Exposure to light (and in particular some frequencies at the blue end of the spectrum) fool the body into thinking it is experiencing daylight, and this actually affects the balance of certain hormones, like melatonin which is normally secreted shortly before and during sleep.
Studies have shown that experiencing bright light (and especially, as mentioned, of certain frequencies) straight up to bedtime, not only after bed, is known to interfere with melatonin production and other less significant hormones. In some animals, it can drive their hormones so crazy as to cause tumors and other serious health problems.
Humans are very flexible, and we can adapt to conditions of the tropics and (with protection) the poles, but it takes time to acclimate.
I suspect that if they subjected astronauts to the same kind of lighting conditions and hours for 60 days prior to their stay on ISS, a good part of this problem would go away. Expecting them to acclimate to the lighting conditions on top of everything else, and without a prior adjustment period, is asking a lot of them.
I agree that sensory deprivation must be the cause of sleeplessness for the astronauts.
I agree that it may be a contributory factor. I doubt very much it is a singular cause.
... I can't sleep without something pressing down on my skin, and even in the heat, a simple thin bedsheet, which is much colder, is not as good from the comfortable pressure feeling perspective
This cannot be the cause. Again it might contribute but this effect is not just possible but rather easy to simulate in microgravity. Not exactly, you understand, but closely enough that it should not be a problem. Imagine a blanket held against you gently by elastic or springs. Or... by pressure on the blanket from the outside via extremely soft foam. (By "easy" I did not mean cheap.)
Most likely it happens all the time; it's just not noticeable under common conditions. As with so many other sensory phenomena, it gets drowned out by noise from other sources.
Granted, however, it's going to happen more often in orbit.
Well, I'll probaby catch flak for this but I've been using Apple Airport Extreme for years now and they are very good products. I've now got a recent but not newest model (N not AC), always had one of the best signals in my neighborhood, and I'm only running 1/2 power. I am very impressed with the design and quality. I have every reason to like them... except one.
Unless something changes, I will never buy another Apple router. Why? Because they crippled the software.
Apple's Airport Utility (the router's setup and diagnostics software) was always very nice, despite the amount of automation. For example, if this setting was not compatible with that other setting, you can't choose it but that was done in an intelligent way, not capriciously. All the essentials were there in Airport Utility 5.6: upstream config, downstream config, security, guest network, channels (manual or auto), wide or narrow, ACL, NAT, proxy, IPv6, port mapping yada yada yada.
But Airport Utility 6.0 changed all that. Now it's all dumbed down. I guess dumb airhead customers don't have any need to look at logs or see who's connected for example. Meh.
Apple's new AC Airport Extreme router is really nice. Yet again, the physical layout and electronics are very well designed. 3 MIMO 5GHz antennas, 3 MIMO 2.4 GHz antennas, beamforming, the whole schmear.
But the router I now own is the latest one that is compatible with Airport Utility 5.6. Unless I can find software that is a hell of a lot closer to the hardware than Apple's latest Airport Utility, AFAIAC all that good design is wasted, because it's a product I don't want. And Apple is not very bright by chasing away loyal customers because it wants to "simplify" things too much. I've said this for years about apple: adding and even changing functionality are good if done for good reasons. But remove features, and you piss off your loyal customers. Which is a very bad idea.
Also, it is debatable if any hardware made by a US company can be trusted, especially since Linksys is a subsidiary of Cisco who are the NSA's bitch.
It's more than just suspicion. What was it, about 2 years ago? Cisco changed the firmware on all of its consumer-level routers (including Linksys) so that you had to go online to Cisco (or Linksys) just to configure your router. And the products also came with a nice EULA, saying you agree that Cisco and Linksys could access any of the router's traffic, at any time, for any reason.
Now, finally, "khayman80" show his hypocrisy, loud and large, in THIS COMMENT. (It's archived so I can't reply there, but I recommend others go read it. If you do, go back up the chain 8 or 10 comments and read about the context.)
Again, I wouldn't talk with Dr. Latour's friends in his little PSI Slayer group for the same reason I wouldn't talk with Super Adventure Club members if they existed.
But perhaps a blunter approach is necessary. I don't want to comment at a pedophile's website or talk with Dr. Latour's child rapist friend. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
How many FAILS can we find in this short passage by "khayman80"?
First, guilt by association. The argument had nothing to do with any other "member" of a "group". As he already knows. It had to do with Pierre Latour's science only, not some "group".
Second, and at least as important: false accusation. To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well.
Third: misdirection. Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win.
But back to the main point. He used this to distract from the fact that he can't refute a scientific argument that he has been calling garbage and worse for more than 2 years now. He has attempted, and failed, and now he says he isn't going to bother because the PEOPLE with whom he disagrees are not up to his social standards (and even that, a false claim), rather than arguing the science as a scientist should.
Calling this mere "ad hominem" would be doing khayman80 a favor he doesn't deserve.
Khayman80: you seem to have zero understanding of what is proper (or even legal) in a scientific discussion. And to use these FALSE charges against someone who isn't even involved in the scientific argument just shows the depths to which you will sink just to (as far as I can tell) misdirect from your failings and salve your own ego.
THIS is how desperate you've become to try to save yourself from being publicly proven wrong. But it won't work. You've been wrong for at least two years, you're still wrong, and you don't even have the courage to face the guy who proved you wrong.
I have zero respect for people who have repeatedly shown themselves willing to stoop to character assassination, deliberately fallacious arguments, and libel rather than behave like respectable scientists and just argue the facts.
How hypocritcal. How abjectly pathetic. How disgusting.
Oracle can't figure out how to screw over java, and we are complaining?
No. Oracle *IS* screwing over Java, and we are complaining. That's what OP was all about.
It's the same crap they did to MySQL, it's just slower. Do you really wonder why most big web hosts have switched to MariaDB? (Hint: they probably won't tell you about it either. They still advertise MySQL, which for practical purposes it still is.)
I'm asking you because you're claiming I made at least one mistake, without having the courage to actually say what it is. I'm also asking because this simple thought experiment disproves your ridiculous Slayer claims:
Courage, my ass. I've already explained at least 3 times that if you'd bothered to read Latour's work, including other attempted refutations and his replies, you'd know this already.
Your argument is not with me, so stop trying to make it with me. I have ZERO obligation to explain to you where you are making mistakes, and I've told you that several times.
After some of the sh*t you've pulled, I don't owe you a damned thing, including civility. I sure as hell don't owe you any answers. If you want to talk about "courage", then I repeat: why aren't you asking the author of the whole thing, rather than me?
I didn't say it was all one-sided. I just said it isn't free trade.
I don't necessarily have a problem with tariffs or bans or the like, if the relevant party has a legitimate reason. What I object to is pretending that it's "free trade" when it's not. China subsidizes a large amount of its industry, in order to undercut American manufacturing. That's about the farthest thing from free trade their is.
Are there subsidies and the like on the American side? Sure. No honest person would deny it. But the scale is so vastly different it's ridiculous.
Don't listen, kiddies. You will be horrified. Having to manually flip your word halves in your code all the time is an enormous waste of time and energy. Computers were supposed to do that kind of idiotic make-work FOR people, not the other way around.
No, octal was a much better fit for machines such as the PDP-6/PDP-10, PDP-5/PDP-8, and other multiple-of-6-bits-word-size machines. It worked well for PDP-11 instructions, not so well for PDP-11 data words if you cared about the individual bytes in the word.
What I meant was that it didn't work well for the students. Constantly having to flip haves of words around in your code had zero instructional value and just added to the difficulty. (Zero instructional value, that is, unless you feel that learning to deal with needless frustration is a valuable lesson for a CS student.)
Yeah, obviously you were talking about completely robotic planes with no human pilots getting "stuffed into the ground" because their onboard wifi was hacked by... other robots. That's the only way your comment wouldn't have been celebrating death.
I made a rhetorical comment about the manufacturers deserving to lose airplanes. It wasn't meant to be literal, and I mentioned nothing about killing people. This "celebrating death" is only in your own sick mind.
Heck, inflation right now is quite low compared to 2007 - who was PotUS back then again? Obama? Clinton?http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/
If you knew how CPI was actually calculated, you would never have posted that link. These are exactly the "official" government figures that don't come close to reflecting reality.
According to CPI, Chateaubriand is equivalent to a rump roast, and a 10-acre estate with a mansion is economically equivalent to a 0.25-acre plot with a 3-bedroom home. That may be a very slight exaggeration, but not much.
It's just not a reflection of reality, and hasn't been for decades. It's designed to hide inflation.
A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
...
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?
Why are you asking me? I mean, I know where you're making at least one mistake, but I already told you that you're going to have to discover it on your own.
More than likely they want to determine who is the smartest person (leader) in a group of people so they can imprison or kill them because dumb people are easier to control.
Besides: learning ability is not necessarily a great predictor of performance. Maybe there are emotional, or just plain -- ahem -- willingness issues.
Regardless of the reason, you can't honestly call it "free trade" if one country's products are banned.
I'm not saying I'm blaming them. I don't. But whether NSA was responsible or not, it still affects trade. It's an effective tariff (or even worse than a tariff).
I'm more concerned about where the scans extend from here. It would be relatively trivial to include "scene release" pirated content in a similar hash group, and report it accordingly.
I think the real point is that any of these companies could have done this at any time. It isn't so much a matter of "Look! they did something great!" (and they did)... it's more a matter of: look at the shitty privacy intrusion they've committed on hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, in order to accomplish that one great thing.
Freedom has a cost. And part of that cost is that some people will get hurt that otherwise might not have been hurt. But it's a cost worth paying, because otherwise millions more pay far more, even if it's only a little bit every day. Eventually that turns into a lot every day. That's not paranoia, that's history. Over and over and over again.
I too am surprised people are talking about CS majors as not getting a background in assembly and C or C-based languages.
I honestly think it's more a matter of schools becoming diploma mills.
When I took x86 Assembly, the 8086 was brand new. Few if any colleges weren't even teaching C yet. We learned theory using PASCAL. Had to program Assembly on (Ewww! Octal!) PDP-11.
While I think everybody who's a programmer should know these things (though I draw the line at PDP assembly language... what a clusterfuck), I am glad that I no longer have to deal with them on a daily basis.
Even so: a lot of today's code makes woefully inefficient use of resources. If it weren't for the fact that 1000s of times as much in the way of resources were available to the modern programmer, the computing world would barely be crawling today.
What I didn't make clear is: no, there probably aren't many lawyers who would take this on, because from all appearances, Tektronix' takedown notice was fully compliant with the law.
There are plenty of lawyers that would take this on Pro Bono or Counter Suit Contingency. And it is perfectly acceptable to simply say, "Go Ahead! Have you never heard of the Streisand Effect" and then sit back and grab a bucket of popcorn as the exact opposite of what they want happens.
The problem with this idea is that based on the evidence, this DMCA takedown is perfectly legal. Which means if HAD ignored it, they could be taken to court and raked over the coals.
It's one thing to thumb your nose at baseless cyber-bullying, and saying "You're a fool." It's quite another to be a victim of a bad law, and not really have that option. Sadly, it looks like HAD's situation is the latter one.
Perhaps this is not intended, but a side benefit of DMCA is that the use of DMCA against a certain website will give indication of which site has backbone which site hasn't
HAD certain hasn't
This doesn't follow. "Backbone" only applies when another company is bullying you with no legal basis. Unfortunately, what Tektronix is doing is THE WHOLE REASON corporations had DMCA passed in the first place: protecting themselves from their own stupidity. And it's perfectly legal.
The only thing this actually serves to illustrate is why DMCA is bad law. And come on, folks, we've know this for going on 15 YEARS now. It's far past time we all stood the hell up and did something about it. Support EFF and EPIC. Write your elected representatives. Etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Facebook should have no power at all.
"It's not _our tube, it's _is tube!" -- The Giant Rat of Sumatra
s/They/Then
And we should also grant equal comedy to all planets. Even before Charon was named I voted for "Goofy".
What's with this "dwarf" nonsense â" and big planetarism? We demand equal gravity for all planets!
Why? We don't grant equal gravity to all arguments. Discrimination! :)
I think we should grant equal comedy to all arguments. They everybody would "lighten up" and have a good time.
Exposure to light (and in particular some frequencies at the blue end of the spectrum) fool the body into thinking it is experiencing daylight, and this actually affects the balance of certain hormones, like melatonin which is normally secreted shortly before and during sleep.
Studies have shown that experiencing bright light (and especially, as mentioned, of certain frequencies) straight up to bedtime, not only after bed, is known to interfere with melatonin production and other less significant hormones. In some animals, it can drive their hormones so crazy as to cause tumors and other serious health problems.
Humans are very flexible, and we can adapt to conditions of the tropics and (with protection) the poles, but it takes time to acclimate.
I suspect that if they subjected astronauts to the same kind of lighting conditions and hours for 60 days prior to their stay on ISS, a good part of this problem would go away. Expecting them to acclimate to the lighting conditions on top of everything else, and without a prior adjustment period, is asking a lot of them.
I agree that sensory deprivation must be the cause of sleeplessness for the astronauts.
I agree that it may be a contributory factor. I doubt very much it is a singular cause.
... I can't sleep without something pressing down on my skin, and even in the heat, a simple thin bedsheet, which is much colder, is not as good from the comfortable pressure feeling perspective
This cannot be the cause. Again it might contribute but this effect is not just possible but rather easy to simulate in microgravity. Not exactly, you understand, but closely enough that it should not be a problem. Imagine a blanket held against you gently by elastic or springs. Or... by pressure on the blanket from the outside via extremely soft foam. (By "easy" I did not mean cheap.)
Most likely it happens all the time; it's just not noticeable under common conditions. As with so many other sensory phenomena, it gets drowned out by noise from other sources.
Granted, however, it's going to happen more often in orbit.
Well, I'll probaby catch flak for this but I've been using Apple Airport Extreme for years now and they are very good products. I've now got a recent but not newest model (N not AC), always had one of the best signals in my neighborhood, and I'm only running 1/2 power. I am very impressed with the design and quality. I have every reason to like them... except one.
Unless something changes, I will never buy another Apple router. Why? Because they crippled the software.
Apple's Airport Utility (the router's setup and diagnostics software) was always very nice, despite the amount of automation. For example, if this setting was not compatible with that other setting, you can't choose it but that was done in an intelligent way, not capriciously. All the essentials were there in Airport Utility 5.6: upstream config, downstream config, security, guest network, channels (manual or auto), wide or narrow, ACL, NAT, proxy, IPv6, port mapping yada yada yada.
But Airport Utility 6.0 changed all that. Now it's all dumbed down. I guess dumb airhead customers don't have any need to look at logs or see who's connected for example. Meh.
Apple's new AC Airport Extreme router is really nice. Yet again, the physical layout and electronics are very well designed. 3 MIMO 5GHz antennas, 3 MIMO 2.4 GHz antennas, beamforming, the whole schmear.
But the router I now own is the latest one that is compatible with Airport Utility 5.6. Unless I can find software that is a hell of a lot closer to the hardware than Apple's latest Airport Utility, AFAIAC all that good design is wasted, because it's a product I don't want. And Apple is not very bright by chasing away loyal customers because it wants to "simplify" things too much. I've said this for years about apple: adding and even changing functionality are good if done for good reasons. But remove features, and you piss off your loyal customers. Which is a very bad idea.
End rant.
Also, it is debatable if any hardware made by a US company can be trusted, especially since Linksys is a subsidiary of Cisco who are the NSA's bitch.
It's more than just suspicion. What was it, about 2 years ago? Cisco changed the firmware on all of its consumer-level routers (including Linksys) so that you had to go online to Cisco (or Linksys) just to configure your router. And the products also came with a nice EULA, saying you agree that Cisco and Linksys could access any of the router's traffic, at any time, for any reason.
Yep. No joke. It was real.
Again, I wouldn't talk with Dr. Latour's friends in his little PSI Slayer group for the same reason I wouldn't talk with Super Adventure Club members if they existed.
But perhaps a blunter approach is necessary. I don't want to comment at a pedophile's website or talk with Dr. Latour's child rapist friend. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
How many FAILS can we find in this short passage by "khayman80"?
First, guilt by association. The argument had nothing to do with any other "member" of a "group". As he already knows. It had to do with Pierre Latour's science only, not some "group".
Second, and at least as important: false accusation. To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well.
Third: misdirection. Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win.
But back to the main point. He used this to distract from the fact that he can't refute a scientific argument that he has been calling garbage and worse for more than 2 years now. He has attempted, and failed, and now he says he isn't going to bother because the PEOPLE with whom he disagrees are not up to his social standards (and even that, a false claim), rather than arguing the science as a scientist should.
Calling this mere "ad hominem" would be doing khayman80 a favor he doesn't deserve.
Khayman80: you seem to have zero understanding of what is proper (or even legal) in a scientific discussion. And to use these FALSE charges against someone who isn't even involved in the scientific argument just shows the depths to which you will sink just to (as far as I can tell) misdirect from your failings and salve your own ego.
THIS is how desperate you've become to try to save yourself from being publicly proven wrong. But it won't work. You've been wrong for at least two years, you're still wrong, and you don't even have the courage to face the guy who proved you wrong.
I have zero respect for people who have repeatedly shown themselves willing to stoop to character assassination, deliberately fallacious arguments, and libel rather than behave like respectable scientists and just argue the facts.
How hypocritcal. How abjectly pathetic. How disgusting.
Oracle can't figure out how to screw over java, and we are complaining?
No. Oracle *IS* screwing over Java, and we are complaining. That's what OP was all about.
It's the same crap they did to MySQL, it's just slower. Do you really wonder why most big web hosts have switched to MariaDB? (Hint: they probably won't tell you about it either. They still advertise MySQL, which for practical purposes it still is.)
I'm asking you because you're claiming I made at least one mistake, without having the courage to actually say what it is. I'm also asking because this simple thought experiment disproves your ridiculous Slayer claims:
Courage, my ass. I've already explained at least 3 times that if you'd bothered to read Latour's work, including other attempted refutations and his replies, you'd know this already.
Your argument is not with me, so stop trying to make it with me. I have ZERO obligation to explain to you where you are making mistakes, and I've told you that several times.
After some of the sh*t you've pulled, I don't owe you a damned thing, including civility. I sure as hell don't owe you any answers. If you want to talk about "courage", then I repeat: why aren't you asking the author of the whole thing, rather than me?
I didn't say it was all one-sided. I just said it isn't free trade.
I don't necessarily have a problem with tariffs or bans or the like, if the relevant party has a legitimate reason. What I object to is pretending that it's "free trade" when it's not. China subsidizes a large amount of its industry, in order to undercut American manufacturing. That's about the farthest thing from free trade their is.
Are there subsidies and the like on the American side? Sure. No honest person would deny it. But the scale is so vastly different it's ridiculous.
And you will be enlightened.
Don't listen, kiddies. You will be horrified. Having to manually flip your word halves in your code all the time is an enormous waste of time and energy. Computers were supposed to do that kind of idiotic make-work FOR people, not the other way around.
No, octal was a much better fit for machines such as the PDP-6/PDP-10, PDP-5/PDP-8, and other multiple-of-6-bits-word-size machines. It worked well for PDP-11 instructions, not so well for PDP-11 data words if you cared about the individual bytes in the word.
What I meant was that it didn't work well for the students. Constantly having to flip haves of words around in your code had zero instructional value and just added to the difficulty. (Zero instructional value, that is, unless you feel that learning to deal with needless frustration is a valuable lesson for a CS student.)
Yeah, obviously you were talking about completely robotic planes with no human pilots getting "stuffed into the ground" because their onboard wifi was hacked by... other robots. That's the only way your comment wouldn't have been celebrating death.
I made a rhetorical comment about the manufacturers deserving to lose airplanes. It wasn't meant to be literal, and I mentioned nothing about killing people. This "celebrating death" is only in your own sick mind.
Heck, inflation right now is quite low compared to 2007 - who was PotUS back then again? Obama? Clinton?http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/
If you knew how CPI was actually calculated, you would never have posted that link. These are exactly the "official" government figures that don't come close to reflecting reality.
According to CPI, Chateaubriand is equivalent to a rump roast, and a 10-acre estate with a mansion is economically equivalent to a 0.25-acre plot with a 3-bedroom home. That may be a very slight exaggeration, but not much.
It's just not a reflection of reality, and hasn't been for decades. It's designed to hide inflation.
A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
...
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?
Why are you asking me? I mean, I know where you're making at least one mistake, but I already told you that you're going to have to discover it on your own.
More than likely they want to determine who is the smartest person (leader) in a group of people so they can imprison or kill them because dumb people are easier to control.
Besides: learning ability is not necessarily a great predictor of performance. Maybe there are emotional, or just plain -- ahem -- willingness issues.
Regardless of the reason, you can't honestly call it "free trade" if one country's products are banned.
I'm not saying I'm blaming them. I don't. But whether NSA was responsible or not, it still affects trade. It's an effective tariff (or even worse than a tariff).
I'm more concerned about where the scans extend from here. It would be relatively trivial to include "scene release" pirated content in a similar hash group, and report it accordingly.
I think the real point is that any of these companies could have done this at any time. It isn't so much a matter of "Look! they did something great!" (and they did)... it's more a matter of: look at the shitty privacy intrusion they've committed on hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, in order to accomplish that one great thing.
Freedom has a cost. And part of that cost is that some people will get hurt that otherwise might not have been hurt. But it's a cost worth paying, because otherwise millions more pay far more, even if it's only a little bit every day. Eventually that turns into a lot every day. That's not paranoia, that's history. Over and over and over again.
I too am surprised people are talking about CS majors as not getting a background in assembly and C or C-based languages.
I honestly think it's more a matter of schools becoming diploma mills.
When I took x86 Assembly, the 8086 was brand new. Few if any colleges weren't even teaching C yet. We learned theory using PASCAL. Had to program Assembly on (Ewww! Octal!) PDP-11.
While I think everybody who's a programmer should know these things (though I draw the line at PDP assembly language... what a clusterfuck), I am glad that I no longer have to deal with them on a daily basis.
Even so: a lot of today's code makes woefully inefficient use of resources. If it weren't for the fact that 1000s of times as much in the way of resources were available to the modern programmer, the computing world would barely be crawling today.
What I didn't make clear is: no, there probably aren't many lawyers who would take this on, because from all appearances, Tektronix' takedown notice was fully compliant with the law.
Yes, it's a VERY BAD law. But it is the law.
There are plenty of lawyers that would take this on Pro Bono or Counter Suit Contingency. And it is perfectly acceptable to simply say, "Go Ahead! Have you never heard of the Streisand Effect" and then sit back and grab a bucket of popcorn as the exact opposite of what they want happens.
The problem with this idea is that based on the evidence, this DMCA takedown is perfectly legal. Which means if HAD ignored it, they could be taken to court and raked over the coals.
It's one thing to thumb your nose at baseless cyber-bullying, and saying "You're a fool." It's quite another to be a victim of a bad law, and not really have that option. Sadly, it looks like HAD's situation is the latter one.
Perhaps this is not intended, but a side benefit of DMCA is that the use of DMCA against a certain website will give indication of which site has backbone which site hasn't
HAD certain hasn't
This doesn't follow. "Backbone" only applies when another company is bullying you with no legal basis. Unfortunately, what Tektronix is doing is THE WHOLE REASON corporations had DMCA passed in the first place: protecting themselves from their own stupidity. And it's perfectly legal.
The only thing this actually serves to illustrate is why DMCA is bad law. And come on, folks, we've know this for going on 15 YEARS now. It's far past time we all stood the hell up and did something about it. Support EFF and EPIC. Write your elected representatives. Etc.