So, the fatter you get, the more skin, then more energy from the sun, more fat, more skin, ect...

hey even without HIPAA, claim trade secrets, then make the auditor sign the mother of all NDAs. Then if he tells anything sue him.

businesses.

I forgot I was on Slashdot for a moment... No need for the personal attacks, I don't care if its Google or some other company. Our culture is being nickle and dimed away from us. Since the Bono copy write extensions, our grandchildren (asuming we have any, this is slashdot) might have the opportunity to see a copy. And for the orphan works, they are not Oprah's book of the month, most are limited runs and difficult to find now, much less in 70 years. This is not about all books, it is about those books that have no clear owner. As for your ex post facto argument, they are not seeking to change the law which requires lobbying , they are seeking to challenge the law which means they must have standing to go to court (IANAL).

I feel the need to preface this with "I am not a google fanboy". Yes Google is breaking current copyright law, but they had to do that to get legal standing to challenge the law and get the ability to either change the law or settle and get the rights to the works. Right now there is no way to reproduce all the "orphan" works legally, and in my opinion that is just stupid, we are losing valuable information because big business can't figure out who needs to get paid. All the big companies and authors get their money when Google publishes their works. What this case is all about is the works that are out of print and can't find who to pay. As an example, if Tolkin did not have an estate, His work would be stuck in a legal limbo and unless you were lucky enough to find an original copy, you would never be able to find a copy to read (much less have the movies, ect.). Once we have a legal mechanism in place to deal with these works, it is easy enough to extend this to other companies. Google is just doing all the legwork.

I agree, by the logic everyone is using, no one should do anything new because they would have a monopoly until someone copied them. The whole point is that Google is trying something no one else has bothered to do, and anyone who wants to put the money and effort can duplicate. The problem is having to drag the old school kicking and screaming into the new millennium.

Yes, if they have a server in Cuba. Now if the Cubans want to go to Google.us or Google .bfe, then thats not Google's fault.

I don't know anything about the French legal system, but is this similar to the problem in the US where you must have standing to bring it before the court? Maybe Google needed to be sued to challenged the meaning of the law?

Maybe she didn't react to the last facebook privacy changes. They only happen every month or so...

If you combine multiple sets, do you get better resolution or just a larger picture?

I agree with the low spec comment. When I was looking for a netbook, the only way to get the extra ram or larger harddrive was to buy the windows version. Just because I like linux does not mean I want it only on the cheapest hardware.

I'm about tired of this bullshit line of thinking. This is the 2nd or 3rd story this week I read about teachers being fired for "conduct" outside the classroom. The other one that stood out was a domestic violence against the teacher and she was fired. We already have a shortage of good educators and with "no child left behind" I fear for the future. Thinking of the children is going to create the dumbest, ill prepared children in history.

That's the benefit and weakness of our federal system. Right now it in Chicago Illinois, its not nationwide. Someone will sue and we find out if its legal. Then other states may or may not try it, and maybe have different rules per state. Right now its a pay attention situation not a end of world scenario.