I haven't posted a journal here in almost three years, because I couldn't find the button to start a new entry.
So... hi, Slashdot. I used to be really active here, but now I mostly lurk and read. I've missed you.
To be fair, the American auto companies were behind the phony reports of Toyota accelerator problems. A lot of Americans were just fooled by the media.
I'd mod you up if I could.
We need to just cut their fucking cables until they figure out how to use the goddamned Internet responsibly.
To argue against the person rather than the argument is a classic fallacy.
Coming from you, this is funny.
How the hell is this "Insightful"?
Anyone who actually says something like this in the IT industry is probably wondering why they're still working level 1 support.
Slashdot, you disappoint.
Do you really just enjoy wasting money?
I need to make an important factual correction to the above.
The settlement is NOT "opt out" where in-print books are concerned. Google cannot display ANY part of a book that is commercially available without FIRST getting permission from the publisher and author. Even where Le Guin is distributing her own e-book of an older work for $1, it is considered in print for purposes of the settlement; thus, she does not have to opt out. She may not understand this important point.
The only books that Google may use on an opt-out basis are out-of-print books. Since there is, by definition, no current market for those books, I feel that authors have nothing to worry about here. If they start getting money through the Google program, and they don't like it, they can always opt out.
Your position was that Google should be able to scan the books (despite the authors' "exclusive rights") freely, search them and thus profit from them, just not display them. If that's your view, I don't see how you can feel that the class is betrayed by the settlement. Every single member of the class is better off than if Google hadn't been sued. At best, they get some money. At worst, they are exactly where they were before. (Anyone can opt out.)
Google gets "exclusive rights" to nothing. Everything in the settlement agreement is nonexclusive.
Google gets no rights to any book whose author doesn't want to participate. Authors who do want to participate can still prevent Google from making any particular uses that bother them.
I agree that there is legislative work to be done regarding orphan works. That has nothing to do with the settlement. If anything, the agreement will make it easier to resolve orphan works issues.
I thought Google was overreaching in scanning copyrighted books without permission--but let's leave that aside.
How is the class being betrayed? (I was one of those negotiating on behalf of the class.)
If you're concerned about books that are in print, these are not involved. The settlement does not affect them, unless the author and publisher both choose to get involved with Google.
In the case of out of print books, it's true that the settlement enables Google to make them available (more than just search). But that's good for everyone. The benefit for readers is obvious: these books were often hard to find; now they'll be available on line. But authors benefit, too: these books were commercially dead (by definition). Now, they come back to life. If there's any money to be made, it goes mainly to the rightholders.
I use it on 8 and 12 systems, under constantly high load, and haven't experienced instability.
Not saying it doesn't exist, but this is the first I've even heard of such a problem.
For the cell phone, maybe they're concerned about China pushing out OTA firmware upgrades?
"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry
