I work in a large office with a lot of cubes. I find the white noise generator works great -- I am hardly ever distracted by discussions. Once when the white noise generator was turned off the whole place had an eerie feel to it because you could hear conversations eight cubes away.
It was the Spring of 1974. Rosemary Woods had just erased 18 1/2 minutes from a tape lying around the office when she opened a canister of undeveloped film that someone from NASA had sent, exposing it to the light. It was an accident, honest!
This is interesting. I'll be fifty next year, and I program for a living. But you're right, I didn't train as a programmer. I have a PhD in computer science. In the 70s and 80s "programming" was hardly considered worthy of *undergrad* courses, let alone graduate courses -- it was just assumed if you were smart enough to do CS, you could figure out programming on your own.
I'm still around and programming because I have the foundations to pick up new technologies very quickly (and perspective of history to tell the good from the bad). These reasons are probably why my employer is willing to pay a premium to hire me, while yes, IIT grads are making (i would guess) 1/4 my salary on other projects in my corporation.
The point isn't that he dissed someone or broke the rules, so now he's kicked out. You, like Marquette Univ, are presuming his guilt.
The point is that Marquette has a proceedure in place for responding to disciplinary action: a formal hearing. Marquette Univ violated their own standards by not allowing him to defend himself at his hearing, and significantly increasing the punishment for his alleged infractions, only because he had the timerity to ask for a hearing.
Yes, he is bound by Marquette's rules, but so are they.
Even if you approve of or think you need a super-natural explanation for the origin of species (I don't), that in no way leads inevitably to the Christian deity. If nature is so complex that its development can't be explained by evolution, perhaps (like all complex systems we are aware of) it was designed by a team. Rejecting evolution leads to polytheism just as surely as it leads to Christian monotheism.
The numbers in the article don't add up. They say they have $1 million in revenue and have 50 full time employees. That means avg. $20K/yr, which even in Minot wouldn't go far. Then they say they charge $35-$50 per hour. What gives?
I am essentially sympathetic with Google, and find most of the Barr/Shroeder piece to be rubbish. But there is a point lurking in there that needs to be addressed: What is the value to Google of each copyrighted work it has indexed?
The value of each work, in the limit, is not zero. If each individual work added no value, then there wouldn't be any point in indexing that work; in the limit nothing would be indexed. So I've got to conclude Google does owe the copyright holder something, but it might be pretty small. It might be less than the value to a book-reviewer (for example) quoting a paragraph -- i.e. w/in monetary value limits of fair use.
So how do you figure the value? First, it is a monotonic increasing function of the size of the overall index. A user gets more value by getting a hit in a big index than a small one. Next, the value is a function of the frequency of work's being returned as a search result. A user gets no value from a work that is never a search result. More precisely, it is a function of the frequency f and size n of result list, of the work being returned in a result list of size n (searching for "the" will bring up lots of hits, but the value of each hit is small). So if your work is indexed in a huge index, and shows up lots of times in small result lists, you have given more to Google than if your work appears in a small index, and only shows up few times, in big result lists.
Google should be made to supply some real statistics on size of the index and hits per work; but my bet is that the monetary contribution of each work will be miniscule. Indexing does build on copyright holder's "value"; it's an empirical question whether it is fair use.
1) Newsweek provides access to a tiny portion of the work, for their own (minimal, on a per use basis) profit, without the permission of the copyright holder. Google will do the same.
2) Because Google will allow search across everything, the argument that they have copied any one work for their own profit fails. This is the significance of copying everything, not just selected works.
3) They have not already failed at this argument -- it hasn't come to court. If people find a way to misuse the service in the way you suggest, Google's liability will be in proportion to the actual infringement that occurs. If there are 10E7 searches a day, and fewer than N cases of infringement (download of totality of a copyrighted work) then the court will accept the argument. The only question is the acceptable value of N, which, by precedent, need not be 0.
4) The question of revenue gain versus loss is relevant. A copyright holder will not be able to argue successfully that they have lost revenue, without being able to prove it. My guess (I'm betting with Google here) is that that will be extemely hard, mainly because it will be false. i.e. those links will in fact bring in publisher revenue.
I'm afraid you won't find me shedding a tear ("poor publishers") for the conglomerate corporations that have lobbied the US congress to extend copyright terms to absurd limits.
I am aware of the four factors used to determaine if a use is fair. Please consider:
1) Newsweek prints quotes from copywrited works. Newsweek makes money from ads it sells partly on the basis of its book review section.
2) The nature of the works copied are immaterial to Google. They are copying everything.
3) You only have access to tiny parts of the copywrited works. This is actually the crux of the argument they will make in court.
4) Where possible they will provide links to booksellers: their making the text searchable increases the potential market for the copywrited works.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you don't know WTF you're talking about. "What Google is doing is forbidden by law" isn't the case. Making a handful of lines of text available as a search result is clearly within fair-use, which doctrine has extensive support within case law and by statute. Look it up.
I'd be more interested in a discussion of alternatives to Outlook. At my company I have no control over the use of the Exchange server, but I can use whatever I want on my desktop. I use Evolution, but frankly it's pretty sucky and gets worse with each release. Anybody out there in my boat, stuck trying to talk to the corporate Exchange server from a Linux desktop? What do you use?
Being a good manager and being a true geek require incompatible skills/personality traits. A true geek wants to do it himself. A good manager must let others do (but of course know how to do, in order to command respect and to mentor if necessary.) The biggest gotcha going from doing to managing is figuring, "It's quicker if I do it myself". A good manager must accept, temporarily, slower/inferior results than what he would produce himself, and that's almost impossible for a true geek to accept.
Slashdot Mirror
Whom the gods would destroy, first they teach perl.
I work in a large office with a lot of cubes. I find the white noise generator works great -- I am hardly ever distracted by discussions. Once when the white noise generator was turned off the whole place had an eerie feel to it because you could hear conversations eight cubes away.
It was the Spring of 1974. Rosemary Woods had just erased 18 1/2 minutes from a tape lying around the office when she opened a canister of undeveloped film that someone from NASA had sent, exposing it to the light. It was an accident, honest!
This is interesting. I'll be fifty next year, and I program for a living. But you're right, I didn't train as a programmer. I have a PhD in computer science. In the 70s and 80s "programming" was hardly considered worthy of *undergrad* courses, let alone graduate courses -- it was just assumed if you were smart enough to do CS, you could figure out programming on your own.
I'm still around and programming because I have the foundations to pick up new technologies very quickly (and perspective of history to tell the good from the bad). These reasons are probably why my employer is willing to pay a premium to hire me, while yes, IIT grads are making (i would guess) 1/4 my salary on other projects in my corporation.
The point isn't that he dissed someone or broke the rules, so now he's kicked out. You, like Marquette Univ, are presuming his guilt.
The point is that Marquette has a proceedure in place for responding to disciplinary action: a formal hearing. Marquette Univ violated their own standards by not allowing him to defend himself at his hearing, and significantly increasing the punishment for his alleged infractions, only because he had the timerity to ask for a hearing.
Yes, he is bound by Marquette's rules, but so are they.
Even if you approve of or think you need a super-natural explanation for the origin of species (I don't), that in no way leads inevitably to the Christian deity. If nature is so complex that its development can't be explained by evolution, perhaps (like all complex systems we are aware of) it was designed by a team. Rejecting evolution leads to polytheism just as surely as it leads to Christian monotheism.
The numbers in the article don't add up. They say they have $1 million in revenue and have 50 full time employees. That means avg. $20K/yr, which even in Minot wouldn't go far. Then they say they charge $35-$50 per hour. What gives?
I am essentially sympathetic with Google, and find most of the Barr/Shroeder piece to be rubbish. But there is a point lurking in there that needs to be addressed: What is the value to Google of each copyrighted work it has indexed?
The value of each work, in the limit, is not zero. If each individual work added no value, then there wouldn't be any point in indexing that work; in the limit nothing would be indexed. So I've got to conclude Google does owe the copyright holder something, but it might be pretty small. It might be less than the value to a book-reviewer (for example) quoting a paragraph -- i.e. w/in monetary value limits of fair use.
So how do you figure the value? First, it is a monotonic increasing function of the size of the overall index. A user gets more value by getting a hit in a big index than a small one. Next, the value is a function of the frequency of work's being returned as a search result. A user gets no value from a work that is never a search result. More precisely, it is a function of the frequency f and size n of result list, of the work being returned in a result list of size n (searching for "the" will bring up lots of hits, but the value of each hit is small). So if your work is indexed in a huge index, and shows up lots of times in small result lists, you have given more to Google than if your work appears in a small index, and only shows up few times, in big result lists.
Google should be made to supply some real statistics on size of the index and hits per work; but my bet is that the monetary contribution of each work will be miniscule. Indexing does build on copyright holder's "value"; it's an empirical question whether it is fair use.
1) Newsweek provides access to a tiny portion of the work, for their own (minimal, on a per use basis) profit, without the permission of the copyright holder. Google will do the same.
2) Because Google will allow search across everything, the argument that they have copied any one work for their own profit fails. This is the significance of copying everything, not just selected works.
3) They have not already failed at this argument -- it hasn't come to court. If people find a way to misuse the service in the way you suggest, Google's liability will be in proportion to the actual infringement that occurs. If there are 10E7 searches a day, and fewer than N cases of infringement (download of totality of a copyrighted work) then the court will accept the argument. The only question is the acceptable value of N, which, by precedent, need not be 0.
4) The question of revenue gain versus loss is relevant. A copyright holder will not be able to argue successfully that they have lost revenue, without being able to prove it. My guess (I'm betting with Google here) is that that will be extemely hard, mainly because it will be false. i.e. those links will in fact bring in publisher revenue.
I'm afraid you won't find me shedding a tear ("poor publishers") for the conglomerate corporations that have lobbied the US congress to extend copyright terms to absurd limits.
I am aware of the four factors used to determaine if a use is fair. Please consider:
1) Newsweek prints quotes from copywrited works. Newsweek makes money from ads it sells partly on the basis of its book review section.
2) The nature of the works copied are immaterial to Google. They are copying everything.
3) You only have access to tiny parts of the copywrited works. This is actually the crux of the argument they will make in court.
4) Where possible they will provide links to booksellers: their making the text searchable increases the potential market for the copywrited works.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you don't know WTF you're talking about. "What Google is doing is forbidden by law" isn't the case. Making a handful of lines of text available as a search result is clearly within fair-use, which doctrine has extensive support within case law and by statute. Look it up.
Q: How many Californians does it take to scew in a lightbulb?
A: None. Californians don't screw in lightbulbs; they screw in hot tubs.
I'd be more interested in a discussion of alternatives to Outlook. At my company I have no control over the use of the Exchange server, but I can use whatever I want on my desktop. I use Evolution, but frankly it's pretty sucky and gets worse with each release. Anybody out there in my boat, stuck trying to talk to the corporate Exchange server from a Linux desktop? What do you use?
Being a good manager and being a true geek require incompatible skills/personality traits. A true geek wants to do it himself. A good manager must let others do (but of course know how to do, in order to command respect and to mentor if necessary.) The biggest gotcha going from doing to managing is figuring, "It's quicker if I do it myself". A good manager must accept, temporarily, slower/inferior results than what he would produce himself, and that's almost impossible for a true geek to accept.
A: PHEL
Q: What do you say when you call 119?