Go light up a cigarette for a job well done.
Go light up a cigarette for a job well done.
The stupid in the summary burns. The stupid in the article is a glaring bright bonfire. Especially the part where they say "cutting through the technical jargon, here's all you need to know...."
It would be fair use only if used infrequently. For example, if you want to quote someone else's article in your article, that's fair use. However, if your entire business is dependent upon making snippets from thousands of articles, that's no longer fair use, it's commercial use.
No, you're wrong.
First, fair use applies to both commercial and non-commercial uses. For example, when Mad Magazine did a movie parody, that would be fair use, even though the magazine us sold for an increasing cheap price and is a commercial venture.
Second, the previous poster didn't really explain it well. Fair use is when a copyrighted work is used without permission in a way that, but for fair use, would be infringing, but which is not infringing because it is in the general purpose of copyright to allow such a use. It's evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and is completely fact dependent. This, any particular use might be a fair use, but not just any use actually is.
There's a test for finding out whether a use is fair or not. It has four factors, though it isn't a matter of adding up how many factors go one way or another, and depending on the case, one factor might be treated as outweighing another. Plus, it's just a tool; other factors can be considered too.
The factors are: 1) the purpose and character of the use, such as whether the use is for profit or not, whether the use would advance the progress of knowledge by resulting in something new or otherwise helpful; 2) the nature of the work being used, such as whether it is fictional and therefore very creative and worth protecting, or factual, and therefore not worth protecting quite so much (how a work presents itself is also often relevant in copyright; if you claim that something is a fact, even though it's made up or is just a hypothesis, others may get to treat it as a fact) as well as whether the work being used has already been published or not; 3) the amount of the work used, and how important to the work that portion is; and 4) whether the use will have a negative effect on the value or market for the work (positive effects are not considered).
Snippets of this type -- in aggregate, mind you -- have repeatedly been found to be fair use in the US because for the first factor, although the use is commercial in nature, it provides a benefit to society in being able to search for this material (which of course requires as much material as possible to be used in constructing the index, even though the index itself, as opposed to the results of a search, is not made available), the second factor may weigh against the use depending on the material being indexed, but it is not treated as being very important, obviously the whole work must be used to make the index for the index to be useful, so the third factor doesn't matter, and for the fourth factor, it doesn't harm the market for news articles to be able to find them and to see in one or two lines why they match your search terms. It doesn't matter if that's the business model.
And if you think this is extreme, look at time shifting, which is bad on all of the first three factors, but is sufficiently successful on the fourth so as to be fair use (in a general way, since again it is highly fact dependent)
The cost of living on the Vinyard is insane - cheap housing would just be a cruel market distortion.
Let the grocery stores all go bare and then see if the employers really can't pay much above minimum-wage. I suspect the customers will pay what it costs. Your plan of taking money from working-class people in Worchester to subsidize the grocery prices on the Vineyard is classic elitist abuse.
Have you ever used a Dyson product? They suck (except the ones that are supposed to).
Good news that this little battery company had its own R&D staff, perhaps some of them who've had some life experience. If they just need a billion dollars to succeed, then I'm all for it and hope Dyson profits handsomely.
What if he came from the other end - let's say a member of the 700 Club or Family Research Council or one more of those anti LGBT or anti abortion groups? Would people still be hailing him or Apple?
Do you think being a member of the KKK in the 60's was as commendable as being a member of the NAACP? Just asking since all causes seem to be equivalent in your world....
You know about the scientific method, don't you? If you have one counter example to your theory, the theory is wrong. We have plenty of examples where it's wrong.
Wow, you sound like those guys who, upon hearing about the dangers of smoking, ask why people who don't smoke get cancer, and then nominate themselves for a Nobel prize. We are fortunate to be graced your intellect.
Any employee taking this option is a fool. They would be voluntarily giving up the (sometimes meager) benefits of being defined as a full time employee under US law. Great for Amazon, terrible for the employee.
Under 32 hours and the law would say no benefits are required. Amazon is actually giving them a straight ratio of benefits instead of dropping them to part-time. It's the opposite of a dickish move, as far as the law is concerned (and Amazon is showing that the law need not dictate when businesses are competing for employees).
There are probably many parents who will jump at this kind of opportunity (plus others who want to start a business, do more volunteering, or just have more leisure time).
Expect scheduled brownouts when the Great Computer gets hungry
Well, that *is* interesting. Will Alphabet* be reducing the capacity of its services in response to high grid utilization?
Or cheaper. We've been hearing about SSD under 30 cents a GB "real soon now" for, what, five years now? At ten cents it replaces hard drives in all small capacities. The slope still puts that many years out.
Maybe 3DXpoint will depress the NAND prices for existing fab utilization next year. Here's hoping.
A single atheist can exist. A group of atheists, will argue theology until the cows come home.
Same with any other fundamentalist.
"Dude, aren't religious rules derived from the holy book/word of god?"
Somebody had to write that book. Long before it was in a book, it was oral tradition. Long before it was oral tradition, it was bedtime stories for kids by parents trying to impart wisdom to the next generation.
Most religions existed long before their scriptures were written. Scriptures are only necessary if you get more than four generations from the founder without the cult collapsing.
"Hunter/gatherers also needed a surplus before some voodoo priest can claim that his magically connection to God helped them find food."
Few hunter/gatherer societies ever achieved a surplus of food- every single day was spent hunting/gathering- and yet they still had priests (who were also hunters/gatherers, you're right as far as a priestly class goes, but the professional priest is a rather recent addition and even today isn't entirely true, every priest I know has side interests and side jobs).
We were better off then because we had the three noble virtues:
We were happier back then.
Slavery to lust is still slavery.
I'm saying being faster, like thinking that we've slayed the horseman of plauge, may just be illusionary progress.
Technology solves everything. Teach your children to think outside the box- and not only will they build a safer world for their kids and grandkids, they'll also make a ton of money off of fearful people in full panic trying to survive.
Myself, I'm thinking that if we start to see sea rise in feet rather than inches, it's time to invest in houseboats.
I'm more of a doubter than a denier- but this could explain men's fashion choices over the last three centuries, which has often baffled me (in that I see all of them as dressing far too warmly for normal room temperatures).
System going down at 5 this afternoon to install scheduler bug.