The difference is that as long as corporations are acting within the law and take advantage of laws, or even get laws created - even if these actions are immoral - they have done nothing illegal. The mandate of a corporation is to maximise return for shareholders. If they can get a law passed that forces every household to give them $100 every year, then so be it.
I accept that what they are doing is legal. I do. Really. The problem is that it is bad for us (people), and they (corporations) get to decide what is legal. I am not arguing that we sue them, I am arguing that we try to change the ground rules.
With enough pressure they will forget the campaign contributions...
Well, no. "Enough pressure" is an impractical goal, because
politicians live and die by the voters ballot
but those ballots are largely driven by campaign spending and
If a weak man foolishly walks into an alley in a bad part of town and gets mugged, he is foolish, true. But that does not remove the blame from the mugger.
If a woman wears provocative clothing in a bad part of town late at night and gets raped, maybe she was foolish for attracting attention, but she is not to blame for the rape. The rapist is.
If you leave your home unlocked and you get robbed, you will probably feel angry at yourself for leaving the house unlocked. The blame for the robbery, however, is purely the robber's.
If the American electorate is overly susceptible to media influences, call them gullible. That does not make the shark-like actions of the corporations any more acceptable. Even using the metaphor of a shark (they shouldn't be blamed; it's in their nature) is a better reason to take precautions against them, not a worse one.
If you're still reading this, I had a previous discussion on slashdot where we talked about some of this:
I apologize if this is a stupid question (I am an MBA) but what is wrong with Hungarian Notation? I thought it was supposed to help people keep variable and object types clear? What am I missing? Thanks.
Encrypted directory --> Pass phrase = some verse from the Koran
Encrypted subdirectories --> Pass phrases = "kabulismybirthplace" or similar
Encrypted files --> Pass phrase = "Mybossesnameisammadassan" or similar
Easy to learn, easy to execute, scalable, personalizeable. Good luck breaking that in 90 days.
Here's how that 90 days would work in the US:
days 1-6: detention inprocessing, initial questioning/interviews
day 7: transferred to Egyptian custody
days 8-13: highly motivated attitude adjustment administered by hairy guys with thick fingers
day 14: suspect, signed confessions, passphrases are returned to US custody
days 15-90: FBI, US Marshals, etc. conduct surveillance on all of original suspect's associates and make further arrests.
The bad part is the suspect gets days 8-13 whether he did anything or not.
The ITU was founded in the 1880s, over half a century before the UN was created. They already had their procedures, traditions, and policies cemented in place before they became associated with the UN. ICANN is less than 10 years old, and dealing with rapidly evolving technologies. Expecting them to experience as seamless a transition to UN control as the ITU did is a little naive.
Dang it, I forgot to log in. Here it is under my nick.
Corporations can pay for the PAC's operating expenses, fundraising expenses, and ad campaigns...It is the ad campaigns that are killer.
It's the ad campaigns that I was mostly talking about. It is in the nature of the modern political campaign that more ads yields more votes. We should not be allowing corporations to influence this.
But what can be done about that? Ban political advertising from anyone other than a candidate's election committee?
No. Ban corporate money from political ads. No funneling through PACS. No funneling through individual donors. No corporate money in political campaigns. If people want to support candidates, let them, but no corporations. The purpose of corporations is to create wealth for shareholders. This is the wrong incentive for such a powerful part of the American political process.
The problem is not with the corporations -- they're just organized. The problem is that everyone else is not organized.
The problem is with the corporations. If we as citizens have to change the way we participate in the political process in order to protect ourselves from these 'artificial people,' then I think the 'artificial people' are not serving us well. WE should not have to change to accomodate THEM.
I am no great political thinker. It just strikes me that almost every time I come across something that I think is really oppressive and lame, I mean really crappy, it turns out that there is some company or industry group throwing money at the problem to keep things crappy. And invariably I am helpless because I am just a citizen. I am pretty sure that is not the way things are supposed to work.
I think we can show differences between corps and advocacy groups (AGs). The main difference between advocacy groups in general and coporations is where the power comes from and whom it benefits.
Mostly, advocacy groups are using the power of the members to forward the members' agenda. That's pretty much people getting together to make their voices heard. I'm ok with that.
Corporations take the power generated by the work of the employees (and the guidance of managent/board/shareholders, true) and (usually) use it to lobby in the interest of the shareholders. Enlightened shareholders will also try to protect their employees as well, but first and foremost they protect their own interests.
Why should Ballmer and Gates be able to contribute enough cash to swing elections? They are richer than I am, but that should not make their votes any more important than mine. Otherwise you have what is called a plutocracy, and the political function is very similar to the market function of a monopoly. I'm no fan of socialism, but we've just gone too far. And we keep going farther.
Also, not to beat a dead horse, but corporations' right to free speech is derived from an error. There was a Supreme Court case about something else (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 1886), and this issue was mentioned. While writing up the case summary (nonbinding), a clerk changed the wording to reflect that corp's had that right. It's never really been clarified since, even though it's been revisited by the Court. For more info see:
The problem is that corps., and any association, are groups of people.
Corps are subdivided groups. The employees typically do not have much say over how politically active the firm is. Often the political activity of the firm is inimical to the employees (outsourcing, anyone?), the general public (e.g. any spending by tobacco companies), or the environment (DuPont, Halliburton, Union Carbide, Ford, GM, etc.) The concentration of wealth has created a concentration of power. I like the free market as much as the next guy, I'm just saying we've gone much too far. America is much more in the grasp of the Corporation now than it was in the 1950s, even considering the burgeoning 'military industrial complex.'
- that would ensure the majority actually does rule (assuming the techonology is implemented correctly)
I'm not sure we want the majority to rule. The purpose of a democratic republic is to seat a group of informed representaives.
make being a senator/representative a part time job, and let them keep their day jobs.
Nah. People pay attention to where their bowl of rice is coming from. We don't want them paying less attention to their senator/representative job than they already do. This would make them (if possible) even more susceptible to bribes and lobbying.
term limits might also fit into that plan quite well
I object to term limits because imagine you have really good representation, a really good, effective member. Couple years, bang! He's fired. Someone new comes in, probably not as good as what you had. I know it's hard to imagine now, but let's don't force good people out of office.
I think a better start would be to revoke the corporation's right to free speech, and forbid them from contributing to campaigns. Period. Corporations are not people and do not act like people, so we should not let them drive our elections. They are far too able to throw large volumes of cash at election campaigns. They have too much say over how we are governed.
I also think we should try really hard to break up the power structures in the two big parties. There is such a huge interlocking collection of debts and favors controlling who gets to be a nominee that it is (usually) impossible for anyone fresh and different to get on the ticket. Does anyone really believe that there is nobody in the Republican Party better qualified to lead the US than George W.? Neither party puts forward their best candidate anymore. They put forward the one who best manipulates the existing power structure.
I'm mostly with you, but you also have to remember the accreditation authorities. For your school to stay accredited, they have to keep the average age of their texts below a target set by the accreditors. It's even worse because the accreditors don't just tell them what that target is. They say it's "part of the whole picture" they look at when the school is up for re-accreditation, along with scholarly publication by faculty and modern equipment and facilities. My undergraduate school unwent re-accreditation by AACSB when I was there and you wouldn't believe what a pain in the ass it was.
The textbook thing was mostly an overreaction to schools that never adopted new texts. Imagine an accounting text that never mentioned Enron and Worldcom. Instead of assessing each adopted text for relevance and currency, they just look at average age. Once the accreditation agencies had made this decision, it was a no-brainer for the publishers to move to 2 or 3 year edition cycles. If your text is due for renewal and there isn't a new edition available the professor/department may be forced to adopt a different book, and to hell with the students (especially the poor ones.)
For years I made money off of textbooks as a student. I would buy my books early so I always got used ones. When the next semester started I would take all of my books and camp out in front of the bookstore. Once the line got long enough, there was always some guy who was only taking one class and was willing to buy the book from me at a premium to keep from waiting in line for two hours.
Did you even read what you wrote? Let's look at this.
A reviewer then creates original thought/on/ the subject matter, not a regurgitation of it.
You seem to be saying that the original thought is the protected use,
They may well use snippets of quotes from the original material in producing the review,
But then you admit that the regurgitation is the fair use, not the original thought,
...but it is that 'regurgitation' that is fair use, not your flawed-in-so-many-ways argument.
Way to kick yourself in the nuts, there. I agree, it is the 'regurgitation' that is protected. That regurgitation is exactly what Google is offering. The structure of your sentence implies that you think I was saying that my "flawed-in-so-many-ways argument" was fair use, rather than the regurgitation on which we concur. My argument is not a fair use, it's an argument about a fair use. (I like the "flawed-in-so-many-ways" insult but it would have been better if it had been in a coherently composed sentence.)
Seriously, what were you smoking when you set up this paper house 'justification'?
I wasn't smoking anything, I don't smoke. I was thinking objectively. You should try it, it's amazingly powerful. I see you called my argument a paper house justification. I also note that you were so busy trying to be clever that you didn't really point out any flaw in my argument, apparently because you do not understand the concepts involved. You actually agreed with me before you tried to insult me.
You shouldn't be too hard on yourself, though. Keep trying, you'll get it. I am sure that the image I have of you in my head is not accurate.
The issue is that the bill would have allowed almost unlimited political spending on the Internet. The Republicans almost always have WAY more money than the Democrats, but how they can spend it is sharply constrained by campaign finance laws. The Democrats do not want to allow the Republicans to 'buy' the election by spending vast amounts of money on unregulated messages over the Internet.
Rep: "Pass this bill" so we can pay people to blog for us with no oversight.
Dem: "Stop this bill" or we will lose our asses in the next election.
It's not about free speech, really. It's about campaign finance and tactics.
I actually searched for The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. I was given a complete page of the book (as an image) with controls to turn to the next page. I was able to view about 5 pages before the controls were disabled. I did another search for the last line on the page I had finished and got another 5 pages. I think I got a total of 15 pages (from a 200 page book) before it said I could not have any more of that book. I tried again a day later and it still would not give me any more of the book.
Book review magazines reproduce content for the express purpose of generating revenue (both ad-based and cover-price). We've been doing it for decades. Well covered by established fair use decisions in the courts.
Review magazines have other purposes as well, such as scholarship and research, helping consumers find content they want, etc. So does Google, scholarship and research, helping consumers find content they want, etc.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
You have to read the whole thing, pal. You showed section 106. When it says "Subject to sections 107 through 122..." that means you need to read those sections to see what limits are placed on the provisions of section 106.
Google hold copies of original works. They use these entire copies to serve up snippets to individual users. By serving up snippets they are able to make sales of advertising. Therefore Google are using entire copies of copyrighted material for commercial benefit.
Reviewers hold complete copies of books. They use these entire copies to serve up reviews to individual users (and often vast hordes of users at once). By serving up these reviews they are able to make sales of reviews to newspapers and magazines, as well as those magazines and newspapers selling advertising based partially on the presence of those reviews. Therefore reviewers are using entire copies of copyrighted material for commercial benefit. This is the very epitome of "fair use."
This is so far from fair use it's not debatable.
You don't get to decide what's debatable, pal. Sorry to break that to you.
I can't spell it out more simply than that.
Well, I believe that is a true statement. The problem is not that you're not spelling it out simply enough. The problem is that you're wrong. What Google is doing is very analogous to the function of reviewers that we've accepted and depended on for decades.
The appropriate loop here is Think-Decide-Act, not Decide-Think-Act.
Every piece of data is another tool to be used in social engineering attacks. The problem is that when they have enough info about you, they can often convince you (or others, such as employees at your bank or doctor's office) that it is okay to give them the SSN as well.
This is why it is important to try to teach people to treat requests for sensitive info (SSN or other) with deep suspicion. Doing this is as hard as trying to teach non-computer literate people about good browsing habits, for I think similar reasons.
The environment makes the nature of the threats complex, requiring complex behaviors to remain relatively safe. Americans are accustomed to having things explained in 7 minute segments between commercials. If you can't make it simple, many people just lose interest.
To this date, I have never heard a complaint that the US govt. has tampered with the root servers to manipulate consumer access to any site.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it."
The problem is that it might be a little bit broken. Remember the.xxx domain? ICANN was leaning toward allowing it. The Commerce Dept. was getting complaints (apparently from "religious-right" types), and nudged ICANN. ICANN decided not to allow the.xxx domain, for now at least.
Outcome: The (purely American) religious right wing prevented the establishment of a new top level domain worldwide, on the basis of their morality. Freedom of speech? You decide.
Dude, I'm not sure about your math, there. It's been a long time since I did any math (I'm an MBA student - numbers are strange and frightening to us) but I don't think the higher acceleration yields a lower percentage of the speed of light.
When firms become large enough to wield monopoly power, they become much larger threats to free-market economics than anti-trust regulation. There is NOTHING free-market about an industry dominated by a monopoly. Market constraints come from the monopoly rather than the gov't, but that does not mean they are not constraints.
Anti-trust regulations (if well administered) make markets slightly less free overall, but they remain MOSTLY free. This is an attempt to preserve as much freedom in the marketplace as possible.
MOSTLY free is better than NOT-AT-ALL free.
If you regard free-market as a binary condition, then a more accurate statement is that market freedom is inherently unstable, eventually requiring regulation to prevent descent into abusive monopolistic environments. As such, free markets would be a poor standard by which to judge an economic environment because it would describe only immaturity of the market. Gauging market freedom on a continuum is a much more useful way to consider its effects on the market participants.
The arthritis is mostly from abuse. My jobs have always been very physical in nature and I didn't take good care of my joints. The cancers were because I have what is called a 'defective suppressor gene' which means my cells are not capable of responding correctly to mutation. The diabetes is from a life-long crappy diet, which is controlled through better diet now (thank $deity that I avoided having to take insulin).
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that as long as corporations are acting within the law and take advantage of laws, or even get laws created - even if these actions are immoral - they have done nothing illegal. The mandate of a corporation is to maximise return for shareholders. If they can get a law passed that forces every household to give them $100 every year, then so be it.
...
I accept that what they are doing is legal. I do. Really. The problem is that it is bad for us (people), and they (corporations) get to decide what is legal. I am not arguing that we sue them, I am arguing that we try to change the ground rules.
With enough pressure they will forget the campaign contributions
Well, no. "Enough pressure" is an impractical goal, because
politicians live and die by the voters ballot
but those ballots are largely driven by campaign spending and
money they can get anywhere.
but the most comes from coporate spending.
If a weak man foolishly walks into an alley in a bad part of town and gets mugged, he is foolish, true. But that does not remove the blame from the mugger.
d =13964842
If a woman wears provocative clothing in a bad part of town late at night and gets raped, maybe she was foolish for attracting attention, but she is not to blame for the rape. The rapist is.
If you leave your home unlocked and you get robbed, you will probably feel angry at yourself for leaving the house unlocked. The blame for the robbery, however, is purely the robber's.
If the American electorate is overly susceptible to media influences, call them gullible. That does not make the shark-like actions of the corporations any more acceptable. Even using the metaphor of a shark (they shouldn't be blamed; it's in their nature) is a better reason to take precautions against them, not a worse one.
If you're still reading this, I had a previous discussion on slashdot where we talked about some of this:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167485&ci
Oh. Well, thanks.
I apologize if this is a stupid question (I am an MBA) but what is wrong with Hungarian Notation? I thought it was supposed to help people keep variable and object types clear? What am I missing? Thanks.
Who has a sixty-character passphrase?
SMART terrorists. Probably in multiple layers.
Encrypted directory --> Pass phrase = some verse from the Koran
Encrypted subdirectories --> Pass phrases = "kabulismybirthplace" or similar
Encrypted files --> Pass phrase = "Mybossesnameisammadassan" or similar
Easy to learn, easy to execute, scalable, personalizeable. Good luck breaking that in 90 days.
Here's how that 90 days would work in the US:
days 1-6: detention inprocessing, initial questioning/interviews
day 7: transferred to Egyptian custody
days 8-13: highly motivated attitude adjustment administered by hairy guys with thick fingers
day 14: suspect, signed confessions, passphrases are returned to US custody
days 15-90: FBI, US Marshals, etc. conduct surveillance on all of original suspect's associates and make further arrests.
The bad part is the suspect gets days 8-13 whether he did anything or not.
The ITU was founded in the 1880s, over half a century before the UN was created. They already had their procedures, traditions, and policies cemented in place before they became associated with the UN. ICANN is less than 10 years old, and dealing with rapidly evolving technologies. Expecting them to experience as seamless a transition to UN control as the ITU did is a little naive.
Dang it, I forgot to log in. Here it is under my nick.
Corporations can pay for the PAC's operating expenses, fundraising expenses, and ad campaigns...It is the ad campaigns that are killer.
It's the ad campaigns that I was mostly talking about. It is in the nature of the modern political campaign that more ads yields more votes. We should not be allowing corporations to influence this.
But what can be done about that? Ban political advertising from anyone other than a candidate's election committee?
No. Ban corporate money from political ads. No funneling through PACS. No funneling through individual donors. No corporate money in political campaigns. If people want to support candidates, let them, but no corporations. The purpose of corporations is to create wealth for shareholders. This is the wrong incentive for such a powerful part of the American political process.
The problem is not with the corporations -- they're just organized. The problem is that everyone else is not organized.
The problem is with the corporations. If we as citizens have to change the way we participate in the political process in order to protect ourselves from these 'artificial people,' then I think the 'artificial people' are not serving us well. WE should not have to change to accomodate THEM.
I am no great political thinker. It just strikes me that almost every time I come across something that I think is really oppressive and lame, I mean really crappy, it turns out that there is some company or industry group throwing money at the problem to keep things crappy. And invariably I am helpless because I am just a citizen. I am pretty sure that is not the way things are supposed to work.
I like this style of argument myself. Thank you.
1 3.html
I think we can show differences between corps and advocacy groups (AGs). The main difference between advocacy groups in general and coporations is where the power comes from and whom it benefits.
Mostly, advocacy groups are using the power of the members to forward the members' agenda. That's pretty much people getting together to make their voices heard. I'm ok with that.
Corporations take the power generated by the work of the employees (and the guidance of managent/board/shareholders, true) and (usually) use it to lobby in the interest of the shareholders. Enlightened shareholders will also try to protect their employees as well, but first and foremost they protect their own interests.
Why should Ballmer and Gates be able to contribute enough cash to swing elections? They are richer than I am, but that should not make their votes any more important than mine. Otherwise you have what is called a plutocracy, and the political function is very similar to the market function of a monopoly. I'm no fan of socialism, but we've just gone too far. And we keep going farther.
Also, not to beat a dead horse, but corporations' right to free speech is derived from an error. There was a Supreme Court case about something else (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 1886), and this issue was mentioned. While writing up the case summary (nonbinding), a clerk changed the wording to reflect that corp's had that right. It's never really been clarified since, even though it's been revisited by the Court. For more info see:
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/
The problem is that corps., and any association, are groups of people.
Corps are subdivided groups. The employees typically do not have much say over how politically active the firm is. Often the political activity of the firm is inimical to the employees (outsourcing, anyone?), the general public (e.g. any spending by tobacco companies), or the environment (DuPont, Halliburton, Union Carbide, Ford, GM, etc.) The concentration of wealth has created a concentration of power. I like the free market as much as the next guy, I'm just saying we've gone much too far. America is much more in the grasp of the Corporation now than it was in the 1950s, even considering the burgeoning 'military industrial complex.'
Thanks for the feedback.
- that would ensure the majority actually does rule (assuming the techonology is implemented correctly)
I'm not sure we want the majority to rule. The purpose of a democratic republic is to seat a group of informed representaives.
make being a senator/representative a part time job, and let them keep their day jobs.
Nah. People pay attention to where their bowl of rice is coming from. We don't want them paying less attention to their senator/representative job than they already do. This would make them (if possible) even more susceptible to bribes and lobbying.
term limits might also fit into that plan quite well
I object to term limits because imagine you have really good representation, a really good, effective member. Couple years, bang! He's fired. Someone new comes in, probably not as good as what you had. I know it's hard to imagine now, but let's don't force good people out of office.
I think a better start would be to revoke the corporation's right to free speech, and forbid them from contributing to campaigns. Period. Corporations are not people and do not act like people, so we should not let them drive our elections. They are far too able to throw large volumes of cash at election campaigns. They have too much say over how we are governed.
I also think we should try really hard to break up the power structures in the two big parties. There is such a huge interlocking collection of debts and favors controlling who gets to be a nominee that it is (usually) impossible for anyone fresh and different to get on the ticket. Does anyone really believe that there is nobody in the Republican Party better qualified to lead the US than George W.? Neither party puts forward their best candidate anymore. They put forward the one who best manipulates the existing power structure.
You just changed my mind. Stop that.
I'm mostly with you, but you also have to remember the accreditation authorities. For your school to stay accredited, they have to keep the average age of their texts below a target set by the accreditors. It's even worse because the accreditors don't just tell them what that target is. They say it's "part of the whole picture" they look at when the school is up for re-accreditation, along with scholarly publication by faculty and modern equipment and facilities. My undergraduate school unwent re-accreditation by AACSB when I was there and you wouldn't believe what a pain in the ass it was.
The textbook thing was mostly an overreaction to schools that never adopted new texts. Imagine an accounting text that never mentioned Enron and Worldcom. Instead of assessing each adopted text for relevance and currency, they just look at average age. Once the accreditation agencies had made this decision, it was a no-brainer for the publishers to move to 2 or 3 year edition cycles. If your text is due for renewal and there isn't a new edition available the professor/department may be forced to adopt a different book, and to hell with the students (especially the poor ones.)
For years I made money off of textbooks as a student. I would buy my books early so I always got used ones. When the next semester started I would take all of my books and camp out in front of the bookstore. Once the line got long enough, there was always some guy who was only taking one class and was willing to buy the book from me at a premium to keep from waiting in line for two hours.
Did you even read what you wrote? Let's look at this.
/on/ the subject matter, not a regurgitation of it.
...but it is that 'regurgitation' that is fair use, not your flawed-in-so-many-ways argument.
A reviewer then creates original thought
You seem to be saying that the original thought is the protected use,
They may well use snippets of quotes from the original material in producing the review,
But then you admit that the regurgitation is the fair use, not the original thought,
Way to kick yourself in the nuts, there. I agree, it is the 'regurgitation' that is protected. That regurgitation is exactly what Google is offering. The structure of your sentence implies that you think I was saying that my "flawed-in-so-many-ways argument" was fair use, rather than the regurgitation on which we concur. My argument is not a fair use, it's an argument about a fair use. (I like the "flawed-in-so-many-ways" insult but it would have been better if it had been in a coherently composed sentence.)
Seriously, what were you smoking when you set up this paper house 'justification'?
I wasn't smoking anything, I don't smoke. I was thinking objectively. You should try it, it's amazingly powerful. I see you called my argument a paper house justification. I also note that you were so busy trying to be clever that you didn't really point out any flaw in my argument, apparently because you do not understand the concepts involved. You actually agreed with me before you tried to insult me.
You shouldn't be too hard on yourself, though. Keep trying, you'll get it. I am sure that the image I have of you in my head is not accurate.
Disclaimer: I am mostly Republican.
The issue is that the bill would have allowed almost unlimited political spending on the Internet. The Republicans almost always have WAY more money than the Democrats, but how they can spend it is sharply constrained by campaign finance laws. The Democrats do not want to allow the Republicans to 'buy' the election by spending vast amounts of money on unregulated messages over the Internet.
Rep: "Pass this bill" so we can pay people to blog for us with no oversight.
Dem: "Stop this bill" or we will lose our asses in the next election.
It's not about free speech, really. It's about campaign finance and tactics.
I actually searched for The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. I was given a complete page of the book (as an image) with controls to turn to the next page. I was able to view about 5 pages before the controls were disabled. I did another search for the last line on the page I had finished and got another 5 pages. I think I got a total of 15 pages (from a 200 page book) before it said I could not have any more of that book. I tried again a day later and it still would not give me any more of the book.
Book review magazines reproduce content for the express purpose of generating revenue (both ad-based and cover-price). We've been doing it for decades. Well covered by established fair use decisions in the courts.
Review magazines have other purposes as well, such as scholarship and research, helping consumers find content they want, etc. So does Google, scholarship and research, helping consumers find content they want, etc.
You have to read the whole thing, pal. You showed section 106. When it says "Subject to sections 107 through 122..." that means you need to read those sections to see what limits are placed on the provisions of section 106.
Google hold copies of original works. They use these entire copies to serve up snippets to individual users. By serving up snippets they are able to make sales of advertising. Therefore Google are using entire copies of copyrighted material for commercial benefit.
Reviewers hold complete copies of books. They use these entire copies to serve up reviews to individual users (and often vast hordes of users at once). By serving up these reviews they are able to make sales of reviews to newspapers and magazines, as well as those magazines and newspapers selling advertising based partially on the presence of those reviews. Therefore reviewers are using entire copies of copyrighted material for commercial benefit. This is the very epitome of "fair use."
This is so far from fair use it's not debatable.
You don't get to decide what's debatable, pal. Sorry to break that to you.
I can't spell it out more simply than that.
Well, I believe that is a true statement. The problem is not that you're not spelling it out simply enough. The problem is that you're wrong. What Google is doing is very analogous to the function of reviewers that we've accepted and depended on for decades.
The appropriate loop here is Think-Decide-Act, not Decide-Think-Act.
Every piece of data is another tool to be used in social engineering attacks. The problem is that when they have enough info about you, they can often convince you (or others, such as employees at your bank or doctor's office) that it is okay to give them the SSN as well.
This is why it is important to try to teach people to treat requests for sensitive info (SSN or other) with deep suspicion. Doing this is as hard as trying to teach non-computer literate people about good browsing habits, for I think similar reasons.
The environment makes the nature of the threats complex, requiring complex behaviors to remain relatively safe. Americans are accustomed to having things explained in 7 minute segments between commercials. If you can't make it simple, many people just lose interest.
To this date, I have never heard a complaint that the US govt. has tampered with the root servers to manipulate consumer access to any site.
.xxx domain? ICANN was leaning toward allowing it. The Commerce Dept. was getting complaints (apparently from "religious-right" types), and nudged ICANN. ICANN decided not to allow the .xxx domain, for now at least.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it."
The problem is that it might be a little bit broken. Remember the
Outcome: The (purely American) religious right wing prevented the establishment of a new top level domain worldwide, on the basis of their morality. Freedom of speech? You decide.
Dude, I'm not sure about your math, there. It's been a long time since I did any math (I'm an MBA student - numbers are strange and frightening to us) but I don't think the higher acceleration yields a lower percentage of the speed of light.
When firms become large enough to wield monopoly power, they become much larger threats to free-market economics than anti-trust regulation. There is NOTHING free-market about an industry dominated by a monopoly. Market constraints come from the monopoly rather than the gov't, but that does not mean they are not constraints.
Anti-trust regulations (if well administered) make markets slightly less free overall, but they remain MOSTLY free. This is an attempt to preserve as much freedom in the marketplace as possible.
MOSTLY free is better than NOT-AT-ALL free.
If you regard free-market as a binary condition, then a more accurate statement is that market freedom is inherently unstable, eventually requiring regulation to prevent descent into abusive monopolistic environments. As such, free markets would be a poor standard by which to judge an economic environment because it would describe only immaturity of the market. Gauging market freedom on a continuum is a much more useful way to consider its effects on the market participants.
Vasectomy in '95. Some genes shouldn't be passed on.
The arthritis is mostly from abuse. My jobs have always been very physical in nature and I didn't take good care of my joints. The cancers were because I have what is called a 'defective suppressor gene' which means my cells are not capable of responding correctly to mutation. The diabetes is from a life-long crappy diet, which is controlled through better diet now (thank $deity that I avoided having to take insulin).
LOL, thanx