Slashdot Mirror

In Ashcroft's opposing brief (Government brief opposing Supreme Court review:
gov-opp-cert.pdf) He basicly says, hey we've preambled copyright in the past and so what about today?

Page 14:

" To the extent the Copyright Clause itself imposes those limits, they would more logically stem from the body of the Copyright Clause, which authorizes Congress to grant to "Authors and Inventors" the "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". The use of the possessive form - "their" writings -- together with the words "Authors" and "Inventors" might be thought to preclude copyright protection from works that are not original or that are in the public domain; in such cases, the individuals seeking protection might not be considered the "authors", and the work might not be considered "theirs".

("An author's 'Writing' or an inventor's 'Discovery' can, in the constitutional sense, only extend to that which is his own. It may not be broadened to include matters within the public domain."). Because Congress in the CTEA extended copyright only for orginal works that are not already in the public domain, the origin or scope of the requirement that works be "original", or of any prohibition on removing works from the public domain, is not at issue here.
"

Congress in the CTEA extending copyright time after time beyond the life-time of the orginal author of the works or invention, is a tricky thing. The orginal Author has exclusive rights on his work. Authors die. Somehow then the copyrights fall into other hands, maybe auctioned at eBay. When the orginal author was just an employee, the copyrights are inside the hands of a company. The company wich holds those copyrights might be takenover by a merger or so, and the new company has the copyrights.

So its possible that copyrights fall into hands of people/company's who might have the slightest idea what its all about. I'm not even questioning if the new copyright holder even can extend or improve the orginal works. And i'm not even thinking about people or company's whose single purpose is to get hold of the copyrights solely to extinct the orginal works or inventions.

So actually the problem is, the orginal Author died and he cannot give his advise from his grave. Maybe by testament a sortof agreemant can be made. What i want to point out here, is that when the orginal Author dies, basicly extending copyrights is a tricky thing to do. Its questionable.

When a orginal Author dies , his original work/invention is still around. Aschcroft talks about works inside the public domain are not at issue here, only works which are not. Regarding such works/inventions i would suggest that if the orginal author has not made an arrangement like through a testament or so, the new owner of the copyrights must proove that the orginal Author has agreed to that, either by testament or whatever. If such papers cannot be given, then by default the work should be candidate for the public domain or better just like asset's go over into ownership by the government.

Robert

In your summary, you say, "Stevens asked whether a retrospective extension that does promote progress is permissible. Lessig said yes. Stevens then said that the 1998 law, at least on its face, does that. Lessig: well, that's the government's position. Stevens: but that's what you just said. Lessig: no, Congress still has to abide by the constitutional limits. We were all confused."

I can explain that, if you still desire. It's pretty straightforward. Lessig is suggesting that the 1998 law, does not, on it's face, promote progress. This is a big deal. I *wish* I had a transcript. Another slashdot post has an essential point: "While it was conceded by Lessig that Congress could not grant a copyright on a work currently in the public domain, Congress could grant an extended term conditioned on a promise to preserve and actively distribute a work."

In Lessig's reply brief, he makes the point that judicial precedent has been set that there must be a quid-pro-quo for a retroactive extension. If congress said, "You can have a retroactive extension if you republish your work," or, "You can have a retroactive extension if you send congress a check for $5," then there would be an exchange, and it would be constitutional.

Unfortunately, I don't understand why this distinction exists. He says that it's due to judicial precedent, and *not* the constitutional stipulation on promoting progress. I'm not positive that the distinction is valid. It seems to be the very most core point, and none of the media is discussing it. Do you understand the point I'm making? Can you tell me if they spoke about that subject in further depth?

Anyway, hopefully Stevens will see that Lessig was not being childish, and was not reneging on his statement.

At the linked summary, it sounds like Lessig failed to address an essential portion of his argument. According to his reply brief, there is a huge difference between an equally applied retroactive extension and an equally applied proactive extension. He suggests, with references, that court precedent has shown that a retroactive extension requires a quid-pro-quo. If the law said copyrights were only extended for people that gave congress $5, or republished the work, or *something*, then the law would fly. Since there's no exchange, the law breaks judicial precedent.

I have *no* idea if this argument is correct. Please do not rely on my description of it. Read the brief (they're not hard to read at all). Is there a lawyer out there that can tell us if his quid-pro-quo argument is obviously valid, obviously wrong, or open for debate?

Does it make a difference if an essential point is only made in a brief, but not in oral arguments?

Am I misunderstanding the argument, or how it applies?

I thought there were some "takebacks" in 1997 ... Lots of Spanish films, music, etc. were "recopyrighted".

You're referring to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. That act restored copyright to some works whose copyrights had not expired but which had fallen into PD due to some other technicality, mostly by not being first published in the United States. It was implemented as part of the Uruguay round of WTO/WIPO treaties.

Like the Bono Act, the URAA is under a constitutional challenge, in Golan v. Ashcroft.

It's not just the larger asteroids that have names, and they're certainly not all from ancient mythology. Check out this list of minor planetary bodies. It's a long read, but there are some real gems. Lots of dead Greeks, of course, masters of dusty literature, music, science, etc. Seems like almost every city, state, and country has a minor planet named for it. Those who don't can be content to be represented by (6000) United Nations.

Perhaps most apropos to note in this forum are asteroids (9965) GNU, (9885) Linux, (9793) Torvalds and (9882) Stallman (all spotted and named by the Kitt Peak Spacewatch crew).

Childhood fairytales include (14014) Munchhausen, (17627) Humptydumpty, (1773) Rumpelstilz and (5405) Neverland. (2675) Tolkien and (2991) Bilbo are memorialized in minor planetary names as well.

Luminaries of Science fiction are well-represented by planetary bodies such as (5020) Asimov, (9766) Bradbury, (21811) Burroughs, (4923) Clarke, (6371) Heinlein, (12284) Pohl, and (7758) Poulanderson.

(4659) Roddenberry is accompanied by (9777) Enterprise, (26734) Terryfarrell and the dreaded (2913) Horta (2362).

The (3325) TARDIS is floating out there somewhere too, as is (18610) Arthurdent.

(13681) MontyPython and the circus are flying around -- (9617) Grahamchapman, (9618) Johncleese, (9619) Terrygilliam, (9620) Ericidle, (9621) Michaelpalin, and (9622) Terryjones.

(291) Alice may (or may not) be the young friend of (6984) Lewiscarroll -- along with (6042) Cheshirecat, (6735) Madhatter, (17518) Redqueen, (17942) Whiterabbit, (9387) Tweedledee and (17681) Tweedledum.

Beware the (7470) Jabberwock, my son (the jaws that bite, the claws that catch) beware the (9781) Jubjubbird and shun the frumious (9780) Bandersnatch!

Both (4386) Lust and (3162) Nostalgia might be served by a visit to (12382) Niagara Falls. Don't tell (10515) Old Joe.

Hollywood has a presence in space, with (25930) Spielberg and (7032) Hitchcock, (11548) Jerrylewis, (11419) Donjohnson, (20789) Hughgrant and (12050) Humecronyn. (13070) Seanconnery stars as (9007) James Bond.

Too many cool ones to list all at once, but I have to mention (8147) Colemanhawkins, and (6318) Cronkite. There's the trio of (5048) Moriarty, (5049) Sherlock and (5050) Doctorwatson, followed by (5051) Ralph.

Have some (29700) Salmon.

17 USC 1201(a)(2) says:

No person shall...traffic in any technology...that -

• (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

According to judge Kaplan, linking to DeCSS constitutes trafficking in a circumvention technology.

News.com is a news organization and is reporting the news as they see fit.

2600 Magazine was a news organization reporting the news as it saw fit. The court did not care.

If the DVD-CCA decides to bring suit against News.com and got a judgement forcing them to to stop linking, then they would have to remove the links.

If the DVD-CCA brought suit against News.com and won, the court could order News.com to pay the DVD-CCA's legal expenses and pay for any losses the plantiffs incurred due to piracy resulting from News.com's distribution of DeCSS.

This is the same reason slashdot doesn't get raided by some government agency everytime a poster puts a link to DeCSS in a comment.

Slashdot is not liable for its users' copyright infringment. They are registered with the copyright office as a Service Provider. If Slashdot receives a complaint, their only obligation is to take down the infringing material.

I suggest you contact a doctor immediately.

According to this, you are going to die from insanely shortened chromosome #1 any second now.

The 2001 archive has the little 'requires quicktime 5' logo on it...Actually, I'll slightly amend my original statement - the only archive of a complete ignobel ceremonty that seems to be available at the moment appears to be quicktime 5 only. The 2000 archive is on another site, and is just plain broken, but appears to have been Real as well. (The links that work seem to be a message saying "This program has expired"...) I haven't yet found any complete videos of years prior to 2000 online.

They DO have an .avi of "Highlights from some older ceremonies" but not complete videos, except for some available for purchase (on videotape).

Look at this brief from the Eldred v. Reno case (start at paragraph 61). In 1961, copyright lasted 28 years and could be renewed for another 28 years (56 years total). So works published in 1905 entered the public domain in 1961. From 1962 to 1976, congress enacted ten copyright extensions. Every one of those extensions applied retroactively. At all times during those 14 years, copyright extended back to 1906. In 1976, copyright lasted 75 years (or the life of the author plus 50 years). So works published in 1906 began appearing in the public domain in 1981.

Sure, there are a few friends of the court briefs for the defense. The one I found interesting was from Dr. Seuss Enterprises, et al...

Their argument is that by extending copyright, the holders have been able to release the property in formats that did not exist or might not have been possible at the time of the original writing. Siting in particular the film adapatation of the Grinch and its subsequent release on DVD. They also mention derivative works in the form of CD-ROM games.

Now, there's no great argument that someone couldn't or wouldn't take a public domain source and create similar treatments. After all, part of Edred's argument is that the bulk of Disney's early feature work was based on Bros. Grimm fairy tales, and Disney Corp. has had no problem exploting new forms of media with material that's a few hundred years old...

By extending copyrights, congress is allowing large copyright holders to continue generating revenue from old works. The copyright holders then invest that revenue in new marginal and high risk works.

There is an amicus brief by 17 economists (including Nobel prizewinners) explaining why that argument is wrong, and also refuting other supposed incentives for new works from copyright extensions. (In fact, they argue that copyright extension forms a disincentive to new works by expanding the monopoly on building-block materials.) An excerpt:

One might argue that the windfall to authors of existing copyrights has a positive consequence, by providing them with more resources for additional creative projects. However, this argument ignores the profit maximization decision of a producer, which takes into account the producer's cost of capital for a given investment. In general, a profit-maximizing producer should fund the set of projects that have an expected return equal to or greater than their cost of capital. If a producer lacks the cash on hand to fund a profitable project, the producer can secure additional funding from financial institutions or investors. If the producer has resources remaining, after funding all the projects whose expected returns are higher than the cost of capital, this remainder should be invested elsewhere, not in sub-par projects that happen to be available to the firm. If a producer pursues the same set of projects in any event, then its incentives will not be improved from the mere fact of a windfall from consumers.

I'm not going to discuss them, the article on wired does that, partially...

For those interested, the links are:
Reply Brief for the Petitioners and
Government Response Brief

I'm not going to discuss them, the article on wired does that, partially...

For those interested, the links are:
Reply Brief for the Petitioners and
Government Response Brief

• "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" -- The key word here is "progress." While it can be said that handing a pile of cash to Disney and RIAA/MPAA members will lead them to produce more content (since they have a pile of money), the petitioners say this isn't good enough. They say that promoting progress can't be done just by handing piles of money to, say, Gershwin's estate, at the public's expense, since Gershwin's estate can't do anything for progress, since Gershwin's dead.
  
• "For limited times" -- True, 90 years is a limited time. However, there has to be a limit to Congress's power to extend otherwise the time wouldn't be limited. And if there is a limit, we've reached or exceeded it. The retroactive portion of the CTEA really pushes the outside of any reasonable definition of "limited".
  

This article cites (without reference) a working paper by Carlos Osorio of Harvard. I think it's here: A contribution to the understanding of illegal copying of software: empirical and analytical evidence against conventional wisdom (PDF).

This article cites (without reference) a working paper by Carlos Osorio of Harvard. I think it's here: A contribution to the understanding of illegal copying of software: empirical and analytical evidence against conventional wisdom (PDF).

It is the hunch that usually leads scientists to study the phenomena/theories in question in the first place. The hard part is devising an experiment to prove/disprove what you're looking for without too many intervening factors that can get in the way. In fact, sometimes just coming up with the experiment itself is worthy of a Nobel Prize.

But scientists should NEVER EVER fake data, no matter HOW STRONGLY they believe they are right. If they're that sure, then they can publish all the theoretical articles they want. But NEVER publish fraudulent data as true. Science is about truth, truth is about absolute, not about hunches. That's why scientists do (or should, if they don't shy away from it) report estimated uncertainties for all experimentally-determined values and data points. If scientists didn't adhere to these lofty expectations, one wouldn't be able to believe any of the journals, which would be a major setback for all fields of science. If you had inherent mistrust of scientists, then science would become just like politics.

I dont know what he was working on, but I would like to give the guy the benifit of the doubt until I can read the report and experimental data.

Sorry, this guy WAS given the benefit of the doubt for many years. His results were irreproducible, which as you know, is one of the main characteristics of science. Everything must be reproducible. He claimed to grow Aluminum Oxide films that could withstand far greater electric fields before breaking down than anyone else on the planet, which is odd considering people mimicked his exact sputtering/growth techniques. For years nobody could reproduce any of his experiments. Much of the discord boiled down to a specific sputtering chamber Schon had back in Germany, where he claimed he was able to grow his thin films. Eventually Schon tried to regrow some films again in this chamber, and said he was unable to repeat his earlier work.

I worked in a physics lab this past summer where nearly every day at lunchtime the professor (Dr. Michael Tinkham, who's rather reknowned in superconductivity circles) would hold up a copy of Physics Today with a picture of Schon and warn us of the consequences of abandoning truth in favor of increased publications.

What Prof. Tinkham pointed out to us is that Schon became something of a minor deity in the realm of experimental physics, getting significant publications, usually quite often in the top physics journals such as Nature, Science, Physical Review, etc. The problem was that he soon had a reputation of greatness to maintain, so he may have gotten a little clumsy regarding data acquisition and analysis, in favor of keeping his astonishing rate of publications steady.

Eventually, things caught up to him. I'm not sure how much of his questionable work was little details that slipped though his fingers, how much was semi-conscious oversight, and how much was flat-out fabrication and fraud. But after he was caught then all his work became suspect.

The worst thing he did was re-use a dataset entirely, claiming it was a plot of something else, and left the exact same noise spurs and other anomalies.

Usually it's rare to find such blatant scientific fraud, but there was another recent fraud.

At least he's not moving the Lab's money into offshore shell companies to show earnings.

Sure, and at least he's also not killing people. But in the realm of science, what he's done is destroy the credibility that scientists strive for, and even NEED to be respected for. It's great that he's been caught, and hopefully it'll be a lesson to any up-and-coming experimentalists that no matter how much you believe in your theories, you have a committment to truth.

Maybe there should be some kind of hippocratic oath for scientists, that would be cool.

To be fair, I really should be using the newest version of KDE. I just started with 3.0.0 because that's what came with my distro (redhat 7.3, speaking of which).

What you are really refering to, is an artist's 'Moral Right' to control the 'vision' of an artistic work. This means that no one can change or distort an artistic work, without the permission of the original artist.

While this might sound good in theory (Why not protect the artist?), in practice, it is one of the most dangerous ideas I have heard in a long time. The idea that someone could be legally prevented from modifying their own personal property, solely because the artist disagrees with the modifications is scarey to say the least. Where would this right end? How would it be enforced? Can the artist keep track of the painting after it has been sold to ensure that it hasn't been modified, or can they inspect someone's living room to make sure it displays the painting under optimal circumstances? Where would the artist's rights end and my rights, as a property owner, begin?

Personally, I believe the artist's rights end as soon as they sell the painting, movie, or what-have-you. The only way they should be able to maintain any kind of control (beyond what the already way too powerful copyright laws give them) is if they keep it to themselves and never let anyone else see it, duplicate it, sell copies of it etc. If you want to release your art or sell copies of it to the public, you must accept the fact that someone may do something you don't like with it.

These are the links you want:

movies
article/images
more images

Can someone mirror these?

These are the links you want:

movies
article/images
more images

Can someone mirror these?

These are the links you want:

movies
article/images
more images

Can someone mirror these?

Unfortunately, it usually doesn't work that way. Scientists divide themselves into their seperate camps, and sometimes turn a blind eye to the inconsistencies in their own theories.

The sad fact is that scientists are human. They have their own allegiances -- not always to the scientific method. Some are quite petty.

"a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"
--Max Planck

Thomas Kuhn had a lot to say about this. Learn more here.

I remember all the good old days when irc chat was not contorted to be used by retards. I happen to be 17 years old and I am, literally, responsible for creating some of the terms kids use today. It is a perversion of the original idea we online gaming people had- using irc language in common speech. Bottom line is kids developed this language by themselves, for themselves. Using this language is a means to communicate personability to people whom one cannot see up front. In an anonymous, online environment, being capable of CLEARLY communication emotion is important since kids do not (normally) develop the emotional/judgment center of their brains until ages 18-19. This study can be found somewhere on the Harvard website. Development of this language (including faces) was strictly to reduce the ambiguity associated with Internet chat. One side note- MacAddict recently published an email in their published magazine saying something like, "OR IM GONNA HAV 2 CUM OVER THERE AND GET U!" along with various other rants. Do you adults have any idea what "CUM" refers to?!?! my god!!!! Ahhhhhhhhh, I nearly had a heart attack and almost canceled my subscription. The term is incredibly vulgar and is only used as scatological humor. sheesh. The lesson is this: many kids (and others) start to speak this language without understanding its purpose and meaning. Everyone wants to speak like all the "gosu," cool, blah blah starcraft players to fit in. It's a shame peer pressure extends even through the online world. Mr. Kiwi "Rec means sh!t, but that doesn't mean you have to like losing."

This link describes how the ATRAP collaboration cools the ingredients of Antihydrogen.

If you thought the profile of Larry was interesting, I'd encourage you to read the brief (PDF) he filed for the Eldred case. IANAL so I at first thought I wouldn't understand it and almost didn't read it, but eventually I did about a month ago. It is very clear. Extraordinarily clear.

It's also interesting to read the opposing brief (PDF).

Good luck Larry.

If you thought the profile of Larry was interesting, I'd encourage you to read the brief (PDF) he filed for the Eldred case. IANAL so I at first thought I wouldn't understand it and almost didn't read it, but eventually I did about a month ago. It is very clear. Extraordinarily clear.

It's also interesting to read the opposing brief (PDF).

Good luck Larry.

I dunno what'll happen. Scalia's on their side, hence the focus on harm to the public in Larry's final briefs. You will find many who share your viewpoint, of course.

But it was while surfing sites like LawMeme, GrepLaw, and Copyfight, among others that I thought about what might be the worst development to come out of this, from a copyright holder's standpoint.

You've got a whole generation of law students following along, rooting for Larry, and sharing his belief that copyright as currently constructed, only benefitting the holders, is wrong (Michael Hart's too-easily dismissed manifestoes, as the reporter condescendingly put it, echo this view).

And that same generation of law students may very well find a lot of other ways to beat up on the publishing industry (hint here: the industry's biggest market is schools, while prices are set rather high by a few players). It's quite possible that industry types will win the Eldred battle but lose the war.

We'll know soon enough.

Go get 'em, Larry.

When I grow up, I want to be a Karma Whore.

I dunno what'll happen. Scalia's on their side, hence the focus on harm to the public in Larry's final briefs. You will find many who share your viewpoint, of course.

But it was while surfing sites like LawMeme, GrepLaw, and Copyfight, among others that I thought about what might be the worst development to come out of this, from a copyright holder's standpoint.

You've got a whole generation of law students following along, rooting for Larry, and sharing his belief that copyright as currently constructed, only benefitting the holders, is wrong (Michael Hart's too-easily dismissed manifestoes, as the reporter condescendingly put it, echo this view).

And that same generation of law students may very well find a lot of other ways to beat up on the publishing industry (hint here: the industry's biggest market is schools, while prices are set rather high by a few players). It's quite possible that industry types will win the Eldred battle but lose the war.

We'll know soon enough.

Go get 'em, Larry.

When I grow up, I want to be a Karma Whore.

1) water maser emissions? Geez, what's next, they can smell it from here?

I wonder if they only look for water? Wouldn't there be other elements they could detect using the same methods?

2) how far away are these planets? Are they far enough away that by the time these "maser emissions" get to us that the water is gone?

Most extrasolar planets are less than 150 light years away which is nothing in geologic time. Refer to The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia for more information. The finding of the 100th extrasolar planet was reported yesterday.

First, many people are ignorant. Stupidity is not the same as ignorance. You are may ignorant, but not stupid. How does ignorance relate to poverty? An example occurred in my city last year. A black high school student at a school in a poor area of town applied for a scholarship. It is generally accepted that she had a very good chance to receive the scholarship. However, she did not have access to a typewriter, so the application had to be hand printed. Because the application was hand printed, the school counselor did not submit the application. The parents should have known to find a typewriter, but they were ignorant of the consequences.

In my own life, information keeps me out of poverty even without a job. I know where to buy cheap food, I know were to buy cheap clothes, I know how to make things that I cannot afford to buy. My family knows how to play the money game to create wealth.

Second, the U.S. is a very rich country. However the wealth is very top heavy. First, though out public housing is good, it is not adequate. For instance, according to this Harvard University article, the waiting time is three to seven years in Boston. Boston housing may be a bit scarce, but it is really not much different in other major cities. In my neck of the woods, public housing has been systematically destroyed over the past 5 years.

As far as drug use is concerned, I know people who use drugs. Some of them have money, some of them don't. Some then can support $1000 a week habits legally, some can't. We see the poor crack users on TV because the rich cocaine users won't let the cameras into the country club.

Money is not distributed equally. I am not going to get into a argument about what money is where, and how much should be where. Suffice it to say that this 1999 census report indicates that a black household earns about 62 cent for every dollar a white household earns. Some of this may be education, because a high school education earns you about 64 cent for every dollar a graduate of a 4-year college earns, but that only applies if you believe black people are stupid. It is hard to get into college if you scholarship application is discarded by your counselor.

Finally, I am well aware of third world countries. People are not necessarily poor. The people I know are very rich. We have cars, mansions, country houses, chauffeurs, maids, everything. What is missing is a vibrant middle class. Your most ignorant statement is we could just vote the poor out of the country. The middle class is a drain on the rich. The poor are their servants. The middle class are the stockholders that are complaining to Washington about the stick scandals that destroyed their pensions. The rich are the one complaining to Washington that their sweetheart deals and multi-million retirement pensions are being outlawed. The middle class are the union workers demanding higher wages that can cut company profits. The rich are the one create fictitious trades to keep the stock up so that their enormous compensations are justified. The poor do nothing but work, consumer, sleep and die. The poor are no threat rich, so why would the rich bother to align themselves with the middle class, the exact people who threaten the prosperity of the rich, to expel a perfectly harmless and useful group?

If you are going to make blanket statement, at least cite some real references.

In case you're interested, I found this a few days ago. Since there is no definitive list of banned sites in China, our friends at Harvard Law have decided to come up with a way you can test to see if your website (or any other for that matter) is blocked in China.

Clearly yes. In fact the same lab is also working with hearts , kidneys, and bladder cells and there are many other research groups studying tissue engineering with various tissues, for example this group at Mass. General. A key word here is tissue-- typically they are using a fairly homogenous population of cells and putting it on a matrix in the right shape. Limbs are coming, but they need to have skin, muscle, nerves and bone all made and assembled properly, which is very complex compared to just growing, say, some skin.

Maybe the wind changed direction...

Well, that's nice, but.. This still says it's not accessible. So, which is it, folks?

For what it's worth, Steve Wozniak (co-founder of Apple) finished his degree (I think at CSUN) years after starting Apple, making his fortune, then quitting Apple. His co-founder Steve Jobs never finished.

And of course, Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard and never finished -- but how often does Microfsoft hire programmers without degrees these days?

The bottom line is, whether you should get a degree depends on what you want it for. On AVERAGE a degree benefits most people financially, but having degrees is no guarantee of success, and not having one is no guarantee of failure.

--Robert (Ph.D., M.B.A., M.A., B.S.)

In case anyone thinks this poster really lives in China (moderators, I'm looking in your direction), note that our beloved Slashdot is on the blocklist.

According to NEO, "J002E3 was not a minor planet (Sept. 6.68 UT)". Does this means that they've already confirmed that it's space junk?

Just FYI: The FONT tag, which is at the center of his rant, IS a standard. Unlike CSS, its going to work properly on almost all browsers. Unlike Hx tags, it doesn't impose formatting on itself or surrounding text - something even CSS isn't great at controlling.

Take a look at David Baron's CSS test results - they are mainly for 2000/2001 browsers, but that includes IE5 and 5.5 which are the most common browsers on the Internet today. It reveals a mass of buggy, unsupported, non-compilant or incompatible implementations of CSS.

Now go to About.com's web design compatibility page and get an idea of the incompatibilities in newer standards between browsers. The result is quite obvious: using CSS is NOT a route to gaining compatibility and avoiding hacks - more than likely its going to involve additional hacks and even further limit browser support.

Coding to de juro standards is useless if the standards aren't properly supported. People have more success following de facto standards, which is why so much of the web is IE-centric.

The second is the memory element, described only as "an organic synthetic molecule" acting as a non-volatile memory. Non-volatile is good; that means instant-on laptops. As for what it is, they don't say, but their recent work has involved rotaxane and catenane (see Figure 2). Bit flips in those molecules are reversible, another good thing, since you don't want memory that gets tired over time.

This is all cool fun stuff, and I'm glad for it, but I had really been hoping for a follow-up of HP and UCLA's brilliant work on molecular combinatorial logic in January. If they could add an active gain stage to that stuff, they'd really have something amazing.

Starting testing...
Stage one testing complete.
Stage two testing complete.

Testing complete for http://www.slashdot.org/.
Result:
Reported as accessible in China

Starting testing...
Stage one testing complete.
Stage two testing complete.

Testing complete for http://www.slashdot.org. Result:
Reported as accessible in China

Good...
Hello China
Read here!

Here is a list of sites Chinese people shouldn't see. The list includes Google, Altavista. Amnesty, geocities, various .mil sites, free speech sites, Slashdot, SourceForge, and some porn sites as well as a variety of politically oriented sites.

Does the US currently have any plans for a "regime shift" over there? :)

Savannah, GNU's free (as in liberty) alternative to sourceforge, is not blocked in China.

is it due to the fact that sourceforge host something like that which would really piss China Government?

Slashdot is not blocked, so is gnu.org.

Hmm, may be I shouldn't speak too loud. :)

is it due to the fact that sourceforge host something like that which would really piss China Government?

Slashdot is not blocked, so is gnu.org.

Hmm, may be I shouldn't speak too loud. :)

Starting testing...
Stage one testing complete.
Stage two testing complete.

Testing complete for http://google.com/. Result:
Reported as inaccessible in China

Yam is accessible, and so is Yahoo.

Too bad China overlooked Google proxies...they exist you know.

Starting testing...
Stage one testing complete.
Stage two testing complete.

Testing complete for http://slashdot.org. Result:
Reported as accessible in China

Goatse.cx is A-OK by Chinese authorities, but google isn't?

Wow... now that's what I call a strange can of worms.