As to the nature of these "blocks": They will be DNS redirections, i.e. trivially easy to bypass. There is already one court decision freeing an ISP from doing such a block for other illegal content (3rd Reich propaganda, I believe), because the court found these blocks to be ineffectve. It appears it took the judge less than 10 Minutes to find out how to circumvent such blocks and he was not impressed.
You're probably thinking about the decision the Landesgericht Hamburg published on 11/12/2008 (http://www.telemedicus.info/article/1304-LG-Hamburg-bestaetigt-Wirkungslosigkeit-von-DNS-Sperren.html). The owners of a video rental service sued an ISP over not blocking access web sites providing unauthorized video downloads. This decision is highly problematic because it claims that if an effective way to block websites existed, the ISP would have to block the pages. You should also be aware that the new law isn't limited to DNS blocking. That's just the minimum that ISPs have to implement for now.
The [Copyright Term Extension Act] extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.
There's a good chance that the Pirate Bay verdict will be overturned.
"The judge in the Pirate Bay case, Tomas NorstrÃm, has been a member of several of the same copyright protection organisations as several of the main entertainment industry representatives, Sveriges Radio's P3 news programme reports." http://www.thelocal.se/19028/20090423/
For adults at least, a neuronal network predicts the behaviour better than a Bayes filter. Neuronal networks show different biases and errors than Bayes filters. The biases and errors observed in psychology experiments conform to the ones of the neuronal network.
Btw, the search was warrantless, citing "Gefahr im Verzug" (an immedeate danger).
And you know that for a fact? I'm asking because elsewehere in this discussion somebody posted a link to an article that mentions a warrant...
It might be wise to check the facts instead of just claiming something to be true.
The prosecution claims that a search warrant existed. However, if you look at the official search protocol (large PDF), you can see that "Gefahr im Verzuge" is checked. Look at the top right corner.
But none of these issues were mentioned during the search. The search protocol names "distribution of porn" (AFAIK not a crime) as the reason. It's fairly obvious that the reason for the search are the leaked filter lists of various countries. The home of a German blogger linking to the lists on WikiLeaks has already been searched. So has the home of a person maintaining a website linking to the blog post. Several German ministers are keen on introducing mandatory DNS black lists in Germany. It's currently a hot topic.
Btw, the search was warrantless, citing "Gefahr im Verzug" (an immedeate danger).
The governments you're thinking of will change their attitudes when enforcing patents will gain their own industries a net profit. It already happened in Japan and other eastern countries.
I'm a programmer and I don't rely on copyright laws. I've always been paid to implement specific programs or services that my employer or customer required. This will be the case for the vast majority of preofessional programmers.
Good testing would have found the problem with people pulling the card without confirmation of the vote. The machines should have been modified to lock the card until the vote is cast.
So your definition of democracy includes an election process that conforms with todays social standards?
I guess a hundred years from now, kids will be taught that the first real democracy emerged around 2060 when for the first time children were allowed to vote in China.
When people release the touchscreen, their fingertip rolls over the display and the pressure point moves up a bit. Since the target areas on the display are relatively small and close together, this can change the vote when you pressed close to the upper edge of the field. And poor calibration of the touchscreen doesn't help either.
There are several things that would help to address the problem: 1. Improve the screen design so that the fields are larger and more widely spaced (if the entire ballot still fits on the screen). 2. Add a confirmation for the vote cast if it's not already there (but people may forget to confirm the vote). 3. Use a capacitive touchscreen where the finger rolling up causes less of a problem. 4. Use a type of touchscreen that does not have to be calibrated (yes, they exist). 5. Discard the touchscreen and use pushbuttons along the edge of the screen.
But even with this issue solved, the voting machines remains a blackbox.
That's all fine and dandy as long as the burden of proof is not on you. But I suspect that you'll have to convince the border guard that they've seen everything if you want to enter the US and take your laptop with you.
I think the Motofone is meant to work for illiterate people, but not for blind people. It can read out the menu options, but I think it can not read out phone book entries. However, the phone should work well for sight-impaired people as all text is large and easy to read.
"... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
As far as I can make out, the video you mention was presented on October 7th 2001. On the same day, the first bombs were fallimg on Afghanistan. I think it is safe to assume that the videotape was not provided as evidence to the Taliban.
First of all, the Taliban were not the official govenment of Afghanistan. They were not recognized by the US as a government and they did not have an extradiction treaty with the US. They were just the most powerful faction in a drawn out civil war. I'm not sure they would've been able to capture and deliver Osama Bin Laden.
Secondly, the US provided no proof of the involvment of Bin Laden. Most countries do not extradict people without proof.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what she said.
As to the nature of these "blocks": They will be DNS redirections, i.e. trivially easy to bypass. There is already one court decision freeing an ISP from doing such a block for other illegal content (3rd Reich propaganda, I believe), because the court found these blocks to be ineffectve. It appears it took the judge less than 10 Minutes to find out how to circumvent such blocks and he was not impressed.
You're probably thinking about the decision the Landesgericht Hamburg published on 11/12/2008 (http://www.telemedicus.info/article/1304-LG-Hamburg-bestaetigt-Wirkungslosigkeit-von-DNS-Sperren.html). The owners of a video rental service sued an ISP over not blocking access web sites providing unauthorized video downloads. This decision is highly problematic because it claims that if an effective way to block websites existed, the ISP would have to block the pages. You should also be aware that the new law isn't limited to DNS blocking. That's just the minimum that ISPs have to implement for now.
Corporations hold a copyright for 120 years after its creation or 95 years after its publication, whichever comes first.
It's already available: http://xkcd.com/548/
The [Copyright Term Extension Act] extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Since the given date is the date of publication, the copyright should indeed have expired.
Isn't the copyright valid for up to 120 years for corporate entities? The claim is plausible enough (but still insane).
The US already grants copyright up to 70 years after the author's death.
The EU has extended the rights of the performers, not the authors. The US does not grant comparable rights to performers at all.
There's a good chance that the Pirate Bay verdict will be overturned.
"The judge in the Pirate Bay case, Tomas NorstrÃm, has been a member of several of the same copyright protection organisations as several of the main entertainment industry representatives, Sveriges Radio's P3 news programme reports." http://www.thelocal.se/19028/20090423/
I bet the actual artists won't see a cent of these damages.
For adults at least, a neuronal network predicts the behaviour better than a Bayes filter. Neuronal networks show different biases and errors than Bayes filters. The biases and errors observed in psychology experiments conform to the ones of the neuronal network.
A 160-square meter kite sail is expected to reduce the diesel consumption of a 10,000-tonne ship by 20%.
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL1548100520071217?sp=true
Btw, the search was warrantless, citing "Gefahr im Verzug" (an immedeate danger).
And you know that for a fact?
I'm asking because elsewehere in this discussion somebody posted a link to an article that mentions a warrant...
It might be wise to check the facts instead of just claiming something to be true.
The prosecution claims that a search warrant existed. However, if you look at the official search protocol (large PDF), you can see that "Gefahr im Verzuge" is checked. Look at the top right corner.
But none of these issues were mentioned during the search. The search protocol names "distribution of porn" (AFAIK not a crime) as the reason. It's fairly obvious that the reason for the search are the leaked filter lists of various countries. The home of a German blogger linking to the lists on WikiLeaks has already been searched. So has the home of a person maintaining a website linking to the blog post.
Several German ministers are keen on introducing mandatory DNS black lists in Germany. It's currently a hot topic.
Btw, the search was warrantless, citing "Gefahr im Verzug" (an immedeate danger).
The Honda Walking Assist device has a rather unique and elegant design:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2191712/honda_walking_assist/
The governments you're thinking of will change their attitudes when enforcing patents will gain their own industries a net profit.
It already happened in Japan and other eastern countries.
I'm a programmer and I don't rely on copyright laws. I've always been paid to implement specific programs or services that my employer or customer required. This will be the case for the vast majority of preofessional programmers.
We already had several lawyers arguing that sharing one music album or one DVD counts as distribution on a commercial scale.
Good testing would have found the problem with people pulling the card without confirmation of the vote. The machines should have been modified to lock the card until the vote is cast.
So your definition of democracy includes an election process that conforms with todays social standards?
I guess a hundred years from now, kids will be taught that the first real democracy emerged around 2060 when for the first time children were allowed to vote in China.
When people release the touchscreen, their fingertip rolls over the display and the pressure point moves up a bit. Since the target areas on the display are relatively small and close together, this can change the vote when you pressed close to the upper edge of the field. And poor calibration of the touchscreen doesn't help either.
There are several things that would help to address the problem:
1. Improve the screen design so that the fields are larger and more widely spaced (if the entire ballot still fits on the screen).
2. Add a confirmation for the vote cast if it's not already there (but people may forget to confirm the vote).
3. Use a capacitive touchscreen where the finger rolling up causes less of a problem.
4. Use a type of touchscreen that does not have to be calibrated (yes, they exist).
5. Discard the touchscreen and use pushbuttons along the edge of the screen.
But even with this issue solved, the voting machines remains a blackbox.
That's all fine and dandy as long as the burden of proof is not on you. But I suspect that you'll have to convince the border guard that they've seen everything if you want to enter the US and take your laptop with you.
I think the Motofone is meant to work for illiterate people, but not for blind people. It can read out the menu options, but I think it can not read out phone book entries. However, the phone should work well for sight-impaired people as all text is large and easy to read.
"... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
As far as I can make out, the video you mention was presented on October 7th 2001. On the same day, the first bombs were fallimg on Afghanistan. I think it is safe to assume that the videotape was not provided as evidence to the Taliban.
First of all, the Taliban were not the official govenment of Afghanistan. They were not recognized by the US as a government and they did not have an extradiction treaty with the US. They were just the most powerful faction in a drawn out civil war. I'm not sure they would've been able to capture and deliver Osama Bin Laden.
Secondly, the US provided no proof of the involvment of Bin Laden. Most countries do not extradict people without proof.