"Even in the dry desert air, a small cloud will often be visible over its apex as water vapour condenses out of the air column. The tower's apex will be easily visible above the horizon from both Mildura and Renmark, 65km west, in South Australia's Riverland."
The cloud, the vibration from the turbines, and the tendency of tall structures to sway would make good scientific observations problematic. For personal enjoyment, you aren't that much closer. (1 mile out of how many light years on average?)
If you want to play the game to beat the scenario, then you are absolutely right, there is probably about one week's worth in the game. You play the game with one creature and don't do a whole lot with the creature.
Figuring out what is going on with the creature AI takes substantially longer than that. The variability of the results of the creature AI is pretty amazing. That said, the level of micromanaging the villagers need can be a pain in the butt to a lot of people. However, anyone who refused to use the governors in Civ. II, or SMAC (like me) doesn't find it that onerous.
These games deserve to be in a lot of X-mas stockings. Because the game allies you with a creature, you can get: (1) first person shooter (you shoot), (2) third person shooter (your creature shoots, largely based on how you train it), (3) roleplaying (be good, be evil, whatever), (4) real-time strategy (limited, game only lasts for 5 scenarios). Anyone who loves games for their variety has to try the interface these games have.
Um, er, no. That's the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit covers Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio. The U.S. Courts website provides a map. It is indeed liberal. It used to get reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court a lot.
However, the Ninth circuit is also the home turf of the movie industry. I suspect a number of judges know which side their bread is buttered on. The same is probably true of the Sixth Judicial District of the California state court system.
Well, sure, as long as you posit the infinite right to create infringing derivative works under the copyright statute.
When you walk away, the work is the same. When you edit it, it is different. The former is not infringment, and the second is. This problem does come up in other contexts. For instance, Monty Python won a suit against a TV network because the TV network showed an unapproved abbreviated version of a Monty Python movie. Monty Python didn't want some network dweebs messing with their comedy. That's fair. Show Monty Python or not, but don't show something that doesn't create the whole impression Monty Python was after and call it Monty Python.
The issue is NOT personal use. Think about it. One company is making money by stripping the commercial value out of another company's product. It isn't like the question is only you on your own little lonesome are doing personal non-commercial activity. The question is the fairness of the device. The device in question is directed solely to the legitimate commercial expectations of the distributor of the program.
By your logic, the people who want free TV are forbidden by YOU from having it because you have this need to create a derivative (without-commercials) version of the show. If all commercials get stripped, broadcast networks will cease. That's fine with you. That's not fine with tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans.
Copyright happens to solve a collective action problem here. Collective action problems are precisely the area where governement (laws/regulation/whatever) is best. You make the free riders either pay or not ride. In the case of the broadcast networks, the time of display on the broadcast device is the payment.
Your criticism of the business model is especially fatuous. If there were a superior business distribution model, it would not need this device to kill off broadcast networks. It would have happened already. If you have it and can make it work, call me in 6 months when you have made your 100 billion dollars. Your suggestion that a business model that would be considered inferior by hundreds of millions of people should be mandated for your convenience is, well, at best self-centered.
Well, here is the problem: the Universal Picture Studios v. Sony case did not say that time shifting was not a copyright infringement. It did say that it was either 1) a fair use, and/or 2) the VCR had substantial non-infringing uses. That is, even though it was an infringement, it is an infringment that will be allowed for public policy reasons.
One example (that is not so self-centered) was Mr. Rogers testimony at the Sony trial. If his show was being broadcast during a child's naptime, he didn't want the broadcast time of the show to dictate how the child lived. I don't believe the show had commercials at the time. It was clear that some copyright owners wanted their viewers to have time shifting capabilities.
I don't think it is as clear now that any broadcaster of commercials wants them excised. Is there a non-infringing use of commercial skipping? Doubtful. Is it fair? It is directed at specifically creating severe economic distress to broadcasters. Calling it commercial skip is trying to cash in on disadvantaging the broadcaster. (Unlike the fast forward button, that is not named "commercial flyby" but could be I suppose.)
Fair use is a balancing test. Therefore, it is not a hard and fast rule if you change factors. That's why Sony did not create a broad universal rule, but could be reconsidered on changed facts.
I suppose the last thing I'd say is "grow up." The only REASON anyone is interested in the feature is because it is unfair to broadcasters and their advertisers. TANSTAAFL.
When the constitutionality of one of its laws is questioned, the United States can become a party to the case to defend the law. 28 U.S.C. Section 2403. The role is limited to defending the constitutionality of the law, not its application to the parties in the case.
"(a) In an action, suit, or proceeding in a court of the United States to which the United States or any agency, officer or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn into question, the court shall certify such fact to the Attorney General, and shall permit the United States to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality..."
While one side or the other may or may not be big business in a particular case, the Attorney General is showing up to make sure Congress' laws don't get thrown out without being properly defended.
I agree that freedom to distribute is a major issue.
I view the copyright issue as being like the CarMax commercial with the balloon, or a tube of toothpaste -- you squeeze over here, and stuff blows up/out over there.
The finances to run the machine have to come from somewhere. Exclusivity is one way to make money from publishing. If you can't give an exclusive, then something, somewhere along the line is going to have to give to make up for that.
Certainly holding the copyright to the article makes things much easier for the journal in terms of allowing abstracting services to list the abstract in computer form, publish the article in computer form, etc. The Tasini case made it clear that republication as part of a database isn't a given for a scientific publisher. There is also an e-books case out there where a court distinguished between publishing a book and publishing an e-book.
This can be solved on a forward-going basis with licenses, but do you want to bet that the present licenses have adequately contemplated, say, web publishing?
It all gets down to 1) money, and 2) bother. It is just so much easier on the publisher to get the copyright even if they don't make much money from it.
Back in the day when I cared about publishing scientific papers, it was sure nice to get into Science or Nature. However, 90% of what my research group published went into the Journal of Chemical Physics. Not glossy, just a solid weekly accumulation of scientific study.
Such central, indexed, abstracted, and widely distributed and held journals are essential to science. Who knows if the "free" site is going to be there in 40 years. It is important that data survive a long time and be usable. Good solid basic data can easily be usable the better part of a century later.
That means endowed funding to assure long-term on-line distribution , records in multiple locations (can't have one bad event wipe out accumulated knowledge), as well as a commitment by a large number of people in a given field to participate and maintain the quality of the product. That takes (gasp)... money.
Oh, it was the need for money that this movement is railing against. Gee. Too bad.
Although the case does not state this, it is generally preferred to interpret statutes to avoid constitutional issues if reasonable. Here, by interpreting the zoning law as not addressing the internet context, the constitutional First Amendment issues are avoided.
This ruling does not prevent the town from amending its zoning law to specifically cover the issue. At that point, the constitutional issue would be unavoidable.
A small clarification. States cannot tax goods without an in-state nexus without congressional permission. That is because the Supreme Court ruled that nexus was a requirement it is a dormant commerce clause violation. A dormant commerce clause violation is one where the courts are going to presume that Congress wants things a certain way if it has not spoken, and Congress has not spoken yet.
That is why we need to worry about internet transactions being taxed by states -- one little law, and boom it will be happening, and it would be constitutional.
The space shuttle Challenger had a fair bit of hydrogen. It blew up just fine.
Now, as to continued flame, that's a different matter. It is unlikely that the hydrogen would act as an effective fuel to continue the fire for much after the initial impact.
The fundamental energetics of hydrogen combustion suck compared to fossil fuel combustion.
Hydrogen comes into its own more in the context of things like fuel cells. I don't think that the high demands of take-off powering would be well met by fuel cells. Cars can take longer to accelerate on a highway for instance with less loss of functionality. Either the airplane gets off the ground by the end of the runway, or it doesn't. The ability to abort a landing and lift off again is an important safety consideration.
The reason the site is short on details is that anyone who can make hydrogen work better than fossil fuels will make billions in the first year. It's a fantasy for anything but fringe applications. (Compare the Motorola fuel cell story today. Even that is methane-based, not hydrogen.)
Looks like our journalist at NPR had to fill a slot by deadline and went with what he could get to fill it.
Why shouldn't local governments solve the problem? Yes, they should! Oh, local governments CAUSED the problem. Oops.
Let's review why your RBOC has a monopoly. It is the only one that can connect twisted pair to your home. It has the right of way, the only right of way in most cases to connect. AT&T is trying to break that monopoly with coaxial cable connections, but with at best limited success.
Your local government could just allow a private company to bypass your RBOC and go ahead and do it instead. Or more than one.
Local government created the monopoly. Then it presented itself as the only solution to the monopoly it created and allows. Then, it tries to skim its own cream by pricing itself not at a market price and providing market services, but parasitically pricing itself very near the monopoly cost.
Well, to start with we Americans have a greater notion of what can be private than many other countries. Certainly, we give up a certain amount of privacy already to facilitate safety during our freedom of movement. Even before this tragedy, in order to fly safely we had already subjected ourselves to a level of intrusion that we tolerated in no other mode of transportation.
Our protections against unreasonable searches and seizures is an area of the law that the Supreme Court has been actively involved in for at least the past four decades. The Supreme Court defines the minimum level of rights that must be observed. Government is not allowed to respect less, although it may respect more. The goverment is currently being pressured by events to grant only the minimum it must to its citizens.
A packet does not, by being a packet define an appropriate level of privacy rights. A packet destined for a public IRC channel should probably not have any more privacy before arriving at the server than after being distributed by the server. The sender's reasonable expectation of privacy upon transmission is zero. However, it is generally illegal for anyone other than the recipient to read unencrypted email. Therefore, there is a reasonable expecation of some privacy.
The reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic media, is then defined by social norms regarding the application that generates or receives the packet, but not anything much else about the packet itself.
One would think that the use of strong encryption would lead to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Which is to say that when someone reads the packet and sees that it contains encrypted data, while the headers might or might not be deemed private, encryption sends a signal about privacy apart from whether or not it really is effective.
In the end, privacy (as defined socially rather than technologically) requires establishing a public norm that can be understood by legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, and, in the end, judges. Political and social isolation is a recipe for losing privacy in an evolving electronic world.
The background of the would-be agent has to be CONSIDERED. According to administration officials, no counter-terrorism agent has been excluded for being unsavory.
This policy was the result of a central american military figure who committed human rights crimes having been revealed to have been on the CIA payroll. Basically, the CIA has to consider whether having CIA payment of the person being revealed would do too much harm to make the likely benefits not worth it.
However, career workers in the CIA have reported (anonymously) that the policy does "chill" recruitment some because you have to investigate the background and offer justifications for acting despite it. Clinton chose two of three on cheaper, faster, better. Bush may want to choose a different two.
The concept of "aiding and abetting" turns on your knowledge of the planning and intent of the other person to take actions. Driving a car is legal. Being hijacked into driving the getaway car (depending on the jurisdiction) is either legal or excused. Voluntarily driving the getaway car is illegal.
Let's say Osama bin Laden bought the airline tickets of the hijackers. Buying airline tickets is legal. Buying the airline ticket of someone you know will hijack the airplane is illegal. Is knowledge and intent important? Yes. But it is not protected by the First Amendment. Think what you will... but buying a ticket is an act. Operating a training camp is an act.
Your specific intent standard is ridiculous. If I drive a truck 100 mph through a crowded pedestrian mall while blindfolded, that's still a crime. If I shoot a shotgun into a dark room when I don't know whether anyone is in there, it is still a crime. He wasn't operating a neighborhood gym, and he wasn't training people without a purpose.
He almost certainly meets any reasonable standard of defining conduct as criminal. The question is: is he entitled to due process? That is, a day in court.
We did not put Japan and Germany on trial in a court of law in WWII, and killed many of their soldiers, airmen, and sailors without putting them on trial. We are not charging him under a criminal statute and asking the court system to do anything. I seriously doubt that when we bomb him to death that he would ever win a case that the bombing denied him his due process rights. As Justice Goldberg said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Tying the country's hands by requiring judicial action (and ONLY judicial action) to resolve problems like this would turn it into exactly that.
I would more likely fear the issuance and use of electronic national identity cards. Perhaps with a biometric component added to increase certainty of identification. Visitors get one when they come in.
I would expect not only the government to use them, but for office buildings to key their security off it. That way, there is private cooperation with the government in tracking your movements. Heck, they might be sold as making financial information and the like more secure too so that the government can track your financial transactions in real time too.
Big Brother is probably more interested in your fingerprint than your face.
Actually, it is not weak evidence, it is strong evidence. Bobby Fischer has had hard feelings against the chess world since it took his title from him and handed it to Karpov. This unconventional approach is exactly the type of nose-tweaking that he would love. Having read books of his games, he loved the wide-open, inspirational, unexplored positions. He also loves his aura of mystery, and playing anonymously makes perfect sense.
The odds that there is a world-class player, even speed chess player, that is totally unknown to Nigel Short is quite small. The number of inactive/retired players it could be is also small. Mr. Short may be wrong, but his belief has a lot of support.
I remember running a MUD. We could tell who the PERSON playing was by text message content alone, even when characters and IP addresses changed. It isn't THAT hard to identify individual style. Think about it -- it is not that hard to distinguish a Van Gogh painting from a Picasso. Even if you don't read the signature.
One point from Kozinski's article that hasn't been appreciate here so far is that federal judges do not have bosses. They do not have people who can tell them how they do their work or what hours they work or anything else similar. A higher court can tell a lower court that it was wrong and reverse it. The people of the United States can even amend the constitution, or Congress can amend a law.
A federal judge is appointed for life. Sure, Congress can remove him for bad behavior, but that has been applied as doing illegal things not how the judge ruminates about the case, or with whom. The system is designed to protect the ability of these individuals to make independent judgments. Courts of appeal provide the accountability, not putting the individuals under a microscope.
A judge cannot operate in a vacuum. He needs clerks, secretaries, and the like to do his job. Monitoring them can be like monitoring him. The judicial conference's monitoring plan is a genuine intrusion into the independence of federal judges that should be beaten back.
This is not only about the kind of privacy issue that comes up with all other workers. If that was the case, a prominent judge like Kozinski would probably not be publishing letters in the Wall Street Journal. (He's a likely candidate to be on Bush's short list for possible Supreme Court nominations.)
The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary gives bland, but good reviews of Judge Kollar-Kotelly. (The publication calls attorneys and gives reviews without identifying the lawyers.)
Lawyers interviewed reported:
1) Good legal ability
2) Good judicial temperament, however headstrong lawyers may produce a spark (i.e. Neukom may have trouble)
3) Strict on courtroom protocol
4) Tries to get cases settled
5) Civil plaintiffs' lawyers think that she leans to plaintiffs. That would not be unusual for a Democratic appointee.
6) Civil defendants' lawyers think she is pro-plaintiff. "She is one of the more liberal judges."
7) Criminal defense lawyers thought she was fair to both sides.
On the whole, probably not the best news for Microsoft, however, Jackson was one of the few full-time judges on the court that is not a Democractic appointee, and I don't know that Microsoft had much better coming the the luck of that particular pool of judges.
I doubt step 1 is "reverse" engineer as happens with software or computer chips and their microcode.
A U.S. Patent has to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. Otherwise, it is an invalid patent (here). Also, in the U.S. a New Drug Application, or NDA (or even an Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA) ends up explaining the forumulation of the drug. Although NDAs and ANDAs are not public documents, Brazil's equivalent of the FDA probably has them.
Although formulations can vary from country to country, it is probably just a matter of looking up the recipe.
How Brazil handles itself *after* its decision to go ahead and manufacture the drug will define whether Brazil is a country that stands for the rule of law or for the rule of lawlessness.
Brazil is exercising one of the undisputed powers of a sovereign -- to take what it needs. A lawful sovereign pays reasonable compensation for what it takes. Thus, in civilized countries, when land is taken to build a road, the landowner does not get to veto the road, does not get to extort an unreasonably high price for being the last piece of land needed to build the road, etc. He gets reasonable, just compensation, and such a right is guaranteed by the courts of the country.
In common law countries the "rule of necessity" is not limited to sovereigns. For example, you are permitted to tresspass in certain conditions because of necessity. A classic example is a ship docking to avoid a killer storm. That does not mean not having to pay afterwards for what you take, or what you damage, however. "Necessity" defines conditions where you can "take it and pay a reasonable amount."
Brazil had a contract with Roche to provide drug that it is going to honor. Brazil is gearing up to provide its own generic version of the drug after the contract expires because it has been unable to reach agreement with Roche as to a price at which Roche will continue providing it. Brazil is taking. If it decides to take for free, it stands as an example of lawlessness. In such a case, it should be punished heavily by international trade organizations.
If it taking because of the impending necessity, with the intent to pay an agreed amount afterward, then it really is a tempest in a teapot. "Reasonable" in this case is certainly *not* what the generic would cost on the generic market. Reasonably prices are not negotiated under the threat of imminent death -- that's why courts often settle the "take and pay" price assigned to necessity situations.
It probably depends on the defendant taking the grandmother/father who is sitting on the bench seriously, and telling him in straightforward, simple language what is going on. Proving that someone had to have the song to get the song is a straightforward way of doing that.
Oh, just remember, if it is a state court judge, you elected him, or probably didn't care. Hardly anybody really cares about state court judge elections. Either that, or your Senator (or predecessor) picked him. Odds are the judge is just trying to get to the right result, but has a jillion cases and needs to move on.
Slashdot Mirror
"Even in the dry desert air, a small cloud will often be visible over its apex as water vapour condenses out of the air column. The tower's apex will be easily visible above the horizon from both Mildura and Renmark, 65km west, in South Australia's Riverland."
The cloud, the vibration from the turbines, and the tendency of tall structures to sway would make good scientific observations problematic. For personal enjoyment, you aren't that much closer. (1 mile out of how many light years on average?)
If you want to play the game to beat the scenario, then you are absolutely right, there is probably about one week's worth in the game. You play the game with one creature and don't do a whole lot with the creature.
Figuring out what is going on with the creature AI takes substantially longer than that. The variability of the results of the creature AI is pretty amazing. That said, the level of micromanaging the villagers need can be a pain in the butt to a lot of people. However, anyone who refused to use the governors in Civ. II, or SMAC (like me) doesn't find it that onerous.
These games deserve to be in a lot of X-mas stockings. Because the game allies you with a creature, you can get: (1) first person shooter (you shoot), (2) third person shooter (your creature shoots, largely based on how you train it), (3) roleplaying (be good, be evil, whatever), (4) real-time strategy (limited, game only lasts for 5 scenarios). Anyone who loves games for their variety has to try the interface these games have.
Um, er, no. That's the Ninth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit covers Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio. The U.S. Courts website provides a map. It is indeed liberal. It used to get reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court a lot.
However, the Ninth circuit is also the home turf of the movie industry. I suspect a number of judges know which side their bread is buttered on. The same is probably true of the Sixth Judicial District of the California state court system.
Well, sure, as long as you posit the infinite right to create infringing derivative works under the copyright statute.
When you walk away, the work is the same. When you edit it, it is different. The former is not infringment, and the second is. This problem does come up in other contexts. For instance, Monty Python won a suit against a TV network because the TV network showed an unapproved abbreviated version of a Monty Python movie. Monty Python didn't want some network dweebs messing with their comedy. That's fair. Show Monty Python or not, but don't show something that doesn't create the whole impression Monty Python was after and call it Monty Python.
The issue is NOT personal use. Think about it. One company is making money by stripping the commercial value out of another company's product. It isn't like the question is only you on your own little lonesome are doing personal non-commercial activity. The question is the fairness of the device. The device in question is directed solely to the legitimate commercial expectations of the distributor of the program.
By your logic, the people who want free TV are forbidden by YOU from having it because you have this need to create a derivative (without-commercials) version of the show. If all commercials get stripped, broadcast networks will cease. That's fine with you. That's not fine with tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans.
Copyright happens to solve a collective action problem here. Collective action problems are precisely the area where governement (laws/regulation/whatever) is best. You make the free riders either pay or not ride. In the case of the broadcast networks, the time of display on the broadcast device is the payment.
Your criticism of the business model is especially fatuous. If there were a superior business distribution model, it would not need this device to kill off broadcast networks. It would have happened already. If you have it and can make it work, call me in 6 months when you have made your 100 billion dollars. Your suggestion that a business model that would be considered inferior by hundreds of millions of people should be mandated for your convenience is, well, at best self-centered.
Well, here is the problem: the Universal Picture Studios v. Sony case did not say that time shifting was not a copyright infringement. It did say that it was either 1) a fair use, and/or 2) the VCR had substantial non-infringing uses. That is, even though it was an infringement, it is an infringment that will be allowed for public policy reasons.
One example (that is not so self-centered) was Mr. Rogers testimony at the Sony trial. If his show was being broadcast during a child's naptime, he didn't want the broadcast time of the show to dictate how the child lived. I don't believe the show had commercials at the time. It was clear that some copyright owners wanted their viewers to have time shifting capabilities.
I don't think it is as clear now that any broadcaster of commercials wants them excised. Is there a non-infringing use of commercial skipping? Doubtful. Is it fair? It is directed at specifically creating severe economic distress to broadcasters. Calling it commercial skip is trying to cash in on disadvantaging the broadcaster. (Unlike the fast forward button, that is not named "commercial flyby" but could be I suppose.)
Fair use is a balancing test. Therefore, it is not a hard and fast rule if you change factors. That's why Sony did not create a broad universal rule, but could be reconsidered on changed facts.
I suppose the last thing I'd say is "grow up." The only REASON anyone is interested in the feature is because it is unfair to broadcasters and their advertisers. TANSTAAFL.
When the constitutionality of one of its laws is questioned, the United States can become a party to the case to defend the law. 28 U.S.C. Section 2403. The role is limited to defending the constitutionality of the law, not its application to the parties in the case.
"(a) In an action, suit, or proceeding in a court of the United States to which the United States or any agency, officer or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn into question, the court shall certify such fact to the Attorney General, and shall permit the United States to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality..."
While one side or the other may or may not be big business in a particular case, the Attorney General is showing up to make sure Congress' laws don't get thrown out without being properly defended.
I agree that freedom to distribute is a major issue.
I view the copyright issue as being like the CarMax commercial with the balloon, or a tube of toothpaste -- you squeeze over here, and stuff blows up/out over there.
The finances to run the machine have to come from somewhere. Exclusivity is one way to make money from publishing. If you can't give an exclusive, then something, somewhere along the line is going to have to give to make up for that.
Certainly holding the copyright to the article makes things much easier for the journal in terms of allowing abstracting services to list the abstract in computer form, publish the article in computer form, etc. The Tasini case made it clear that republication as part of a database isn't a given for a scientific publisher. There is also an e-books case out there where a court distinguished between publishing a book and publishing an e-book.
This can be solved on a forward-going basis with licenses, but do you want to bet that the present licenses have adequately contemplated, say, web publishing?
It all gets down to 1) money, and 2) bother. It is just so much easier on the publisher to get the copyright even if they don't make much money from it.
Back in the day when I cared about publishing scientific papers, it was sure nice to get into Science or Nature. However, 90% of what my research group published went into the Journal of Chemical Physics. Not glossy, just a solid weekly accumulation of scientific study.
Such central, indexed, abstracted, and widely distributed and held journals are essential to science. Who knows if the "free" site is going to be there in 40 years. It is important that data survive a long time and be usable. Good solid basic data can easily be usable the better part of a century later.
That means endowed funding to assure long-term on-line distribution , records in multiple locations (can't have one bad event wipe out accumulated knowledge), as well as a commitment by a large number of people in a given field to participate and maintain the quality of the product. That takes (gasp)... money.
Oh, it was the need for money that this movement is railing against. Gee. Too bad.
Although the case does not state this, it is generally preferred to interpret statutes to avoid constitutional issues if reasonable. Here, by interpreting the zoning law as not addressing the internet context, the constitutional First Amendment issues are avoided.
This ruling does not prevent the town from amending its zoning law to specifically cover the issue. At that point, the constitutional issue would be unavoidable.
A small clarification. States cannot tax goods without an in-state nexus without congressional permission. That is because the Supreme Court ruled that nexus was a requirement it is a dormant commerce clause violation. A dormant commerce clause violation is one where the courts are going to presume that Congress wants things a certain way if it has not spoken, and Congress has not spoken yet.
That is why we need to worry about internet transactions being taxed by states -- one little law, and boom it will be happening, and it would be constitutional.
The space shuttle Challenger had a fair bit of hydrogen. It blew up just fine.
Now, as to continued flame, that's a different matter. It is unlikely that the hydrogen would act as an effective fuel to continue the fire for much after the initial impact.
The fundamental energetics of hydrogen combustion suck compared to fossil fuel combustion.
Hydrogen comes into its own more in the context of things like fuel cells. I don't think that the high demands of take-off powering would be well met by fuel cells. Cars can take longer to accelerate on a highway for instance with less loss of functionality. Either the airplane gets off the ground by the end of the runway, or it doesn't. The ability to abort a landing and lift off again is an important safety consideration.
The reason the site is short on details is that anyone who can make hydrogen work better than fossil fuels will make billions in the first year. It's a fantasy for anything but fringe applications. (Compare the Motorola fuel cell story today. Even that is methane-based, not hydrogen.)
Looks like our journalist at NPR had to fill a slot by deadline and went with what he could get to fill it.
Why shouldn't local governments solve the problem? Yes, they should! Oh, local governments CAUSED the problem. Oops.
Let's review why your RBOC has a monopoly. It is the only one that can connect twisted pair to your home. It has the right of way, the only right of way in most cases to connect. AT&T is trying to break that monopoly with coaxial cable connections, but with at best limited success.
Your local government could just allow a private company to bypass your RBOC and go ahead and do it instead. Or more than one.
Local government created the monopoly. Then it presented itself as the only solution to the monopoly it created and allows. Then, it tries to skim its own cream by pricing itself not at a market price and providing market services, but parasitically pricing itself very near the monopoly cost.
Gee how generous.
Well, to start with we Americans have a greater notion of what can be private than many other countries. Certainly, we give up a certain amount of privacy already to facilitate safety during our freedom of movement. Even before this tragedy, in order to fly safely we had already subjected ourselves to a level of intrusion that we tolerated in no other mode of transportation.
Our protections against unreasonable searches and seizures is an area of the law that the Supreme Court has been actively involved in for at least the past four decades. The Supreme Court defines the minimum level of rights that must be observed. Government is not allowed to respect less, although it may respect more. The goverment is currently being pressured by events to grant only the minimum it must to its citizens.
A packet does not, by being a packet define an appropriate level of privacy rights. A packet destined for a public IRC channel should probably not have any more privacy before arriving at the server than after being distributed by the server. The sender's reasonable expectation of privacy upon transmission is zero. However, it is generally illegal for anyone other than the recipient to read unencrypted email. Therefore, there is a reasonable expecation of some privacy.
The reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic media, is then defined by social norms regarding the application that generates or receives the packet, but not anything much else about the packet itself.
One would think that the use of strong encryption would lead to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Which is to say that when someone reads the packet and sees that it contains encrypted data, while the headers might or might not be deemed private, encryption sends a signal about privacy apart from whether or not it really is effective.
In the end, privacy (as defined socially rather than technologically) requires establishing a public norm that can be understood by legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, and, in the end, judges. Political and social isolation is a recipe for losing privacy in an evolving electronic world.
The background of the would-be agent has to be CONSIDERED. According to administration officials, no counter-terrorism agent has been excluded for being unsavory.
This policy was the result of a central american military figure who committed human rights crimes having been revealed to have been on the CIA payroll. Basically, the CIA has to consider whether having CIA payment of the person being revealed would do too much harm to make the likely benefits not worth it.
However, career workers in the CIA have reported (anonymously) that the policy does "chill" recruitment some because you have to investigate the background and offer justifications for acting despite it. Clinton chose two of three on cheaper, faster, better. Bush may want to choose a different two.
The concept of "aiding and abetting" turns on your knowledge of the planning and intent of the other person to take actions. Driving a car is legal. Being hijacked into driving the getaway car (depending on the jurisdiction) is either legal or excused. Voluntarily driving the getaway car is illegal.
Let's say Osama bin Laden bought the airline tickets of the hijackers. Buying airline tickets is legal. Buying the airline ticket of someone you know will hijack the airplane is illegal. Is knowledge and intent important? Yes. But it is not protected by the First Amendment. Think what you will... but buying a ticket is an act. Operating a training camp is an act.
Your specific intent standard is ridiculous. If I drive a truck 100 mph through a crowded pedestrian mall while blindfolded, that's still a crime. If I shoot a shotgun into a dark room when I don't know whether anyone is in there, it is still a crime. He wasn't operating a neighborhood gym, and he wasn't training people without a purpose.
He almost certainly meets any reasonable standard of defining conduct as criminal. The question is: is he entitled to due process? That is, a day in court.
We did not put Japan and Germany on trial in a court of law in WWII, and killed many of their soldiers, airmen, and sailors without putting them on trial. We are not charging him under a criminal statute and asking the court system to do anything. I seriously doubt that when we bomb him to death that he would ever win a case that the bombing denied him his due process rights. As Justice Goldberg said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Tying the country's hands by requiring judicial action (and ONLY judicial action) to resolve problems like this would turn it into exactly that.
I would more likely fear the issuance and use of electronic national identity cards. Perhaps with a biometric component added to increase certainty of identification. Visitors get one when they come in.
I would expect not only the government to use them, but for office buildings to key their security off it. That way, there is private cooperation with the government in tracking your movements. Heck, they might be sold as making financial information and the like more secure too so that the government can track your financial transactions in real time too.
Big Brother is probably more interested in your fingerprint than your face.
Well, RTLinux has already decided what its doing. It is time for the copyright holders to decide what they are doing.
Please. The idea that Larry Evans could whip Nigel Short repeatedly is silly.
Actually, it is not weak evidence, it is strong evidence. Bobby Fischer has had hard feelings against the chess world since it took his title from him and handed it to Karpov. This unconventional approach is exactly the type of nose-tweaking that he would love. Having read books of his games, he loved the wide-open, inspirational, unexplored positions. He also loves his aura of mystery, and playing anonymously makes perfect sense.
The odds that there is a world-class player, even speed chess player, that is totally unknown to Nigel Short is quite small. The number of inactive/retired players it could be is also small. Mr. Short may be wrong, but his belief has a lot of support.
I remember running a MUD. We could tell who the PERSON playing was by text message content alone, even when characters and IP addresses changed. It isn't THAT hard to identify individual style. Think about it -- it is not that hard to distinguish a Van Gogh painting from a Picasso. Even if you don't read the signature.
One point from Kozinski's article that hasn't been appreciate here so far is that federal judges do not have bosses. They do not have people who can tell them how they do their work or what hours they work or anything else similar. A higher court can tell a lower court that it was wrong and reverse it. The people of the United States can even amend the constitution, or Congress can amend a law.
A federal judge is appointed for life. Sure, Congress can remove him for bad behavior, but that has been applied as doing illegal things not how the judge ruminates about the case, or with whom. The system is designed to protect the ability of these individuals to make independent judgments. Courts of appeal provide the accountability, not putting the individuals under a microscope.
A judge cannot operate in a vacuum. He needs clerks, secretaries, and the like to do his job. Monitoring them can be like monitoring him. The judicial conference's monitoring plan is a genuine intrusion into the independence of federal judges that should be beaten back.
This is not only about the kind of privacy issue that comes up with all other workers. If that was the case, a prominent judge like Kozinski would probably not be publishing letters in the Wall Street Journal. (He's a likely candidate to be on Bush's short list for possible Supreme Court nominations.)
The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary gives bland, but good reviews of Judge Kollar-Kotelly. (The publication calls attorneys and gives reviews without identifying the lawyers.)
Lawyers interviewed reported:
1) Good legal ability
2) Good judicial temperament, however headstrong lawyers may produce a spark (i.e. Neukom may have trouble)
3) Strict on courtroom protocol
4) Tries to get cases settled
5) Civil plaintiffs' lawyers think that she leans to plaintiffs. That would not be unusual for a Democratic appointee.
6) Civil defendants' lawyers think she is pro-plaintiff. "She is one of the more liberal judges."
7) Criminal defense lawyers thought she was fair to both sides.
On the whole, probably not the best news for Microsoft, however, Jackson was one of the few full-time judges on the court that is not a Democractic appointee, and I don't know that Microsoft had much better coming the the luck of that particular pool of judges.
I doubt step 1 is "reverse" engineer as happens with software or computer chips and their microcode.
A U.S. Patent has to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. Otherwise, it is an invalid patent (here). Also, in the U.S. a New Drug Application, or NDA (or even an Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA) ends up explaining the forumulation of the drug. Although NDAs and ANDAs are not public documents, Brazil's equivalent of the FDA probably has them.
Although formulations can vary from country to country, it is probably just a matter of looking up the recipe.
How Brazil handles itself *after* its decision to go ahead and manufacture the drug will define whether Brazil is a country that stands for the rule of law or for the rule of lawlessness.
Brazil is exercising one of the undisputed powers of a sovereign -- to take what it needs. A lawful sovereign pays reasonable compensation for what it takes. Thus, in civilized countries, when land is taken to build a road, the landowner does not get to veto the road, does not get to extort an unreasonably high price for being the last piece of land needed to build the road, etc. He gets reasonable, just compensation, and such a right is guaranteed by the courts of the country.
In common law countries the "rule of necessity" is not limited to sovereigns. For example, you are permitted to tresspass in certain conditions because of necessity. A classic example is a ship docking to avoid a killer storm. That does not mean not having to pay afterwards for what you take, or what you damage, however. "Necessity" defines conditions where you can "take it and pay a reasonable amount."
Brazil had a contract with Roche to provide drug that it is going to honor. Brazil is gearing up to provide its own generic version of the drug after the contract expires because it has been unable to reach agreement with Roche as to a price at which Roche will continue providing it. Brazil is taking. If it decides to take for free, it stands as an example of lawlessness. In such a case, it should be punished heavily by international trade organizations.
If it taking because of the impending necessity, with the intent to pay an agreed amount afterward, then it really is a tempest in a teapot. "Reasonable" in this case is certainly *not* what the generic would cost on the generic market. Reasonably prices are not negotiated under the threat of imminent death -- that's why courts often settle the "take and pay" price assigned to necessity situations.
Actually, it probably doesn't.
It probably depends on the defendant taking the grandmother/father who is sitting on the bench seriously, and telling him in straightforward, simple language what is going on. Proving that someone had to have the song to get the song is a straightforward way of doing that.
Oh, just remember, if it is a state court judge, you elected him, or probably didn't care. Hardly anybody really cares about state court judge elections. Either that, or your Senator (or predecessor) picked him. Odds are the judge is just trying to get to the right result, but has a jillion cases and needs to move on.