(Apart from the obvious one: a lot more layers as clued up and helpful as Mr Garbus) is a method for the judiciary to (gasp!) actually ask the legislators what they indended.
When there is an ill-defined law made by Congress (or the State of Florida to pick a non-random example) why the hell can't the judges go and ask the people who wrote the damn thing, rather than cast about at random for a way to apply a vague sentence to a situation it was never intended for. If a law is vague, why isn't it the responsiblity of the legislature to fix it? Wouldn't it make more sense if Judge Kaplan could have boiled this case down to a simple "did you mean to overrule free speech or not?" question, got congress to vote, and acted on the answer, rather than being swayed by 'atmosphere' or past employers.
Of course, this would create more work for congressmen and less work for lawyers, so it will never happen, but it's a nice dream.
Re:If I recall the ICANN domain dispute policy...
on
Fandom vs. Fandom.com
·
· Score: 2
It could (quite reasonably in my opinion) be argued that not being based in, or having any relevance to the island of Tuvalu counts as using a.tv domain name "in Bad Faith".
One of the reasons fandom.com was founded was as a way for fansites to band together
2 problems with the above... That's a good definition of a.org , not a.com -.com means for profit in my book - secondly, the domain was originally registered by a British science fiction fan called Chris O'Shea, reportedly he was made an offer he couldn't refuse.
This story was reported a while back in the multi-award winning SF newsletter "Ansible" (www.ansible.co.uk), adding "Others quickly bagged unregistered `fandom' domain names: Michael J.Lowrey now owns fandom.co.uk and fandom.org.uk, and would like these auctioned to good Britfannish homes with proceeds to TAFF."
Maybe this person has a thing about red bows, but if I was going to build an old game, I'd go for 'Scramble', as a large number of the early videogame machines ran on (slightly modded) scramble boards. Oh, and this guy cheats a bit, there is a lot of parts in the cabient list which he sources from a 'stripped cab' or a 'Wizard of Wor' cabinet.
We had to pre-order and put down a deposit, none were actually available 'off the shelf' on launch day (unless a few shops didn't reach their pre-order limit, which would surprise me). Reportedly, we only got half of our pre-orders fulfilled today, but the rest are promised before Christmas.
If anyone out there got one, can you let us know what the implementation of BASIC is like please?
We don't prohibit those words in domains though, as proved by the (unoffensive unless incorrectly snipped) soccer club site at http://www.scunthorpe-united.co.uk/
Here in Britain, we have already have strict 'ethical' controls on genetic research, especially where human embryos are concerned.
What happened? The researchers moved abroad and carried on as normal.
No matter how 'unethical' any kind of research is, there is always going to be some jurisdiction willing to reap the possible financial rewards.
As soon as there is a big financial reward to all the opiate chemistry research going on in South America, or all that germ warfare research in going on in Iraq, or the skin colour specific toxin research that was rumoured to be going on under the old South African regieme, let's see how quickly we throw away our moral stance and cash in.
Am I scaremongering? No. I'm living in a city that was trashed by Nazi V2 bombs in the second world war. Where did all the bomb researchers go after the war? They set up a little thing called NASA.
See my point?
Does the ethics police weigh up the peaceful results of the space programme (microchips, for example) and decide the deaths in London were worth it?
Ok, let's look at a specific 20th c. invention and see if this approach would have worked...
How about the Laser? Katz's Inquision bans it because it's a death ray. Who at the time of the Laser's invention realised it would end up in every home as an integral part of the CD player? No-one. You simply can't guess the implications of an invention 100% accurately.
It's not 100% clear from the article, but the ruling seems far less extensive than the slashdot story might imply.
Ebay still can't sell bootlegs if the copyright holder objects, all that this case does is relieve Ebay of the task of checking every single auction they host to make sure the products are legitimate. Did anyone (other than the plaintiff) really think they were obliged to do this?
Rather than building a larger accelerator, might I suggest the "Where's Higgs?' problem could be solved by a modified Beowulf cluster of "Where's Wally?" books?
All the stuff about the decline of the US political system and the hope of the net as a meritocracy makes sense, even if it is written in a hoplessly Amero-centric way. (Come on, Mr Katz, the net won't be the 51st state because it's not American, it's Global.), but what really baffles me is the article's sudden jump to the topic of spirituality.
Politics does not equal Spirituality. I vote for people (or ideas), not worship them. Can anyone expain how Katz jumped topics? Maybe there is a paragraph or two missing from the article?
As you say, a lone parachuter makes a lot less noise than a plane, however to be on the safe side, I guess she should limit the length of time for which she shouts "Geronimoooooooooooooooooo...." to the point where she reaches (say) mach 0.95
However, in the interests of science, I think she should take the risk of shouting it briefly just before reaching Mach 1, so she can be able to hear herself going "oooooooominoreG" shortly after.
Acutally, the US military did imagine that at the time.
They tried to stop the export of Sinclair ZX80s and 81s (as the UK readers know the Timex machines) to the Soviet Union because they could 'be joined up to make a big computer'. I seem to recall Clive Sinclair's retort to this being 'they'd better stop expoerting paper there too, because just like ZX81s can be joined up to make supercomputers, paper aeroplanes can be joined up to make fighter planes'.
Actually, they might look very clever, to quote from Apple's press release, the deal is
"...part of an e-commerce patent cross-licensing agreement..."
so they probably just swapped a similar turkey with Amazon. If Amazon's patent is ruled invalid, Apple come out on top, as Amazon would probably still have to buy whatever junk Apple sold them. If Amazon's silly patent is valid, then Apple would have had to pay for it anyway.
Here in the UK we've had electronic signatures deemed 'acceptable' by law for many years, long before the interent ever became popular enough for the law to take notice.
Our law was specifically amended a while back to allow the 'electronic' signature of documents sent by fax to be binding.
YAONAL. (You are obviously not a lawyer.) I'm not either, but I do work with them frequently.
You have my condolences. Anyway, the principle might still hold water out of court... along the lines of "look, Apple licensed it, so should you".
One other benefit is that Apple can now pacify jittery shareholders. This means are now the only e-business (except amazon) who are safe from a 'one-click' lawsuit. This might be the reason for them doing this, share analysts can take exposures like this into account.
This is "...part of an e-commerce patent cross-licensing agreement..."
So Amazon get something similar from Apple in return - any ideas exactly what this is, folks?
I'd guess that it maight take the form of a simliarly contentious patent, and both parties have a 'refund if patent knocked down' clause in the deal. If both parties come out of this with licencees for their silly e-patents, they will have a stronger cases in court. It's quite possible no money changed hands here,
Slashdot Mirror
I intended "the people who wrote the damn thing" to cover which legislature.
When there is an ill-defined law made by Congress (or the State of Florida to pick a non-random example) why the hell can't the judges go and ask the people who wrote the damn thing, rather than cast about at random for a way to apply a vague sentence to a situation it was never intended for. If a law is vague, why isn't it the responsiblity of the legislature to fix it? Wouldn't it make more sense if Judge Kaplan could have boiled this case down to a simple "did you mean to overrule free speech or not?" question, got congress to vote, and acted on the answer, rather than being swayed by 'atmosphere' or past employers.
Of course, this would create more work for congressmen and less work for lawyers, so it will never happen, but it's a nice dream.
It could (quite reasonably in my opinion) be argued that not being based in, or having any relevance to the island of Tuvalu counts as using a .tv domain name "in Bad Faith".
2 problems with the above... That's a good definition of a .org , not a .com - .com means for profit in my book - secondly, the domain was originally registered by a British science fiction fan called Chris O'Shea, reportedly he was made an offer he couldn't refuse.
This story was reported a while back in the multi-award winning SF newsletter "Ansible" (www.ansible.co.uk), adding "Others quickly bagged unregistered `fandom' domain names: Michael J.Lowrey now owns fandom.co.uk and fandom.org.uk, and would like these auctioned to good Britfannish homes with proceeds to TAFF."
Maybe this person has a thing about red bows, but if I was going to build an old game, I'd go for 'Scramble', as a large number of the early videogame machines ran on (slightly modded) scramble boards. Oh, and this guy cheats a bit, there is a lot of parts in the cabient list which he sources from a 'stripped cab' or a 'Wizard of Wor' cabinet.
If anyone out there got one, can you let us know what the implementation of BASIC is like please?
We don't prohibit those words in domains though, as proved by the (unoffensive unless incorrectly snipped) soccer club site at http://www.scunthorpe-united.co.uk/
It's called 'SETI at Home' isn't it?
What happened? The researchers moved abroad and carried on as normal.
No matter how 'unethical' any kind of research is, there is always going to be some jurisdiction willing to reap the possible financial rewards.
As soon as there is a big financial reward to all the opiate chemistry research going on in South America, or all that germ warfare research in going on in Iraq, or the skin colour specific toxin research that was rumoured to be going on under the old South African regieme, let's see how quickly we throw away our moral stance and cash in.
Am I scaremongering? No. I'm living in a city that was trashed by Nazi V2 bombs in the second world war. Where did all the bomb researchers go after the war? They set up a little thing called NASA.
See my point?
Does the ethics police weigh up the peaceful results of the space programme (microchips, for example) and decide the deaths in London were worth it?
Eh?
How about the Laser? Katz's Inquision bans it because it's a death ray. Who at the time of the Laser's invention realised it would end up in every home as an integral part of the CD player? No-one. You simply can't guess the implications of an invention 100% accurately.
Ebay still can't sell bootlegs if the copyright holder objects, all that this case does is relieve Ebay of the task of checking every single auction they host to make sure the products are legitimate. Did anyone (other than the plaintiff) really think they were obliged to do this?
Actually, I believe it is there so that the children of a successful Author (Musician, whatever) are not made destitute when their Parent dies.
Rather than building a larger accelerator, might I suggest the "Where's Higgs?' problem could be solved by a modified Beowulf cluster of "Where's Wally?" books?
Politics does not equal Spirituality. I vote for people (or ideas), not worship them. Can anyone expain how Katz jumped topics? Maybe there is a paragraph or two missing from the article?
However, in the interests of science, I think she should take the risk of shouting it briefly just before reaching Mach 1, so she can be able to hear herself going "oooooooominoreG" shortly after.
Well of course not, that would be against the DMCA!
If ALL machines come pre-installed, you'll have to agree to that licence to buy the PC at all. there is NO WAY I'll agree to that.
They tried to stop the export of Sinclair ZX80s and 81s (as the UK readers know the Timex machines) to the Soviet Union because they could 'be joined up to make a big computer'. I seem to recall Clive Sinclair's retort to this being 'they'd better stop expoerting paper there too, because just like ZX81s can be joined up to make supercomputers, paper aeroplanes can be joined up to make fighter planes'.
My computer's just asked for a different floppy, I'll be back in about 10 minutes...
"...part of an e-commerce patent cross-licensing agreement..."
so they probably just swapped a similar turkey with Amazon. If Amazon's patent is ruled invalid, Apple come out on top, as Amazon would probably still have to buy whatever junk Apple sold them. If Amazon's silly patent is valid, then Apple would have had to pay for it anyway.
Our law was specifically amended a while back to allow the 'electronic' signature of documents sent by fax to be binding.
You have my condolences. Anyway, the principle might still hold water out of court... along the lines of "look, Apple licensed it, so should you".
One other benefit is that Apple can now pacify jittery shareholders. This means are now the only e-business (except amazon) who are safe from a 'one-click' lawsuit. This might be the reason for them doing this, share analysts can take exposures like this into account.
men-om-muh-nee
do do de doodo
men-om-muh-nee
do do de
(repeats indefinitely)
So Amazon get something similar from Apple in return - any ideas exactly what this is, folks?
I'd guess that it maight take the form of a simliarly contentious patent, and both parties have a 'refund if patent knocked down' clause in the deal. If both parties come out of this with licencees for their silly e-patents, they will have a stronger cases in court. It's quite possible no money changed hands here,