I guess that's because the USA already has mastered the current technology for manned missions.
I'd say it has yet to master the not-blowing-people-up-when-going-to-space technology. Or the space-station technology (it could be massively improved).
Let's not forget future tech such as living on other celestial bodies.
That, and NASA is more about research than impressing other countries nowadays.
It might be more interested in research than impressing other countries. But what it's truly interested in is drumming up good publicity for the current administration (ex: Mars manned missions). People dying is very bad publicity that manned missions simply can't counteract. Therefore manned missions is dropped to a low, with unmanned missions emphasized.
Everybody was glued to the screen back when Russ^H^H^H^H the USSR was doing the space race thing, but people aren't paying as much attention to Red^H^H^H China,
One of these days, they'll invent software that can interpret the backspace button properly. Who knows what will happen then, perhaps slashdot posts won't have as many errors. Who knows! The possibilities are endless!
Probably, but the devil of it transporting something that can survive the trip in space and not be destroyed too quickly by sand and dust.
Another problem is, are winds regular and strong enough for the thing to be able to be powered as reliably as solar powered vehicles? If it gets stuck somewhere that isn't windy for a week, that's a week of it being down (once it's reserves run out). On the other hand, the sun rises every day.
Thanks:) I have always been wondering what "lightning" is.
Last I knew, most American's (and this website has an American bias) experience with lightning was in the form of the rain-storm type. Lightning of this variety isn't a result of dust and sand particles causing static electricity discharges. On a planet that (as far as I know) has no rain, the idea of lightning, isn't obvious. Even though I know lightning can occur in sandstorms, I had never put this together with lightning on Mars.
So while you got your funny, it really wasn't an accurate post.
No, although Tornadoes may only be found on Earth (I highly doubt it), tyhe fact it's called a dust devil doesn't mean Tornadoes are only found on Earth. It would have been compared with a Tornado, because it's is comparable to a tornado in size only (and most people would have an idea as to what the size would be).
If there is not a large amount of interest in the electronic format when the books are free, then it will send a strong signal that we may not be receptive to the medium yet
Or it could just be that they suck. Big-time. And word has gotten around. The summaries don't exactly leap out at me, and there are a TON of free works out there on the world-wide-web that are good (thanks in large part to Project Guttenberg).
Having said that, I've bookmarked the stories and will be checking them both out in the near future, merely because of how they've released it.
why shouldn't we be able to use it for non profit work?
You can. Just don't distribute it without permission. Don't like it? Tough. That's the law.
Or maybe if I watch public broadcast television and then write a transcript on my blog, is that a violation?
Actually, one person I know has been forced to take down their website because it hosted transcripts of a tv show. Summaries are covered by fair use. IA isn't a summary by the way.
If I give away a trillion copys of my book, can I sue the guy who sells it on ebay? Its not a perfect example, but it's close.
Does right of first sale apply websites? If so copyright on the internet is meaningless. Which I'm sure would make many people here very happy (although I wonder how many of them make a living from their website).
Here's another example, if a copy released a press release, and I post it on my blog, can I now be sued for using their content without their permission?
AFAIK, press releases are made by the author to be redistributed. Websites aren't.
If its public, it should be free. If you didn't want it to be free you shouldn't of been giving it away for free.
Does that mean I can abuse your copyright and write my own book and have your characters in it? Copyright owners have many rights. One of those rights is the ability to say what happens with their work. That work does stop at what someone does in their private home, but it does cover redistribution. Just because YOU don't want it to, doesn't mean it copyright doesn't cover it.
I think this is more like if I were to take an old book (or collection of old books) and store them together in a single publically accessible place (hmmm like a library).
Then those books sit there for 6 years, and someone (law firm) decides to (gasp) check out those books and use them as reference material in their suit against the people who originally published those books.
More like, you placed six copies in the library, the library made a duplicate of each copy, you took away the six copies (thinking those were the only ones that would be distributed) and then the library continued to distribute the duplicates it made.
According to the summary, IA's evidence was quite important in them losing a court-case. I think it's understandable for them to want to try to recuperate some of the losses. Sure, they were in the wrong in the first place. But two wrongs don't make a right. And besides, I said I understood it, not that I agree with it.
All pages they authorized were available to the public at that point in time, therefore no contract is required.
Wait, if I make something available online, then ANYONE can grab my content and place it on their own website (possibly making it so I lose revenue in some cases) if I don't have a robots.txt file? Wow. I can't believe everyone here thinks that's okay.
If you put something up on a publically available website then you can expect the public to consume and possibly retain copies of your work.
Actually, that's allowed. Distributing it, on the other hand, isn't.
I guess you don't mind me scanning in your book that you've written and distribute it over p2p? Oh wait, this is slashdot. I forgot that copyright holders have no rights. Mod me flamebait, I haven't said anything that isn't true.
I was under the impression that libraries had permission to distribute the content that it does. In fact, in Canada, authors (Canadian ones at least) get given some money to cover their books that are in libraries. I'd say that pretty much means there's an agreement (and not an assumption of one because the author hasn't said no) between libraries and authors.
Again, not comparable (but this didn't stop you from getting modded up of course). The libraries had permission to buy the papers and allow access to them in the first place. Internet Archive had no such agreement with this company. IA took the absence of them saying no as an implicit agreement, which for pretty much anything else, isn't legal (it hasn't been tested yet with websites and caches). They in fact, did say no. But a bug caused this message not to be delivered/it was ignored some of the time.
Can one get sued for taking a picture of someone else's property without their permission?
Again, not really applicable. This would be a case of taking a photo of every page in a book so that the words are legible, and then distributing the photos grouped together (with one or two pages missing).
It shouldn't be a webmaster's responsibility to opt-out. That's like saying "Did you set up your e-mail server to bounce out spam? If not, then you may not have a case."
I was under the impression Netflix is quite a bit cheaper then your local rental store. I know it's popular to make out anyone using online products must be avoiding human interaction, but when it's cheaper it's completely unwarranted. Then again this is slashdot so enjoy your +5 Funny mod. I'm content to receive a -1 Troll.
Apple's iTunes demonstrated many people are willing to live with some DRM and hardware/vendor lock-in.
What vendor lock-in? People are willing to put up with Itune's DRM because it's simple to "break" (merely convert it to another format, it's something even I would be able to do, and I know very little about computers), therefore there is no vendor lock-in.
Unless Netflix's DRM is as simple, I doubt very much it will take off as Itunes has (even if it is as simple to break, I still doubt it will take off anywhere near as much as Itunes).
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that's because the USA already has mastered the current technology for manned missions.
I'd say it has yet to master the not-blowing-people-up-when-going-to-space technology. Or the space-station technology (it could be massively improved).
Let's not forget future tech such as living on other celestial bodies.
That, and NASA is more about research than impressing other countries nowadays.
It might be more interested in research than impressing other countries. But what it's truly interested in is drumming up good publicity for the current administration (ex: Mars manned missions). People dying is very bad publicity that manned missions simply can't counteract. Therefore manned missions is dropped to a low, with unmanned missions emphasized.
Everybody was glued to the screen back when Russ^H^H^H^H the USSR was doing the space race thing, but people aren't paying as much attention to Red^H^H^H China,
One of these days, they'll invent software that can interpret the backspace button properly. Who knows what will happen then, perhaps slashdot posts won't have as many errors. Who knows! The possibilities are endless!
Will their re-entry vehicle be shot down?
Wait. They've got a re-entry vehicle? Why bother?
I always wondered why they named the Great Wall of China after the Great Firewall of China.
Probably, but the devil of it transporting something that can survive the trip in space and not be destroyed too quickly by sand and dust.
Another problem is, are winds regular and strong enough for the thing to be able to be powered as reliably as solar powered vehicles? If it gets stuck somewhere that isn't windy for a week, that's a week of it being down (once it's reserves run out). On the other hand, the sun rises every day.
Thanks :) I have always been wondering what "lightning" is.
Last I knew, most American's (and this website has an American bias) experience with lightning was in the form of the rain-storm type. Lightning of this variety isn't a result of dust and sand particles causing static electricity discharges. On a planet that (as far as I know) has no rain, the idea of lightning, isn't obvious. Even though I know lightning can occur in sandstorms, I had never put this together with lightning on Mars.
So while you got your funny, it really wasn't an accurate post.
Does that mean that a tornado is only on earth?
No, although Tornadoes may only be found on Earth (I highly doubt it), tyhe fact it's called a dust devil doesn't mean Tornadoes are only found on Earth. It would have been compared with a Tornado, because it's is comparable to a tornado in size only (and most people would have an idea as to what the size would be).
If there is not a large amount of interest in the electronic format when the books are free, then it will send a strong signal that we may not be receptive to the medium yet
Or it could just be that they suck. Big-time. And word has gotten around. The summaries don't exactly leap out at me, and there are a TON of free works out there on the world-wide-web that are good (thanks in large part to Project Guttenberg).
Having said that, I've bookmarked the stories and will be checking them both out in the near future, merely because of how they've released it.
why shouldn't we be able to use it for non profit work?
You can. Just don't distribute it without permission. Don't like it? Tough. That's the law.
Or maybe if I watch public broadcast television and then write a transcript on my blog, is that a violation?
Actually, one person I know has been forced to take down their website because it hosted transcripts of a tv show. Summaries are covered by fair use. IA isn't a summary by the way.
If I give away a trillion copys of my book, can I sue the guy who sells it on ebay? Its not a perfect example, but it's close.
Does right of first sale apply websites? If so copyright on the internet is meaningless. Which I'm sure would make many people here very happy (although I wonder how many of them make a living from their website).
Here's another example, if a copy released a press release, and I post it on my blog, can I now be sued for using their content without their permission?
AFAIK, press releases are made by the author to be redistributed. Websites aren't.
If its public, it should be free. If you didn't want it to be free you shouldn't of been giving it away for free.
Does that mean I can abuse your copyright and write my own book and have your characters in it? Copyright owners have many rights. One of those rights is the ability to say what happens with their work. That work does stop at what someone does in their private home, but it does cover redistribution. Just because YOU don't want it to, doesn't mean it copyright doesn't cover it.
Having a public website is implicitly allowing anyone to read/view what you've made available.
But NOT to redistribute it.
I think this is more like if I were to take an old book (or collection of old books) and store them together in a single publically accessible place (hmmm like a library).
Then those books sit there for 6 years, and someone (law firm) decides to (gasp) check out those books and use them as reference material in their suit against the people who originally published those books.
More like, you placed six copies in the library, the library made a duplicate of each copy, you took away the six copies (thinking those were the only ones that would be distributed) and then the library continued to distribute the duplicates it made.
why not just ask them to take them off?
According to the summary, IA's evidence was quite important in them losing a court-case. I think it's understandable for them to want to try to recuperate some of the losses. Sure, they were in the wrong in the first place. But two wrongs don't make a right. And besides, I said I understood it, not that I agree with it.
All pages they authorized were available to the public at that point in time, therefore no contract is required.
Wait, if I make something available online, then ANYONE can grab my content and place it on their own website (possibly making it so I lose revenue in some cases) if I don't have a robots.txt file? Wow. I can't believe everyone here thinks that's okay.
If you put something up on a publically available website then you can expect the public to consume and possibly retain copies of your work.
Actually, that's allowed. Distributing it, on the other hand, isn't.
I guess you don't mind me scanning in your book that you've written and distribute it over p2p? Oh wait, this is slashdot. I forgot that copyright holders have no rights. Mod me flamebait, I haven't said anything that isn't true.
you mean it's like being a library?
I was under the impression that libraries had permission to distribute the content that it does. In fact, in Canada, authors (Canadian ones at least) get given some money to cover their books that are in libraries. I'd say that pretty much means there's an agreement (and not an assumption of one because the author hasn't said no) between libraries and authors.
Again, not comparable (but this didn't stop you from getting modded up of course). The libraries had permission to buy the papers and allow access to them in the first place. Internet Archive had no such agreement with this company. IA took the absence of them saying no as an implicit agreement, which for pretty much anything else, isn't legal (it hasn't been tested yet with websites and caches). They in fact, did say no. But a bug caused this message not to be delivered/it was ignored some of the time.
Can one get sued for taking a picture of someone else's property without their permission?
Again, not really applicable. This would be a case of taking a photo of every page in a book so that the words are legible, and then distributing the photos grouped together (with one or two pages missing).
It shouldn't be a webmaster's responsibility to opt-out. That's like saying "Did you set up your e-mail server to bounce out spam? If not, then you may not have a case."
No, this is like suing someone for distributing an old book you've written withour the person having your permission.
Hello. 1948 called. It wants it's book back.
I sure hopes so.
You are a sick, sick person!
No amount of money loss is worth a loss of someones life.
Guess you've never heard of life insurance then.
I was under the impression Netflix is quite a bit cheaper then your local rental store. I know it's popular to make out anyone using online products must be avoiding human interaction, but when it's cheaper it's completely unwarranted. Then again this is slashdot so enjoy your +5 Funny mod. I'm content to receive a -1 Troll.
Apple's iTunes demonstrated many people are willing to live with some DRM and hardware/vendor lock-in.
What vendor lock-in? People are willing to put up with Itune's DRM because it's simple to "break" (merely convert it to another format, it's something even I would be able to do, and I know very little about computers), therefore there is no vendor lock-in.
Unless Netflix's DRM is as simple, I doubt very much it will take off as Itunes has (even if it is as simple to break, I still doubt it will take off anywhere near as much as Itunes).