article, the less likely someone is to mess with it.
But you're especiall right regarding definitions. If I have no idea what something is, Wikipedia is an excellant resource to find out.
Hopefully, this can be dealt with by an existing framework; the law. It might be optimism on my part, but it seems that this would violate some sort of law.
There's a flaw in your reasoning there. It doesn't matter how many universe the theory predicts, it matters how many parameters it leaves unfixed. Just one parameter would be enough to forumulate an infinite number of universes, but if we measure that parameter, we've fixed which one we live in, and can thus make predictions.
"To flex their "we control you" muscles. People are not to have the impression that they have any freedoms in this country, without wondering, "Will I get arrested today?""
Oh come on.... They're being assholes, not facists. ^_^ This sort of cop would just as happily work for facists, but I doubt it's their ideology that drives them to act this way.
That might make it uninteresting to the kind of "mass mischief" makers who write worms... but that's hardly the only reason to worry about security. Especially if you're the sort of person/buisness to attract attention.
There's a third option. They could agree to operate by censoring results, but then not...
Clearly this is basicly the same as 1. But it could allow them to, in a critical situation, provide vital information in an attempt to do a positive good.
I don't expect that to ever happen (or even have been considered), but we might as well discuss all possibilites.
Have they dumbed down Google's main site? No. While their stated reason can sound much like a rationale, arrived at after a buisness decision is made, that doesn't affect it's truth. There's been no reduction in the amount of information available in china.
Consider also, that if a chinese user could visit google's main site, I assume that those results would be unfiltered. They're not actively reducing the information available in china.
"Thought for the day: In 1863, the most extreme left-wing members of the Republican Party wanted civil rights to extend to Negroes. That still seems to be the case." -Steven Brust
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading recently that IE7 will not treat a site with an SSL cert as any more secure than one without one. (It was on a firefox dev's blog, and they talked about how it made sense.)
I don't think he gave an opinion on how it affected the regime. He was just stating that it did, indeed, cause suffering in Cuba. (I'm again astonished as to how much people read into posts.)
Well, I'd certainly rather live in the US than China. But to say there's a necessary distinction between "repression" and "enforcing the law" is a bit silly.
I think the point is that publishing rights don't necessarily apply to what google's doing... they're not publishing the material in the traditional sense. They're creating a huge database out of it, which is a type of derivative work. The author still needs to give permission for that sort of thing... I probably have the terms/details wrong, but I know that a publisher doesn't have exclusive rights on every form of reproduction.
Consider this: how much of the book is google copying into it's database? And for what purpose and use is google copying it? Then check the tests to determine fair use...
Regardless of the morality, there sure as hell is a legal distinction. Don't be so quick to assume that what you think should be right, is legal.
And as one legal blogger has pointed out many times, the publishers don't necessarily have anything to do with this. It's the authors who retain copyright, not the companies which sell their books.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "twisted and rotated." I mostly move my mouse by moving my forearm, not my wrist. But again, I play piano and it's probably just a matter of that having applications to using a mouse.
I'll agree with this. It's quite possible to hurt yourself playing the piano if your technique is bad. But once you learn the proper way of holding your arms and wrists, there's not much of a problem.
Opera and Firefox make good faith efforts to follow the standards. The problem is that implementing the complete CSS2.1 spec is hard. It's hard enough to even understand what the specs say should happen in some cases, let alone code a browser that renders it properly. The Acid2 test is about weird corner cases, with several rules interacting. The bugs it represents aren't ones which cause big headaches for web developers... they should be fixed, but there's no urgency.
Do you really mean to claim that Firefox doesn't do GC? At all? Because that's what I would call "untrue."
Newsflash; I use Firefox constantly, and have only 256MB of RAM. On average it eats 30-50MB, and I've never noticed a slowdown because of it. Firefox will happily use the RAM which is available. That doesn't mean it does so greedily...
Without giving reasons your just spouting hot air. I'm not a proffesional, nor have I ever used photoshop. To actually add to the debate, you should either give some reasons why the GIMP isn't good enough, or at least link to some site which does the same. (I'm sure they exist, given how often I've seen this type of comment.)
The fact remains that every java built app I've downloaded has been both incredibly slow to start up, and takes a huge chunk of RAM. Sure, I'll probably replace my 4 year old computer soon, and then it won't matter. But in the meantime, it does.
I've yet to see a "slanderous edit war" on a physics or math article. But even on those, I check that talk pages to see what people have commented on.
300$ would have been quite a lot back then, though. While any monetary fine is probably less than someone less privelaged could have escaped with, it's not as trivial as it sounds.
You should have kept on going. I never knew that the depression was a fake, until now. ^_^ (Although in seriousness, I guess it was supposed to be posted in irony rather than trollage?)
Occasionally you get the odd person editing a physics/math article who thinks they know what they're talking about, which can cause problem. I feel it happens more often in physics; the more abstract the subject of a technical article, the less likely someone is to mess with it.
But you're especiall right regarding definitions. If I have no idea what something is, Wikipedia is an excellant resource to find out.
Hopefully, this can be dealt with by an existing framework; the law. It might be optimism on my part, but it seems that this would violate some sort of law.
There's a flaw in your reasoning there. It doesn't matter how many universe the theory predicts, it matters how many parameters it leaves unfixed. Just one parameter would be enough to forumulate an infinite number of universes, but if we measure that parameter, we've fixed which one we live in, and can thus make predictions.
"To flex their "we control you" muscles. People are not to have the impression that they have any freedoms in this country, without wondering, "Will I get arrested today?"" Oh come on.... They're being assholes, not facists. ^_^ This sort of cop would just as happily work for facists, but I doubt it's their ideology that drives them to act this way.
That might make it uninteresting to the kind of "mass mischief" makers who write worms... but that's hardly the only reason to worry about security. Especially if you're the sort of person/buisness to attract attention.
There's a third option. They could agree to operate by censoring results, but then not... Clearly this is basicly the same as 1. But it could allow them to, in a critical situation, provide vital information in an attempt to do a positive good. I don't expect that to ever happen (or even have been considered), but we might as well discuss all possibilites.
Have they dumbed down Google's main site? No. While their stated reason can sound much like a rationale, arrived at after a buisness decision is made, that doesn't affect it's truth. There's been no reduction in the amount of information available in china.
Consider also, that if a chinese user could visit google's main site, I assume that those results would be unfiltered. They're not actively reducing the information available in china.
"Thought for the day: In 1863, the most extreme left-wing members of the Republican Party wanted civil rights to extend to Negroes. That still seems to be the case." -Steven Brust