libraries routinely make full copies of damaged books that are out of print in order to preserve their content.
Yes, but in those cases, the libraries first legally obtained a copy of the book and are making a single copy to replace the one copy they legally own. (There are also provisions under fair use for multiple copies, but I believe that is more related to educational use, e.g. printing 50 copies of a chapter for use in a classroom.)
The differences here?
1. Google is not a library. It is a public company run for profit.
2. Google did not legally obtain a copy of any of these books.
3. Google's copies do not maintain the overall number of copies distributed. (Again, in the case of libraries, they make one copy when they have to remove one copy from the shelves.)
I liked Episodes IV - VI because I enjoyed watching them, not because someone else thought they were cool. There could be a bit of a nostalgia/childhood infatuation factor here, but I can still watch the old Star Wars trilogy more often then a Disney cartoon.
Why was Episode I the 5th highest all time box office winner? Because people liked the original trilogy a lot and their fascination with it lasted a good 20 years.
Why didn't Episode III have the 5th (or 4th, or 1st) highest box office take? Maybe because Episode I didn't live up to expectations, and it didn't rekindle the fascination with the series. (If anything, it rekindled it in anticipation of the Episode I release, only to have it fade away on the disappointment after seeing the film.)
How can they claim fair use if they haven't even purchased a copy of the work? They're borrowing it from the library in order to make copies, and the copies are then owned and used by Google, not the library.
Don't know why I bothered boming back to this, but...
just giving some helpful tips ...from a site instructing people how to promote Linux to women. Classy. It's true that "are you available?" won't help your cause if you're trying to sell something, but that obviously wasn't the intent.
if a guy is posting pickup lines on Slashdot, he needs the help
If he's posting anonymously, he's either not trying to pick anyone up, or he needs even more help than you thought.
I don't expect good mod points ever
Actually, I was more concerned about you being given the power to mod. I'd feel bad for anyone who gets a negative from you because you didn't get the intent of their post.
the point is that questions like "are you available" aren't funny at all: it is degrading.
If a woman's posting about her geekdom on Slashdot, in response to a thread about how (surprisingly) there is a large population of female sci-fi fans, what do you expect is the intent? I assert that it is to challenge stereotypical thinking and cause others to say "Wow, you are not at all what I would have expected." The anoonymous pickup line conveys the sentiment fairly concisely, with an obvious sense of humour to avoid sounding like lame cyber-worship.
I know that if I was composing a Slashdot comment about my collection of Star Trek DVDs, Star Wars LDs (unmodified not-so-Special-Edition), and Asimov paperbacks, it would probably be just for the purpose of impressing others, not an attempt to make new friends and form deeper relationships. (Besides which, it's kind of fun to think you might be able to get a guy to drool over an attribute that has nothing to do with your looks.)
And before you ask -- my husband says I'm not available.
You mean, totally unlike the Riker/Troi romantic theme (Ross and Rachel, anyone?) or Kirk's friendship with Spock, and other ongoing relationship developments throughout the Star Trek series and movies?
(And nothing at all like the dynamics aboard the Millenium Falcon?)
Maybe I don't watch enough "current" sci-fi shows to know whether there's actually been an increase, but intra-character relationships are always important to the longevity of a series. If you don't care about the group of people on the show, it might as well be The Twilight Zone with completely different characters each time (several of them portrayed by Shatner, of course).
Gullible enough to click the first link on the page after hitting "Search"? Yes.
Just because it's highlighted in a different color than the rest of the page doesn't exactly make it obvious to a novice user that it's advertising. The first link is the closest match, right?
Way to take and not even give back something that would not have taken more than a second of your time anyway!
Google doesn't make money when you view the ad. They only make money when you click the ad, which then costs the advertiser some money. So which is it you want us to do, simply view the ad (theoretically "costing" Google money), or click on the ad (costing the adverstiser money)?
The real purpose of the ads is to make us spend our money. Turning off the cookies that drive the ads is a little akin to cutting up a credit card so you won't be tempted to use it.
(I don't actually block the cookies, but I have pretty good willpower. If I occasionally can only find the search results I want in the ads, I'm fairly tempted to just type in the displayed URL. It's not exactly the advertiser's fault if Google's sophisticated search algorithms didn't put them in the regular results when they offer precisely what I was searching for.)
I thought AdWords had a country filter, so you could display ads for users in specific countries... or does it only filter by the search site language?
Well, no wonder! Student union elections are particularly pointless for most of the student population. Why bother voting for one random student you never heard of over another one you never heard of, when whatever they're promising to do is unlikely to have any significant impact on you within the few years you're at school? Given a choice between learning who the players are and the politics du jour, or learning L'Hopital's Rule for the next morning's mid-term, which one do you think is worth their time? Which one's going to have a greater impact on their future success and ability to get a job?
As seen with the trending of voter apathy in national elections, people will by and large not make an effort if they don't honestly think the results will affect them personally.
H1B's are not outsourced, they're brought in. They're in the office at the right hours and accessible when needed without the time lag you get with "offshore" teams. If your Midwestern programmers are willing to relocate and deal with the sticker shock (cost of living in Silicon Valley, for example, may not be in proportion to the pay increase) they might get some enthusiastic employers.
However, if you're going to outsource anyway and deal with the time & space differential, might as well go for the lowest bidder (often a centrally located "offshore" office, more efficient for the company than a number of telecommuting contractors).
No, it's like you want to buy a car from me, but I tell you to go stuff yourself, because I'm not going to let you buy the car you want to.
At which point you go to the dealership next door and buy the one you want. You think Verisign had the only credit card processing around? Once they sell off that unit, they are still free to choose who processes their payments. They aren't somehow going to be forced to send all payments through eBay.
Still, while the U.S.'s laws don't require you to share your wealth with your neighbors (taxes notwithstanding), they do prevent you from stealing from your neighbor outright. We tend to define (or have historically defined) rights as being what cannot be taken away, not that which must be provided. A convenient example of this would be the fact that despite the wording of the 2nd Amendment, we are not issued firearms at birth.
You, too, have sidestepped the very basic question of whether a fetus meets the definition of a "person" and might deserve the protection of the laws.
Sure, even if you believe a fetus is a human being - if it comes to one life for another, the potential to be a human shouldn't surpass an actual, living human in need of help!
Wait a moment - when has it not been ok to choose one life over another? Where was the religious right during the cold war? Or the Iraq war? Or capital punishment?
Nah, it's actually not comparable. The convenient thing about using fetal stem cells is it's not from your own "child." It's from someone else's, or no one's, since it was discarded.
It still ought to give you pause, looking objectively at the idea, that those who benefit from this research have a vested interest in denying the humanity of a fetus. The question of a fetus' personhood must be answered before it should even be considered as a resource for "advances" elsewhere.
I'm a parent too, and although my child is healthy and will hopefully remain so her whole life, I can tell you that if she ever does need some kind of treatment that someone objects to on religious grounds, that someone had better stay the hell out of my way.
Supposing your child needed a heart transplant and you couldn't expect to get one from the donor list. Would you advocate killing a child that (presumably) no one would miss in order to save your own child's life?
There's a possibility some parents would be tempted to do so due to the love they have for their children, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed.
Now, it is still debatable whether abortion amounts to the killing of a person, but you cannot silence the debate by pointing to the supposed good that comes from the procedure. The truth is, desperate people might be willing to resort to desperate measures when it comes to prolonging their own lives or the lives of those they love, but they do not always have the right.
Then they have a outside company do some "research" that says the gmail trademark is worth over $40 million. To who? Obviously only to google, because if gmail was worth so much as a trademark to IIR, they wouldn't be a piddly $5 million company.
You don't evaluate a trademark's worth based on a single year of usage. A good trademark has longevity, so it's reasonable to evaluate it based on the future benefits of keeping it long-term vs. selling it in the near-term.
Because law enforcement doesn't want to throw out identifying information that might help in other cases (cold cases or crimes not yet committed). They don't throw out fingerprints if someone's cleared of charges; why would DNA be treated differently?
Oh God, no.... if dialing up your destination is anything like working the self-checkout line at the grocery store, there's no way I'm standing in line for one of those.
...unless, of course, you built in a default destination for anyone too incompetent to figure it out after a couple of tries. One where they can't make a return trip. }:-)
Those reasons are so lame. There is no park and ride to save money to please people like yourself. Sure it would be no faster than the bus line but it could carry a lot more people than the bus line without clogging the streets - that's the idea of mass transit. And it costs more than driving to work because of hidden subsidies supporting the infrastructure for drivers
If a city can't build a mass transit system that entices actual usage (by making it cheaper and/or faster for the commuters) then it's a wash. Seriously, how many people are going to choose a method of transportation that is more expensive and less convenient just because it unclogs the streets for the drivers who don't feel obligated to use it?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and watch the bids die off as soon as your neighbor walks out in his bathrobe to get his paper....
libraries routinely make full copies of damaged books that are out of print in order to preserve their content.
Yes, but in those cases, the libraries first legally obtained a copy of the book and are making a single copy to replace the one copy they legally own. (There are also provisions under fair use for multiple copies, but I believe that is more related to educational use, e.g. printing 50 copies of a chapter for use in a classroom.)
The differences here?
1. Google is not a library. It is a public company run for profit.
2. Google did not legally obtain a copy of any of these books.
3. Google's copies do not maintain the overall number of copies distributed. (Again, in the case of libraries, they make one copy when they have to remove one copy from the shelves.)
I liked Episodes IV - VI because I enjoyed watching them, not because someone else thought they were cool. There could be a bit of a nostalgia/childhood infatuation factor here, but I can still watch the old Star Wars trilogy more often then a Disney cartoon.
Why was Episode I the 5th highest all time box office winner? Because people liked the original trilogy a lot and their fascination with it lasted a good 20 years.
Why didn't Episode III have the 5th (or 4th, or 1st) highest box office take? Maybe because Episode I didn't live up to expectations, and it didn't rekindle the fascination with the series. (If anything, it rekindled it in anticipation of the Episode I release, only to have it fade away on the disappointment after seeing the film.)
episodes IV, V, and VI in their original untouched format.
;)
Oooh, is that VHS, LD, or bootleg?
(And kudos for not posting that AC!)
How can they claim fair use if they haven't even purchased a copy of the work? They're borrowing it from the library in order to make copies, and the copies are then owned and used by Google, not the library.
Don't know why I bothered boming back to this, but...
...from a site instructing people how to promote Linux to women. Classy. It's true that "are you available?" won't help your cause if you're trying to sell something, but that obviously wasn't the intent.
just giving some helpful tips
if a guy is posting pickup lines on Slashdot, he needs the help
If he's posting anonymously, he's either not trying to pick anyone up, or he needs even more help than you thought.
I don't expect good mod points ever
Actually, I was more concerned about you being given the power to mod. I'd feel bad for anyone who gets a negative from you because you didn't get the intent of their post.
the point is that questions like "are you available" aren't funny at all: it is degrading.
If a woman's posting about her geekdom on Slashdot, in response to a thread about how (surprisingly) there is a large population of female sci-fi fans, what do you expect is the intent? I assert that it is to challenge stereotypical thinking and cause others to say "Wow, you are not at all what I would have expected." The anoonymous pickup line conveys the sentiment fairly concisely, with an obvious sense of humour to avoid sounding like lame cyber-worship.
I know that if I was composing a Slashdot comment about my collection of Star Trek DVDs, Star Wars LDs (unmodified not-so-Special-Edition), and Asimov paperbacks, it would probably be just for the purpose of impressing others, not an attempt to make new friends and form deeper relationships. (Besides which, it's kind of fun to think you might be able to get a guy to drool over an attribute that has nothing to do with your looks.)
And before you ask -- my husband says I'm not available.
You mean, totally unlike the Riker/Troi romantic theme (Ross and Rachel, anyone?) or Kirk's friendship with Spock, and other ongoing relationship developments throughout the Star Trek series and movies?
(And nothing at all like the dynamics aboard the Millenium Falcon?)
Maybe I don't watch enough "current" sci-fi shows to know whether there's actually been an increase, but intra-character relationships are always important to the longevity of a series. If you don't care about the group of people on the show, it might as well be The Twilight Zone with completely different characters each time (several of them portrayed by Shatner, of course).
Personally, I think you should get a sense of humor before you get any mod points.
Gullible enough to click the first link on the page after hitting "Search"? Yes.
Just because it's highlighted in a different color than the rest of the page doesn't exactly make it obvious to a novice user that it's advertising. The first link is the closest match, right?
Way to take and not even give back something that would not have taken more than a second of your time anyway!
Google doesn't make money when you view the ad. They only make money when you click the ad, which then costs the advertiser some money. So which is it you want us to do, simply view the ad (theoretically "costing" Google money), or click on the ad (costing the adverstiser money)?
The real purpose of the ads is to make us spend our money. Turning off the cookies that drive the ads is a little akin to cutting up a credit card so you won't be tempted to use it.
(I don't actually block the cookies, but I have pretty good willpower. If I occasionally can only find the search results I want in the ads, I'm fairly tempted to just type in the displayed URL. It's not exactly the advertiser's fault if Google's sophisticated search algorithms didn't put them in the regular results when they offer precisely what I was searching for.)
I thought AdWords had a country filter, so you could display ads for users in specific countries... or does it only filter by the search site language?
Well, no wonder! Student union elections are particularly pointless for most of the student population. Why bother voting for one random student you never heard of over another one you never heard of, when whatever they're promising to do is unlikely to have any significant impact on you within the few years you're at school? Given a choice between learning who the players are and the politics du jour, or learning L'Hopital's Rule for the next morning's mid-term, which one do you think is worth their time? Which one's going to have a greater impact on their future success and ability to get a job?
As seen with the trending of voter apathy in national elections, people will by and large not make an effort if they don't honestly think the results will affect them personally.
"Neatly typed" ... were you expecting him to blog in longhand?
H1B's are not outsourced, they're brought in. They're in the office at the right hours and accessible when needed without the time lag you get with "offshore" teams. If your Midwestern programmers are willing to relocate and deal with the sticker shock (cost of living in Silicon Valley, for example, may not be in proportion to the pay increase) they might get some enthusiastic employers.
However, if you're going to outsource anyway and deal with the time & space differential, might as well go for the lowest bidder (often a centrally located "offshore" office, more efficient for the company than a number of telecommuting contractors).
No, it's like you want to buy a car from me, but I tell you to go stuff yourself, because I'm not going to let you buy the car you want to.
At which point you go to the dealership next door and buy the one you want. You think Verisign had the only credit card processing around? Once they sell off that unit, they are still free to choose who processes their payments. They aren't somehow going to be forced to send all payments through eBay.
Still, while the U.S.'s laws don't require you to share your wealth with your neighbors (taxes notwithstanding), they do prevent you from stealing from your neighbor outright. We tend to define (or have historically defined) rights as being what cannot be taken away, not that which must be provided. A convenient example of this would be the fact that despite the wording of the 2nd Amendment, we are not issued firearms at birth.
You, too, have sidestepped the very basic question of whether a fetus meets the definition of a "person" and might deserve the protection of the laws.
Logical fallacy #1: Begging the question
Logical fallacy #2: Straw man
Logical fallacy #3: Red herring
Nah, it's actually not comparable. The convenient thing about using fetal stem cells is it's not from your own "child." It's from someone else's, or no one's, since it was discarded.
It still ought to give you pause, looking objectively at the idea, that those who benefit from this research have a vested interest in denying the humanity of a fetus. The question of a fetus' personhood must be answered before it should even be considered as a resource for "advances" elsewhere.
I'm a parent too, and although my child is healthy and will hopefully remain so her whole life, I can tell you that if she ever does need some kind of treatment that someone objects to on religious grounds, that someone had better stay the hell out of my way.
Supposing your child needed a heart transplant and you couldn't expect to get one from the donor list. Would you advocate killing a child that (presumably) no one would miss in order to save your own child's life?
There's a possibility some parents would be tempted to do so due to the love they have for their children, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed.
Now, it is still debatable whether abortion amounts to the killing of a person, but you cannot silence the debate by pointing to the supposed good that comes from the procedure. The truth is, desperate people might be willing to resort to desperate measures when it comes to prolonging their own lives or the lives of those they love, but they do not always have the right.
Then they have a outside company do some "research" that says the gmail trademark is worth over $40 million. To who? Obviously only to google, because if gmail was worth so much as a trademark to IIR, they wouldn't be a piddly $5 million company.
You don't evaluate a trademark's worth based on a single year of usage. A good trademark has longevity, so it's reasonable to evaluate it based on the future benefits of keeping it long-term vs. selling it in the near-term.
Because law enforcement doesn't want to throw out identifying information that might help in other cases (cold cases or crimes not yet committed). They don't throw out fingerprints if someone's cleared of charges; why would DNA be treated differently?
"Your DNA didn't match, so you're free to go. But before you leave, you might want to meet your real father in cell block D."
Oh God, no.... if dialing up your destination is anything like working the self-checkout line at the grocery store, there's no way I'm standing in line for one of those.
...unless, of course, you built in a default destination for anyone too incompetent to figure it out after a couple of tries. One where they can't make a return trip. }:-)
Those reasons are so lame. There is no park and ride to save money to please people like yourself. Sure it would be no faster than the bus line but it could carry a lot more people than the bus line without clogging the streets - that's the idea of mass transit. And it costs more than driving to work because of hidden subsidies supporting the infrastructure for drivers
If a city can't build a mass transit system that entices actual usage (by making it cheaper and/or faster for the commuters) then it's a wash. Seriously, how many people are going to choose a method of transportation that is more expensive and less convenient just because it unclogs the streets for the drivers who don't feel obligated to use it?
Unless, of course, it's hollow and you can touch the sky. Then it's a spaceship.