what does extending jobless benefits have to do with NASA? Nothing. That's a slightly different argument, that paying people to build infrastructure makes more sense than paying them to do nothing. I agree with that argument, but I don't think it applies to NASA; they can hardly be considered a "make work" program.
As far as canceling programs: people are not designed to live in space. The cost/benefits analysis shows that sending a human to do a robot's job sucks. Automated exploration also has another big cost advantage: there is no requirement to bring the robots back. Plus, the spin-off benefits of developing the autonomous AI necessary to do the exploration for us would be tremendous.
I would argue that a thumbnail throws out information that was in the original picture, therefore it is more like an excerpt than a copy of the original work, but fair enough... the amount of original data copied is not the most important factor in determining fair use. Scanning a text to allow searches of the text and display of search results in context still sounds like fair use to me, while allowing for reading the entire text does not. Likewise, creating a much lower resolution copy of a picture for indexing sounds like fair use to me, while reproducing the picture in it's entirety does not.
One word: kids. Drop one of these in place, hand each of 5 kids a Nintendo DS, and watch them play games and leave you alone for the entire trip (At $190, even the new DS XL is cheaper than a netbook, as well as traveling better.) I already have an AC inverter plugged into the "cigarette lighter" DC plug for the purpose of recharging Nintendos and cellphones.
And fix them up with a room in your basement, complete with high speed internet, high end PC, XBox, PS3, Wii, and a complete set of D&D manuals. And don't forget the WoW subscription -- $15/month is a mere pittance to pay for the most effective form of birth control known to mankind!
I have a theory that educators have a lot of exposure, because it is literally impossible for follow all the voluminous and conflicting Federal, State, and Local laws that proscribe their conduct. This certainly counts as further evidence in support of that theory.
Fair use says you can quote excerpts from textual work, not the entire work. Extending this to pictures, it should be ok to publish a small portion of the picture, but not the entire picture. There is a huge difference between publishing an excerpt, and publishing the entire work. Whereas a small portion of text might give you meaningful information about the entire work, a small portion of a picture usually looks like random pixels.
Stop it! You're intentionally annoying me, aren't you? And with no good cause! You better hope you don't live in Arkansas!
It gets worse. In California, you can get a restraining order against someone you were in a relationship with just by saying "I was afraid of him/her." Even if you have history of hospitalization for paranoia and depression. Even if that person has never actually done anything to make you afraid of them. If you cohabitate, they can then have a squad of cops come in in the middle of the night, roust you out bed, give you 5 minutes to gather your clothes (but nothing of value), and permanently ban you from the house you are paying for. They can then go through your remaining possessions and sell them at their leisure. All because someone said they were afraid for no reason. (If this does happen to you, immediately and permanently terminate the relationship. Beauty is skin deep, but crazy goes clean through to the bone.)
Copying several pages of the book for educational use is considered fair use. Copying the entire book is not. I intentionally used the word "secure" to imply they keep a copy, but not make it generally available, except to the few Google employees actively involved in OCR. I believe that still qualifies as fair use, but it is admittedly a gray area.
Glad you took that well. Yes, that was yet another lame attempt at humor based on the cliche of slashdotter as nerd living in mom's basement. On the one hand, nobody really needs to know your orientation unless they are planning on dating you. On the other hand, one of my pet peeves is people like Anne Heche that claim "I'm a lesbian!" when they are dating women, and "No, really, I'm straight!" when they are dating men, when they should just STFU and admit to themselves they are bi. So in that respect, I commend you. Prior to Prop 8 I used to say that nobody needed to know, but now it seems imperative that everyone voluntarily out themselves to increase acceptance of these minority sexual preferences. (For the record... I'm straight, but don't regard those who are not any differently than I regard those that are left-handed. I just don't want to hear the details of anybody else's sexuality. Even if they are ambidextrous.)
Reading his Farcebook page when he left it logged in I don't have a problem with. Changing the password, then posting defamatory remarks to the page while logged in as her son is grounds for a lawsuit... as is posting defamatory remarks about him on the News Stations comment page. Also, she contradicts herself in a way only truly mentally ill people can -- she is publicly defaming him because she is upset about unwise Facebook comments that can adversely affect his later life... WTF? She doesn't think her online announcements that her son speeds, has been arrested for drunk driving, and has been busted for pot might adversely affect his chances at employment?!?
Google presumably owns a copy of each book it scans. Scanning it is fair use. Publishing it is unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Also, what you are proposing would greatly the cost of scanning books... what if there is text and a picture on the same page? Better to create a digital image of the entire book and keep it secure, so that better OCR techniques can be used on it in the future.
Every premature loss of life is a tragedy; I believe Edgar Allen Poe and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were both drug addicts at one point. That being said, I personally do not believe the government has the right or the responsibility to protect people from themselves.
"Google does not make available any of the visual material that might be in the books, unless the copyright holder has agreed to it", claims Google. Photographers do deserve to be compensated if their copyrighted material has been published online, but Google claims they have never done that without permission. If Google is omitting the pictures (which makes sense because they are not searchable), then they are doing the photographers a favor by publicizing their work online. If they are publishing the artwork without permission, then they certainly should pay for it.
Don't most websites require you to type in the old password to set a new password, even if you are already logged in... precisely to prevent somebody else from stealing your account when you leave it logged in?
I'm bi. Does that have any effect on the frequency that you spend the night alone in your mom's basement? If it does, I know some slashdotters that may be willing to give it the old college try...
Actually, plant life needs carbon dioxide, not oxygen. when the planet first formed, it didn't have an oxygen-rich atmosphere. The oxygen in our atmosphere had to be generated by plants. Life existed for hundreds of millions of years before any life that required oxygen evolved.
Slashdot Mirror
Never send a Roomba to do a woman's job!
what does extending jobless benefits have to do with NASA? Nothing. That's a slightly different argument, that paying people to build infrastructure makes more sense than paying them to do nothing. I agree with that argument, but I don't think it applies to NASA; they can hardly be considered a "make work" program.
As far as canceling programs: people are not designed to live in space. The cost/benefits analysis shows that sending a human to do a robot's job sucks. Automated exploration also has another big cost advantage: there is no requirement to bring the robots back. Plus, the spin-off benefits of developing the autonomous AI necessary to do the exploration for us would be tremendous.
They are Tibetan Buddhist mice... they set themselves on fire to protest the Chinese occupation of Tibet.
As long as you're using printing technology to place cells over the wound, why not add pigments and voila! Instant tatoo!
Been there. Done that. It broke.
Do you know what they call people that buy cheap condoms? Parents!
I would argue that a thumbnail throws out information that was in the original picture, therefore it is more like an excerpt than a copy of the original work, but fair enough... the amount of original data copied is not the most important factor in determining fair use. Scanning a text to allow searches of the text and display of search results in context still sounds like fair use to me, while allowing for reading the entire text does not. Likewise, creating a much lower resolution copy of a picture for indexing sounds like fair use to me, while reproducing the picture in it's entirety does not.
Behind every great man there is a woman, who is absolutely surprised as hell at his success.
Other than the bandwidth cap, this sounds like a good idea.
One word: kids. Drop one of these in place, hand each of 5 kids a Nintendo DS, and watch them play games and leave you alone for the entire trip (At $190, even the new DS XL is cheaper than a netbook, as well as traveling better.) I already have an AC inverter plugged into the "cigarette lighter" DC plug for the purpose of recharging Nintendos and cellphones.
And fix them up with a room in your basement, complete with high speed internet, high end PC, XBox, PS3, Wii, and a complete set of D&D manuals. And don't forget the WoW subscription -- $15/month is a mere pittance to pay for the most effective form of birth control known to mankind!
I have a theory that educators have a lot of exposure, because it is literally impossible for follow all the voluminous and conflicting Federal, State, and Local laws that proscribe their conduct. This certainly counts as further evidence in support of that theory.
Fair use says you can quote excerpts from textual work, not the entire work. Extending this to pictures, it should be ok to publish a small portion of the picture, but not the entire picture. There is a huge difference between publishing an excerpt, and publishing the entire work. Whereas a small portion of text might give you meaningful information about the entire work, a small portion of a picture usually looks like random pixels.
Stop it! You're intentionally annoying me, aren't you? And with no good cause! You better hope you don't live in Arkansas!
It gets worse. In California, you can get a restraining order against someone you were in a relationship with just by saying "I was afraid of him/her." Even if you have history of hospitalization for paranoia and depression. Even if that person has never actually done anything to make you afraid of them. If you cohabitate, they can then have a squad of cops come in in the middle of the night, roust you out bed, give you 5 minutes to gather your clothes (but nothing of value), and permanently ban you from the house you are paying for. They can then go through your remaining possessions and sell them at their leisure. All because someone said they were afraid for no reason. (If this does happen to you, immediately and permanently terminate the relationship. Beauty is skin deep, but crazy goes clean through to the bone.)
Copying several pages of the book for educational use is considered fair use. Copying the entire book is not. I intentionally used the word "secure" to imply they keep a copy, but not make it generally available, except to the few Google employees actively involved in OCR. I believe that still qualifies as fair use, but it is admittedly a gray area.
Glad you took that well. Yes, that was yet another lame attempt at humor based on the cliche of slashdotter as nerd living in mom's basement. On the one hand, nobody really needs to know your orientation unless they are planning on dating you. On the other hand, one of my pet peeves is people like Anne Heche that claim "I'm a lesbian!" when they are dating women, and "No, really, I'm straight!" when they are dating men, when they should just STFU and admit to themselves they are bi. So in that respect, I commend you. Prior to Prop 8 I used to say that nobody needed to know, but now it seems imperative that everyone voluntarily out themselves to increase acceptance of these minority sexual preferences. (For the record... I'm straight, but don't regard those who are not any differently than I regard those that are left-handed. I just don't want to hear the details of anybody else's sexuality. Even if they are ambidextrous.)
Reading his Farcebook page when he left it logged in I don't have a problem with. Changing the password, then posting defamatory remarks to the page while logged in as her son is grounds for a lawsuit... as is posting defamatory remarks about him on the News Stations comment page. Also, she contradicts herself in a way only truly mentally ill people can -- she is publicly defaming him because she is upset about unwise Facebook comments that can adversely affect his later life... WTF? She doesn't think her online announcements that her son speeds, has been arrested for drunk driving, and has been busted for pot might adversely affect his chances at employment?!?
Google presumably owns a copy of each book it scans. Scanning it is fair use. Publishing it is unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Also, what you are proposing would greatly the cost of scanning books... what if there is text and a picture on the same page? Better to create a digital image of the entire book and keep it secure, so that better OCR techniques can be used on it in the future.
Every premature loss of life is a tragedy; I believe Edgar Allen Poe and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were both drug addicts at one point. That being said, I personally do not believe the government has the right or the responsibility to protect people from themselves.
and a failed drug test could be said "I have a prescription" and keep their job.
that no longer works.
No, that would look a lot more like tits.
"Google does not make available any of the visual material that might be in the books, unless the copyright holder has agreed to it", claims Google. Photographers do deserve to be compensated if their copyrighted material has been published online, but Google claims they have never done that without permission. If Google is omitting the pictures (which makes sense because they are not searchable), then they are doing the photographers a favor by publicizing their work online. If they are publishing the artwork without permission, then they certainly should pay for it.
I spent a decade in Arkansas one summer... trust me, any disparaging remarks you can heap on those people are well deserved.
Don't most websites require you to type in the old password to set a new password, even if you are already logged in... precisely to prevent somebody else from stealing your account when you leave it logged in?
I'm bi. Does that have any effect on the frequency that you spend the night alone in your mom's basement? If it does, I know some slashdotters that may be willing to give it the old college try...
Actually, plant life needs carbon dioxide, not oxygen. when the planet first formed, it didn't have an oxygen-rich atmosphere. The oxygen in our atmosphere had to be generated by plants. Life existed for hundreds of millions of years before any life that required oxygen evolved.