If I go overseas, say, to India. While I'm there I buy half a dozen of these items. When I get back, up on Craigslist they go for a 100% profit to me but a 25% discount relative to the US market. I sell all of them. I am a private entity. Does the 9th circuit court decision apply at all to what I did?
If you trust "The God Makers", then the Mormons believe "God the Father journeyed to earth "from the Starbase Kolob", to have sex with the virgin Mary, in order to provide Jesus with a physical body". Sort of like Zues getting his groove on and whoops, there's Hercules. Of course, if you trust The God Makers, you probably have other issues.
However, in areas of national defense and international affairs, the President of United States possesses great constitutional independence that is virtually unchecked by the Legislative and Judicial branch. "In absence of governmental checks and balances", per Justice Stewart, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in [these two areas] may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government."
It should be, if the authors are all US Federal Government employees, and not contractors. Works of the US government are not subject to copyright in the United States. That said, Science's particular reproduction of a report on government work may be covered by certain aspects of copyright. it's a bit tricky. But yes, you should be able to get a copy of the the body of the report with a proper request.
(1) Webcrawler, Lycos, Infoseek and Altavista all came online in 1994. I think Excite had a 1 year head start on them. not sure what math content he might have found at the time.
(2) Whether or not he should have been able to find it, the journal was (should have been?) PEER REVIEWED. the fact that within a month there was a comment article pointing out the fact that he just got the Trapezoidal Rule republished as his own points out the fact that this is just the case of the peer review process failing back when limited information access made it muy muy importante.
of course, that article is only cited 3 times, twice by the same commenting author. And in those, the Tai article is also referenced. My portuguese is a bit rusty, but the author seems to say something like: blah blah blah was calculated using the trapezoidal rule, with the naming convention or modification as per Tai...
I peeked at one or two of the articles citing this paper:
"The glucose and insulin responses to the OGTT were analyzed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC). The AUCs for glucose (AUCglucose) and insulin (AUCinsulin) were determined according to the Tai procedure for the metabolic curves (25)."
I wonder if this is sort of an inside joke now. Rather than saying we used the trapezoidal rule to approximate XYZ, everyone in the field now says "we used the Tai procedure". It sounds so much more 'official'. Remind me to reinvent the central limit theorem tomorrow.
And this doesn't help the people trying to fight the stigma that biology isn't a 'hard science'.
They can sue you for downloading it, too. Doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit, but anyone can sue you for anything. What you have are good grounds for having the lawsuit dismissed. If they sue you for re-distributing it, the method of initial distribution would matter with respect to the strength of your defense. If they offer it via a torrent, then re-seeding is implicit in the torrent process, unlike if they offered it directly via FTP. Since they gave it to you via a mechanism with redistribution part of the protocol, I think you'd have a pretty decent legal defense against a redistribution lawsuit.
but, if the judiciary issues a judgment that a party is not guilty due to a law being in violation of the constitution, I don't think they really un-made the law. they just said that in this case, and for whatever reasons that they lay out, the law cannot be applied. But, then they set precedent, and other courts throughout the land follow the precedent of the supreme court. they also would be unable to use that law on a similar case with similar circumstances to find someone guilty. hence, they have not unmade the law. it's still on the books until the legislature does something else to change it. but you won't find a DA in the country who will bring a case to court based on someone breaking a law that SCOTUS has just said can't be enforced. They didn't repeal the law. they just made it unenforceable.
I think we can all safely assume that Mr. Assange has a dead man's switch of some sort and the mass of stuff he collected will be sent to the BBC and NYTimes if he somehow "disappears"
what if you are using quite obviously and reasonably separate machines in very separate physical locations and storing local copies of the work with no network sharing involved to complicate the matter, except for the fact that it was the one time transfer medium for the copy to get from one of those machines to the other?
they already do that via Google Scholar. Scientific paper searches often (maybe not often enough) bring up textbook references. I know searching through regular Google does quite frequently.
The only 3D movie I've seen since the fad has taken off was Toy Story 3. I specifically remember complaints about that 3D movie revolving around the fact that the 3D was forgettable. 20 minutes into the film, you forgot you were watching a 3D movie. The Night & Day short was a bit more 3D gimmicky, but that was by design, it was good, and it was a short, so gimmicks are ok. I consider Toy Story 3 to have been a great use of 3D. There are certain scenes where the depth stood out, and a couple times during the movie that I 'noticed and remembered' that I was watching a 3D movie, even though the effect was there the whole time.
It was good because I didn't notice it. It didn't take away from the story. I don't recall any 'out of screen' parts, mainly just in-screen depth. Of course, since it was computer generated, the depth should have been a non-issue, since the computer had all the depth info there. (As someone said above, the camera could have looked at the back of woody's head if it had wanted.)
I liked that 3D. But all said and done, would I pay more for that type of 3D on a regular basis? probably not.
"the costs of over paid American management and sales people."
and there's the key. the U.S. is the victim of its own isolated success. All of a sudden its no longer isolated (a la The World Is Flat), and the jobs move to cheaper venues.
I did just read an article about certain aspects of Indian cost of living increasing in accordance with the shift in jobs. We just aren't worth what we say we are, and the market correction is taking a long time.
Oh, no! The increased supply of a product in the marketplace in violation of current laws of copyright devalued the product according to the standard laws of supply and demand such that the potential for profit from the effort of creating that product may have been diminished.
I didn't see any claim anywhere that they were hitting the guy up for the bazillions in lost sales that his piracy-enabling caused. But, it was copyright violation, and piracy does dilute the market and can reduce demand. Please don't act like it doesn't affect anything. Sure, when I was younger my friends and I would pool our money, buy a PC game, and then copy it amongst ourselves. We didn't buy more PC games. Might we have if not for copying them? Maybe a few. But we didn't pretend we were altruistically causing no harm.
Slashdot Mirror
If I go overseas, say, to India. While I'm there I buy half a dozen of these items. When I get back, up on Craigslist they go for a 100% profit to me but a 25% discount relative to the US market. I sell all of them. I am a private entity. Does the 9th circuit court decision apply at all to what I did?
If you trust "The God Makers", then the Mormons believe "God the Father journeyed to earth "from the Starbase Kolob", to have sex with the virgin Mary, in order to provide Jesus with a physical body". Sort of like Zues getting his groove on and whoops, there's Hercules. Of course, if you trust The God Makers, you probably have other issues.
specifically, from the Concurring Opinions:
However, in areas of national defense and international affairs, the President of United States possesses great constitutional independence that is virtually unchecked by the Legislative and Judicial branch. "In absence of governmental checks and balances", per Justice Stewart, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in [these two areas] may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government."
It should be, if the authors are all US Federal Government employees, and not contractors. Works of the US government are not subject to copyright in the United States. That said, Science's particular reproduction of a report on government work may be covered by certain aspects of copyright. it's a bit tricky. But yes, you should be able to get a copy of the the body of the report with a proper request.
I would also like to mention:
(1) Webcrawler, Lycos, Infoseek and Altavista all came online in 1994. I think Excite had a 1 year head start on them. not sure what math content he might have found at the time.
(2) Whether or not he should have been able to find it, the journal was (should have been?) PEER REVIEWED. the fact that within a month there was a comment article pointing out the fact that he just got the Trapezoidal Rule republished as his own points out the fact that this is just the case of the peer review process failing back when limited information access made it muy muy importante.
of course, that article is only cited 3 times, twice by the same commenting author. And in those, the Tai article is also referenced. My portuguese is a bit rusty, but the author seems to say something like: blah blah blah was calculated using the trapezoidal rule, with the naming convention or modification as per Tai...
(1) performing the integration is high school level math.
(2) re-deriving a proof of the process is at least a bit higher. (college level, we'll say)
but yes, not recognizing it as something he should have mastered in high school is a bit poor.
I peeked at one or two of the articles citing this paper:
"The glucose and insulin responses to the OGTT were analyzed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC). The AUCs for glucose (AUCglucose) and insulin (AUCinsulin) were determined according to the Tai procedure for the metabolic curves (25)."
DOI:10.1373/clinchem.2004.043109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2004.043109
I wonder if this is sort of an inside joke now. Rather than saying we used the trapezoidal rule to approximate XYZ, everyone in the field now says "we used the Tai procedure". It sounds so much more 'official'. Remind me to reinvent the central limit theorem tomorrow.
And this doesn't help the people trying to fight the stigma that biology isn't a 'hard science'.
step 3) might I kindly request we put the air back in first?
They can sue you for downloading it, too. Doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit, but anyone can sue you for anything. What you have are good grounds for having the lawsuit dismissed. If they sue you for re-distributing it, the method of initial distribution would matter with respect to the strength of your defense. If they offer it via a torrent, then re-seeding is implicit in the torrent process, unlike if they offered it directly via FTP. Since they gave it to you via a mechanism with redistribution part of the protocol, I think you'd have a pretty decent legal defense against a redistribution lawsuit.
man, where are my mod points when I need them...
but, if the judiciary issues a judgment that a party is not guilty due to a law being in violation of the constitution, I don't think they really un-made the law. they just said that in this case, and for whatever reasons that they lay out, the law cannot be applied. But, then they set precedent, and other courts throughout the land follow the precedent of the supreme court. they also would be unable to use that law on a similar case with similar circumstances to find someone guilty. hence, they have not unmade the law. it's still on the books until the legislature does something else to change it. but you won't find a DA in the country who will bring a case to court based on someone breaking a law that SCOTUS has just said can't be enforced. They didn't repeal the law. they just made it unenforceable.
"comes out before wikileaks is no more"
I think we can all safely assume that Mr. Assange has a dead man's switch of some sort and the mass of stuff he collected will be sent to the BBC and NYTimes if he somehow "disappears"
had to google it: http://www.xkcd.com/327/
If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
or listening to the classics.
what if you are using quite obviously and reasonably separate machines in very separate physical locations and storing local copies of the work with no network sharing involved to complicate the matter, except for the fact that it was the one time transfer medium for the copy to get from one of those machines to the other?
you need the law to be taken in front of a court that can declare it so. maybe ms. thomas-rasset will get there, and they can make that argument.
no, we're working on some form of decaying sine wave here.
only if they made those mix tapes freely available to millions of other people.
they already do that via Google Scholar. Scientific paper searches often (maybe not often enough) bring up textbook references. I know searching through regular Google does quite frequently.
The only 3D movie I've seen since the fad has taken off was Toy Story 3. I specifically remember complaints about that 3D movie revolving around the fact that the 3D was forgettable. 20 minutes into the film, you forgot you were watching a 3D movie. The Night & Day short was a bit more 3D gimmicky, but that was by design, it was good, and it was a short, so gimmicks are ok. I consider Toy Story 3 to have been a great use of 3D. There are certain scenes where the depth stood out, and a couple times during the movie that I 'noticed and remembered' that I was watching a 3D movie, even though the effect was there the whole time.
It was good because I didn't notice it. It didn't take away from the story. I don't recall any 'out of screen' parts, mainly just in-screen depth. Of course, since it was computer generated, the depth should have been a non-issue, since the computer had all the depth info there. (As someone said above, the camera could have looked at the back of woody's head if it had wanted.)
I liked that 3D. But all said and done, would I pay more for that type of 3D on a regular basis? probably not.
"the costs of over paid American management and sales people."
and there's the key. the U.S. is the victim of its own isolated success. All of a sudden its no longer isolated (a la The World Is Flat), and the jobs move to cheaper venues.
I did just read an article about certain aspects of Indian cost of living increasing in accordance with the shift in jobs. We just aren't worth what we say we are, and the market correction is taking a long time.
nice try.
Oh, no! The increased supply of a product in the marketplace in violation of current laws of copyright devalued the product according to the standard laws of supply and demand such that the potential for profit from the effort of creating that product may have been diminished.
I didn't see any claim anywhere that they were hitting the guy up for the bazillions in lost sales that his piracy-enabling caused. But, it was copyright violation, and piracy does dilute the market and can reduce demand. Please don't act like it doesn't affect anything. Sure, when I was younger my friends and I would pool our money, buy a PC game, and then copy it amongst ourselves. We didn't buy more PC games. Might we have if not for copying them? Maybe a few. But we didn't pretend we were altruistically causing no harm.
Google Docs: Blocked by Websense.
they're afraid we'll upload corporate secrets just so that we can collaboratively edit documents.