TigrisMorte

Their theory is that they can replace Human employees with this and thus save money.

Library, look it up. And the publishers always hated Libraries.

Only one remaining! Order soon!

“That’s a joke, I say that’s a joke son” - Foghorn Leghorn

(in case it really did whiz on by; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Tracy_(character) https://i.pcmag.com/imagery/encyclopedia-terms/dick-tracy-watch-_dtwatch.fit_lim.size_640x.jpg

Your calling files, book documents to be specific, books, doesn’t change that IA is storing files, ebooks to be specific, nor that the ruling shall affect all Libraries, which includes the Internet Archive to be specific. And the actual issue, is that the publishers refuse to offer ebooks to Libraries as they assume it’ll cost sales when in fact the folks using the Library are there as they are not going to go buy one.

You are simply wrong from the get go. This is the only way it’ll ever get addressed, is 100% in the stated purpose of the Internet Archive, the dumb part isn’t on the side of preservation efforts, there isn’t a separate issue nor is there a separate copyright the publishers are the same with the exact same unsustainable arguments regardless of web page, code, or ebook.
You are making the same mistake made upon a lot of patents, assuming “but on a computer” is somehow transformative.

Guess he’ll never know then. What are they supposed to be a detective or something?

And just like that you’ve seen one. Now contact the prior dude on his trist welevision and let them know.

sort by new

Not after they eat one of googlie’s AI recipes they don’t, not anymore.

They all hope it’ll end years of having to pay employees.

As well as no clue how not to make every product they have shit over time.

It is Xitter where Xcrete posts. And always shall it remain.

The post was in response to someone asking, “Do you have those stats?”
My post referenced probability multiple times.
That is the last of the clues I’m going to give. Perhaps try reading it again and looking up the words you are unsure of. Then instead of attempting to derail by arguing your imaginary discussion, consider that what was posted is exactly what was meant, no more, no less. You’ll eventually figure it out.
Nothing is off limits. I simply refuse to play your game of pretending I said something you wish to be angry about.

No, you did not. You wrote in response to what you pretended I posted. You again are only bogged by your choice to pretend I posted something very different than I posted.

I’d happily discussed what I posted. I have no interest in discussing your imaginary post which you chose to address rather than my post. I also have no interest in discussing anything with someone that wishes to pretend I posted anything other than I did.

Please show where I stated anything of the desires of the bear. I’m hinging nothing on proximity. You are simply assuming things I did not state. I covered that it wasn’t a risk assessment. Only thing bogged down is so bogged with your assumptions.

Not relevant to my statement.

None of which is relevant to my statement.

Very few people someone gets near enough to be grabbed by want to rape them. Nearly every bear someone gets near enough to be grabbed by wants to kill them. A large number of women feel it is better to be killed by a bear than live with their irrational fear that every man they get near shall rape them. The fear not being rational is irrelevant as the fear is based upon a more than likely chance, approx. 25% is reported, that at some point the fear was justified and not irrational. However those numbers are screwy as folks that get raped are more likely to get raped again.

I’d give percentage chances of each occurring, (the National Park Service estimates the odds of being attacked by a bear are about one in 2.1 million​.), but the media seems to only report percentage of gender raped not chance of rape.