The asteroids in the asteroid belt orbit the sun, and nobody calls them planets.
The distinction is truly academic, anyway; humans love classifying things, as it helps with conveying information about an object without going into great deal about it. If I say "planet" that automatically gives you some information about the object, based on our shared cultural understanding of what a planet is...
...unfortunately, "planet" still doesn't tell you much of anything except that the object (probably) orbits a star, is at least several hundred kilometers in diameter, and is probably massive enough to be have collapsed into a sphere due to gravity. It doesn't tell you whether it's a small rocky planet like Earth or a gas giant, or whether bipedal carbon-based lifeforms could live on it.
Anyway, to answer your other question, sure, something could be both a KBO and a planet. Imagine if Earth was in the Kuiper Belt.
I traced through the friendly articles, and I'm not sure where the Sunday Independent got the info that a hacker "forced" them to announce their findings. Brown isn't quoted as saying anything about a hacker, and they didn't source that info.
Of course, what's even stupider is how both the Independent and, to an even stupider degree, the Inquirer make it sound all ominous and elitist that the scientists didn't release the info as soon as they found it. Like, maybe they didn't want to risk the media flaming them for prematurely announcing a tenth planet if they had to recant part of their data?
You wouldn't need to waste them, 'k' and 'o' look the same in Cyrillic as they do in Latin alphabets. Just drop the 'e', it'd likely be spelled 'Kok' (which would have a long o, no it is not pronounced like 'cock' you filthy bastards).
You watch too many movies. Shoot a gasoline tank with a bullet and gasoline will just leak out of the hole. It *might* catch on fire. Liquid gasoline will not explode.
If somehow the damage caused the gasoline to vaporize into a cloud, and THEN it caught fire, yes, kaboom. But that's really unlikely -- anything that would cause that to happen would have already killed the soldier (and possibly anyone else close enough to be harmed by an exploding cloud of gasoline from his gas tank).
Pfft, not all of us are insane prudes, it's just that the people who are prudes are also likely to be extremely vocal about forcing their morality on everyone else.
Back in the 50's we had the classic "Leave it to Beaver" parenting model, where Dad went to work, and Mom stayed home with the kids. Perhaps Mom was swilling the liquor and playing poker with her friends, but mine wasn't, and AFAIK, the other moms in the neighborhood weren't. We had active and involved moms who enforced values, (to put it in current-speak) kissed skinned knees, and got us back up on our bikes, etc.
In the specific case of the web, its first of all not possible to use the medium while enforcing all your 'redistribution' rights. Technically, your publication cannot be displayed without there existing a local copy of it at the viewer's end. It gets cached by browsers as well as proxy servers in many cases as well. All those make new copies of your publication.
Courts are well aware of this technicality, and have ruled numerous times that such copies are transient and in any case necessary in order for the document to get to the viewer's computer and be visible. If you give me access to view a document on your website, you are legally giving me implicit access to cache that document in my computer's memory and have it stored in transit on the various routers the data goes through, since otherwise, there's no way for me to see the document -- you cannot provide me with permission to view a document, and then sue me for infringing your copyright when I make copies that are necessary in order to view the document.
In other words, no redistribution rights are being violated, implicitly or otherwise, when you surf to a web page.
Besides this technicality, there is the example you provided yourself of the newspaper in the storefront. While I cannot provide case aw, I am pretty sure a newspaper trying to sue a shop without having made prior agreements about not being shown, will not stand a chance in court, despite the also very important provisions with regards to public display in copyright law.
Er, the newspaper example came from someone else, I never mentioned it. In any event, the example given is quite different from the case at hand, and is irrelevant. If everyone on earth had a photographic memory, could memorize the newspaper article just by glancing at it in the window, and could instantly transmit their memory-copy of a newspaper article they saw to anyone else they walked by, I suspect the law might be a bit different.
If you look around there are many cases where you cannot enforce certain aspects of copyright law, often confirmed by court, sometimes so obvious that that never had to happen, and at times simply because it works in everyones advantage so there was no reason so far.
You don't get to put the burden on me to find these examples -- you're claiming they exist, you name or reference them. If they're so common, you should have no trouble doing so.
Don't complain about people resdistributing your work when you make public a torrent of it yourself (on purpose), it is inherent to the medium and by publishing on it you do accept that consequence.
Participating in a torrent is not the same as hosting your own torrent. "Redistribution" as it occurs in a torrent is necessary for the file to be distributed at all; but running your own torrent of the file is not. But if you open a torrent of file X, and then I download it and start a separate torrent, unless you explicitly permitted me to do so, I am violating copyright law. It's possible for a court to find that since the entire intent of torrents is to widely disseminate material, having someone secondarily redistribute the file via a separate torrent might not be infringing. On the other hand, what if they then put it up on a website, instead of a torrent? That would be pretty clearly infringing, and it makes secondary-torrenting seem more infringing, as well.
When publishing to the web, don't complain when people cache, link to, index or archive your content, and make the result available again to the public.
Why shouldn't I complain? Demand what you want, I still have my copyright and it is not obviated just because I publish a document on the web. If you copy my copyrighted web page and host a copy on your own site for everyone to see, you are breaking copyright law. Whether this should be the law is a different story, but why do you keep ignoring the fact that it is the law?
IA has neither the legal right, the moral right, nor permission to redistribute copies of web pages they archive. The idea that they are somehow acquiring "separate copies" the way that you would buy multiple copies of a book is absurd and won't (and hasn't in the past) stood up in courts of law.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the side of the spread of information and limitations on copyright; but as the law currently stands you have to be deluding yourself to believe that the IA is not committing copyright infringement. Believe me, the courts quite easily see through transparent attempts like yours to circumvent both the letter and intent of copyright law.
What you are arguing is that any digital information provided over the internet (actually, any digital information at all that can be perfectly duplicated) is automatically bereft of legal copyright protections. This is, of course, ridiculous.
Whether infringement on digital copyrights can be enforced is another story -- if eight million people download "War of the Worlds" off Grokster, there's no feasible way to sue them all (if you could even find out who they all were). But you can certainly sue the ones you can find.
But go ahead -- take a copyrighted web page (let's say, McDonald's main page), republish it on your own website, and then email McDonalds and let them know that you've done so. Because according to you, you're not doing anything illegal, so they won't care, right?
The bottomline is that depending on how you publish something, certain exclusive rights granted by copyright may not be enforcable. That does not void the remaining provisions of copyright.
Can you provide some examples of case law that show this? It seems rather unlikely that one of the most basic rights granted by copyright law -- control over redistribution of copies -- would be entirely voided for web pages, just because it's so easy for people to do so.
By "may not be enforcable," do you mean "not practical to enforce" (because you can't sue eight million people) or do you mean "lose your legal standing to sue"?
In other words... if they wanted to make sure it wouldn't be archived, they shouldn't have put it on the web.
You are missing the point. If I put up a public web page, I can reasonably expect that some people might archive it for their own purposes. And I can't legally prevent them from doing this; it's not illegal and it shouldn't be.
But if they then republish that web page on their own web site for all to see at will, that's copyright infringement. At least, theoretically. I appreciate what the Wayback Machine does, but I can't see any sane interpretation of the law that makes what they do not constitute copyright infringement. Same goes for Google cache.
I mean I just find that unless there's some planned activity, all gatherings sputter out in about an hour - after you've either ran out of small talk with people you don't know well, or ran out of updtates for friends. Then what? Hope you're drunk by then? (A lot of this outlook may have to do with where I grew up and the fact I just graduated college - maybe in big cities outside the college lifestyle things are very different)
Maybe you need to go to parties that have more interesting people at them:P
The ONLY way potter will lose sales is if an advance copy hits the internet a few days before its for sale, and eager readers read the entire thing online, and then no longer see a point in reading it.
This seems rather unlikely, since those who are so eager to read a book that they'll scour the web for a copy before they can buy it in stores, are inevitably big fans of the series who will buy a copy of the book anyway. Just because you've already read a book doesn't mean there aren't any other reasons for owning a copy, or that you'll never want to read it again.
Fine, but ships in hyperspace in the Star Wars universe move at large multiples of lightspeed. Besides, twelve parsecs is a bit over thirty-six light years, and at the speed of light, it would take thirty-six years to traverse. I don't think Han took thirty-six years to make the Kessel Run, considering he's not even thirty-six years old in Star Wars.:P
Slashdot Mirror
The distinction is truly academic, anyway; humans love classifying things, as it helps with conveying information about an object without going into great deal about it. If I say "planet" that automatically gives you some information about the object, based on our shared cultural understanding of what a planet is...
Anyway, to answer your other question, sure, something could be both a KBO and a planet. Imagine if Earth was in the Kuiper Belt.
Says you, dipshit.
I traced through the friendly articles, and I'm not sure where the Sunday Independent got the info that a hacker "forced" them to announce their findings. Brown isn't quoted as saying anything about a hacker, and they didn't source that info.
Of course, what's even stupider is how both the Independent and, to an even stupider degree, the Inquirer make it sound all ominous and elitist that the scientists didn't release the info as soon as they found it. Like, maybe they didn't want to risk the media flaming them for prematurely announcing a tenth planet if they had to recant part of their data?
"Someone With Too Much Money Spends $200,000 On Nostalgia Addiction"
Felony? :)
You wouldn't need to waste them, 'k' and 'o' look the same in Cyrillic as they do in Latin alphabets. Just drop the 'e', it'd likely be spelled 'Kok' (which would have a long o, no it is not pronounced like 'cock' you filthy bastards).
You watch too many movies. Shoot a gasoline tank with a bullet and gasoline will just leak out of the hole. It *might* catch on fire. Liquid gasoline will not explode.
If somehow the damage caused the gasoline to vaporize into a cloud, and THEN it caught fire, yes, kaboom. But that's really unlikely -- anything that would cause that to happen would have already killed the soldier (and possibly anyone else close enough to be harmed by an exploding cloud of gasoline from his gas tank).
Pfft, not all of us are insane prudes, it's just that the people who are prudes are also likely to be extremely vocal about forcing their morality on everyone else.
Could you tell us which plant this is, and where you got the numbers? The skeptical among us want to know where this data comes from. :)
In other words, no redistribution rights are being violated, implicitly or otherwise, when you surf to a web page.
Er, the newspaper example came from someone else, I never mentioned it. In any event, the example given is quite different from the case at hand, and is irrelevant. If everyone on earth had a photographic memory, could memorize the newspaper article just by glancing at it in the window, and could instantly transmit their memory-copy of a newspaper article they saw to anyone else they walked by, I suspect the law might be a bit different. You don't get to put the burden on me to find these examples -- you're claiming they exist, you name or reference them. If they're so common, you should have no trouble doing so. Participating in a torrent is not the same as hosting your own torrent. "Redistribution" as it occurs in a torrent is necessary for the file to be distributed at all; but running your own torrent of the file is not. But if you open a torrent of file X, and then I download it and start a separate torrent, unless you explicitly permitted me to do so, I am violating copyright law. It's possible for a court to find that since the entire intent of torrents is to widely disseminate material, having someone secondarily redistribute the file via a separate torrent might not be infringing. On the other hand, what if they then put it up on a website, instead of a torrent? That would be pretty clearly infringing, and it makes secondary-torrenting seem more infringing, as well. Why shouldn't I complain? Demand what you want, I still have my copyright and it is not obviated just because I publish a document on the web. If you copy my copyrighted web page and host a copy on your own site for everyone to see, you are breaking copyright law. Whether this should be the law is a different story, but why do you keep ignoring the fact that it is the law?Don't get me wrong, I'm on the side of the spread of information and limitations on copyright; but as the law currently stands you have to be deluding yourself to believe that the IA is not committing copyright infringement. Believe me, the courts quite easily see through transparent attempts like yours to circumvent both the letter and intent of copyright law.
What you are arguing is that any digital information provided over the internet (actually, any digital information at all that can be perfectly duplicated) is automatically bereft of legal copyright protections. This is, of course, ridiculous.
Whether infringement on digital copyrights can be enforced is another story -- if eight million people download "War of the Worlds" off Grokster, there's no feasible way to sue them all (if you could even find out who they all were). But you can certainly sue the ones you can find.
But go ahead -- take a copyrighted web page (let's say, McDonald's main page), republish it on your own website, and then email McDonalds and let them know that you've done so. Because according to you, you're not doing anything illegal, so they won't care, right?
By "may not be enforcable," do you mean "not practical to enforce" (because you can't sue eight million people) or do you mean "lose your legal standing to sue"?
But if they then republish that web page on their own web site for all to see at will, that's copyright infringement. At least, theoretically. I appreciate what the Wayback Machine does, but I can't see any sane interpretation of the law that makes what they do not constitute copyright infringement. Same goes for Google cache.
Fine, but ships in hyperspace in the Star Wars universe move at large multiples of lightspeed. Besides, twelve parsecs is a bit over thirty-six light years, and at the speed of light, it would take thirty-six years to traverse. I don't think Han took thirty-six years to make the Kessel Run, considering he's not even thirty-six years old in Star Wars. :P
If by "parsec" you mean a unit of time rather than distance, then yeah, you're... George Lucas.
I've got my money on Russian aliens.