Slashdot Mirror

(With apologies to Dr. Seuss)

Ever since the Eldred decision, I have boycotted Dr. Seuss Enterprises, who submitted an amicus brief in favor of the Bono Act.

• "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106a, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

• "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

• "(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

• "(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• 
  
  "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
  
  "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

The Hobbit is more than 56 years old, so it's out of copyright anyway.

Oops, never mind.

This is just about as good. His debate with Lawrence Lessig 2 years ago. He gave the same "I said VCRs would kill the movie industry and you can see that I was right" schpiel then, so it didn't surprise me much now. Everyone I know who's seen it, including certain exceedingly non-technical relatives of mine, came away thinking Valenti was a twit.

Not to karma whore, just to get the link right to a good paper: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2003papers/ HIER1996.pdf

Is this a bug in slashcode? When I copy and paste the link in, it shows up with a space between the final / and HIER. That space is not in my submission, and it was presumably not in the original poster's submission...

Worth a read, here is a Working Link

Hah, try transcribing "Huckleberry Finn", or any Dr. Seuss

No. Boycott Dr. Seuss. His estate submitted an amicus brief in favor of the Bono Act. Now that Project Gutenberg uses distributed proofreading, the Bono Act is the biggest barrier to the growth of PG.

...until they extend copyright protection to databases like they've done in the EU with the European Database Directive.

The European plan not only extends copyrights to protect databases (which are large assemblages of facts... which have been the one thing you can't copyright here in the U.S. ever since copyright was written into our laws) but it also creates a new protection (that is not a copyright) that they term "sui generis" (in a class of its own). This protection is beside that of copyright and is renewable with olny a modest updating of the database... and, yes, this does mean that all you have to do is update your database every 15 years to get your protection extended another 15 years!!! This is truly perpetual copyright!!!

Yeah, they're pulling his leg...

everyone knows it's "Somebody set up us the bomb!" :)

Levies are not good, but what should music companies aim to do? I just wrote a short piece on a related matter in light of the Verizon decision. Some of you might find it interesting.

"Greplaw's editors, although we are reporting indepently of each other, often tend to criticise the RIAA's efforts to stop illegal music trading online. One may still wonder what a proper action might be."
(---)
"The Internet is a new kid on the music industry's block. From the right holders' perspective the digital domain is often presented as a problem and not an opportunity. In this column, I have identified five possible ways for the music industry to treat this new kid on the block."

Read the entire article.

Regards,

Mikael

Levies are not good, but what should music companies aim to do? I just wrote a short piece on a related matter in light of the Verizon decision. Some of you might find it interesting.

"Greplaw's editors, although we are reporting indepently of each other, often tend to criticise the RIAA's efforts to stop illegal music trading online. One may still wonder what a proper action might be."
(---)
"The Internet is a new kid on the music industry's block. From the right holders' perspective the digital domain is often presented as a problem and not an opportunity. In this column, I have identified five possible ways for the music industry to treat this new kid on the block."

Read the entire article.

Regards,

Mikael

Just using a pre-Palladium machine wouldn't be circumventing copy protection if you're not copying anything.

You misunderstand the DMCA. Merely owning something (hardware or software) that could be used to circumvent an encryption scheme is a violation of the law. For example, just having a copy of DeCSS, which has valid legal uses, puts you in voilation of this law.

[quote from "Green Eggs and Ham" by Dr. Seuss]

I wouldn't promote that kind of stuff. Seuss Enterprises submitted an amicus brief in favor of copyright term extension.

The current copyright term gives 99.8% of the return of a perpetual right, that is not in line with the mindset or the writings of the framers of the Constitution.

(Re)Read Breyer's opinion.

I also believe Ginsburg wholly misconstrued the 1st Amendment arguement. Read the Amicus brief filed by Burt Neuborne and the Con. Law professor. It reads like a text book on First Amendment jurisprudence. Almost every major decision in the history of Supreme Court First Amendment cases is shown to support a reversal of the Appeals Court's decision that "Copyrights are categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment."

Justice Ginsburg's harsh language is not a sign that she believes she is right, in fact, I believe it shows just the opposite. She was concerned that others would realize that Breyer's decision was the correct one, and thus felt the need to bash him in a manner not befitting her position.

-R

The current copyright term gives 99.8% of the return of a perpetual right, that is not in line with the mindset or the writings of the framers of the Constitution.

(Re)Read Breyer's opinion.

I also believe Ginsburg wholly misconstrued the 1st Amendment arguement. Read the Amicus brief filed by Burt Neuborne and the Con. Law professor. It reads like a text book on First Amendment jurisprudence. Almost every major decision in the history of Supreme Court First Amendment cases is shown to support a reversal of the Appeals Court's decision that "Copyrights are categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment."

-R

The "other" CTEA challange is Golan v. Ashcroft which has been on hold while Eldred v. Ashcroft was being decided.

The CTEA took some works which were previously in the Public Domain in the US and restored their Copyright. Golan, a conductor, lost the use of some compositions which were formerly in the PD in the US. This case will now procede.

How much would YOU pay?

But what would I do in the control room at Keck? Sit and stare at the monitors and nod my head knowingly a lot?

Other justices have written books, but none that lucrative. Most recently, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor reported last year receiving $83,000 in royalties from her memoir about growing up on an Arizona cattle ranch and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist received $50,000 from Alfred A. Knopf, publisher of several of his historical books.

Considering the people who have been picked up, beaten, and killed in custody after officials objected to their internet activities, a few blogs getting blocked seems almost quaint. Deaths in custody are serious problem for Chinese detainees. The real problem of course is not usage of the internet but the expression of "subversive" thoughts and ideas.

A Harvard project has been studying the pattern of official site blocking, up until the Chinese gov't figured out a way to block them.

The U.S. does not seem to have a focused policy in surprise, and for many years our presidents have been reluctant to comment on human rights abroad in our political or economic allies. I think President Carter, whatever his merits of demerits, who was the last one willing to make a stink about it.

Where do you think we already get more than half of what's solded onto our boards (and the boards themselves) China, and the ROC. Why? because US companies save billions of dollars paying $5k/year to Wu Ping rather than giving $25 to John Smith.

And now, because of the huge gigantically monstrous DRM you'd rather buy chips directly from them so that in no way at all does it benefit the US economy. What a great idea, it's not like the Chinese are trying to curtail anyone's individual rights anyway. Let alone on the cyberfront

I've actually found cases where the SMP on FreeBSD 4.x was superior to Linux. In order to test Linux's networking performance vs. FreeBSD, I changed a program for an algorithm to just run in the background calculating the Ackermann Function.

Anyways, the base rate was to run two Ackerman's at once, thus causing 100% USER CPU usage on both CPUs. The base rate for FreeBSD 4.62 was 15.5 Ackerman's per time period, vs. Linux's v2.4.18 14.0 during the same time period. Now this isn't a smoking gun, but the hardware was identical, and they were both running on custom compiled thin as possible kernels under the same duress.

Why would anyone do this? Well, my goal was to eat up all USER CPU and see how much I could rob from user with system under severe network abuse. Needless to say, that both OS's did very poorly, with FreeBSD having a clear edge, when the interface was brought to promiscuous mode to listen to a packet flood. FreeBSD degraded less, but in both cases an almost useless amount of CPU was left over for USERland. FreeBSD with RX polling turned on - a feature that practically seems unique to FreeBSD, from the XORP router project. I am aware of polling endeavors in Linux but was never able to get them working. As usual with FreeBSD, 'features' aren't creeping in, so they tend to work. I even changed the polling to work under SMP (it wasn't designed to) and it worked in a situation where it shouldn't have. The usefulness of RX polling cannot be stressed enough, its imperative to consider the live-locking of interrupt driven kernels when dealing with massive amounts of bandwidth. If interested, see: 'Eliminating Receive Livelock in an Interrupt-driven Kernel', USENIX 1996, its amazing to me livelock still happens over 5 years after stuff like this gets presented to the public.

So, how bad is FreeBSD SMP? As far as I was concerned in my test, 2.4 Linux SMP seemed inferior (in my case) to FreeBSD on identical hardware. Are people touting Linux's big bad SMP zealots. Most probably, most good kernel hackers think highly of FreeBSD, particularly the VM. I find it amusing that RedHat is not porting to SPARC or Alpha anymore, and yes FreeBSD 5 is planned stable on IA64, IA32, SPARC64, PowerPC [stable planned a bit later, probably when a real PPC gets offered by IBM - die Motorola PPC, die] and Alpha. Clean code and standards compliance begets portability.

As far as saying "SMP" is better. Linux may have a better approach, but like my example, and I am sure there are others, empirical tests say a whole lot more. It's important to keep the machinery well oiled and coherent, which is something I think FreeBSD does rather nicely. Empirical tests such as mine prove that approach and theory and real life are different.

FreeBSD - it's coherent, well documented, "thin," bloody fast, BSD licensed so call it your own. You can see that well written code goes across architectures; the FreeBSD discipline is allowing them to easily stay stable on several platforms. I have run several tests that suggest that even FreeBSD 4.X is 'better' than Linux at various things, let alone 5.0. The VM subsystem is superior [2.5 is catching up]. Most big companies provide virtual servers with FreeBSD, such as Verio. The biggest irony of all is how small the FreeBSD community is compared to legions of hackers and companies trying to improve Linux. Yet why is Linux fragmented so horribly? You will eventually come to understand why this is the only free and open commercial grade OS there is. You will know what you are missing when you finally get a coherent UNIX. GCC, the C library and the kernel are all a matched set, not of this he said she said GNU-of-the-day distribution crap or fake compilers from RedHat and frozen broken CVS snapshots of the C library [RedHat again, with a fake C-lib on RH8]. FreeBSD is used by Juniper as the core OS, with network processors instead of 'real' network cards. It's beautiful. A full version of FreeBSD, relabeled JuneOS, with an IOS-like CLI for those who need it and superior design and interfaces. The UFS2 filesystem is also incredible. I really, really like XFS for Linux, but the Linux kernel maintainers won't merge it in [to 2.4] but have a myriad of vastly inferior filesystems merged into Linux [ext3 fake journaling, Reiser fsck for fun FS, JFS which is robust but slow]. RedHat's refusal not to embrace XFS with open arms boggles my mind. UFS2 addresses this problem. A fast, robust logging filesystem that is stable and in the kernel. I think UFS2 is a far superior improvement to UFS than was ETX3 to EXT2.

Anyways, I don't think I'll wait for Linux kernel 2.6 or any of the flavors of Linux distributors to come out with something stable, well documented, coherent with UNIX as a standard and each other. Don't be fooled, LSB is a standards base, but you don't get decades of discipline, you get maybe a years worth of un-actualized planning. FreeBSD 5.0 is here. This project needs a better installer, and some 'for workstation use' cleanups, and probably a better package system, although, there are lots of people who like PKG and PORTS much, much better than RPM or DEB. Another annoying omission [and yet another Sun self-screwing maneuver] it that it is difficult to get a JRE/JDK to run natively [1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 are available as ports] and Sun does not provide one [they are apparently planning one]. People have lots of luck though using the Linux binary emulator, FreeBSD can run everything Linux does in binary form and it's easier to port to. Another good reason to develop for FreeBSD is this: Linux has /usr/include/linux. That in and of itself is a reason not to start there for development work. World, see a more beautiful future, one which was paved with the golden road made of FreeBSD - Certainly FreeBSD has a place, and in my opinion it clearly deprecates Linux in some situations. Particularly if you need to have a nice server box stay up forever or stay GPL-virus-free. [this said affectionately, I like the GPL, but you may not be able to afford giving your intellectual property to the world but would like to contribute in some way nevertheless. If it's a non-novel concept, the "community" will just implement it out of need/demand, if it's too difficult for the hackers to trivially add, then it might just be worth calling intellectual property.]

One day, I came to work, and the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology was on our LAN. The local alpha geek was not pleased, and immediately tracked down the source of the offending packets.

One of the scientists, a PhD icthyologist (Pointy-headed Dolt who likes fish), had set up a protocol tunnel into Harvard and had linked our networks through his PC. He felt he had made a brilliant contribution to research collaboration by doing so.

Harvard's computer gurus helped him do it. It apparently never occured to them that they might want to check with someone in charge of networks at the other end of the connection.

I shudder to think of what their network security must be like in general.

I've read an article about it in NewScientist two years ago. In short, researchers blasted a piece of silicon surrounded with a certain mix of gasses with a femto-second laser pulse. This produced tiny spikes on the surface (silikon looked black because of this)

They said at the time this could produce very efficient solar cells, then everything went quiet.

Anyone heard about this technology? It looks closer than these antenae.

According to the Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics' article, this is the farthest known planet @ ~1500 parsecs away (50 times farther than any discovered so far).

According to the Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics' article, this is the farthest known planet @ ~1500 parsecs away (50 times farther than any discovered so far).

In case anyone is interested, you can find an abstract link to the original paper that predicts the quasar deflection caused the Sept 8th close approach, here. The paper was published in the Astrophysical Journal in 2001 by S. M. Kopeikin. Interestingly, this theory paper has listed only two citations but the citation rate is sure to climb now that the observations have been made.

I would love to see Dr. Seuss try and top Tom Bombadil's songs.

I would love to see Dr. Seuss lose Eldred v. Ashcroft. Seuss Enterprises submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in favor of the Bono Act.

You mean a site like this?

But I wouldn't be suprised if a site like that would also be blocked in the future.

• How can a range nearly equal to that of one of the factors itself be considered scientific?

• What is "95" percent level of confidence" based on?

• How do we know we're looking at "old" star clusters?

• Couldn't they have been reformed once or twice in the expanding and collapsing process?

• How will we ever guarantee that we can see enough of the picture to know we have a statistically representative sample?

So, last year, they had an estimate of 13-14 billion. This year, it's 11-20 billion. Yeah to scientific progress!

Science is not exactly a reputable astrophysical journal. I would tend to go with the estimate of 13-14 billion years. See this ppaper - the figure of H0=73+/-2(r)+/-7(s) km s-1 Mpc-1 (hmm, /. does not allow sup tags) combined with standard cosmological models (omega m = 0.3, lambda = 0.7) implies an age of 13+/-2 Gyr. I tend to believe this one more. The errors quotes are probably 1 sigma errors (ie, 68 precent confidence - double the errors for 95%).

However, I am possibly biased, the author is my supevisor :)

From what the page at the end of the link said, Paul Szynol is advocating establishment of a better rating system and required distribution control. Most of the comments I've read so far seem to come from people under the impression that he wants to ban the use of all mature games by minors. That wasn't what he said. His argument for the better ranking system was based on a 2001 Harvard study he linked to which essentially said that the rankings were questionable in many cases. Personally, I'd like to read the study and see what exactly they called "intentional violence," but the point stands that he's not exactly alone in wondering about the vague ratings standards for the industry. And really, is it THAT much of a jump to suggest that stores/distributors set policies and enforce them? I'm not really a big fan of government intervention, but I think it would be in the best interest of a store to have a policy on mature content. Certainly the world would be a better place if parents actually parented. (I work in a public library. The joy in my life would increase exponentially if this were the case.) All he's saying is that he wants someone adult to have to at least pick the game up to buy it (or point and click at it); if they then make the decision to hand it to a child, then that's the decision and that won't be regulated. --Anonymous Coward

Great, so they're already rated. Every game these groups are worried about has a big Mature rating on it. Tell stores to stop selling to minors or tell parents to stop buying them for their kids.

Schlafly isn't new to the copyright issue. Her "Eagle Forum" filed a pretty good amicus brief (pdf) supporting Eric Eldred in Eldred vs. Ashcroft. Check it out.

It doesn't (as far as I could see) mention DRM. It only talks about being able to follow who did what with the information.

However, even the system of encryption, et al which is being proposed doesn't really do much. First, is the machine picking the randomly generated password or the person picking an easily recognizable password as in this problem.

Second, the machine (whether it be a camera, computer, or nightstick) doesn't have intelligence built into it. Thus, it would allow anyone who knew how to work the machine (and could guess the passwords) to alter the information. Even the fact that the computer is smart enough to make a copy of the original doesn't mean anything. If someone knew how the program worked - they could (and would) alter the original as well as the copy.

Until machines become self-aware or at least are aware of what someone is trying to do to them - we will not have a "good" way to stop fraud. (I say "good" because even then we will probably have some way to circumvent/unplug the smarts from a machine which puts us back where we are currently.)

Thoughts:

If the police want a more fullproof method of maintaining equilibrium in the establishment of, and verification of proof. Then they will need to greatly improve how that information is handled. A network (probably made up of Linux boxes) which are attached to a central repository and to which they can send information but not retrieve information (ie: a blind send) would be a step in the right direction. Information would only be retrievable from the main console connected directly to the centralized hardware. Also, files can not be deleted from the main system until the files have been backed up to a reliable medium (such as CDs/DVDs/tape). Otherwise, the system simply allows a user to register updates and nothing else.

To elaborate on the AC who hasn't been modded up yet, what makes a difference is "antenna gain." The gain/directivity of an antenna is proportional to the antenna effective area divided by the wavelength squared. By shrinking the wavelength, you greatly increase your ability to "focus" the beam power into a narrow angle. It's hard to make optical dishes as large as radio dishes or arrays, but we are talking about a factor of something like 10^10 in your favor.

To exploit this in a communications link, you need better pointing accuracy for shorter wavelengths. This isn't really a problem for interstellar communication: you aim at the very visible star, and allow the beam to broaden to a few AU in diameter at the target, to get nearby planets. In radio, you would waste a bunch of power far from the star, where there won't be planets to receive it.

Also, you can pulse optical sources to create very high peak powers for short durations. (Bright flashes instead of dim and steady).

For further discussion, Horowitz has written this paper.

Most importantly there is of course the EFF. Also check out Yale's Lawmeme, Harvard's Grep Law, and Gigalaw.

I'm posting AC since I don't want to come over as a karma whore.

Na, I think the calculation got messed up by using fuzzy numbers...Speaking of it, I feel a litte fuzzy myself...

Yet, I don't think it is wise to disregard this. I think it may well be a problem. But then, I didn't RTFA... :-)

I read through a lot of the list and several things struck me. Overall,
I see the list as lending a lot of credibility to Johansen's case. I
don't see it casting doubt as to this.

Overall, I think the livid-dev mailing list shows Johansen was trying
to contribute to Linux (and FreeBSD) and shared code with Derek Fawcus
as a liason to bring this about. He clearly believed _before_ he was
arrested that his actions were consistent with the DMCA and measured
them carefully.

Here is a short event log of how things happened.

What the Norvegian prosecutor is doing is claiming that Jon broke the protection on the DVD keyblock. He didn't.
In fact it was a real professional cryptographer Frank Stevenson that demonstrated how to (a) defeat CSS without a key and (b) how to recover all the keys from the keyblock.

And yet the brave Norvegian prosecutor is going after a kid ... His ancestors must be turning wildly in their graves ..

Eldred v. Ashcroft
... 10 had a favourable piece on Lessig and the lawsuit. ... October 13, 2002 - Amy
Harmon of New York Times: uphill battle over copyright. more news ...
eldred.cc/ - 7k - Cached -

The Limits of Copyright
... it an offense to write code to interfere with this use-controlling code, regardless
of whether the use would be considered fair under the copyright law. ...
www.thestandard.com/article/display/ 0,1151,16071,00.html - 34k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached -

Copyright law and roasted pig.
Communications Copyright law and roasted pig Lawrence Lessig on Eldred v. Ascroft
By Lawrence Lessig October 22, 2002. In 1930, 10,027 books were published. ...
www.redherring.com/insider/2002/10/ roast-pig-copyright-102202.html - 29k - Cached -

O'Reilly Network: Free Culture: Lawrence Lessig Keynote from ...
... A flash version of Lessig's presentation, including audio and other source files. ... their
works) instead of exercising all of the restrictions of copyright law. ...
www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessi g.html - 27k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached -

High court weighs copyright law - Tech News - CNET.com
... Lessig and his allies are hoping not merely to overturn this law, however, but
to build momentum for an all-out legal assault on many recent copyright ...
news.com.com/2100-1023-961467.html - 28k - Cached -

Lawrence Lessig
... Declan McCullagh of CNET News.com mentions Professor Lessig in Left gets nod from
right on copyright law, on a speech given by Appeals Court Judge Richard ...
cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/ - 23k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached -

Home--Berkman Center for Internet and Society
... Also see: Digitial Copyright Law on Trial [CNet]; Google Excluding Controversial
Sites [CNet]; ... the Hard Questions: On October 9 Lawrence Lessig appeared before ...
Description: The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School is a research program founded...
Category: Computers>Internet>Policy
cyber.law.harvard.edu/ - 13k - Cached -

Techdirt:Copyright Law And Roasted Pig - Lessig Pushes His ...
Copyright Law And Roasted Pig - Lessig Pushes His Campaign Forward.
Ramblings Contributed by Mike on Tuesday, October 22nd, 2002 ...
www.techdirt.com/articles/20021022/1311202.shtml - 5k - Cached -

Do you have problems reading?

"Derek Fawcus and MoRE appearently had a private agreement and traded
software on terms other than the GPL. I think the antagonism between
the Fawcus and Johansen was greatly overstated, perhaps mistaken.
Johansen and Fawcus appeared to have a decent working relationship.
Fawcus obviously settled any issues he had with MoRE using some of his
code without credit."

I read through a lot of the list and several things struck me. Overall,
I see the list as lending a lot of credibility to Johansen's case. I
don't see it casting doubt as to this.

Overall, I think the livid-dev mailing list shows Johansen was trying
to contribute to Linux (and FreeBSD) and shared code with Derek Fawcus
as a liason to bring this about.

I read through a lot of the list and several things struck me. Overall,
I see the list as lending a lot of credibility to Johansen's case. I
don't see it casting doubt as to this.

Overall, I think the livid-dev mailing list shows Johansen was trying
to contribute to Linux (and FreeBSD) and shared code with Derek Fawcus
as a liason to bring this about. He clearly believed _before_ he was
arrested that his actions were consistent with the DMCA and measured
them carefully.

From your linked article:

"But because i'm afraid of flames i won't tell you my name."

That's strange. Why would someone be flamed for speaking the truth? Probably because it isn't the truth.

http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/m sg 01540.html

You may get RSI if you expect to get it. Trust me, I've been through this already. Read the link, it'll change the way you look at these things.

CTS/RSI should not scare the hell out of you. Read this entire document to find out why. Using this approach I am 100% cured of my RSI that I had for over a year. Knowledge is the cure. Nothing to fear but fear itself.

Wow, more proof that RSI is caused by the mind.

Sorry I am posting about this link so much in this thread, but it needs to be heard. I don't mean to say that you're wrong about building finger/wrist/arm strength, that is a very good approach to RSI. It is good to see that streneous excercise got you past your RSI. Many RSI sufferers (I was one) are afraid that using their hands/arms at all will make the problem worse. A lot of information out there tells them that they should quit all activities and wait for it to heal. This is of course wrong and starts a cycle which eventually conditions you to think that using your hands causes pain. There's a whole lot more to this, check out the link, it changed my life entirely (I'm also 100% better).

Anyways, rock on man. er no pun intended.

I also do Yoga every morning. Although yoga is good for the body, its main purpose is to address the mind. Mindfulness is key. I had RSI, too. There is a 100% cure (it's not yoga, but yoga can be a part of this). The true cause of RSI is in the mind. Don't reject this idea until you have read the following:

Follow this link for more information.

Or this link to the Google cache if you can't view a Word document

It changed my life and now I'm pain free doing everything I want to without restristions and without pain.

Yes, RSI is caused by the mind. I had RSI and now know the real reason:

Follow this link for more information.

Or this link to the Google cache if you can't view a Word document