"Not true. All that's required is a 'significant physical presence' in the state, which these all have."
Precisely. And to GP: the law is bogus because (apparently) it TRIES to outlaw others, NOT in California, over which it has no jurisdiction.
You can say "But... but... but... so-and-so IS in California" all you want. But unless the law names them specifically, it is obviously over-broad and will not hold up to a court challenge.
What they really mean is they want international network conections that don't go via the US.
Exactly.
Exactly AND... or exacly BUT... depending on the way you want to put it.
If they want international connections that don't go via the U.S.... AND they want to pay for it, for a change, then more power to them.
If they want international connections that don't go via the U.S.... BUT they want the U.S. to keep picking up the tab, they can suck eggs.
My feeling is that if I pay for it, I can do what I damned well please with it.
Having said that... we need to stop this crap wherein the U.S. government does what it wants, and the U.S. citizens pay for it. We should be telling government what it wants, not the other way around.
"Furthermore, with the continued erosion of the US economy into a non-producing one,"
Really? The latest widely-published statistics I read said that the average American is still 30% more productive per work hour than the rest of the Western world.
"Transmission delay is the only delay of note for long distance, encoding delays only really matter in the same building."
Not true at all. You can get good throughput because switching doesn't reduce the bandwidth, it delays the signal. There is a finite switching time, PLUS the time the signal is traveling via electrical wires in the switch, vs. the fiber.
Switching delays are rampant in our modern communication systems. The signal is delayed by circuitry and switching in the source network card. They are further delayed at the local router. They might be further delayed by the central hub or switch in the building (and this is also all likely over copper). Then you have the "first mile", which is also copper... and likely longer than an actual mile. Then you have the ISP (or other service) and its switches and routers. Then on to the "backbone". If you're lucky, some of that is fiber. Then routing and switching and conversion to light pulses. (And if this is Internet, THEN it will likely go through several "central hubs", with all their conversion to electricity and routing around before going back to fiber again.) Then, at the destination city, you have all that again, in reverse.
There are LOTS of little delays in the system. Unless they have fiber direct between their respective buildings, plain lightspeed is hilariously faster than any real point-to-point communication going on.
I should add: any attempt to mess with this arrangement runs smack up against State sovereignty problems. There are many, many, many decades of legal precedent over this stuff.
And the Feds might have the power to "regulate" (which means "to keep regular... not to ban or dictate) interstate trade, but that doesn't mean they have authority to tell someone what they can do in their own state, which is what mail-order (and websites) do.
Brown is trying to pull something akin to those Federal judges who tried to ban IP addresses that were in some other country. He just doesn't have the legal authority to do it. It's out of his jurisdiction... as long as it's not in California.
The following is why this law is bogus. I know politicians have been trying to change this, but they have no actual, legal authority to do so:
Historically, and continuing to the present the courts -- on up to the Supreme Court -- have ruled that when any kind of "transaction" is taking place, it takes place in the state of the place of business of the vendor. (That's why states can't charge a company sales tax unless the company has "a substantial physical presence" in that state.)
This legal precedent goes back more than 150 years, to the days when mail-order began to become big business. And note: internet sales (memberships, subscriptions, etc.) ARE nothing but mail-order. The only thing that has changed is the method of payment (credit card, Paypal, viewing online advertising).
The point here is: when you visit a website, legally the website is not coming to you, YOU are going THERE. It cannot, as a practical matter, work any other way because there is simply no way a given website can know all the local laws everywhere.
So if you have a website in Poughkeepsie, Gov. Jerry Brown has no legal authority to tell you what you can and cannot do with your website. He can tell you that you can't make sales in California. But other than that, he can't dictate what you do. Legally, Californians are visiting YOU, not the other way around.
AFTER taking half of forever to compile, OFBiz took about 5 minutes just to start! I could have rebooted my Mac 3 times or more in the same amount of time.
"There's no law against making money on insider information, as long as you're not the insider and you're not conspiring with an insider. If you just happened to overhear information on the street, or a friend accidentally e-mails you insider information, you're pretty much free & clear."
While that may be true, I doubt anybody seriously thinks that is the case here.
"Washington to Chicago is 596 miles via a great circle, however the Earth's curvature will reduce that, but only by about a mile.
Light travels at 186 miles per second, thats 3.2ms"
Wrong in several respects.
(A) Curvature doesn't reduce the distance. Communications lines are on the surface.
(B) As someone else mentioned, it's 180,000mps.
(C) Electricity does not travel as fast in wires as light does in a vacuum. In a coax cable, it's only about 2/3 the speed of light. And even if it were fiber, not wires, you then have the speed of the circuits that do the conversion and switching... still adding significant delay. So you can't use light speed as a measure, unless you're trying to establish a ridiculously unachievable lower bound.
"In the case of antipodes, you certainly see the effect
Auckland to Malaga, 12392 miles (67ms) as the great circle goes, but dig a hole through the earth and you can do it in under 8,000 miles (42.5ms)"
As already mentioned, this is a specious argument, since the communications are not traveling in a straight line, but on the surface.
At 596 miles, the speed of light is indeed 3.2ms. Add in switching delays, etc. and you get closer to 5ms, and that's assuming fiber.
But ALL of this is really beside the point. The knowledge that they were going to do it was presumably public. And even if not, and it was "insider" knowledge, it's still beside the point. Because they traded too early. 7ms advantage today is a significant advantage for HST.
"So maybe they broke the law in how they got the information, but by waiting until its public to execute the trade, they seem to have, in actuality, complied with at least a lay understanding of the relevant regulations."
How is that relevant? The whole point of this story is THEY DIDN'T WAIT. Regardless of how they got the information, they traded ahead of schedule.
In HST these days, 7ms is an eternity. It is an unfair advantage.
"Just went through this nonsense. Switch to Insightly. It's easy and it works better than the open source alternatives, plus you don't have to host it."
Insightly is CRM. It doesn't do ERP.
But that brings up a good point: CRM and ERP are fundamentally different tasks. I doubt OP will find many packages that do both well. My suggestion would be to look for them separately.
"Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
Pardon me. You are correct. I had mis-read it to say that it couldn't be distributed without permission. But it's only the use of names that is restricted.
Yes, I was agreeing with GP -- and describing how they re-printed a clearly biased political opinion piece that took advantage of recent tragedy -- to illustrate how SciAm has, itself, deviated from publishing only science.
And I got modded troll for it.
If they want to publish political stuff rather than unbiased science, how can they expect their commenters to not do the same?
Hey, folks... this was a description of how SciAm clearly published a POLITICAL piece, not science!
I ask again: if they are publishing things that are political, and unrelated to actual science, then how can they expect their commenters to do differently?
That's nothing more than a logical question, based on a factual description of events.
Trading privacy -- which many are finally learning, means to some degree trading freedom -- for convenience is even worse than trading it for "security".
I'm with you. I don't trust Facebook with my real address, or phone number, or really anything at all except my name. I check my account maybe once or twice a year, just to make sure I didn't miss somebody dying, or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
"In case you didn't notice, Facebook, Google and Twitter are based in California. So the law does apply to them."
It may apply to THEM. But it doesn't apply to the internet in general.
"Not true. All that's required is a 'significant physical presence' in the state, which these all have."
Precisely. And to GP: the law is bogus because (apparently) it TRIES to outlaw others, NOT in California, over which it has no jurisdiction.
You can say "But... but... but... so-and-so IS in California" all you want. But unless the law names them specifically, it is obviously over-broad and will not hold up to a court challenge.
That decision happened a long time ago, but that boat never sailed. There are lots of states, TODAY, pushing back and saying "bullshit".
Without State support, the Feds are standing in the toilet holding the wires.
What they really mean is they want international network conections that don't go via the US.
Exactly.
Exactly AND... or exacly BUT... depending on the way you want to put it.
... AND they want to pay for it, for a change, then more power to them.
... BUT they want the U.S. to keep picking up the tab, they can suck eggs.
If they want international connections that don't go via the U.S.
If they want international connections that don't go via the U.S.
My feeling is that if I pay for it, I can do what I damned well please with it.
Having said that... we need to stop this crap wherein the U.S. government does what it wants, and the U.S. citizens pay for it. We should be telling government what it wants, not the other way around.
"Furthermore, with the continued erosion of the US economy into a non-producing one,"
Really? The latest widely-published statistics I read said that the average American is still 30% more productive per work hour than the rest of the Western world.
Erosion, compared to what?
Haha.
:o)
I wasn't complaining. Just making the observation.
"Transmission delay is the only delay of note for long distance, encoding delays only really matter in the same building."
Not true at all. You can get good throughput because switching doesn't reduce the bandwidth, it delays the signal. There is a finite switching time, PLUS the time the signal is traveling via electrical wires in the switch, vs. the fiber.
Switching delays are rampant in our modern communication systems. The signal is delayed by circuitry and switching in the source network card. They are further delayed at the local router. They might be further delayed by the central hub or switch in the building (and this is also all likely over copper). Then you have the "first mile", which is also copper... and likely longer than an actual mile. Then you have the ISP (or other service) and its switches and routers. Then on to the "backbone". If you're lucky, some of that is fiber. Then routing and switching and conversion to light pulses. (And if this is Internet, THEN it will likely go through several "central hubs", with all their conversion to electricity and routing around before going back to fiber again.) Then, at the destination city, you have all that again, in reverse.
There are LOTS of little delays in the system. Unless they have fiber direct between their respective buildings, plain lightspeed is hilariously faster than any real point-to-point communication going on.
I was using Firefox too. But it's not doing it now, so maybe it was only a temporary error.
I should add: any attempt to mess with this arrangement runs smack up against State sovereignty problems. There are many, many, many decades of legal precedent over this stuff.
And the Feds might have the power to "regulate" (which means "to keep regular... not to ban or dictate) interstate trade, but that doesn't mean they have authority to tell someone what they can do in their own state, which is what mail-order (and websites) do.
Brown is trying to pull something akin to those Federal judges who tried to ban IP addresses that were in some other country. He just doesn't have the legal authority to do it. It's out of his jurisdiction... as long as it's not in California.
The following is why this law is bogus. I know politicians have been trying to change this, but they have no actual, legal authority to do so:
Historically, and continuing to the present the courts -- on up to the Supreme Court -- have ruled that when any kind of "transaction" is taking place, it takes place in the state of the place of business of the vendor. (That's why states can't charge a company sales tax unless the company has "a substantial physical presence" in that state.)
This legal precedent goes back more than 150 years, to the days when mail-order began to become big business. And note: internet sales (memberships, subscriptions, etc.) ARE nothing but mail-order. The only thing that has changed is the method of payment (credit card, Paypal, viewing online advertising).
The point here is: when you visit a website, legally the website is not coming to you, YOU are going THERE. It cannot, as a practical matter, work any other way because there is simply no way a given website can know all the local laws everywhere.
So if you have a website in Poughkeepsie, Gov. Jerry Brown has no legal authority to tell you what you can and cannot do with your website. He can tell you that you can't make sales in California. But other than that, he can't dictate what you do. Legally, Californians are visiting YOU, not the other way around.
Just wow.
AFTER taking half of forever to compile, OFBiz took about 5 minutes just to start! I could have rebooted my Mac 3 times or more in the same amount of time.
s/180/186
Crap. Try to correct somebody, and commit a typo. Not a good day.
Interesting. Apache's Ofbiz site gave me an invalid certificate error.
"There's no law against making money on insider information, as long as you're not the insider and you're not conspiring with an insider. If you just happened to overhear information on the street, or a friend accidentally e-mails you insider information, you're pretty much free & clear."
While that may be true, I doubt anybody seriously thinks that is the case here.
"Washington to Chicago is 596 miles via a great circle, however the Earth's curvature will reduce that, but only by about a mile. Light travels at 186 miles per second, thats 3.2ms"
Wrong in several respects.
(A) Curvature doesn't reduce the distance. Communications lines are on the surface.
(B) As someone else mentioned, it's 180,000mps.
(C) Electricity does not travel as fast in wires as light does in a vacuum. In a coax cable, it's only about 2/3 the speed of light. And even if it were fiber, not wires, you then have the speed of the circuits that do the conversion and switching... still adding significant delay. So you can't use light speed as a measure, unless you're trying to establish a ridiculously unachievable lower bound.
"In the case of antipodes, you certainly see the effect Auckland to Malaga, 12392 miles (67ms) as the great circle goes, but dig a hole through the earth and you can do it in under 8,000 miles (42.5ms)"
As already mentioned, this is a specious argument, since the communications are not traveling in a straight line, but on the surface.
At 596 miles, the speed of light is indeed 3.2ms. Add in switching delays, etc. and you get closer to 5ms, and that's assuming fiber.
But ALL of this is really beside the point. The knowledge that they were going to do it was presumably public. And even if not, and it was "insider" knowledge, it's still beside the point. Because they traded too early. 7ms advantage today is a significant advantage for HST.
"So maybe they broke the law in how they got the information, but by waiting until its public to execute the trade, they seem to have, in actuality, complied with at least a lay understanding of the relevant regulations."
How is that relevant? The whole point of this story is THEY DIDN'T WAIT. Regardless of how they got the information, they traded ahead of schedule.
In HST these days, 7ms is an eternity. It is an unfair advantage.
"Just went through this nonsense. Switch to Insightly. It's easy and it works better than the open source alternatives, plus you don't have to host it."
Insightly is CRM. It doesn't do ERP.
But that brings up a good point: CRM and ERP are fundamentally different tasks. I doubt OP will find many packages that do both well. My suggestion would be to look for them separately.
"This is an interesting situation where the speed of light may factor into the legality of their action."
I don't see what's "interesting" about it. They broke the law. Physics proves it pretty clearly.
"Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
Pardon me. You are correct. I had mis-read it to say that it couldn't be distributed without permission. But it's only the use of names that is restricted.
Yes, I was agreeing with GP -- and describing how they re-printed a clearly biased political opinion piece that took advantage of recent tragedy -- to illustrate how SciAm has, itself, deviated from publishing only science.
And I got modded troll for it.
If they want to publish political stuff rather than unbiased science, how can they expect their commenters to not do the same?
Holy crap! "Troll" mods, for THAT???
Hey, folks... this was a description of how SciAm clearly published a POLITICAL piece, not science!
I ask again: if they are publishing things that are political, and unrelated to actual science, then how can they expect their commenters to do differently?
That's nothing more than a logical question, based on a factual description of events.
Mod this one up.
Remember that they were also found to be artificially inflating the ratings of mortgage derivatives, leading to the "crash" of 2008.
I say just get rid of 'em. They work for the international bankers, not us.
"Why would I trust them with anything else?"
Trading privacy -- which many are finally learning, means to some degree trading freedom -- for convenience is even worse than trading it for "security".
I'm with you. I don't trust Facebook with my real address, or phone number, or really anything at all except my name. I check my account maybe once or twice a year, just to make sure I didn't miss somebody dying, or something like that.
"I shall free thee from your vow: Cyan Worlds games. GOG. No DRM."
Very interesting. Too bad it took so many years.
"That's copy protection, not DRM. They are not the same thing."
Copy protection is one form of DRM. Do you even know what DRM stands for?