Re:Editorial board... The advertising solution
on
Is Wikipedia Failing?
·
· Score: 0
This "significant portion" is a bunch of frequent users. They could easily have ads for those not logged in. They would easily get enough money from ad views on public terminals or users too lazy to log in.
Actually, this is kinda off-topic, but it would be nice if http could checksum something before retrieving it to make sure everything was kosher before spending bandwidth...
Inbreeding in a group does not encourage the spread of recessive genetic diseases. Unless having the disease is a reproductive advantage (which is highly dubious), such a recessive trait would be more widely spread in mixed breeding. The reason inbreeding causes genetic diseases more often is that people who are closely related are likely to share recessive genes causing genetic diseases, so that the offspring is likely to have the same recessive gene on both matching chromosomes. If both mates reproduce with other partners, there will still be the same average number of that gene in the gene pool.
While I do respect this action, I find it disappointing that it was instigated by Apple as opposed to an independent consumer. It is now up to companies with lots of clout (e.g. Apple in this case, Google in expanding the public domain against ownerless copyrights, and Microsoft in decrying Sony's rootkits) to uphold the greater good! More and more, money==power.
Right now, the problem is not that the government is unable to intervene in the case of terrorists, but that the executive branch does not recognize that the legislature tells IT what it can and cannot do. The judicial system then refines it until it is a nicely polished, consistent set of laws. With the government's recent NSA wiretapping controversies, is it really a good idea to modify the executive branch's rights before establishing firmly what they are right now?
Call me cynical, but I see this as a way to have an industry standard DRM system. With a unified format, even if the encoding is cracked (give it about 3 minutes), the entire movie industry will wield the DMCA club. Remember that neither Sony nor NEC wants piracy because the more videos you have, the less you want to buy, even from the competition.
There is still no physics explanation to why we even view the past as "past" other than our memory, which is a state function. If the article is correct, then time travel (as defined by consciousness of a future state) is a necessity, as particles that have a trajectory "back" in time can affect the world, and thus the mind. Heck, when you allow particles to travel in reverse, as modern physics does, can you really say that there is a strictly defined past in terms of causality?
The way I see it, Google is not publishing a derivative work involving the whole of the book. I believe the page that's served up is what may be conflicting copyright law (not the contents of the server, in which case even private data stored on any networked computer would be a problem). When Google Book serves up a reply, the whole book is not displayed. This brings up the question: Is an author allowed to publish several fair use publications that, taken separately do not use too much material, but together use an entire work?
I wonder if this might give any scientific support for the practice of iridology... Is it feasible that this could visibly affect the iris?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridology
I think Edgar Allen Poe said it best: "These, however, are not individuals, but corporations; and corporations, it is very well known, have neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned."
Slashdot Mirror
This "significant portion" is a bunch of frequent users. They could easily have ads for those not logged in. They would easily get enough money from ad views on public terminals or users too lazy to log in.
Actually, this is kinda off-topic, but it would be nice if http could checksum something before retrieving it to make sure everything was kosher before spending bandwidth...
Caution: Do not look into laser with remaining good eye.
grab the cache and run.
Actually, fish are the future of porn storage: http://www.goats.com/archive/050127.html
When the DoS ended, service technicians reportedly found a fresh pot of tea in the output tray.
Inbreeding in a group does not encourage the spread of recessive genetic diseases. Unless having the disease is a reproductive advantage (which is highly dubious), such a recessive trait would be more widely spread in mixed breeding. The reason inbreeding causes genetic diseases more often is that people who are closely related are likely to share recessive genes causing genetic diseases, so that the offspring is likely to have the same recessive gene on both matching chromosomes. If both mates reproduce with other partners, there will still be the same average number of that gene in the gene pool.
While I do respect this action, I find it disappointing that it was instigated by Apple as opposed to an independent consumer. It is now up to companies with lots of clout (e.g. Apple in this case, Google in expanding the public domain against ownerless copyrights, and Microsoft in decrying Sony's rootkits) to uphold the greater good! More and more, money==power.
Right now, the problem is not that the government is unable to intervene in the case of terrorists, but that the executive branch does not recognize that the legislature tells IT what it can and cannot do. The judicial system then refines it until it is a nicely polished, consistent set of laws. With the government's recent NSA wiretapping controversies, is it really a good idea to modify the executive branch's rights before establishing firmly what they are right now?
Call me cynical, but I see this as a way to have an industry standard DRM system. With a unified format, even if the encoding is cracked (give it about 3 minutes), the entire movie industry will wield the DMCA club. Remember that neither Sony nor NEC wants piracy because the more videos you have, the less you want to buy, even from the competition.
There is still no physics explanation to why we even view the past as "past" other than our memory, which is a state function. If the article is correct, then time travel (as defined by consciousness of a future state) is a necessity, as particles that have a trajectory "back" in time can affect the world, and thus the mind. Heck, when you allow particles to travel in reverse, as modern physics does, can you really say that there is a strictly defined past in terms of causality?
The way I see it, Google is not publishing a derivative work involving the whole of the book. I believe the page that's served up is what may be conflicting copyright law (not the contents of the server, in which case even private data stored on any networked computer would be a problem). When Google Book serves up a reply, the whole book is not displayed. This brings up the question: Is an author allowed to publish several fair use publications that, taken separately do not use too much material, but together use an entire work?
Yay, open source root (beer)!
I wonder if this might give any scientific support for the practice of iridology... Is it feasible that this could visibly affect the iris? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridology
That was a typo. The parent was referring to Google's NUCLEAR strategy. The satellites are moving into position as we speak.
I for one welcome our new overlords...tomorrow.
For the record, that's 7 (seven) times as awesome as the Beatles themselves. Wow!
I think Edgar Allen Poe said it best:
"These, however, are not individuals, but corporations; and corporations, it is very well known, have neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned."