According to reports, there were over 18,000 mummies sent to the Smithsonian, one a guy in a full set of copper armor with a copper crown. The Smithsonian claimed that they don't know what happened to them when sent inquiries.
Numerous people in the 1800s started claiming that they should not send anything else to the institute lest they become "lost", but of course these city councilmen, archeologists, engineers, etc.. were just "crazy conspiracy theories".
I think they should allow volunteers to start digging through those troves and finding things. How many American Indian artifacts are collecting dust? And those don't require any conspiracy theories to determine that they have a stash.
I have been very clear that the FG didn't improve airbags, my addition of "make" was for clarity (perhaps being too anal). The market was doing that before the FG made any mandates. GM's 1973 sale of cars to the Government was not the sole reason for improvements. The Ford release in 1971 makes that abundantly clear. The further releases in the early 80s by Mercedes show that development was happening without government mandates.
Some of the customer adoption I would agree is due to government mandates. As mentioned, I don't know if we can measure this fairly because market pressure was already increasing demand.
Thanks for the well thought out response. If I have the time I'll go back and see if I can find what you said is lacking, because I'm baffled on how the links were not considered advertisements. I completely neglected the thoughts that the case law could be used by others, and appreciate that pointer.
Even if there was an agreement for Barnes And Nobel to pay google 12 cents for a hit to their site, it still wouldn't be advertising,
That is funny, perhaps you should get a dictionary and look up the definition of advertising. Your description of the transaction that follows is amazingly identical to how a lyric site would generate revenue from music. The lyric site would not make money from the song either, they would make the money from the company selling the song after a user followed the link. These sites are not selling lyrics any more than Google is selling the books.
Most are indeed flat links. Follow one of them. They lead directly to the page of the same name at the seller' web site, or to the sellers internal search facility via isbn numbers.
I did follow links which is why I know they were encoded. Maybe the art of html-fu is not within you. "http://www.site.com/" is a flat link. "http://www.site.com/page?long_string" is not a flat link.
Your arguments mean nothing, because someone with a higher pay grade has ruled.
Way to be an ass hat!
And google gives a way far more than any company I know.
Not relevant to the points given, and does not take away a track record of proven wrong doing. Now you just sound like a Google shill.
Many people have woken up (and not recently either) and understand that they are realistically no longer in control of their government. They just don't know what to do about it. Can we keep this discussion going: What CAN we do about this situation?
I was intentionally clear that many people are awake. Numbers increase a tiny bit all the time, so knowledge is moving slowly in the right direction. The point was that it takes a much larger percentage of the population to force the changes needed.
What can you do? You cover a couple things, but not the most important. The most important thing to do at this point is get more and more people awake. Since the string pullers have media covered, your task is to shoulder tap and talk to people. The first thing to tell them is: After you are awake, I want you to try to wake up 5 more people. Once you do that, have them wake up 5 more people. Give them reading materials. There are thousands of books that explain how the system is broken geared toward numerous levels. Mark Dice will help religious people, Gary Allen will get the business crowd, Jesse Ventura will get the macho crowd. Get a couple and start sharing. This has the nice side effect of keeping people away from TV propaganda messages for the duration of them reading at least. I also like to give away copies of "The Allegory of the Cave" and ask people to read Plato's "The Republic". Tougher crowd for that one, but I have gotten more people to read that book than my College did.
The parties are broken, so part of the wake up call is to convince people that party votes have to vanish because neither party will save them. Get your own candidate on a ballot, write people in where they allow write ins. Learn to petition, and get others that are awake to help petition and get the message out.
None of this is easy, it takes exhausting work to wake people up. Until there is enough momentum to force the change, nothing is going to change.
The proper description is "sting." You seem to be trying to build the case for a description of "entrapment."
I think the Underwear bomber is enough for you to consider many operations entrapment at best, facilitating terrorism at worse. The ATF in F&F is another fine example. Claiming that the agents didn't go to trial is not the same as claiming they were not found guilty.
Next, talking about what terrorist organizations over seas has nothing to do with terrorism inside our borders. I'll skip that, because you are confusing what border protection is. Not that it's new, just that you are still doing it.>
By the same token, your disbelief or lack of knowledge of their existence doesn't cause them to cease to be.
By this logic Santa Clause exists then. If you want to tell me that we have all of these crazy terrorists in the US, I need proof. What we have seen so far is the FBI setting up things so that the few people of questionable mental health have been provided enough material and information to be "caught" in the act of "terrorism". I have not seen the TSA arrest a single terrorist leaving the country, I have only seen them groping US citizens.
Not a single Hezbollah member has appeared at the US shores in a boat waving an RPG. Not a single member of Al Qaeda has jumped off a plane in a US airport threatening to kill people with his AK47. Neither of those two things have anything to do with the NSA or TSA. The former deals with border security, the latter deals with foreign air port officials doing their job.
In fairness, I don't. Also, to be fair, I did not see the evidence that this Judge did when he made his ruling. It is quite possible that Google makes no revenue from this "now", and has no plans to change that. With that in mind, these don't look like freebies for Amazon, B&N, etc.. (these are not flat links, but uniquely encoded for clicks) and Google does not give things away as a rule. We have a company with a descent track record of dishonesty at the expense of others. Not always, but enough in my mind to raise questions.
Google obviously convinced a Judge that it was a non-profit freebie therefor was not illegal. The point was, and still is, that any other company would probably not be able to convince a judge of their "good will" making their work "fair use". There are plenty of examples of those as well.
Fair enough points. I agree he could give Wikileaks, or a friend, the key to stored data and they could do the dump. I took the "He still has the option of an all out dump" to be very literal.
In both countries the governments own the media. More appropriately, the same people controlling the governments control the media. Neither place has had any type of reform, just discussions of reform which are being drowned out by other noise in the media.
To the people pulling the strings, it's simply a waiting game. As we saw with Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc.. nobody has been held accountable and the public is no longer thinking about those items. I have little confidence that enough people are awake to change that, and the same thing is being played against the anti-surveillance crowd. Unless we can change the messages from the media, nothing will change. Word of mouth is something that works, but is also very taxing on the people that are awake.
You keep saying the same thing as if it will somehow be true. Drop the points of consumers using the technology. Go read the Wiki page on Air Bags. Whether they were being used by consumers, or not, is not relevant to the development of the technology. The technology had to be developed to a usable point before they could be sold and used and before the government could mandate their installation.
The Government did _not_ develop the technology, none of it. The government did not improve the technology, none of it. Private market did that all before the mandates. In addition to the Wiki page, this is a nice summary reference. If you look at Mercedes mass adoption in the 80s, you see it beats the US adoption outside of experimental work.
In 1971, the Ford car company built an experimental airbag fleet. General Motors tested airbags on the 1973 model Chevrolet automobile that were only sold for government use. The 1973, Oldsmobile Toronado was the first car with a passenger air bag intended for sale to the public. General Motors later offered an option to the general public of driver side airbags in full-sized Oldsmobile's and Buick's in 1975 and 1976 respectively. Cadillacs were available with driver and passenger airbags options during those same years. Early airbags system had design issues resulting in fatalities caused solely by the airbags.
Airbags were offered once again as an option on the 1984 Ford Tempo automobile. By 1988, Chrysler became the first company to offer air bag restraint systems as standard equipment. In 1994, TRW began production of the first gas-inflated airbag. They are now mandatory in all cars since 1998.
Your date of the Government mandating the technology is off by over 2 decades. You also notice about a decade of no air bags mostly related to safety since Air Bags were killing people. In the early 80s, Mercedes was offering air-bags while US automakers were not. This shows very obviously that improving the technology was being done by many companies in many locations. Not because of the Government, but because of the market.
Key this into google, Quotes and all: "to moscow with an atlas"
Click the first hit, or any hit that points to Books.google.com.
So you are claiming again something false. Here is the top left frame from that page, right below the big red button labelled "GET PRINT BOOK"
Are you running noscript and adblock and talking about what you see vs. what Google is serving and what the page really holds?
No eBook available
Naval Institute Press
Amazon.com
Barnes&Noble.com
Books-A-Million
IndieBound
Find in a library
All sellers
No wonder you are so confused, you are denying what is on the page as "ads". It may not be a "Lee Jeans" ad, but it's an ad to a reseller to buy the book which does generate revenue for Google.
I don't think you read much on the issue. Snowden stated that he gave everything to journalists and kept _nothing_ when he went into exile. He was afraid to keep anything once information was made public. His safety net to ensure public knowledge was giving the same data to several journalists.
Seems like sarcasm, but just in case. The made up statement of "millions of terrorists" needs to be proven before we could prove the NSA stops them. When we found out that the FBI is recruiting most "terrorists", assisting them with plans, and providing them fake materials, it became obvious that there are very few terrorists.
I'm pretty sure that many at the NSA believe that they really are doing the right thing, just like most at the FBI would believe they are doing the right thing. Their "belief" is no different than the person who believes that these agencies are required to keep them safe from non-existent threats. It does not make the threat exist.
Read my 2nd post, the whole page IS ads! There is no entry there that is NOT advertising. Or you trying to claim that a link to Amazon, B&N, Wallmart, etc.. from Google will generate Google no revenue?
Lyrics is not the song, the song is the music and the lyrics. Both sites are giving parts not the whole, both could be of the same value to the copyright holders. Hard to take your bias glasses off, I get it.
Yup, this is exactly it. Unfortunately a whole lot of people don't think much about what we already know. The few that know and care won't be easily pacified by what the NSA starts releasing. We already know they lie, and anyone that trusts a liar is a fool.
Personally, I think the damage control is not really needed. I guess it may be trying to push some people back down into slumber. The Obamacare fiasco shows just how far out of reality countless Americans really are. Don't get me wrong, people are waking up. I'm just not confident enough will be awake in time to prevent some very very bad things from happening in a very short time.
One more thing. The whole fucking Google Snippet page is giant advertisements! Glad to know you are either a shill or an idiot. I refuse to fix the formatting on the quotes, for a liar.
Painting Books - Acrylic Art Instruction , Beginner Level Snippets...
$24.99 from NorthLightShop.com
The President's Devotional: The Daily Readings That Inspired...
by Joshua DuBois HarperCollins 2013.10.22 hardback 432 pages
In the heat of Barack Obama's first presidential campaign, staff member Joshua DuBois recognized the wear and tear on his boss and asked the senator if he could e-mail a...more
66 seller reviews
$17.01 Barnes & Noble
$14.00 Alibris
$23.12 Bookdepository.com
Compare prices from 10+ stores
Snippets of a Days Steeplechase and Hurdling - with a Short Guide...
$26.45 from Barnes & Noble
12,748 seller reviews
I did read the ruling, which should be obvious if you had actually attempted to read and comprehend my post. The judge claimed that Google's snippets lead to people purchasing books. The same could be said for Lyric sites, that as of yesterday were receiving DCMA take down notices for copyright infringement.
I also never stated Google sold the snippets. Stop inventing false statements! Go back and read what I wrote, and if it was not clear ask questions instead of inventing nonsense. I did state that Google makes ad revenue on the pages that serve the snippets. The same thing that in the case of Lyric sites is claimed to be "making money from other people's copyrights". If you don't see the similarity you are willfully blind!
Look, I get that you refuse to read and comprehend what I stated. It also seems like you are ignorant to the Lyrics sites that were just hit yesterday, so consider that you should be doing the reading, instead of accusing other people of what you are guilty of.
Are you going to invent something else I didn't claim as an argument? Spam more caps because it's the only way you can feel like you said something important? Those are called rhetorical questions, don't answer those.
Well, I have no doubts that certain parts can be well made by home printing. I really don't get how you believe that a printed gun can be as "good" when it comes to the barrel. The printers AFAIK can only print in plastics, which lacks the strength of steel. We use high quality steel in manufactured guns because of the strength and durability.
Plastics improve, but to claim they will match metal for guns I don't believe. Stable for a few more rounds? Maybe, but guns get very hot when used and plastics begin to warp much sooner.
Schwartz was not working from legal copies obtained by legal means.
You are ignoring facts to make such a statement, primarily that he was not found guilty of anything. He was allowed access to a buildings, allowed access to a network, and was allowed access to the documentation he was downloading. The people requesting prosecution were not the authors, but a DRM company making a profit off the materials. Most of the documentation Aaron was downloading was public domain with no Copyrights, being hoarded by the same DRM company. Even after he was asked not to copy, there was no enforcement and no protections added. It's really too bad he committed suicide, it would have been nearly impossible to convict him which is why the prosecution was trying to threaten him into a plea..
The next two statements are factual, but does not change the case nor my statements. Google does not provide only snippets either, at least in things I have tested (which admittedly was a couple years back). I may have to change a URL or perform a few searches, but they are scanning all of the data and not just a snippet.
I agree that the cases are not identical. That said, it's preferential treatment that _nobody_ else has received and there is no expectation that anyone would receive such treatment.
Didn't we just have a case here yesterday where Lyric sites providing only lyrics were going to be shut down because of copyrights and making ad revenue from those sites? The reason to mention that is because even if Google was only using snippets, another precedent being set claims you can not make revenue off of even a portion of copyrighted material.
I'm sorry, but did you miss what happened with a guy named Aaron Schwartz? Maybe you missed that story, but in essence he was doing the same thing. Did you also miss all of the Amazon successful lawsuits against B&N?
So it's not petty jealousy, it's real world examples.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks!
You really don't know?
Nope, no idea. I'm not the person you are responding to. A summary would be nice.
You forgot "Brought to you by Autodesk".
I have no idea why Idiocracy came to mind when looking at those ads everywhere on the site...
According to reports, there were over 18,000 mummies sent to the Smithsonian, one a guy in a full set of copper armor with a copper crown. The Smithsonian claimed that they don't know what happened to them when sent inquiries.
Numerous people in the 1800s started claiming that they should not send anything else to the institute lest they become "lost", but of course these city councilmen, archeologists, engineers, etc.. were just "crazy conspiracy theories".
I think they should allow volunteers to start digging through those troves and finding things. How many American Indian artifacts are collecting dust? And those don't require any conspiracy theories to determine that they have a stash.
I, at no point said that the FG made airbags.
I have been very clear that the FG didn't improve airbags, my addition of "make" was for clarity (perhaps being too anal). The market was doing that before the FG made any mandates. GM's 1973 sale of cars to the Government was not the sole reason for improvements. The Ford release in 1971 makes that abundantly clear. The further releases in the early 80s by Mercedes show that development was happening without government mandates.
Some of the customer adoption I would agree is due to government mandates. As mentioned, I don't know if we can measure this fairly because market pressure was already increasing demand.
Thanks for the well thought out response. If I have the time I'll go back and see if I can find what you said is lacking, because I'm baffled on how the links were not considered advertisements. I completely neglected the thoughts that the case law could be used by others, and appreciate that pointer.
Even if there was an agreement for Barnes And Nobel to pay google 12 cents for a hit to their site, it still wouldn't be advertising,
That is funny, perhaps you should get a dictionary and look up the definition of advertising. Your description of the transaction that follows is amazingly identical to how a lyric site would generate revenue from music. The lyric site would not make money from the song either, they would make the money from the company selling the song after a user followed the link. These sites are not selling lyrics any more than Google is selling the books.
Most are indeed flat links. Follow one of them. They lead directly to the page of the same name at the seller' web site, or to the sellers internal search facility via isbn numbers.
I did follow links which is why I know they were encoded. Maybe the art of html-fu is not within you. "http://www.site.com/" is a flat link. "http://www.site.com/page?long_string" is not a flat link.
Your arguments mean nothing, because someone with a higher pay grade has ruled.
Way to be an ass hat!
And google gives a way far more than any company I know.
Not relevant to the points given, and does not take away a track record of proven wrong doing. Now you just sound like a Google shill.
Many people have woken up (and not recently either) and understand that they are realistically no longer in control of their government. They just don't know what to do about it. Can we keep this discussion going: What CAN we do about this situation?
I was intentionally clear that many people are awake. Numbers increase a tiny bit all the time, so knowledge is moving slowly in the right direction. The point was that it takes a much larger percentage of the population to force the changes needed.
What can you do? You cover a couple things, but not the most important. The most important thing to do at this point is get more and more people awake. Since the string pullers have media covered, your task is to shoulder tap and talk to people. The first thing to tell them is: After you are awake, I want you to try to wake up 5 more people. Once you do that, have them wake up 5 more people. Give them reading materials. There are thousands of books that explain how the system is broken geared toward numerous levels. Mark Dice will help religious people, Gary Allen will get the business crowd, Jesse Ventura will get the macho crowd. Get a couple and start sharing. This has the nice side effect of keeping people away from TV propaganda messages for the duration of them reading at least. I also like to give away copies of "The Allegory of the Cave" and ask people to read Plato's "The Republic". Tougher crowd for that one, but I have gotten more people to read that book than my College did.
The parties are broken, so part of the wake up call is to convince people that party votes have to vanish because neither party will save them. Get your own candidate on a ballot, write people in where they allow write ins. Learn to petition, and get others that are awake to help petition and get the message out.
None of this is easy, it takes exhausting work to wake people up. Until there is enough momentum to force the change, nothing is going to change.
And no, the username was not a give away since you defended that users position.
The proper description is "sting." You seem to be trying to build the case for a description of "entrapment."
I think the Underwear bomber is enough for you to consider many operations entrapment at best, facilitating terrorism at worse. The ATF in F&F is another fine example. Claiming that the agents didn't go to trial is not the same as claiming they were not found guilty.
Next, talking about what terrorist organizations over seas has nothing to do with terrorism inside our borders. I'll skip that, because you are confusing what border protection is. Not that it's new, just that you are still doing it.>
By the same token, your disbelief or lack of knowledge of their existence doesn't cause them to cease to be.
By this logic Santa Clause exists then. If you want to tell me that we have all of these crazy terrorists in the US, I need proof. What we have seen so far is the FBI setting up things so that the few people of questionable mental health have been provided enough material and information to be "caught" in the act of "terrorism". I have not seen the TSA arrest a single terrorist leaving the country, I have only seen them groping US citizens.
Not a single Hezbollah member has appeared at the US shores in a boat waving an RPG. Not a single member of Al Qaeda has jumped off a plane in a US airport threatening to kill people with his AK47. Neither of those two things have anything to do with the NSA or TSA. The former deals with border security, the latter deals with foreign air port officials doing their job.
In fairness, I don't. Also, to be fair, I did not see the evidence that this Judge did when he made his ruling. It is quite possible that Google makes no revenue from this "now", and has no plans to change that. With that in mind, these don't look like freebies for Amazon, B&N, etc.. (these are not flat links, but uniquely encoded for clicks) and Google does not give things away as a rule. We have a company with a descent track record of dishonesty at the expense of others. Not always, but enough in my mind to raise questions.
Google obviously convinced a Judge that it was a non-profit freebie therefor was not illegal. The point was, and still is, that any other company would probably not be able to convince a judge of their "good will" making their work "fair use". There are plenty of examples of those as well.
Fair enough points. I agree he could give Wikileaks, or a friend, the key to stored data and they could do the dump. I took the "He still has the option of an all out dump" to be very literal.
In both countries the governments own the media. More appropriately, the same people controlling the governments control the media. Neither place has had any type of reform, just discussions of reform which are being drowned out by other noise in the media.
To the people pulling the strings, it's simply a waiting game. As we saw with Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc.. nobody has been held accountable and the public is no longer thinking about those items. I have little confidence that enough people are awake to change that, and the same thing is being played against the anti-surveillance crowd. Unless we can change the messages from the media, nothing will change. Word of mouth is something that works, but is also very taxing on the people that are awake.
You keep saying the same thing as if it will somehow be true. Drop the points of consumers using the technology. Go read the Wiki page on Air Bags. Whether they were being used by consumers, or not, is not relevant to the development of the technology. The technology had to be developed to a usable point before they could be sold and used and before the government could mandate their installation.
The Government did _not_ develop the technology, none of it. The government did not improve the technology, none of it. Private market did that all before the mandates. In addition to the Wiki page, this is a nice summary reference. If you look at Mercedes mass adoption in the 80s, you see it beats the US adoption outside of experimental work.
In 1971, the Ford car company built an experimental airbag fleet. General Motors tested airbags on the 1973 model Chevrolet automobile that were only sold for government use. The 1973, Oldsmobile Toronado was the first car with a passenger air bag intended for sale to the public. General Motors later offered an option to the general public of driver side airbags in full-sized Oldsmobile's and Buick's in 1975 and 1976 respectively. Cadillacs were available with driver and passenger airbags options during those same years. Early airbags system had design issues resulting in fatalities caused solely by the airbags.
Airbags were offered once again as an option on the 1984 Ford Tempo automobile. By 1988, Chrysler became the first company to offer air bag restraint systems as standard equipment. In 1994, TRW began production of the first gas-inflated airbag. They are now mandatory in all cars since 1998.
Your date of the Government mandating the technology is off by over 2 decades. You also notice about a decade of no air bags mostly related to safety since Air Bags were killing people. In the early 80s, Mercedes was offering air-bags while US automakers were not. This shows very obviously that improving the technology was being done by many companies in many locations. Not because of the Government, but because of the market.
Key this into google, Quotes and all: "to moscow with an atlas" Click the first hit, or any hit that points to Books.google.com.
So you are claiming again something false. Here is the top left frame from that page, right below the big red button labelled "GET PRINT BOOK"
Are you running noscript and adblock and talking about what you see vs. what Google is serving and what the page really holds?
No eBook available
Naval Institute Press
Amazon.com
Barnes&Noble.com
Books-A-Million
IndieBound
Find in a library
All sellers
No wonder you are so confused, you are denying what is on the page as "ads". It may not be a "Lee Jeans" ad, but it's an ad to a reseller to buy the book which does generate revenue for Google.
I don't think you read much on the issue. Snowden stated that he gave everything to journalists and kept _nothing_ when he went into exile. He was afraid to keep anything once information was made public. His safety net to ensure public knowledge was giving the same data to several journalists.
Seems like sarcasm, but just in case. The made up statement of "millions of terrorists" needs to be proven before we could prove the NSA stops them. When we found out that the FBI is recruiting most "terrorists", assisting them with plans, and providing them fake materials, it became obvious that there are very few terrorists.
I'm pretty sure that many at the NSA believe that they really are doing the right thing, just like most at the FBI would believe they are doing the right thing. Their "belief" is no different than the person who believes that these agencies are required to keep them safe from non-existent threats. It does not make the threat exist.
Read my 2nd post, the whole page IS ads! There is no entry there that is NOT advertising. Or you trying to claim that a link to Amazon, B&N, Wallmart, etc.. from Google will generate Google no revenue?
Lyrics is not the song, the song is the music and the lyrics. Both sites are giving parts not the whole, both could be of the same value to the copyright holders. Hard to take your bias glasses off, I get it.
Yup, this is exactly it. Unfortunately a whole lot of people don't think much about what we already know. The few that know and care won't be easily pacified by what the NSA starts releasing. We already know they lie, and anyone that trusts a liar is a fool.
Personally, I think the damage control is not really needed. I guess it may be trying to push some people back down into slumber. The Obamacare fiasco shows just how far out of reality countless Americans really are. Don't get me wrong, people are waking up. I'm just not confident enough will be awake in time to prevent some very very bad things from happening in a very short time.
One more thing. The whole fucking Google Snippet page is giant advertisements! Glad to know you are either a shill or an idiot. I refuse to fix the formatting on the quotes, for a liar.
Painting Books - Acrylic Art Instruction , Beginner Level Snippets ...
$24.99 from NorthLightShop.com
The President's Devotional: The Daily Readings That Inspired ...
by Joshua DuBois HarperCollins 2013.10.22 hardback 432 pages
In the heat of Barack Obama's first presidential campaign, staff member Joshua DuBois recognized the wear and tear on his boss and asked the senator if he could e-mail a ...more
66 seller reviews
$17.01 Barnes & Noble
$14.00 Alibris
$23.12 Bookdepository.com
Compare prices from 10+ stores
Snippets of a Days Steeplechase and Hurdling - with a Short Guide ...
$26.45 from Barnes & Noble
12,748 seller reviews
I did read the ruling, which should be obvious if you had actually attempted to read and comprehend my post. The judge claimed that Google's snippets lead to people purchasing books. The same could be said for Lyric sites, that as of yesterday were receiving DCMA take down notices for copyright infringement.
I also never stated Google sold the snippets. Stop inventing false statements! Go back and read what I wrote, and if it was not clear ask questions instead of inventing nonsense. I did state that Google makes ad revenue on the pages that serve the snippets. The same thing that in the case of Lyric sites is claimed to be "making money from other people's copyrights". If you don't see the similarity you are willfully blind!
Look, I get that you refuse to read and comprehend what I stated. It also seems like you are ignorant to the Lyrics sites that were just hit yesterday, so consider that you should be doing the reading, instead of accusing other people of what you are guilty of.
Are you going to invent something else I didn't claim as an argument? Spam more caps because it's the only way you can feel like you said something important? Those are called rhetorical questions, don't answer those.
Got it, thanks. I'm really not up on the current trends with the technology.
Well, I have no doubts that certain parts can be well made by home printing. I really don't get how you believe that a printed gun can be as "good" when it comes to the barrel. The printers AFAIK can only print in plastics, which lacks the strength of steel. We use high quality steel in manufactured guns because of the strength and durability.
Plastics improve, but to claim they will match metal for guns I don't believe. Stable for a few more rounds? Maybe, but guns get very hot when used and plastics begin to warp much sooner.
Schwartz was not working from legal copies obtained by legal means.
You are ignoring facts to make such a statement, primarily that he was not found guilty of anything. He was allowed access to a buildings, allowed access to a network, and was allowed access to the documentation he was downloading. The people requesting prosecution were not the authors, but a DRM company making a profit off the materials. Most of the documentation Aaron was downloading was public domain with no Copyrights, being hoarded by the same DRM company. Even after he was asked not to copy, there was no enforcement and no protections added. It's really too bad he committed suicide, it would have been nearly impossible to convict him which is why the prosecution was trying to threaten him into a plea..
The next two statements are factual, but does not change the case nor my statements. Google does not provide only snippets either, at least in things I have tested (which admittedly was a couple years back). I may have to change a URL or perform a few searches, but they are scanning all of the data and not just a snippet.
I agree that the cases are not identical. That said, it's preferential treatment that _nobody_ else has received and there is no expectation that anyone would receive such treatment.
Didn't we just have a case here yesterday where Lyric sites providing only lyrics were going to be shut down because of copyrights and making ad revenue from those sites? The reason to mention that is because even if Google was only using snippets, another precedent being set claims you can not make revenue off of even a portion of copyrighted material.
I'm sorry, but did you miss what happened with a guy named Aaron Schwartz? Maybe you missed that story, but in essence he was doing the same thing. Did you also miss all of the Amazon successful lawsuits against B&N?
So it's not petty jealousy, it's real world examples.