Yes, I know that Google, Yahoo etc are US companies.
However, they have UK operations and these operations will fall under UK law. In the case of Google, trying to access google.com will usually force you to google.co.uk if it detects your IPs geographical origin as being in the UK.
It would be reasonable to assume that the UK DPA would apply to information aquired by the UK operations of US companies.
A fact often missed by the popular media when dealing with the Challenger accident is emergency egress provision.
The 'big step' taken moving from the Saturn V launcher to the Shuttle for manned flight was not just moving from expendable to [partially] re-usable vehicles but the total reliance in the new vehicle for launch safety.
If practically *anything* were to go wrong during the launch of a Shuttle, it would be curtains for the vehicle and crew whereas the Saturn V had the 'option' of the Launch Escape Tower which could (in theory) give the crew one last chance of getting clear of the failed vehicle using it's relatively small solid rockets.
I've often imagined what could go wrong with a shuttle launch, there are possibilities such as:
*Catastrophic multiple SME failure just after SRB ignition leading to an over-rotation heads-down
*A Mis-light of an SRB on the pad (prior to launch) - Apparently NASA takes huge precautions with their SRBs due to volatility of the solid fuel.
*A Mis-light of an SRB on launch causing over-rotation of the vehicle away from the lit SRB(NASA *says* this is of infinitely small chance tho)
*Failure of the SRB release system on the pad (the tie-downs which hold the vehicle in place prior to launch)
*A simple bird-strike causing damage to the orbiter's pressure hull.
And of course, there is the failure of components leading to rapid combustion of the LOX/Hydrogen fuels.
Perhaps none of the above could realistically happen, perhaps some could. (I'm no expert, just a fan of manned spaceflight).
What I do know is that I'll be happier about people sitting on top of massive potential energies when they give them a Launch Escape System again. It's not a certainty but it's nice to know that the Astronauts get one last chance if the rest of the vehicle falls to bits.
Disclaimer: I am not one of these people who thinks that spaceflight is, should be, or can be as safe as say civillian aviation.
IIRC, due to the fairly low orbit of the ISS, anything cast overboard and not subject to a prograde burn will re-enter the Earths atmosphere in a reasonable ammount of time.
Number plate cloning which is already prevalent in the UK is quite sophisticated.
Criminals will travel around looking for a car which perfectly matches the colour and model of the car they want to disguise. They will then note the registration and clone the plate.
Hence when the registration of the criminal's car is put through the PNC or ANPR systems, it shows an 'innocent' car of the correct make, model and colour matched to an apparently correct plate.
"Don't want to wait for global warming to ruin the planet? - Microsoft can give you global-catastrophy today!"
Seriously tho, they'll push it as 'you can recycle the disk'. Well, maybe but I doubt they'll tell you about the excess carbon emmissions from both the manufacture and recycling process. (If everyone rents one movie twice....... you get the pic.....)
/me takes cover and awaits the wrath of the Bush camp: "Global warming ain't happnin".
The last three manned launches from Baikonur I watched live (Exp 10, 11, 12)
They went on time as advertised (Exp 12 actually launched in 'moderate' weather).
Now I fully understand the reason, the Shuttle has to be 'just right' to launch because there are very few abort options whereas the Soyuz can be (and has been) aborted in most if not all stages of flight.
Certainly, if it was a Shuttle Launch, you could say that any pre-advertised launch could be raising false hopes but a Soyuz cancellation is 'unusual' these days.
You would think that any manned spaced launch (and many unmanned ones) would be important News for Nerds wouldn't you?
Still, this story hits the front page about 17 hours after the launch.
I did know it was going but perhaps some would have watched on TV if they knew the launch was taking place ie: Slashdot could run a story *beforehand*.
For those of you who missed the live video, the footage was excellent, gorgeous steady tracking footage was provided by a telescope mounted camera followed by live in-capsule footage right through all the stage burnouts (never seen *live* interior shots on a shuttle launch) and then about 15 mins of on-orbit initial operations footage. I thoroughly recommend watching the live feed for the Exp 13 launch.
Plus the crew had a cool little troll (the little plastic ones) on a bungee to show the capsules movements on orbit.
The ISS is a very different station to the Freedom / Alpha designs that came before it.
Essentially concieved as an international project from the start using design elements of station Freedom, it would always have had an orbit which intersects Baikonur and French Guiana.
As it is, the shuttle only operates (or has been operated) between orbital inclinations of 28.5deg (which is not all that equatorial anyway) and 57deg. (the station orbit being approx 51.6deg).
That 'advantage' of the low 30's / high 20's orbit is the added assist from the earth's rotation which means higher payload lift. However, it also means a limited number of de-orbit opportunities and IIRC a marginally higher initial re-entry velocity (as a factor of the wider orbit due to the shape of the planet?) - For a decidedly shakey platform like the shuttle which may yet need to make an emergency de-orbit, it would seem with hindsight like a poor choice.
If its a foregone conclusion that the 'Government Agency' are using this tech as provided by Lucent then I don't see how 'state secret' can be a problem (or excuse).
If the 'Government Agency' is allowed this holier-than-thou stance then the plaintiff should just be able to ask: Are you using our tech as provided by Lucent? The agency can then just say yay or nay.
I'm pretty sure the value of the defence contract for Lucent isn't any kind of secret so the courts should award a *fair* share of that ammount to the plaintiff if it is found that Lucent infringed their IP.
4) Use a team of Navy SEALs or elite FBI commando units to land in Vanuatu and kidnap all individuals associated with the company and ship them to the United States for prosecution.
Should read: "....and ship them to the United States for persecution."
The European Commission do seem to keep pluggin on this. However, I was under the impression that their first ruling was supposed to have put this to rest.
I know they already issued a financial punishment to Microsoft (which Microsoft could undoubtedly afford) but seeing as this has 'come back' again, you'd think they would arrange a punishment which would actually hurt Microsoft - to persuad them to Be Good(tm)
Slashdot Mirror
The UKPTO is one of EU member offices known to actively *reject* attempted software and business method patents even if it has to go all the way to the high court.
In fact, they were recently held as a 'good example' by the FFII.
Yes, I know that Google, Yahoo etc are US companies.
However, they have UK operations and these operations will fall under UK law. In the case of Google, trying to access google.com will usually force you to google.co.uk if it detects your IPs geographical origin as being in the UK.
It would be reasonable to assume that the UK DPA would apply to information aquired by the UK operations of US companies.
A fact often missed by the popular media when dealing with the Challenger accident is emergency egress provision.
The 'big step' taken moving from the Saturn V launcher to the Shuttle for manned flight was not just moving from expendable to [partially] re-usable vehicles but the total reliance in the new vehicle for launch safety.
If practically *anything* were to go wrong during the launch of a Shuttle, it would be curtains for the vehicle and crew whereas the Saturn V had the 'option' of the Launch Escape Tower which could (in theory) give the crew one last chance of getting clear of the failed vehicle using it's relatively small solid rockets.
I've often imagined what could go wrong with a shuttle launch, there are possibilities such as:
*Catastrophic multiple SME failure just after SRB ignition leading to an over-rotation heads-down
*A Mis-light of an SRB on the pad (prior to launch) - Apparently NASA takes huge precautions with their SRBs due to volatility of the solid fuel.
*A Mis-light of an SRB on launch causing over-rotation of the vehicle away from the lit SRB(NASA *says* this is of infinitely small chance tho)
*Failure of the SRB release system on the pad (the tie-downs which hold the vehicle in place prior to launch)
*A simple bird-strike causing damage to the orbiter's pressure hull.
And of course, there is the failure of components leading to rapid combustion of the LOX/Hydrogen fuels.
Perhaps none of the above could realistically happen, perhaps some could. (I'm no expert, just a fan of manned spaceflight).
What I do know is that I'll be happier about people sitting on top of massive potential energies when they give them a Launch Escape System again. It's not a certainty but it's nice to know that the Astronauts get one last chance if the rest of the vehicle falls to bits.
Disclaimer: I am not one of these people who thinks that spaceflight is, should be, or can be as safe as say civillian aviation.
IIRC, due to the fairly low orbit of the ISS, anything cast overboard and not subject to a prograde burn will re-enter the Earths atmosphere in a reasonable ammount of time.
It doesn't seem so funny when you consider that America gradually *is* becoming what the grandparent describes.
IMHO, There would be 2 types. ;-)
I'm sure theres a joke there when you lump George W. Bush, Hitler and Jesus together...
...but I'm not going to crack it because there are 2 kinds of zealots out there waiting to lynch me for it.
Number plate cloning which is already prevalent in the UK is quite sophisticated.
Criminals will travel around looking for a car which perfectly matches the colour and model of the car they want to disguise. They will then note the registration and clone the plate.
Hence when the registration of the criminal's car is put through the PNC or ANPR systems, it shows an 'innocent' car of the correct make, model and colour matched to an apparently correct plate.
This is great news.
With any luck, very few people will be disappointed when HDCP scales their backup copies to SD for them.
You're average (large-ish) software box could use 1/4 sq meter of card.
If you converted that to this material, you'd be paying £7.50 ($13 US) just in packaging.
Even if they used 50% of the packaging surface area for moving-picture advertising, it would be adding several pounds sterling to each purchase.
Put mildly; Stuff That.
What a great way of boosting pollution!
"Don't want to wait for global warming to ruin the planet? - Microsoft can give you global-catastrophy today!"
Seriously tho, they'll push it as 'you can recycle the disk'. Well, maybe but I doubt they'll tell you about the excess carbon emmissions from both the manufacture and recycling process. (If everyone rents one movie twice....... you get the pic.....)
If there's a thermonuclear attack (classical nuclear war type) then your website, computer, usb thumbdrive etc should be the least of your worries.
Even if your many miles from g-zero the EMP from the airburst will pretty much write-off all your solid-state gear.
I'd think about stocking up the bits to build a vac tube radio (assuming anyone at the transmitting end has simmilar brains).
Matalan happens to be a major retailer in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps it should have said 'demote them'.
Anthing which can demote the RIAA down from 'monopoly' to just 'syndicate' level must be good.
The last three manned launches from Baikonur I watched live (Exp 10, 11, 12)
They went on time as advertised (Exp 12 actually launched in 'moderate' weather).
Now I fully understand the reason, the Shuttle has to be 'just right' to launch because there are very few abort options whereas the Soyuz can be (and has been) aborted in most if not all stages of flight.
Certainly, if it was a Shuttle Launch, you could say that any pre-advertised launch could be raising false hopes but a Soyuz cancellation is 'unusual' these days.
You would think that any manned spaced launch (and many unmanned ones) would be important News for Nerds wouldn't you?
Still, this story hits the front page about 17 hours after the launch.
I did know it was going but perhaps some would have watched on TV if they knew the launch was taking place ie: Slashdot could run a story *beforehand*.
For those of you who missed the live video, the footage was excellent, gorgeous steady tracking footage was provided by a telescope mounted camera followed by live in-capsule footage right through all the stage burnouts (never seen *live* interior shots on a shuttle launch) and then about 15 mins of on-orbit initial operations footage. I thoroughly recommend watching the live feed for the Exp 13 launch.
Plus the crew had a cool little troll (the little plastic ones) on a bungee to show the capsules movements on orbit.
I've seen this same troll in almost every story today, there's almost an art to getting one troll story to fit all scenarios.
;)
Praise over, please mod parent down.
The ISS is a very different station to the Freedom / Alpha designs that came before it.
Essentially concieved as an international project from the start using design elements of station Freedom, it would always have had an orbit which intersects Baikonur and French Guiana.
As it is, the shuttle only operates (or has been operated) between orbital inclinations of 28.5deg (which is not all that equatorial anyway) and 57deg. (the station orbit being approx 51.6deg).
That 'advantage' of the low 30's / high 20's orbit is the added assist from the earth's rotation which means higher payload lift. However, it also means a limited number of de-orbit opportunities and IIRC a marginally higher initial re-entry velocity (as a factor of the wider orbit due to the shape of the planet?) - For a decidedly shakey platform like the shuttle which may yet need to make an emergency de-orbit, it would seem with hindsight like a poor choice.
Admit it.
Now we're all just waiting for Sony to thow it's Intellectual Property Toys out of the pram and let the attack dogs (lawyers) loose.
A sorry state of affairs.
I don't know if it's just me that has such a jaundiced mind but the only thing this announcement inspired from me was a knowing groan.
If its a foregone conclusion that the 'Government Agency' are using this tech as provided by Lucent then I don't see how 'state secret' can be a problem (or excuse).
If the 'Government Agency' is allowed this holier-than-thou stance then the plaintiff should just be able to ask: Are you using our tech as provided by Lucent? The agency can then just say yay or nay.
I'm pretty sure the value of the defence contract for Lucent isn't any kind of secret so the courts should award a *fair* share of that ammount to the plaintiff if it is found that Lucent infringed their IP.
Should read: "....and ship them to the United States for persecution."
The European Commission do seem to keep pluggin on this. However, I was under the impression that their first ruling was supposed to have put this to rest.
I know they already issued a financial punishment to Microsoft (which Microsoft could undoubtedly afford) but seeing as this has 'come back' again, you'd think they would arrange a punishment which would actually hurt Microsoft - to persuad them to Be Good(tm)
What is to say the guy who designed the safe didn't install a back-door!