Otherwise you are guilty until proven innocent. No, you are guilty until you have filed a counterclaim at which point you can resume using the DMCAed material until proven guilty in court.
The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm.
Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work. Please read this or at least the following excerpt:
In academic publishing, a paper is an academic work that is usually published in an academic journal. It contains original research results or reviews existing results. Such a paper, also called an article, will only be considered valid if it undergoes a process of peer review by one or more referees (who are academics in the same field) in order to check that the content of the paper is suitable for publication in the journal. A paper may undergo a series of reviews, edits and re-submissions before finally being accepted or rejected for publication. This process typically takes several months. Next there is often a delay of many months (or in some subjects, over a year) before publication, particularly for the most popular journals where the number of acceptable articles outnumbers the space for printing. Due to this, many academics offer a 'pre-print' copy of their paper for free download from their personal or institutional website.
More strict IP laws in the US will keep terrorists that are in other countries from selling pirated software? I don't get it. Unless they are trying to say that US citizens are the ones buying most of this pirated software, it doesn't really even make sense.
On the face of it, I love that idea. The bigger question would be how do you determine the value of the IP to assess it for taxation.
Why not look at the royalty rates/licensing agreements? If some company wants x million/billion dollars for a license to use their intellectual property, the government should take a percentage of that amount in taxation from the company once every year. I think this would be a great incentive not to sit on IP that your not licensing out.
Am I the only one who wasn't thinking about filesharing when reading the phrase "abstinence only education"? Hmm... maybe I just haven't/.ed enough but I guess I am now against all abstinence only education programs (see, this post isn't off topic:P)
Dinosaur? I think you more likely have a case of functional fixedness rather than a case of old age. Dinosaurs didn't use cell phones and they enjoyed having a peaceful, uninterrupted dinner.
I have valves installed that hold a 10,000 psi well down in Venezuela right now. Many of them.
Are you pumping these gases into extremely deep underground caverns? If not, how would pumping pressurized CO2 underground not carbonate the water table?
``SEC. 2258B. LIMITED LIABILITY FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS, REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE PROVIDERS, OR DOMAIN NAME REGISTRAR.
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), a civil claim or criminal charge against an electronic communication service provider, a remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar, including any director, officer, employee, or agent of such electronic communication service provider, remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar arising from the performance of the reporting responsibilities of such electronic communication service provider,
remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar under this section, section 2258A, or section 2258C may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
``(b) Intentional, Reckless, or Other Misconduct.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a claim if the electronic communication service provider, remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar, or a director, officer, employee, or agent of that electronic communication service provider, remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar--
``(1) engaged in intentional misconduct; or
``(2) acted, or failed to act--
``(A) with actual malice;
``(B) with reckless disregard to a substantial risk of causing injury without legal justification; or
``(C) for a purpose unrelated to the performance of any responsibility or function under this section, section 2258A, or section 2258C.
``(c) Ordinary Business Activities.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an act or omission relating to an ordinary business activity of an electronic communication service provider, a remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar, including general administration or operations, the use of motor vehicles, or personnel management.
``(d) Minimizing Access.--An electronic communication service provider, a remote computing service provider, and domain name registrar shall--
``(1) minimize the number of employees that are provided access to any image provided under section 2258A or 2258C; and
``(2) ensure that any such image is permanently destroyed, upon notification from a law enforcement agency.
I think this lets free Wi-Fi providers that have no idea what their users are looking at off the hook.
Let me say first that I am an Apple fanboy and stockholder but I don't have any problem bashing apple when they deserve it.
What I see in this move by Apple is trying to further get rid of DRM. Remember when they let EMI charge more for songs on iTunes if they were DRM free? I think they are trying to do the same thing with the movie industry now. Yes, everyone has their theories about Apple liking fairplay because it ties the music in their store to the iPod exclusively but I think fairplay causes just as many headaches for Apple as it does consumers because they have to keep track of all these keys, # of times burned, etc.
Yes, consumers have the right to copy dvds but obviously there is still some legal issue with it because DVDShrink has been pummeled out of public existence. If Apple can make DRM DVDs free for an extra price, its just one more step towards removing DRM, Macrovision, etc from all DVDs. Just take a look at whats happening to online music right now. The new online stores (such as Amazon) will only sell DRM free MP3s.
I think this just the first step towards the same change in the movie industry and it just happened to be Apple who took it, which really makes sense. The more crap we can put on iPods easily, the more we will want/use them.
the average PS3 user has only about 1 BD disc last I heard
When I bought my PS3 from Best Buy over the summer (right when they did the first PS3 price cut), I also got 5 BR DVDs for just mailing in my PoP. I doubt there is a significant difference between the number of HD DVDs given away vs. BR DVDs given away plus since no money is being made, why should Nielsen track them? I'll take any DVD movie if its free reguardless of what format its in, if, for no other reason then to watch the pretty sparks it makes in the microwave.
Apparently the moderators thought you were crying and not laughing because they modded you Insightful. It's always disheartening to see something funny start being so true it becomes sad.
I remember when calling Bush a sockpuppet for oil companies used to be funny...
If they do, I think iScrewed would be an apt name for it. Of course it wouldn't be used nearly as much as Microsoft's... hmm... maybe thats where they come up with all the Mac vs. PC ads.
I find it kind of odd that so many of these domains were registered on the same date. Was the registering office only open once a week or was the internet so new and scary that the companies went in groups?
I wonder how this will effect the free servers that games like Diablo II, etc are played on?
Obviously WoW servers wont be changed one bit but I can see Blizzard and Activision possibly combining server farms to cut overhead costs. This could have an interesting effect on people who still play Diablo II on Bizzard's servers so they dont have to put up with all the hacks, etc on "personal" servers.
First I'd like to point out that you can get MS Office for some other platforms like Mac albeit its still version 2004. I love ripping into M$ as much as the next/.er but not when its not at least somewhat true.
The problem of calling tech companies (and in other industries as well) evil monopolies is, to some extent, they are consumer voted monopolies, we the consumer gave it to them. This is especially true of Google. Over the years, Google listened to its consumers (mostly searchers), made lots of capital investments and ultimately kept increasing the quality of its services while adding new ones. What we now have to deal with is the fact that Google now has an infrastructure that is practically unmatchable by other companies and way too high of startup costs for other competitors to enter. Is it Google's fault that other companies cannot match the service it provides?
Google is just one example of this happening. As technology pushes forward and services become increasingly complicated, we are going to see more and more of this. They are monopolies not because they undermined the competition but because the $$$ barrier of entry is too great for others to enter and compete.
I can appreciate your point that Apple will never be able to keep people from reverse engineering the iPhone but saying that Apple won't be able to do a better job of preventing this if they know exactly how the "crackers"(not sure if thats the right word for the phone world) are going to accomplish their goals is highly unlikely.
I think this article from when the first Zune was first released really sums it up.
Its important to remember that there have been over 110 million iPods sold as of September 2007. Yes the new Zune could make a dent but it doesn't have a big enough percentage of the market share to rip all the 3rd party developers away from Apple.
When automakers start giving the option to have a Zune specific music dock in their new factory cars, then I'll say that the Zune has had a profound effect.
I could be completely wrong about this but I though that the unlocking programs utilized exploits, buffer overruns, etc to unlock the iPhone. If thats the case, how is releasing the source going to help this project? Won't Apple just read the code and release updates keeping the program from working?
First I want to say that I am strongly opposed to any sort or censorship and if I thought these companies were trying to censor him I would be upset but I don't really think this is the case.
I agree with many other posters that have pointed out all the tazer videos on Youtube have not been taken down but I think that most people would agree that being brutally beaten is more graphic (atleast in terms of blood) then someone who is being tazered. I would also agree that a mature content flag should be sufficient to warn people about this content but I think here is where YouTube and Yahoo! get into trouble. By letting this video stay posted, YouTube and Yahoo! are saying that this content does not violate their TOS and can be posted on the site. This leaves them a sitting duck for action/legislation initiated by people who were offended by the video wanting these companies to verify that people watching these videos are of a suitable age. Obviously it is not in YouTubes or Yahoo!s interest to make their content any harder to access or have to spend money verifying peoples age. I think this was just a very political move by these companies to try and avoid any governments getting involved period.
Also note that freedoms stop when they interfere with others' rights.
Do I really have the right not to hear something I consider indecent or inappropriate?
I severely doubt that a person's use of the word Fuck in conversation interferes with my personal rights and if this is truly how the government views this issue, who gets to decide what constitutes "indecent" or "inappropriate"?
Certainly not me because Bill O'Riley still has a public TV show.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are guilty until you have filed a counterclaim at which point you can resume using the DMCAed material until proven guilty in court.
More strict IP laws in the US will keep terrorists that are in other countries from selling pirated software? I don't get it. Unless they are trying to say that US citizens are the ones buying most of this pirated software, it doesn't really even make sense.
Why not look at the royalty rates/licensing agreements? If some company wants x million/billion dollars for a license to use their intellectual property, the government should take a percentage of that amount in taxation from the company once every year. I think this would be a great incentive not to sit on IP that your not licensing out.
Am I the only one who wasn't thinking about filesharing when reading the phrase "abstinence only education"? Hmm... maybe I just haven't /.ed enough but I guess I am now against all abstinence only education programs (see, this post isn't off topic :P)
Dinosaur? I think you more likely have a case of functional fixedness rather than a case of old age. Dinosaurs didn't use cell phones and they enjoyed having a peaceful, uninterrupted dinner.
Are you pumping these gases into extremely deep underground caverns? If not, how would pumping pressurized CO2 underground not carbonate the water table?
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic
is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man
is happier than a sober one"
-George Bernard Shaw
-amen
``SEC. 2258B. LIMITED LIABILITY FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS, REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE PROVIDERS, OR DOMAIN NAME REGISTRAR.
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), a civil claim or criminal charge against an electronic communication service provider, a remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar, including any director, officer, employee, or agent of such electronic communication service provider, remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar arising from the performance of the reporting responsibilities of such electronic communication service provider, remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar under this section, section 2258A, or section 2258C may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
``(b) Intentional, Reckless, or Other Misconduct.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a claim if the electronic communication service provider, remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar, or a director, officer, employee, or agent of that electronic communication service provider, remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar--
``(1) engaged in intentional misconduct; or
``(2) acted, or failed to act--
``(A) with actual malice;
``(B) with reckless disregard to a substantial risk of causing injury without legal justification; or
``(C) for a purpose unrelated to the performance of any responsibility or function under this section, section 2258A, or section 2258C.
``(c) Ordinary Business Activities.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an act or omission relating to an ordinary business activity of an electronic communication service provider, a remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar, including general administration or operations, the use of motor vehicles, or personnel management.
``(d) Minimizing Access.--An electronic communication service provider, a remote computing service provider, and domain name registrar shall--
``(1) minimize the number of employees that are provided access to any image provided under section 2258A or 2258C; and
``(2) ensure that any such image is permanently destroyed, upon notification from a law enforcement agency.
I think this lets free Wi-Fi providers that have no idea what their users are looking at off the hook.
Let me say first that I am an Apple fanboy and stockholder but I don't have any problem bashing apple when they deserve it.
What I see in this move by Apple is trying to further get rid of DRM. Remember when they let EMI charge more for songs on iTunes if they were DRM free? I think they are trying to do the same thing with the movie industry now. Yes, everyone has their theories about Apple liking fairplay because it ties the music in their store to the iPod exclusively but I think fairplay causes just as many headaches for Apple as it does consumers because they have to keep track of all these keys, # of times burned, etc.
Yes, consumers have the right to copy dvds but obviously there is still some legal issue with it because DVDShrink has been pummeled out of public existence. If Apple can make DRM DVDs free for an extra price, its just one more step towards removing DRM, Macrovision, etc from all DVDs. Just take a look at whats happening to online music right now. The new online stores (such as Amazon) will only sell DRM free MP3s.
I think this just the first step towards the same change in the movie industry and it just happened to be Apple who took it, which really makes sense. The more crap we can put on iPods easily, the more we will want/use them.
When I bought my PS3 from Best Buy over the summer (right when they did the first PS3 price cut), I also got 5 BR DVDs for just mailing in my PoP. I doubt there is a significant difference between the number of HD DVDs given away vs. BR DVDs given away plus since no money is being made, why should Nielsen track them? I'll take any DVD movie if its free reguardless of what format its in, if, for no other reason then to watch the pretty sparks it makes in the microwave.
Apparently the moderators thought you were crying and not laughing because they modded you Insightful. It's always disheartening to see something funny start being so true it becomes sad.
I remember when calling Bush a sockpuppet for oil companies used to be funny...
I wonder if Apple has a "war room"?
If they do, I think iScrewed would be an apt name for it. Of course it wouldn't be used nearly as much as Microsoft's... hmm... maybe thats where they come up with all the Mac vs. PC ads.
I find it kind of odd that so many of these domains were registered on the same date. Was the registering office only open once a week or was the internet so new and scary that the companies went in groups?
I wonder how this will effect the free servers that games like Diablo II, etc are played on?
Obviously WoW servers wont be changed one bit but I can see Blizzard and Activision possibly combining server farms to cut overhead costs. This could have an interesting effect on people who still play Diablo II on Bizzard's servers so they dont have to put up with all the hacks, etc on "personal" servers.
First I'd like to point out that you can get MS Office for some other platforms like Mac albeit its still version 2004. I love ripping into M$ as much as the next /.er but not when its not at least somewhat true.
The problem of calling tech companies (and in other industries as well) evil monopolies is, to some extent, they are consumer voted monopolies, we the consumer gave it to them. This is especially true of Google. Over the years, Google listened to its consumers (mostly searchers), made lots of capital investments and ultimately kept increasing the quality of its services while adding new ones. What we now have to deal with is the fact that Google now has an infrastructure that is practically unmatchable by other companies and way too high of startup costs for other competitors to enter. Is it Google's fault that other companies cannot match the service it provides?
Google is just one example of this happening. As technology pushes forward and services become increasingly complicated, we are going to see more and more of this. They are monopolies not because they undermined the competition but because the $$$ barrier of entry is too great for others to enter and compete.
I really hope Apple didnt know about the buffer overrun that allowed the first unlocking tool to work
I can appreciate your point that Apple will never be able to keep people from reverse engineering the iPhone but saying that Apple won't be able to do a better job of preventing this if they know exactly how the "crackers"(not sure if thats the right word for the phone world) are going to accomplish their goals is highly unlikely.
I think this article from when the first Zune was first released really sums it up.
Its important to remember that there have been over 110 million iPods sold as of September 2007. Yes the new Zune could make a dent but it doesn't have a big enough percentage of the market share to rip all the 3rd party developers away from Apple.
When automakers start giving the option to have a Zune specific music dock in their new factory cars, then I'll say that the Zune has had a profound effect.
I could be completely wrong about this but I though that the unlocking programs utilized exploits, buffer overruns, etc to unlock the iPhone. If thats the case, how is releasing the source going to help this project? Won't Apple just read the code and release updates keeping the program from working?
I think you might be onto something here. I found this code snippet in a perl translator:
if($string =~ m/(I|i) (W|w)ant (S|s)ome (M|m)ore (F|f)ood/)
{$string = "Please, Sir, Can I have some more?\n"}
First I want to say that I am strongly opposed to any sort or censorship and if I thought these companies were trying to censor him I would be upset but I don't really think this is the case.
I agree with many other posters that have pointed out all the tazer videos on Youtube have not been taken down but I think that most people would agree that being brutally beaten is more graphic (atleast in terms of blood) then someone who is being tazered. I would also agree that a mature content flag should be sufficient to warn people about this content but I think here is where YouTube and Yahoo! get into trouble. By letting this video stay posted, YouTube and Yahoo! are saying that this content does not violate their TOS and can be posted on the site. This leaves them a sitting duck for action/legislation initiated by people who were offended by the video wanting these companies to verify that people watching these videos are of a suitable age. Obviously it is not in YouTubes or Yahoo!s interest to make their content any harder to access or have to spend money verifying peoples age. I think this was just a very political move by these companies to try and avoid any governments getting involved period.
Do I really have the right not to hear something I consider indecent or inappropriate? I severely doubt that a person's use of the word Fuck in conversation interferes with my personal rights and if this is truly how the government views this issue, who gets to decide what constitutes "indecent" or "inappropriate"?
Certainly not me because Bill O'Riley still has a public TV show.