Slashdot Mirror

Here is a nice animation sequence showing all of the Boston landfill projects.

Congressmen playing to the press has been a tradition since day one. Did you know that by tradition they grant themselves the privilege to publish a Congressional Record of what was said in session which need bear no resemblance to what was actually said? In one study the Government Printing Office concluded that almost half of the Record contents had not been spoken on the floor. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1639&context=ealr

I would far rather see our Representatives take the responsibility of doing their grandstanding in person to get on camera than allow them to hide their grandstanding in the shadows.

Specifically, the term "colorably different" means:

"The phrase “colorable differ-ences” refers to alterations that do not essentially change the nature of the device, and are made only to evade the permanent injunction.17 Language enjoining adjudged infringers from producing products that are “only colorably different” from the infringing devices is typical in patent injunctions."

Nathan Ingham, Recording over Old Standards: TiVo’s “More Than Colorably Different” Standard for Patent Injunction Contempt Proceedings, 53 B.C.L. Rev. E. Supp. 47 (2012), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.ed...

So, the injunction is very narrow. Basically for the phones specifically listed and minor variants that doesn't change the nature of the device and only made to evade a permanent injunction (i.e. a slightly modified model with a minor workaround).

Odd, since the US has said that US laws do apply to Noriega, even when the person and crime are not on US soil.

Since when has Justice become a bidirectional thing? Justice as practiced today is a pass-through function for the rich and connected to subject others to their judgement.

Odd, since the US has said that US laws do apply to Noriega, even when the person and crime are not on US soil.

Check out the Eagle Eyes project at Boston College. They have over 10 years experience working with people with severe communication impairments.
http://www.bc.edu/schools/csom...

The system is available through Opportunity Foundation of America:
http://opportunityfoundationof...

If the person can move their head, they may be able to use the Camera Mouse: http://www.cameramouse.org/ (Free download)

Hasn't the pro side already "denied" global warming enough to rename it "climate change"?

Actually the only evidence that anyone did any renaming comes from a memo from Frank Luntz to GW Bush (Page 142, point 1), the two terms have different meanings and scientists had been using them for decades before Luntz deliberately conflated them.

What does "deniers" mean?

The memo also serves as a great example of what it means to be a denier, ie: denying reality for fun and profit.

Your also told to pledge allegiance to the flag.. whoops...if you object you do not have to (Half the states require students to recite it but when brought up in court the supreme court rules that the students do not have to) . This is not a job for the students and they do have some rights including speech (that is not disruptive to the learning environment) and not being forced to due something that would be against their religion.

see the following:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Legal_challenges

There is some criticism in here too...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1712765
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2011-08-16/capital-markets-cooperative-research-hft
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hender/HFT-PD.pdf
https://www2.bc.edu/~taillard/Seminar_spring_2012_files/Hirschey.pdf

That should get you started. There are plenty of references to the literature for you to follow if you're so inclined.

Some quotes:
On net, it is probable HFTs have a positive impact on market quality. (Hirschey 2011)
The emergence of HFTs has coincided with a substantial decrease in quoted and realized spreads on exchanges (Castura, Litzenberger, Gorelick, and Dwivedi 2010).
In our interpretation, HFTs are traders that make the market extremely ecient, by incorporating information as soon as it becomes available. (Jovanovic and Menkveld 2011)

I'm serious will Apple shut them down for the name? or Style? or Smell? of the product in question? I didn't seen in the article that this was done in corroperation with Apple. It kind of reminds me of when Harley-Davidson sued Honda over the sound of the engine. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/1998101101.html

http://www.bc.edu/offices/help/security/copyright/illegalexamples.html

I love how websites fall over backwards to wipe out things like this, as if it never happened. If it weren't for the screenshot in the linked article, I'd have thought that whoever submitted this was an idiot.

I'll just leave this here.

Nice... I especially liked

The Court noted the minimal cautionary language displayed to the user, and noted the lack of accessible disclaimers. A disclaimer, which warns the user that each situation requires a unique approach

I wonder if the USCG uniquely handcrafted the letters for each of their 'situations'?

I'll just leave this here.

Assistant professor; My bad: http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/fac-staff/deans-faculty/lyonsd.html

I'm so sick of this crap. The constitution applies to emancipated adults.

Oddly enough, I don't see any such disclaimer within the Bill of Rights. And in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, SCOTUS ruled that "First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment."

You may now apologize to the GP poster for your ignorance-based insults.

First sale doctrine is an extrapolation of property rights.

The First sale doctrine allows the owner of a copy to transfer ownership of that copy. "The first sale doctrine states that once a copyright owner sells a copy of his work to another, the copyright owner relinquishes all further rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy." Otherwise it has nothing to do with this case.

Falcon

Anytime there's a controversy over vaccines or prescription drugs, there is only one thing that needs to be widely understood by everyone: pharmaceutical companies cannot make money from healthy people.

Of course they can.

Between 1900-02, the life expectancy at birth was 49.24. In 1997, the life expectancy at birth was 76.5. Statistic

Keeping your customers healthy now pays big dividends later.

Healthy people age into old age. Well, duh.

They have families. They have pets. They work longer and have more discretionary income.

That makes it worthwhile to invest in a broad spectrum of products that would have had little meaning to the industrial laborer of 1920 who was unlikely to see his fiftieth birthday.

Because it's going to come up, I want to mention that the biggest criticism of the US health care system is often that the US has lower life expectancies (thus trying to imply that the US health care system is not as good). This is a non-sequitur, if you really dig into the numbers, you will find that the main reason for lowered life expectancies is obesity. Here is a report. Check the graphs, only Greece rivals the US in plumpness.

Another common criticism is that the US has high infant mortality rates. This is likely because of premature babies, which aren't always counted in infant mortality rates in other countries. If you are planning on having a baby prematurely, the US is a good place to do it (but please don't plan on that).

There are a lot of problems with the US health care system, for example, it is hard to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, the cost of malpractice lawsuits (and other things) drives up costs, not everybody has insurance (although we end up paying for them anyway when they go to the emergency room: no one can be turned away without treatment, which is good), but shouldn't we try to solve the real problems that are in the system, instead of trying to rewrite the whole thing from scratch? There are relatively simple solutions to all these problems, and as any programmer knows, drastically changing the structure of your program is only going to introduce more problems.

I mean, imagine Citizen Kane without violence and breasts...

Imagine Death of Marat without violence. Imagine Luncheon on the grass without nudity (and breasts).

Both of these pieces are acknowledged by every art historian alive as great art. Yes, some art can be made without violence or nudity, but not all art.

Are they your lectures and who owns the copyright on the lectures? Does the university or do you? Since your work product was for hire . . .

Hold on there, cowboy. It's not that simple. In the US, work for hire status depends on three criteria, and those criteria are somewhat ambiguous as applied to university professors. Here is a more detailed discussion of the law. There isn't a clear legal precedent addressing the issue, but that's because the issue almost never comes up. The issue doesn't come up because there's a solid consensus in the world of education that the professor owns the copyright to things like lectures, textbooks, and journal articles. (Note that when it comes to articles, a journal that requires a copyright transfer asks the author, not the school, to sign it.) Regardless of the law, it's clear that there are overwhelmingly strong reasons (e.g., academic freedom) why universities know they shouldn't cross this line. It's sort of like Mia Farrow's famous remark that "you don't fuck the kids." Doesn't matter if it's theoretically legal to go there, you just don't go there.

More relevant questions to ask the OP would be (1) where we can take a look at these materials, and (2) whether he's put them under a free license such as CC-BY-SA. If the answer to #2 is no, then probably nobody will be interested in doing the translations for free.

In answer to the OP's original question, I know of two approaches that could be used. One would be to create a wiki of the English version and then allow translators to use the wiki to produce translations. Another would be to put the English version in some kind of format that's amenable to version control (e.g., plain text or latex), and use version control software such as git.

I have some experience with this because I wrote some CC-BY-SA-licensed physics textbooks, and over the years I've been contacted by roughly 10 people who were enthusiastic about translating them. None of those people ever translated any significant amount of text. It's a huge amount of work to do this kind of translation, and people's enthusiasm seems to evaporate quickly. A good example of the fragility of enthusiasm, in a slightly different context, is wikibooks, which is basically an abysmal failure, at least if you compare what it's accomplished over all the years of existence with its original stated goals, which were to revolutionize education. Writing or translating a book is just too much work for most people to tackle without some kind of financial or nonfinancial reward. It's not analogous to software, which is a functional product rather than a creative one.

Boston College != Boston University

That said the BC police have powers granted to them by the commonwealth. http://www.bc.edu/offices/bcpd/about.html

Not to mention the fact that Boston College's Research Services runs it's own Linux cluster: http://www.bc.edu/offices/researchservices/cluster.html. zOMG TEH CRIMINALS!

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html The supreme court disagrees.

Ahh. Big O notation.

Explain that a choice between different systems can result is slow visual experience and more time waiting for results. Say that this can potentially result in programs running for whole minutes, hours, or centuries. Ask how many people own an external hard drive or an iPod and give them researched averages with how many files they have to sort. Tell them that a because source is closed and people are fallible, browsing through 4000 files on Windows could take considerably longer than on another system because the OS normally sorts the pictures or mp3's in some fashion. 10 years ago, macs sucked at reading folders with more than a hundred entries, and you can say that once you buy an OS, you can't fix the algorithm --you have to wait until you buy a better coded one or just suck it up and have a poor user experience every time. Give them some info of powers of ten, doubling and so on, and then explain that different coders have different ways to tackle the same sorting problems, and that every time they are browsing their folders, this code is hard at work.

Finally, use the classroom computer and show them these graphic displays of different sorts so they have some cool visual of what all that code does. What will remain is the knowledge that Big O can compare the efficiency of these sorts so that end users don't have to wait days, weeks or years for a sort that looks good on paper. http://vision.bc.edu/~dmartin/teaching/sorting/anim-html/bubble.html

However, I'd also point out that even the most prestigious award that high schools usually give out has not been shown to produce exceptional results. We reward Valedictorians the most, when in actuality, they are far less likely to significantly contribute to a field. It's not that competition isn't helpful, but we need to make sure that what students are competing for matters and is specialized. A research competition would be fantastic, as it seems that many students are poorly apprised of what research in any subject involves (and I say this as a college professor).

I can confirm that this is a real problem. I worked with a early release of the Eagle Eyes eye mouse with a family member with ALS. The signals were too weak at times to be usable. It was also very taxing to try to control and centering issues were difficult frustrating to deal with. If you are going to try this path, you should start before they really need it so there is time to train and learn to efficiently control the system.

Yes indeed, it's the old "copy into ram" bullshit.

For an overview of the legal situation see:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/1997041501.html

It'll never work.

No, ever since the Supreme Court decided Cohen v. California, such ordinances have been well-known to be unconstitutional. You do not have a right to not be offended in public. You do have a right to offend others in public, however. No one's morality need be considered. You really need to read the opinion. It's pretty good, and can be found here.

So, in fact, I would be shocked and outraged if a public park did not allow a rapper to curse and swear at a public playground. Regardless of how I might feel about the rapper, his rights -- and by extension, everyone's rights -- are paramount. As for a supposed right to not be offended in a public place, there's just no such animal.

Please read the Court's opinion and educate yourself.

Pretty much. There's the issue of whether a header constitutes a published interface or not, which could have some bearing on questions of whether it can be included with a "#include" outside the terms of the license for the software as a whole, but since reverse engineering a header is a trivial task and it can never be proven that the official header was actually included, this is very nearly a moot point, IMHO.

As you say, it has never been tested in court, to my knowledge. I really sort of wish some company would decide to put it to the test, if only so that the question could be answered more definitively. That said, I do tend to agree with your assessment, as does Lawrence Rosen.

I would sum up the argument like this: linking an application to a library should no more be a violation of the copyright of that library than linking an automobile to an engine should be a violation of the patent on the engine. The latter clearly does not dilute the patent on the engine, nor does the former dilute the copyright on the library.

A nice court case supporting that view is Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com in which it was determined that hypertext linking is not a violation of copyright of the linked page. That's really remarkably close to the question of source code linking....

The only thing that it says about the band is that none of their fans have taken game theory.

Your mistake is to assume that standard game theoretic notions of "rationality" apply to human beings. There's ample evidence to the contrary.

That's the right subject line, but for completely different reasons.

Best Buy is the company that reportedly exposed its customer data through an insecurely configured wireless network. And the company whose employees apparently used an internal site to fool customers. And the company involved with obstruction in overly aggressive MSN sales. In my opinion, they have always had dubious ethics.

They've done a very good job of creating an image of a "retailer that wants to fire customers".

Wrongo. In 1974 Congress revised copyright law to keep up with the nacent computer industry. To make a long story short, in order for the copying to count, the copy must be embodied in a "fixed" medium. That is, something non-volatile. RAM doesn't count.

And besides, there are fair use exceptions to copyright law that allow for copies to be made even if they ARE in a fixed medium. Backups are a big one. Yes, it is perfectly legal for you to copy a CD and let your kids use the copy while you keep the original locked in a drawer for safekeeping. The only thing about that same scenario that makes it illegal to do the same with a DVD is the DMCA.

In that way, it's just like the GPL: "You do not have to follow this license, but nothing else gives you permission to use the software."

I do find Blizzard's argument interesting. I think this is still abuse of a draconian law, but the question of whether an executing copy of a computer program in RAM can be an infringing copy under copyright law is far from a settled issue.

...except, of course, when the building (or other structure) in question is trademarked, in which case you may not make money from your photo without getting sued by the building's trademark owner.

W

...except, of course, when the building (or other structure) in question is trademarked, in which case you may not make money from your photo without getting sued by the building's trademark owner.

W

Particularly, a musical score cannot be read by the majority of the public but can be used as a means of communication among musicians. Likewise, computer source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of communication among computer programers.

Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment.
-- Junger v Daley

"If a threat to national security was insufficient to warrant a prior restraint in New York Times Co. v. United States, the threat to plaintiff's copyrights and trade secrets is woefully inadequate."
-- DVDCA v Brunner

In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64 (1964), we held that even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill-will his expression was protected by the First Amendment:

"Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth." Id., at 73.

Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures.

And, as we stated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978):

"[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for sup pressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that con sequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [56] For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas." Id., at 745-746.

See also Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 592 (1969) ("It is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers").

While this an interesting development, a less invasive approach is in the works to help disabled people use computers in the near term. An electro-oculographic cursor control system from Boston College called Eagle Eyes will start selling for $1,200 each in early 2007.

The Opportunity Foundation of America is working with them to promote and subsidize the cost of the units to as little as a $200 donation. Such a system will fill a much needed niche for communication and education systems for people with ALS and other motor control disabilities.

http://www.bc.edu/schools/csom/eagleeyes/cameramou se/

-
Sig for sale:
Must not affect already bad karma rating.

"The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures--Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." 319 U.S., at 637.

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress "expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend." Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.

look at this article from the intellectual property and technology forum at BC's law school, a few pages down it provides a hypothetical about using a film clip in a training presentation and how it couple be considered fair use. link

Students have practically no rights when on the premises or using school resources.

Incorrect. See Tinker v. Des Moines: "First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years."

These rights were eroded somewhat in later decisions (forgive me for not looking them up right now), but basically all they said was that free speech can only be surpressed in situations where the student's speech interfered with the educational process.

Well, there's Malevich'sWhite on White.

Now... to reply to myself.

Your solution does not infringe because you are not seeking in a manner that tracks the actual recording, and thus the end of the file... your solution can't even account for the file growing after you reach the end.

This statement is said as a technologist that can tell the difference between implementations and tell that they are not the same.

However, the judge in this case instructed the jury concerning the "doctrine of equivalants".

I'm not sure how this affects things in the real world with stupid people.

Excellent in theory — although I'd be interested in an appelate e-commerce "purposeful availment" citation. Unfortunately, in practice your claim seems directly contradicted by the 6th Circuit's 1996 ruling on venue in US v. Thomas. Specifically:

To establish a Section 1465 violation, the Government must prove that a defendant knowingly used a facility or means of interstate commerce for the purpose of distributing obscene materials. Contrary to Defendants' position, Section 1465 does not require the Government to prove that Defendants had specific knowledge of the destination of each transmittal at the time it occurred.

And, as the Nitke plaintifs tried to argue, the number of possible venues and lack of clearly specified standards makes for an intolerable practical burden.

Absent a line of reasoning as to why concerns of adult site operators that arose from the Thomas AABBS case are mitigated by any apellate ruling since, "purposeful availment" arguments provide no useful help whatsoever.

Heck, don't go all the way to Austria. Just check out The Smith Act.

By the way, as a laugh, I'm always reminded of a quote by George Will: "The Liberal Conundrum: What to do about graffiti on the free speech monument?"

Because sometimes policy and research cross paths. Galileo anyone? They suggest options on the basis of their research, the politicians can ignore ( like this administration ) or they can act on them.

Everytime I hear a scientist announce something new, lets say bonding copper to silicon, they don't say: we did it... neat huh... come back next time!. They suggest ways to use it.

from and article on buckyballs:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/chronicle/v10/m r14/buckyball.html

Buckyballs are seen as having many valuable uses. Scott said one potential application is in the manufacture of lightweight superconductors that could provide significant savings in energy.

biochemists have seen a use for C60 in the treatment of AIDS, particularly in shutting down an enzyme required by HIV, the virus that causes the disease, he said.

Who better to suggest uses and fixes then those who understand it the most... unless of course you want your mechanic doing open heart surgery on you. Or maybe your lawyer, 'cuase thats what you'd get with your view!

There are some famous researchers in psychology (most notably, Paul Ekman) who claim facial expressions communicate emotion unambiguously, but new research suggests serious problems with that work and offers other explanations. Plus, facial expressions vary across cultures and possibly even across individuals.

Heavy psychology research paper on the contoversy. (MS Word format.) Bottom line: there are no consistent biological markers to distinguish one emotion from another in the body.