It was the first round only. I think I saw other people (like those working on the project) beat Watson in an early round during the exhibition matches also.
He (Watson) seems to do well over the course of the game if given enough time to average out his miserable failures in a few select categories.
I highly recommend the Pimsleur language learning system. You're not going to get a very broad vocabulary from it (they average around 600 words, maybe more depending on the language), but I've found their lessons an enjoyable and useful experience.
It's pricey (like most language programs as far as I can tell), but it is DRM free (unlike some others).
I have the perfect plan for getting back at those Zazzle bastards for censoring us. We'll make a t-shirt protesting this, put it on Zazzle, and then make them lots of money! It's foolproof.
Indeed, that sounds like his point. Studies show the majority (~89%?) of torrents infringe copyrights, therefore anything that searches exclusively torrents has a "substantial connection" to the crime of copyright infringement. Doesn't sound like he's relying on the old inducement thing, just the presence of a "substantial connection."
I really don't follow his logic at all though on why this applies to a torrent search, but not to a Google Search. If anything, Google links to more torrents than these other guys do (pretty much by definition as it aggregates most everyone). Isn't that a more substantial connection by his own argument?
I mean even his own examples of Wal-Mart being held liable for crimes of others using some tiny part of their stock (ammunition), or crimes committed on their property, seems to support the idea that our current system has no qualms about placing liability on a party such as Google, however insane that notion may be to a rational person.
Luckily products being inhibited by such preposterous feature creep end up failing in the marketplace anyways, despite the project managers best efforts to make everyone happy.
Wow, that article paints an even more disturbing picture of the situation. I honestly can't understand why anyone would support or be in favor of a police officer or judge acting in such a childish and counterproductive manner.
“Let me just say that as a matter of policy I think it’s ludicrous that people would be arrested for recording a police officer,” adds Volokh.
Pretty much sums it up.
The only encouraging thing about all this is that at least some of these situations are getting a little bit of national attention. Maybe a positive trend is possible.
But more to the point, do these $1,000 to $25,000 token amounts really count as "being sponsored by". I have to imagine there's more significant influences than that on our Congressional Representatives. Or do we just assume that those reported dollars are indicators of larger arrangements/kickbacks/campaign drives or whatever?
Or is it true I really could buy a congressman's signature for a thousand bucks? If so I think I've got a few letters I'd be willing to write up to have them sign ...
The only verifiable evidence that I can see in Peter King's open letter that he uses to back up his claims regarding the danger of WikiLeaks is half a sentence from a New York times article. Here's one larger quote from the same article:
"Administration officials said they were not aware of anyone who has been attacked or imprisoned as a direct result of information in the 2,700 cables that have been made public to date by WikiLeaks, The New York Times and several other publications, many with some names removed. But they caution that many dissidents are under constant harassment from their governments, so it is difficult to be certain of the cause of actions against them."
No really, that's the only explanation. The bookend looks more like a balloon animal than his sculpture does. Preemptive Streisandesque suing to illustrate the absurdity of what he's used to?
I certainly would like to give them that benefit of the doubt. That perhaps this is an attempt to ferret out those currently leaking documents. But it's hard to make that leap when so much of the rest of our government's "public reaction" has been so shortsighted and similar in tone to this.
Netflix has huge value in it's rating and recommendation system. While far from perfect, I've discovered tons of content that way and really enjoyed the results. Props to the variety of content they've added also. I've never failed to find something informative or entertaining to watch, even if the specific title I might seek out isn't available.
1. Women = Time x Money [Women require multiples of time and money]
2. Time = Money [time is money my dear friend]
3. Women = Money x Money [from 1 and 2]
4. Money = sqrt(Evil) [Money is the root of all evil]
5. Money x Money = Evil [from 4]
6. Women = Evil [from 3 and 4]
Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people’s will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.
I wouldn't be so quick to rush to their defense. As far as I understand it, isn't YouTube's ContentID system a concession above and beyond what the law requires, in order to appease the labels?
Shouldn't some backlash be rightfully targeted at Google for capitulating and playing the label's game instead of staying open (and law abiding) as some others have done? (like Facebook, for example).
What if it was a situation more like this where most (or all) of the article is posted, but it's broken up and commented on and dissected. What if it was exactly like that with comments/dissection and everything, but the dissection comments and the article were separated such that the whole article was posted in it's entirety. What if there was a 5 paragraph complete article posted, followed by 10 paragraphs of dissection? or followed by just 1 paragraph of dissection.
Are any (none, all) of those cases moral? Are any of those cases fair use? Are they all?
Props to Holt, but
He (Watson) seems to do well over the course of the game if given enough time to average out his miserable failures in a few select categories.
For just introductory learning ...
It's pricey (like most language programs as far as I can tell), but it is DRM free (unlike some others).
Re:
See
Re: Re: Re:
I really don't follow his logic at all though on why this applies to a torrent search, but not to a Google Search. If anything, Google links to more torrents than these other guys do (pretty much by definition as it aggregates most everyone). Isn't that a more substantial connection by his own argument?
I mean even his own examples of Wal-Mart being held liable for crimes of others using some tiny part of their stock (ammunition), or crimes committed on their property, seems to support the idea that our current system has no qualms about placing liability on a party such as Google, however insane that notion may be to a rational person.
Haha, love the only comment on the reuters article:
Re: Re: Revolucion
Re: Re: Re: Eavesdropping
“Let me just say that as a matter of policy I think it’s ludicrous that people would be arrested for recording a police officer,” adds Volokh.
Pretty much sums it up.
The only encouraging thing about all this is that at least some of these situations are getting a little bit of national attention. Maybe a positive trend is possible.
Re: Genius idea!
But more to the point, do these $1,000 to $25,000 token amounts really count as "being sponsored by". I have to imagine there's more significant influences than that on our Congressional Representatives. Or do we just assume that those reported dollars are indicators of larger arrangements/kickbacks/campaign drives or whatever?
Or is it true I really could buy a congressman's signature for a thousand bucks? If so I think I've got a few letters I'd be willing to write up to have them sign ...
Peter King's point of view
"Administration officials said they were not aware of anyone who has been attacked or imprisoned as a direct result of information in the 2,700 cables that have been made public to date by WikiLeaks, The New York Times and several other publications, many with some names removed. But they caution that many dissidents are under constant harassment from their governments, so it is difficult to be certain of the cause of actions against them."
Re: Re: He has to be joking.
Dang, and I had so many buzzwords built into that comment ...
He has to be joking.
Dear lord
Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Logically speaking.
2. Time = Money [time is money my dear friend]
3. Women = Money x Money [from 1 and 2]
4. Money = sqrt(Evil) [Money is the root of all evil]
5. Money x Money = Evil [from 4]
6. Women = Evil [from 3 and 4]
Am I not logical??
Holy Crap.
Re: Re: Re:
Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people’s will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.
On Google's role
Shouldn't some backlash be rightfully targeted at Google for capitulating and playing the label's game instead of staying open (and law abiding) as some others have done? (like Facebook, for example).
Re: Bad example
Are any (none, all) of those cases moral? Are any of those cases fair use? Are they all?
More comments from Derek Bredensteiner >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Derek Bredensteiner.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt