"Killing Google"? I think you misspelled "not competing effectively with Google, by purchasing a struggling enterprise with massive consumer illwill that adds to Microsoft's bloat and lack of focused direction."
Yeah, it's really quite surprising that spellcheck didn't catch that.
Hate to reply to my own post, but I realize it is misleading (clarifications in bold):
The article linked in Google's response points to a case that they (the author of the article) are claiming set the precedent for search engine use of copyrighted material...
This is not a Google article. All Google says is: Here's an article by one of the many legal scholars who have weighed in on Google Print.
While I accept that Google doesn't show much of the copyrighted work on one page, they are really publishing much of the work within the Google site. I can imagine a program being written to query google over and over again to reverse engineer a full work.
That method will not work according to Google in this article: "Anybody who's clever enough can download the entire book," Hull said.
Not true, said Jim Gerber, director of content partnerships for Google. "Martin Heidegger On The Way," for example, was submitted to Google by the publisher. Under those circumstances, people would only be allowed to see a maximum of 20 percent of the book, and a percentage of random pages are blocked completely.
And this link (PDF) in the blog response explains how Google's program is probably going to be allowed to proceed.
The article Google's response points to a case that they are claiming set the precedent for search engine use of copyrighted material, including for commercial purposes:
The leading decision that considered the fair use issues relating to search engine
operations is Kelly v. Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003). Arriba Soft operated a
search engine for Internet images. Arriba compiled a database of images by copying
pictures from websites, without the express authorization of the website operators.
Arriba reduced the full size images into thumbnails, which it stored in its database. In
response to a user query, the Arriba search engine displayed responsive thumbnails. If a
user clicked on one of the thumbnails, she was linked to the full size image on the
original website from which the image had been copied. Kelly, a photographer,
discovered that some of the photographs from his website were in the Arriba search
database, and he sued for copyright infringement. The lower court found that Arriba's
reproduction of the photographs was a fair use, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
With respect to the first factor, "the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature," 17 U.S.C. 107(1), the Ninth Circuit
acknowledged that Arriba operated its site for commercial purposes. However, Arriba's
use of Kelly's images
was more incidental and less exploitative in nature than more traditional
types of commercial use. Arriba was neither using Kelly's images to directly promote its web site nor trying to profit by selling Kelly's images.
Instead, Kelly's images were among thousands of images in Arriba's
search engine database. Because the use of Kelly's images was not highly
exploitative, the commercial nature of the use weighs only slightly against
a finding of fair use.
If I wanted a browser with known exploits that I can't patch I'd use IE.
True, two weeks is pretty long. Honestly, I don't know exactly how long before an update will appear, because as long as it appears in a reasonable amount of time I'm fine with it. You have the option to get the update faster. As far as I know, the purpose of the staggered update schedule is to reduce bandwidth strain, so not everyone is downloading the update at the same time. I don't see a major problem with that, especially since you have another option (download directly from their site).
Why the hurry? You can let the upload trickle back. Alternatively, I've seen a model where you can pay to increase your ratio, where the amount you pay determines the amount of data that gets added to your "uploaded" amount. This is obviously not desirable to the user in most cases.
The thing is the exclusive content or accelerated speeds versus public torrent sites often make it worth the hassle of leaving the torrent open for a day or so after it completes. Just bump up your upload limit before you go to sleep, and often you've uploaded enough by morning to be back at a 1:1 ratio.
So, my understanding from reading the review is that this is an fairly thorough introduction to Emac use that is easy to understand and doesn't bother with extraneous material.
Am I off base here?
While true that the review lacked a conclusion, what you said is clear
from the intro:
"They need a book that offers expert advice without wasting time or insulting the intelligence of the reader: Learning GNU Emacs, 3rd Edition is that book."
and the summary: An intelligent, graded treatment of the landscape of useful Emacs skills and how to internalize them
Speaking of editing, the linked post could certainly use some:
"My advise: but the losses. Remove any claim that the LSB will ensure any additional level of assurance for developers. To some extend, I think, the claims a scaled back meanwhile, if I understood Art correctly."
"is a somewhat good reflection of who a Linux implementation should behave "
Some are nazis, and want to block leechers from their trackers.
In some closed communities (i.e. requiring registration), this method can be used to reward those who upload a lot and limit those who don't (ratio below 1). In that way, download speeds tend to be higher than without the system in place, and people are more likely to give back more.
Or they could let people keep playing previous console versions on the Revolution. They just wouldn't get newer versions. However, particularly the Nintendo owned titles can't possibly fail completely, given how committed Nintendo is to pushing this innovation. I doubt they'd pursue it if they didn't see its potential. It's a matter of how many others they can convince of the same.
Actually, it's a comfortable shape...just think of any major tools and how they're shaped. Also, the wrist problems are caused by repetitive movements which cause strain. If anything, with this kind of controller you have less repetitive movement than even a traditional game controller, and your wrist has flexibility of motion.
Slashdot Mirror
PR flunky? That's PR mastery! Evade the question, and spew out some nonsense that you hope the person asking the question will believe is true.
Score:-1, You Must Be New Here
Before you freak out, you should know that they have compensated for the Dell logo by making the other side have an equally obnoxious DJ logo.
"Killing Google"? I think you misspelled "not competing effectively with Google, by purchasing a struggling enterprise with massive consumer illwill that adds to Microsoft's bloat and lack of focused direction."
Yeah, it's really quite surprising that spellcheck didn't catch that.
...not all students have or want cell phones. I don't own one and plan on avoiding owning one as long as possible...
:)
It's just a matter of time
Hate to reply to my own post, but I realize it is misleading (clarifications in bold):
The article linked in Google's response points to a case that they (the author of the article) are claiming set the precedent for search engine use of copyrighted material...
This is not a Google article. All Google says is: Here's an article by one of the many legal scholars who have weighed in on Google Print.
(Linked article is a PDF).
While I accept that Google doesn't show much of the copyrighted work on one page, they are really publishing much of the work within the Google site. I can imagine a program being written to query google over and over again to reverse engineer a full work.
That method will not work according to Google in this article:
"Anybody who's clever enough can download the entire book," Hull said. Not true, said Jim Gerber, director of content partnerships for Google. "Martin Heidegger On The Way," for example, was submitted to Google by the publisher. Under those circumstances, people would only be allowed to see a maximum of 20 percent of the book, and a percentage of random pages are blocked completely.
And this link (PDF) in the blog response explains how Google's program is probably going to be allowed to proceed.
The article Google's response points to a case that they are claiming set the precedent for search engine use of copyrighted material, including for commercial purposes:
The leading decision that considered the fair use issues relating to search engine operations is Kelly v. Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003). Arriba Soft operated a search engine for Internet images. Arriba compiled a database of images by copying pictures from websites, without the express authorization of the website operators. Arriba reduced the full size images into thumbnails, which it stored in its database. In response to a user query, the Arriba search engine displayed responsive thumbnails. If a user clicked on one of the thumbnails, she was linked to the full size image on the original website from which the image had been copied. Kelly, a photographer, discovered that some of the photographs from his website were in the Arriba search database, and he sued for copyright infringement. The lower court found that Arriba's reproduction of the photographs was a fair use, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. With respect to the first factor, "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature," 17 U.S.C. 107(1), the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that Arriba operated its site for commercial purposes. However, Arriba's use of Kelly's images was more incidental and less exploitative in nature than more traditional types of commercial use. Arriba was neither using Kelly's images to directly promote its web site nor trying to profit by selling Kelly's images. Instead, Kelly's images were among thousands of images in Arriba's search engine database. Because the use of Kelly's images was not highly exploitative, the commercial nature of the use weighs only slightly against a finding of fair use.
...which allow everything from parodies to excerpts in book reviews.
Are they going to have reviews? Otherwise their use doesn't seem to fall under that.
I can't wait until 1.5 goes live and we can ditch this stupid unmodular system that we've been 'graced' with.
I couldn't agree more. Hopefully that will also bring about improvements on the speed of updates getting out to people.
If I wanted a browser with known exploits that I can't patch I'd use IE.
True, two weeks is pretty long. Honestly, I don't know exactly how long before an update will appear, because as long as it appears in a reasonable amount of time I'm fine with it. You have the option to get the update faster. As far as I know, the purpose of the staggered update schedule is to reduce bandwidth strain, so not everyone is downloading the update at the same time. I don't see a major problem with that, especially since you have another option (download directly from their site).
Download it now if you're impatient, or wait a day or two for it to appear in the browser updates, as usual.
And that they need to borrow $10000.
Check out what Google has to say about this lawsuit.
Why the hurry? You can let the upload trickle back. Alternatively, I've seen a model where you can pay to increase your ratio, where the amount you pay determines the amount of data that gets added to your "uploaded" amount. This is obviously not desirable to the user in most cases.
The thing is the exclusive content or accelerated speeds versus public torrent sites often make it worth the hassle of leaving the torrent open for a day or so after it completes. Just bump up your upload limit before you go to sleep, and often you've uploaded enough by morning to be back at a 1:1 ratio.
And a rehash of a comment in the dupe at that?
:)
Duplicating the comment here would have been somewhat hypocritical/ironic, so I linked to it
It's mostly to prove a point, which is there is no point (to this story). As you suggest, this is an update, not a story.
How about quadrupe? ...Or maybe infinupe. Seriously, this is the 4th Firefox vs. IE story in 10 days...isn't that a bit excessive?
You see them left all over the place in Vegas.
Jackpot!!!
My first instinct is that TFA is just trolling, but I could be wrong.
Not only is TFA trolling, so is Slashdot. We're just rehashing all the debate from 4 days ago.
(or 10 days ago, and so on...)
Or use this link to gain appreciation for the slush brown.
So, my understanding from reading the review is that this is an fairly thorough introduction to Emac use that is easy to understand and doesn't bother with extraneous material.
Am I off base here?
While true that the review lacked a conclusion, what you said is clear
from the intro: "They need a book that offers expert advice without wasting time or insulting the intelligence of the reader: Learning GNU Emacs, 3rd Edition is that book."
and the summary: An intelligent, graded treatment of the landscape of useful Emacs skills and how to internalize them
Speaking of editing, the linked post could certainly use some:
"My advise: but the losses. Remove any claim that the LSB will ensure any additional level of assurance for developers. To some extend, I think, the claims a scaled back meanwhile, if I understood Art correctly."
"is a somewhat good reflection of who a Linux implementation should behave "
"we file bugs and wait of the test to be waived."
Some are nazis, and want to block leechers from their trackers.
In some closed communities (i.e. requiring registration), this method can be used to reward those who upload a lot and limit those who don't (ratio below 1). In that way, download speeds tend to be higher than without the system in place, and people are more likely to give back more.
Or they could let people keep playing previous console versions on the Revolution. They just wouldn't get newer versions. However, particularly the Nintendo owned titles can't possibly fail completely, given how committed Nintendo is to pushing this innovation. I doubt they'd pursue it if they didn't see its potential. It's a matter of how many others they can convince of the same.
Actually, it's a comfortable shape...just think of any major tools and how they're shaped. Also, the wrist problems are caused by repetitive movements which cause strain. If anything, with this kind of controller you have less repetitive movement than even a traditional game controller, and your wrist has flexibility of motion.