No, really, next Insightful/Awesome will have to be split and Funniest given its own article. Or comment the fun in this article alone separately. Zarrelli managed to touch our collective funny spots in a way never seen before.
It's the first time I spend part of the article and most of the comment section laughing like that. People are looking at me strangely here at work.
Re: Re: Re: "probable cause" is a lot tougher than "relevant"
The problem here isn't the ability to take pics from above, it's the Government using it as a form of surveillance. If it's one picture taken from a drone and there isn't anything invading in it (say the owner naked on the roof taking a sun bath) then it's free game to distribute and use. Now if it is some sort of surveillance either private or (and especially) Governmental then there is a problem. Our pet troll (who seemingly took his medicine) got it partially right. It should be a non issue except if it takes the form of surveillance. Otherwise we'd be having immense trouble with current super-high-res satellite photos.
Well, we could get to know if the guy is just another politician that had a lot of money shoved into his ass or if he is a really despicable human being that would make serial killers blush. Or both. So yes, we should ask.
Precisely. It happens frequently here. Companies want to have a determined governmental agency on their clients list then they offer a service at a loss for much less than any sane price and get the job, offer it and never come back. Happened recently to an environmental agency: the company was in the environmental consulting business and won a contract to provide boat rental for services in the seas for a bit more than half the value of the second lowest bidder. They got the name in their portfolio and the Government got the service.
Probably registered above but it's worth emphasizing:
For now, though, there's been far more restraint exercised than has been exhibited by others in the same situation.
Obviously. You'd need to be whatever-levels of dumb to put over 100 kids in jail. This sort of thing was needed to put that dilemma into the hands of both society and the authorities: do we go ahead and incarcerate hundreds (if not thousands) of children and young adults or do we finally sit down and admit this is incredibly common and we need to address it in a sane way?
Re: Re: Don't like the terms? Don't use the service
Here's the rub: What is Google News without content? It's a blank page.
What is a newspaper without readers? See, it works both ways and proves what was said to you which means you are still wrong.
Google doesn't produce content, they use content from others as a method by which to build their brand and retain people on their websites long, to use their services, and to gain ad revenue.
Google provides channels and listings so people can easily find content. Do you know what most of the sites would have to do if search engines disappeared today? Invest money in telling people where to find them. Google is actually saving money for them.
It works very well, Newspaper and media are dying left and right and Google is making billions.
So now it's Google's fault that they newspapers seem to be unable to find a way to monetize the traffic Google sends their way for free. Bullshit, eh?
Yet, Google without other people's content is, in the end, just and empty space.
And content without people to use, consume and transform it is the same as said empty space. I'm really amused with how dumbtastic dumb you are.
Google's choice, which is to walk away from the situation, indicates that they were unwilling to enter into any deal with might infer any value to content - yet as already established their site without the content would be worthless.
And yet the newspapers took a tremendous hit because the traffic Google was sending them for free took a nose dive and then they went back whining at Google. I meaqn, it's sooo fair, I send you free traffic and I still have to pay you? Google was clear: they decided it wasn't economically viable to pay for a symbiotic relationship. What you are saying is that Google should take a loss just to please the newspapers. Do you realize how stupid and insane it is?
Google is a value added provider, but it starts with something of value and adds value to it. Google is not going to hire people to write news articles all day, they are not a content creation company.
So the newspapers should hire people, services to tell people where they are. So if Google does this job for them and gets some money while doing it then it seems quite reasonable. Bullshitting as always aren't we?
Two things: Why should they not be available in the normal listings like other companies and websites? The real issue is that Google marks their content as "special" and repackages and reformats it as a news portal site. Why does Google treat it differently? Why should the news sites be obligated to opt out of everything just to avoid being slammed into a news site they don't want to be part of?
Wow, Google adds FURTHER value by presenting stuff in a way that makes it easier for people to know what is it about and generates further interest (remember: Google shows only a small part of the articles) and this is bad? I mean, it's obvious this is bad, the Spanish newspapers were all happy when Google shut their News business in Spain, right? Keep bullshitting.
Remember something too: bad traffic isn't any better than no traffic. In a world where advertisers are more and more often paying by action rather than paying per view, getting a million people in the door isn't always the best way to make money if those people aren't going to spend. The online model entirely changes the advertiser / newspaper relationship, in a manner where merely aggregating large numbers of readers isn't any assurance of solid income.
Eh? Really? Are you crazy? If I send a million readers TO your site they are INSIDE your goddamn site. If you are stupid enough to lose the opportunity then it is YOUR problem, not mine.
Google's way or no way is the sort of arrogant answer that make Facebook's Zuck look like a flexible guy
Dude, you are an idiot. I'd love to see you offering a service for free to someone and still pay for it. You should start paying Techdirt because the stupidity you already offer for free.
Re: Re: Re: Getting Power Where It Is Needed (The Case of Trains).
Hydrogen is actually a byproduct of a number of processes. A petrochemical plant (you know, polymers and petrol derivatives other than fuel) will usually burn a load of dirty gas containing a good portion of hydrogen in their flares. A chlorine plant has similar issues. I'm not sure of the magnitude of such byproduct that is burned away but the flares I've seen were big enough to make me believe it's a pretty good quantity that the companies would love to turn into money. You can also use gas from landfills, composting complexes, animal residue (pig poop yields pretty high methane concentrations) and for the remainder of the needs you can use water yes. That's why we need to focus on other sources of energy, to make it viable for mass usage (I personally think we should invest much more in nuclear power research).
So you do have a point and an important one but it can be done nicely.
Which will be the demise of such content channels. I've been seeing more and more kids grow WITHOUT Disney. This is exactly what Disney doesn't want. But let's close our eyes and take stupidity up a notch.
This cannot be emphasized enough. I'd go as far as say they would have made a pact with the Devil if this could make TPP pass. I mean, slavery. Slavery was overlooked to get this through. This says a lot about the rotten garbage that was behind the negotiations. And the utter pile of crap that this agreement is.
Speaking of it, I propose we stop calling it an agreement because an agreement is not shoved down the throats of one of the main affected parties (the public). Given it will mess with medicine and put many people out of reach from treatments I propose calling it "slavery induced mass murder mechanism".
Anomaly! Even if copyrights destroy basic Human Rights it's all anomalies! Or so it seems to be the new mindset of the copyright morons. Disgusting.
This is ironic yes but at the same time worrying. Will they go against such mechanism in their never ending greed? If they do, what prevents them from going as insane as supporting capital punishment for copyright infringement? Hyperbole? After the monstrosity that copyright has become do we really believe the MAFIAA and friends wouldn't go that far?
Re: Getting Power Where It Is Needed (The Case of Trains).
Most of the time the optimal solution to a problem goes through the use of multiple systems in equilibrium (something we are still struggling with in the economic/societal front for instance). The idea of an hybrid solution of the models you detailed is awesome but I'd add other technologies in the mix. Take hydrogen for instance (or whatever you can fit in chemical cells). You could generate tons of electricity with significantly small amounts of fuel while generating the oh so hazardous water as a byproduct. The model may not be that feasible in cars given the need for smaller sizes or batteries but in a train size isn't really an issue. There must be other possibilities but I immediately envisioned that one working together with your ideas (I thought about the cargo trains using such fuel systems while energizing the 'desolate' regions of the track for passenger trains for instance).
One has to wonder: is the DHS complaining their operatives were not caught or they did not receive a thorough cavity exam and got jealous of the wonders ordinary passengers experience and they could not?
I had to reinstall my games recently on a notebook. With updates to the core system, the games, the software downloaded plus the ordinary usage (Netflix, Youtube and other streaming) I blew past the 300Gb threshold in less than a week.
If lying put their execs in jail they'd be singing a different tune.
The thing is, going forward that is pretty much already taken care of. The digital nature of publishing (even print publishing) is such that retaining an archive is merely a question of backup space and nothing more.
Google Books begs to differ. The Internet Archive too. Ask them how copyright litigations on those fields have been lately. Google scored an awesome victory and was allowed to scan books at will. Good thing everybody has deep pockets to enter a battle like this even if victory is guaranteed in the end.
From everything I can tell, pretty much every modern newspaper auto archives their stuff, with many of them having archives back nearly 20 years already.
Yeah! Awesome! The newspapers that went belly up and disappeared still maintain backups, right? Either you are dumb/illiterate and couldn't understand the article or you are being dishonest (I like to believe you are dumb, things get funnier that way).
So your solution is to deny a copyright holder their rights, because you think that maybe they may not be able or willing to do this, and that their work somehow has so little value that even in a complete closure of a newspaper that their archive would just be flushed.
Aaaand... You took something out of your ass yet again. Nobody said that. What's being discussed is that most of the content that has NO VALUE to the author already for decades cannot be included in archival efforts because copyright.
See, the problem here is that you are looking at a 50 or 70 year old problem, and using it to try to make rules for current times. It's just out of touch.
it's going to be 100 years in 2022. And it's gonna last at least 75 years more for a whole effin' lot of content. Copyright is the type of thing that MUST be conducted thinking of Historical value, archival and future availability lest we risk creating dark ages of knowledge.
As for "I don't care so nobody does", sorry but you are full of shit. I do care, and I know others do care for different reasons. How you draw a conclusion like that just shows how hard you are trying to be a prick about stuff, rather than enter into a discussion.
Except that's exactly your attitude. There are plenty of articles where REAL problems are discussed and you take exactly that stance. And it's funny you talk about discussion when you yourself seem to be 'immune' to anything that you slightly disagree. You pretend to give some credit to other ideas but in the end you just twist that 'credit' into "MOAR COPYRIGHTS! THINK OF THE ARTISTS!".
Unfortunately time will remember the copyright freaks in the future when the damage people are suffering is brought into light objectively. And it will not be pretty.