Thousands (perhaps millions) of people around the country, who have sufficient interest in music to care deeply about the distribution and cost issues and who are likely to have been 'customers' in the past are boycotting CDs, etc.
According to 'lost revenue' studies like these every boycott appears to be piracy!
Hey, maybe MP3's *do* cut revenues... because when the RIAA acts rashly and insensitively on the MP3 issue, it ticks people off.
----------- This is only intended to be semi-serious, but it illustrates a point about study assumptions _____________
I like the general principle of quantum searching, and think that it may have glossed over the single most important issue in actual practice:
"It would be most useful where you have partial information and probabilities," Grover explained. "(If) you are 90 percent sure it is John and 10 percent it's James and 50 percent it's on Broadway... there is a high probability you will get the right result."
Unfortunately, this never happens, and for good reason: I'm never 90% sure (or 10% or 50%) of anything. I may use those terms in speech, but they are mathematically meaningless (undefined) -- no matter what my lifeline says on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"
If it turns out I'm *really* looking for Jahn on Boardwalk, the quantum search engine can tell me I must've had my probablilities wrong. But there is no way that I can ascertain this in advance. Though I can construct test data to represent defined amounts of uncertainty, here is no tool for measuring "How sure I am" (40%? 50%? 60%?)
In short: {i}The trick to quantum searching is formulating the right query -- and that may be impractical or impossible[/i] [b] I hereby dub this the 'Jeopardy' Problem[/b] -- how do I phrase it in the form of a question? (short of "What is the phone number of John Smith of 4225 Broadway Apt 3c?")
Will the search engine give me the same answer if I say I'm 40% sure it's John as it would if I'm 60% sure its John? Should it? On one hand, the two situations may be very different, on the other, they may be essentially identical.
There are many other very down-to-earth and practical problems that we'd see instantly, if it weren't for that magic word "quantum" -- do you have *any* idea how many people named John or Jim live on Broadway? Hundreds. And how many live "off Broadway"? Possibly thousands depending on how far "off" you're willing to accept.
A boolean search can find that list for you. Tell me how a "quantum search" can derive additional information from the query -- when you are looking for John Smith, and I am looking for John Doe. Quantum ain't magic. It can't read minds. Not with current technology! _____________
Thanks for the update. I'd seen those implications in the ECD website, but...
I am not sure that NiMH batteries were invented by ECD. The ECD website only claims a) all "significant" manufacturers of NiMH have a license with them (implying that some don't - why?) and b) the first commercial NiMH manufacturer 'used' Ovionics technolgy. This company (Gold Peak) was also 'one of ECD's early licensees' -- this seems like an odd way of saying "we invented NiMH". It is almost as if they are trying to imply that without actually saying it
I tried checking the USPTO database, but if he had the groundbreaking patents, they are too old to show up on the database. I concluded this by checking the bibliographic entries for current Ovshinsky NiMH patents (which contain the patent numbers of preceding/related art) I presume he would cite his own groundbreaking patents. It is possible that I'd learn more by reading the complete applications, but IANAL (and no one's paying me for *that* depth of research)
I was aware of their early flexible amorphous solar cells in the 70's, but I didn't know these were a major part of today's market. Are they?
Besides I'm not sure that one major product (or maybe two) in 40 years is a "decent track record in products" (ECD was founded in 1960) ECD seems to have some viable products, but I'm surprised that they seem to be incremental improvements over the state of the art, while their past (and present) technology always seems billed as 'revolutionary'
Of course, that can happen. I think Harry Bede is a good example. He designed and produced the BD-5 airplanes and an interesting 'inline' automobile -- both products I'd have bought instantly (well, once I could afford them) but his companies can't seem to stay in production very long. _____________
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Alas, for an 'artificial island' server farm, Article 121 states "3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf." Sections 60 and 80 confirm this. For 'natural islands' the key article seems to be Article 76, covering the 'continental shelf' provision.
There's a lot more, but basically sovereignity does *not* depend on actually possessing territory (the Vatican was sovereign during the time when Italy claimed its territory, as acknowledged by the other major powers) and actually possessing territory, the consent of the governed, and an independent, fully functioning government with military forces sufficient to defend that territory is not enough to guarantee sovereignity. (Taiwan was once thrown out of the UN because it was deemed to lack sovereignity despite possessing all of these)
As soon as I heard the name "Ovonyx" I was reminded of Stanford Ovshinsky, a physicist who claimed to revolutionize amorphous silicon technology, reportedly 'inventing' a field of Materials Science called "ovonics". He was a minor hero to me as a teenager (the 70's). I'm not such a fan now.
Though I can hardly blame/. for not checking further, I think readers might want to.
Sure enough, on the "About the Corporation" page, it confirms: "The Corporation Ovonyx, Inc. (Ovonyx) was formed in 1999 as a joint venture between Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. (ECD) and Messrs. Tyler Lowrey and Ward Parkinson.ECD is Ovshinsky's company (founded in 1960). Surprisingly, no link or further information is provided on ECD, which according to the Ovonyx Corporate page "has been actively pursuing phase-change material and device structure development,optimization and characterization for many applications - but principally for optical and electrical memories."
From what I recall from the 70's/80's, ECD wasn't 'focused' in these areas, but on solar panels (hence the name "Energy Conversion Devices"). This may explain why "ECD's contribution to the Ovonyx joint venture was all of its intellectual property (IP) in this area" [optical and electrical memory]. Perhaps ECD didn't feel it could make use of this IP, and turned it over to two former top Micron Technology (chip) execs. Read on for details
THE BACKGROUND Ovshinsky was a darling of the Japanese in the 70's/80's when Americans were in shock because the Japanese were using American findings like the management theories of Edwards Deming (who was revered like a god in Japan), 'process control', and "just in time" to turn out cars that the US auto giants couldn't match. American business was also awash in culture shock from dealing with the Japanese business systems (kureitsu, etc.) as equals and as a potential market.
Ovshinsky raised money by chiding US corps that they would miss the Next Big Thing if they didn't invest in his work, but his primary business relationships were with the Japanese.
The PBS show NOVA even did a one hour documentary on him ("Japan's American Genius" 10/27/87) that seemed to promise that cheap high efficiency amorphous solar cells would be around any day now. I've kept my eyes peeled ever since (I instantly made the Ovonyx connection in 5/2000!), and never heard anything about ECD. The advances in amorphous technology always seemed to come from elsewhere.
I haven't been impressed by ECD's ability to bring *any* product to market in 40 years, and I don't know of any breakthroughs they have made or licensed -- and all their 'background' and 'product' links seem to point to nonexistent documents in a 'drafts' folder. However, I may be wrong, or perhaps the documents are being updated, so I refer you to ECD's home page, which is (perhaps unsurprisingly, considering Ovshinsky supposedly pioneered 'ovonics') http://www.ovonic.com not to be confused with the OVONYX site in the/. article
Perhaps I am a little jaded, because I was once a big fan of Ovshinsky (as he was presented), but what I've read in the OVONIX and ECD (OVONIC)web sites seems to have an unusual, almost Microsoftian degree of 'spin'. Caveat emptor.
However, if anyone out there knows of some concrete product or technical advance that proceeded directly from ECD or Ovshinsky, I would be *most* happy to hear about it. You have to reclaim those childhood heroes when you can! It's good for the soul.
The Cydonian Face is a copyrighted work of artistic expression protected by the DMCA. If tens of millions of miles of distance isn't access control, I don't know what is! Pirate websites like this which distribute images created by NASA hardware hackers with 'homemade' imagers and transmitters are taking food out of the mouths of starving artists like Lars "It even rhymes with Mars, how dumb can these humans be" Ulrich of Metallica -- not to mention the management and staff of the MPAA (Martian Protected Art Association) and RIAA (Rich Influential Alien Agents)
Use licenses are available under the terms of the JPL (Jammed Pubic License) for noncommercial private use only. Retransmission or distribution of these images and videos, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Martian League Baseball, is expressly prohibited. _____________
How much do you want to bet that when I try to specify copper Alphas, that dimwit teenager in Academic Purchasing (who thinks he's 3l337 because he can remember the HardOCP URL 2 times out of three) will get me a stack'o'coppermines instead?
Oh, and think of all the lovely conversations you'll overhear waiting in line with that last Y power connector for your Beowulf as the wannabe Mr. Know-it-alls ("I order all my systems on-line!") tie up the Saturday salesclerks with impossibly self-contradictory orders. _____________
In the article cited in the second thread (now removed as redundant, as in many other articles on the subject, I see phrases like: "That law [DMCA], passed in 1998 to extend traditional copyright protections to digital works..."
So exactly what "protection" does a "traditional copyrighted work" -- book, artwork, or musical composition -- use to protect itself from copying? None. Because that's not what "traditional copyright protection" does.
We must not let them confuse these terms! Unlike the great debate over the usage of 'hacker' , the "protections of copyright" are spelled out explicitly in legislation and case law. Those protections are primarily: 1) the right to litigate and collect damages for violations; and 2) the right to apply for pre-emptive relief (by court-order) to stop on-going violations before more damage is done (if you can convince a judge)
We often let the software industry use the term 'copyright protection' when they really mean 'copy protection', but we cannot allow this confusion to be codified into law or fossilized as a centerpiece of the larger intellectual property debate.
Copyright protection means The Law allows the copyright owner to control their own works (or work they have purchased the copyrights to). Copy protection simply blocks any non-revenue access without regard to whether it is legal or not.
'Copyright protection' specifically allows 'fair use'; 'copy protection' intends to prevent 'fair use' -- or any use, other than the 'minimal intended use' (e.g. viewing DVDs on MS platforms) _____________
When establishing a new standard, trademark the name. This can be perfectly compliant with OSS.
Write a 'nominal fee' ($1) license for Kerberos (tm) and "Kerberoid"(tm) (or some other word that describes Kerberos compatibility), and explicit terms under which the license is automatically issued upon receipt of payment. Then give the Trademark to EFF (or IETF - thought IETF is less likely to enforce, and may move more slowly on changes)
It is not to late to trademark Kerberos, since the originator has clear a clear history of title and trade use on this trade name for this "product".
If one requirement for licensing is 'interoperability' with a reference standard, then MSFT Kerberos becomes a litigable violation. A clever lawyer may find a way to make 'Kerberos compatible' a violation, though it would not be straightforward. _____________
Yes, I've seen this kind of ad increasingly on Prime Time TV. Recall that IPO which mocked its senseless profligacy during the superbowl? I used to love that kind of self-mocking humor, but I feel it's passed a threshold.
It's official. Technology marketing for the Big Companies has ceased to even remotely concern itself with the quality of the product. It's all pure name recognition from here to the Meltdown.
Of course, that's not entirely unnecessary now. I can't keep track of who still exists, who was bought, sold, merged (and under what new name even with a scorecard. (*sigh* It took me years to get used to Enco/Humble becoming Exxon in the 70's, back when we only had a few major changes all decade. Then came the 80's, the MBAs, junk bonds, the LBO (leveraged buyout), the RBOCs (Baby Bells)... Suddenly I feel the need to change my sig. _____________
>>> rush to see how many SPAM lists you can get Therein lies one danger of this plan.
Other have addressed some of the reasons why this is hardly the panacea it seems at first glance. I just want to note that whenever a law is passed to control an 'out of control' practice, the public's resistance to that practice diminishes.
Even the most inept telephone telemarketer has a few stories of conversions: people who start off following the "Put me on your No-Call list" script of DMA-supported so-called 'consumer' groups, but end up as buyers. The secret is that the longer you talk, the more likely you are to buy. Most people who follow a No-Call script would have hung up point-blank before. The 'don't call' script offers a tiny foot in the door of otherwise definite no-gos. The Telemarketers have scripts of their own to capitalize on this.
Why do you think Publisher's Clearinghouse makes you fiddle with so many stickers to complete one of their sweepstakes stickers? So the visions of payoff, and other irrational notions can dance in your head. Even after you hang up after your Don't-Call spiel, don't you secretly wish they call back, so you can nail them in small claims. Only a tiny handful of people have ever successfully sued (not enough to pay for a single DMA trade seminar luncheon) while telemarketers do many successful conversions every hour, in every state.
And now we dangle the 'bounty' of a potential windfall, albeit a modest one, in front of every newbie, casual user, and kid?
Less spam will get filtered and discarded unread and more spam will be scrutinized for 'illegal' elements that qualify it for the bounty. People will be less cautious about prtecting their e-mail, because it's a potential pay-off as well as an annoyance, and because watching your privacy is hard work, and humans will seek any rationalization to avoid such a tedious and thankless task. "Spam is illegal" is just such an excuse
Publishers Clearing House would love this! PCH spends several times as much on its interactive sticker-laden mailings than it does on the grand prize - and made decades of tidy profit on this marketing model. They are proof of concept.
Salesmen - especially shady ones - are cynical masters of psychology, unlike engineers.
I'll close with a general warning tht you should keep in mind for the next year of so:We are at a critical time when private data is still largely unregulated in the US, and is not as tightly regulated as it will be, even in Europe. They can gather and share information now that they may never be allowed to gather again. _____________
... is the HEADLINE. There is absolutely, positively no excuse for asking "Borland C++ Can No Longer Be Used To Make Free Software?" when the article does not discuss Borland C++ at all. according to the Borland Web site, the following are separate products:
--- Borland C++ --- C++ Compiler --- Borland Turbo C++ Suite --- Borland C++ Builder
The license cited is for Borland C++ Builder -- a completely different product from Borland C++. This betrays either gross neglect, or deliberate inflammatory rhetoric. Anyone, anywhere could screw thenselves up using the wrong product in almost any task. Therefore getting the name right is the most basic act that anyone can be expected to do.
Besides, as has been noted elsewhere, Borland C++ Builder *generates* code for you. You can write and distribute the binary, or any source code you write -- but not source code that Borland writes. _____________
The problem with your 'full-featured' pricing agent is that as a general rule, users will be asking it to evaluate criteria that they themselves cannot. Buying is a complex choice with objective and subjective criteria like service, location, etc.
In other words, I'd prefer a list of "100 best prices in order" or "all prices within 5% of the best", rather than having someone make a list of 'bad companies' for me. I can remember who the companies *I* dislike are.
I *don't* want my constantly computer bugging me with questions about the dishwasher I bought six months ago, and how I rate that seller's services, etc.; and I don't want it filtering my vision if it can't know that I kinda wish I'd bought it somewhere else. I know these things already, I can scan down a list and cross out the undesirables.
On the other hand, since I doubt that users are really going to reconsider most of their default settings. (Gee, hon, since you always overuse lawn pesticides and contaminate the river anyway, you might as well check the 'evil' companies for a better price on that Weed-Away.) this could very likely result in them making suboptimal choices.
...Like never even seeing that gorgeous house from a "motivated seller" -- because it's a 'visiting executive' house owned by RJ Reynolds, United Fruit, or Amalgamated Toxins... oops, forgot to turn off the 'bad guy filter'. _____________
>>>The entire point of the Internet is to relay information. Information must, by definition, be meaningful to its recipient.
Actually, I was going to suggest something that is -- well, not quite the opposite, but certain very dissimilar to what most people would expect from this premise.
I have a huge variety of interests, and despite searching the web about a dozen times a day for disparate minutiae, I really don't have too much difficulty finding what I want. Of course, most people find my search strategies incomprehensible.
What I really want, which would require AI, rather than just clever search design, is this: I develop new interests constantly, but it's a hit or miss prospect. Sometimes I find torrents of them, while at other times, nothing new comes down the pike in weeks. I realize that there is a time dependency too -- often an article that didn't interest me last year fascinates me this year, or vice versa.
If an AI could point me at stuff I'd like and don't know about (aside from the limited domain of music, books etc.) I'd be very happy. If it could flash a dozen or two words on the screen to indicate the *themes* it's extrapolating from my current interests, I'd be fascinated.
Often a golf caddy cal tell you things about your game that you never knew. And certainly the legend of the butler is someone who can assist you in myriad ways because he observes things about you that you might not, yourself. [Chesterton]
But spare me from AskJeeves or some gottverdammt prying market-profiling 'personalized portal'
I won't list the whole thing, which can be found at this link (at the US House of Representatives website -- official enough for ya?)
TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION SUBCHAPTER II - COMMON CARRIERS Part I - Common Carrier Regulation Sec. 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
(a) Definitions As used in this section - (2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.
So *that* definition checks out, anyway. Let's see what the law prohibits:
(b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment (1) Prohibitions It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States - [...] (C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine;
Now, I'm sorry for the ugliness (can we please have the preformatted text tag back? Pretty please?) but you can check for yourself that this is indeed the proper nested reference.
Good news: 1) a computer that has a printer (and modem) is a 'telephone facsimile machine' 2) Spammers *can't* use a computer to send spam to my 'telephone facsimile machine'
Bad news: If you back up a couple of nested levels, you see items like
Title 47 TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS
47 USC 227 Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
47 USC 227 (b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment
So yes, if the spammer is using a dial-in to the internet, they are surely breaking the law. This probably applies to a lot of small-timers (a good chunk of the more clueless spams, but not necessarily a large percentage of total spam)
Unfortunately, if the spammer has a network link, instead of a dial-up account then the courts may not see this as an appropriate law to apply. You really can't blame them -- the word "telephone" could hardly be more prominent. As far as deciding what constitutes a telephone -- Three words: Technology. Judges. Barf.
But what if you use a dial-up ISP? Well, it could easily be argued that *he* didn't send the spam over the phone line, *you* did. He had no idea that you would choose to access your inbox via telephone. He addressed the e-mail to your inbox. [analogy: if someone mails you an advertisement, and you tell your secretary to fax your to the branch office where you're working this week... then YOU faxed the advertisement, not the advertiser.]
I suspect your case would be only slightly stronger if your entire domain was connected to the internet via modem or DSL. They could argue "lack of intent" and "unusual circumstances" (or similar concepts). You could argue "reckless disregard" or (or similar concepts). It's a pissing match.
That's why I chose to argue (elsewhere in this thread) from 'postal' mail principles, rather than telephone. Since I made that post, I actually found a substantial body of law supporting an anti-spam position. It turns out that we have far more (court approved) anti-junk mail power than we generally use (because it's too inconvenient as a practical matter). However, it's great precedent, and in the e-mail arena, unlike snail mail the whole process can be automated.
No, spam does not present free speech issues. I am as ardent a free-speech advocate as anyone, but it is well established that a "No Soliciting" sign is not a violation of free speech, and that disregarding such a sign is actionable -- even by constitutionally protected groups, such as a religion.
1. Not a public forum My e-mailbox is not a public space by virtue of connecting to the internet, any more than my driveway or front door are, by virtue of being accessible by public roads. Or even my USPS mailbox -- "[A] letterbox, once designated an 'authorized depository', does not at the same time undergo a transformation into a 'public forum' of some limited nature to which the First Amendment guarantees access to all comers." Justice Rehnquist in U.S. Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh, 453 U.S. 114 (1981) (skip down to Greenburgh)
2. The paper 'junk mail' analogy demolished So how does paper 'junk mail' survive? Partly though lots of expensive lobbying, and partly through a special right granted to the USPS, whereby they have quasi-ownership of my mailbox. (The US is one of the few countries to have a "Statutory Mail Box Restriction") The USPS can even prosecute my neighbors for leaving a note in my mailbox that could have been mailed (18 U.S.C. 1725) even if I, as the owner of the mailbox permit and even welcome the hand-delivery. ("Greenburgh" and other cases) However, the USPS cannot 'choose' to deny delivery of "objectionable" bulk mail, per cases like Bol ger v. Youngs Drugs Prods. (1983) (though Judge Brandeis ruled they could 'choose' to refuse to deliver certain political newspapers in Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921) So much for freedom of the press)
However, to bring this back to 'spam', I as a private recipient canban junk mail from my mailbox, by filing a form with the USPS. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court, despite the First Amendment arguments by the Direct Marketing Assoc. The whole DMA "free speech" argument for spam is based on a premise that has long been defeated for snail mail
3. Abuse of 'Opt-out' is a crime, and should be an additional charge Finally, even if Federal Law requires an opt-out address, any savvy user knows that much of the spam on the Internet at large contains fraudulent opt-out options. Not only would 'opting out' put you at risk for 'harvesting' (and hence more spam), but most spammers are fly-by-night operators who are long gone by the time you hit 'reply'. In fact, a recent article investigated and found that the bulk of spam reaches dead addresses even for those foolish enough to accept the offer being made.
In short, such spam is useless to everyone, the sender, the potential customer, and the millions of 'innocent victims'. Most users never learn this, because they are conditioned to ignore the opt-out, after a few 'harvesting' opt-outs flood their e-mail with even more spam. Here one abuse (harvesting) creates a hospitable environment that supports another (fake opt-out), a cycle that repeats in many ways throughout the spam 'industry'.
If your workplace puts a fake (or placebo) certificate where the elevator inspection card belongs, is that not a crime even more serious than failure to have a timely inspection (the former is willful criminal intent, the latter may be an accident)? If a con artist is caught in the act of trying to cheat a citizen, is it just 'free speech' until they actually walk off with the cash? Similarly, a 'fake opt-out' should a crime separate from 'failure to comply with spam regs'.
As of April 19, 2000 at least 18 states had passed or were working on legislation to restrict or regulate spam. There are, of course, serious jurisdictional issues.
This type of shut down was deliberately engineered into the system.
The FBI explicitly noted that their proposals would shut down gun sales nationally if any one of the 8-15 "key" record systems did not return a response. This was a "feature", not a bug.
Ordinarily, any "hit" any of these computerized databases will refer your inquiry to a criminal records analyst (currently being hired and trained) and either slow your approval or trigger a formal delay (or denial). Only one condition will 'clear' a sale: All databases queried, all systems responding, no records found. The regulations are explicit: if any one system fails to respond, no retail sales will be 'cleared'.
The FBI determines which computer systems will be linked, and is encouraging various agencies to get the interface specs and consider participating. The official list includes at least:
National Crime Information Center (NCIC, a compilation of networks and systems whose exact makeup is not readily available; includes wanted persons, missing persons, stolen property, stolen cars, stolen boats, fugitives, more. It reportedly can handle a million automated inquiries per day.)
Interstate Identification Index (III, a linkage of individual states' records; one state police department reports it goes down almost daily)
National Instant Check System Index (NICS)
Department of Defense
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Veteran's Administration
FBI State Records files
State Department
Other computer-system operators that have been mentioned as part of the database network include: Internal Revenue Service; Drug Enforcement Agency; U.S. Border Patrol; U.S. Customs Dept.; a Protective Orders database (there have been vague references to such a thing, related to domestic violence laws, federal availability is unclear) and of course, not to forget, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. _____________
Up to 50% of the legally registered guns in the US are not properly entered in the Federal database, due to incompetence, illegal procedures, and the outright destruction of thousands of legally submitted, but unprocessed records by BATF employees to 'reduce backlog'.
Under the current system, the NFRTR return "No record found" if a registration inquiry is made for one of these guns, which is considered proof of illegal possession, and grounds for prosecution. Dealers and private owners who submitted legal paperwork have gone to jail because the BATF denied knowledge of them.
In other words, any legal gun owner has a 50-50 chance of facing a costly legal case, and possible jail time, because the NFRTR records have been in shambles all along. This is confirmed by the 1995 Congressional of Thomas A. Busey, then Chief of the National Firearms Act Branch of the BATF (see below) "...when I first came in a year ago, our error rate was between 49 and 50 percent"
The BATF has stonewalled and denied for years, but have been forced to admit detail after painful detail (only to deny them all again the following year) A Google search for "Gary Schaible" (no quotes) will turn up dozens of documents and links to further information. (Special Agent Schaible was a BATF spokesman whose testimony to courts and Congress has been full of inaccuracies and outright purjury.)
Anyone who owns legal guns, or believes that registration can ever work should read "Institutional Perjury", an article by Col (ret.) James H. Jeffries, III USMC, Reserve (a retired DOJ lawyer, practicing firearms law in Greensboro, N.C) outlining some of the BATF abuses. (This includes the Busey quote above, but does not cover the famous "Gestapo tactics" incidents)
Reform from within hasn't worked either. Here's as affadavit by Eric Martin Larson of the GAO (Government Accounting Office) regarding systematic errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) and his efforts to have them corrected. This is just one of his many reports and letters to Congress, but after his initial failure, his later reports are painstaking line by line and word by word responses to BATF tetimony and documents, and are very diffficult to read without the originals in front of you
MAFIAdot: "News for Murderers, Assorted Felons, and Internet Attorneys, Stuff that doesn't involve you, bub!"
Guido the Clueless writes "The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for those of you not from The Great White North) has an article on why the media use the term 'criminal' versus 'community-minded businessman with strong family values'." Well, at least it's an understanding of why they use the term incorrectly...
Now why are we so sure that we know the "correct" meanings of the word, and the proper use of the term?
1) 99% of the world certainly doesn't agree 2) It's irrelevant that "we" feel "we" are the people they are talking about. Would we let pedophiles decide what *they* should correctly be called? Sorry, if we have our preferred term and it doesn't catch on, tough luck. 3) even 'hacker' *was* used at MIT in the 70's to describe computer cracking. There was a variety of distinctions and terms usd, none universal (white hat, evil, chaotic neutral, underground, etc.) And it wasn't that the issue didn't arise. There were countless discussions of how outsiders (and even many apparent cognoscienti) 'didn't understand hacking'
Sorry guys. I would've loved to have won this one -- and I suspect that someday we will (when society recognizes the need for these distinctions and adopts terms -- of it's choosing -- to reflect them.
Right now, were just militant whining PC advocates (Political Correctness -- the *other* PC)
I'm as big a fan of satire as anyone, but in IDG's defense, one of the great satirists of all time, Ambrose Bierce, was badly bitten by a failure to protect his 'title theme'
Bierce's 'Devils Dictionary' (modern title) mocks society so trenchantly that it's hard to believe parts of it were published as early as 1881
His newspaper made him use the more reverent "Cynic's Word Book" as a title for his column and his wit became so famous and popular that by the time his book came out, the world had been flooded with The Cynic's This, The Cynic's That, and The Cynic's T'other. His book, swamped out by its own imitators, sold poorly.
It's public domain now (available at e-text sites -- alas, many also distribute stripped down demo versions of modern commercial e-packagings. Make sure you get the complete original). Though some of his quips suffer from over a century of unattributed borrowing, there are still gems on every page. It would have been a best seller, if people could find it among all the dross.
"... for Dummies" may not deserve the same accolades, but if IDG chooses to use this amusing (well, it was amusing in 1991) demarcation for its series, it's just as valid as SAMS, PhotoFacts or Chilton's. Half the reason people want to call themselves '... for dummies' is to steal a bit of (now tired) wit -- which pretty much tells you what to expect from the rest of their 'parody' or 'instructions'. The fact is, most '...for Dummies' like most "Cynic's Whatnot", are just capitalizing on the popularity of someone else's concept.
That's not to say that some of the parodies aren't quite good -- but it wouldn't be hard to change the title a bit, for *greater* parody effect. Stealing the trademarked element of the title is neither essential, nor particularly clever. _____________
Periodically, I feel obligated to remind people that the famous phrase "shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" (actual quote) is not only prone to abuse, it was born of judicial abuse
Justice Holmes coined this memorable phrase in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Schenck printed 15,000 leaflets: the front contained the text of Section I of the 13th Amendment, and the flip side of the leaflet had phrases and slogans like: "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your Rights", "your right to assert your opposition to the draft", and "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain."
Schenck spent 10(?) years in jal for merely telling his citizens their constitutional rights The 'fire in a crowded theater' argument was used to allow the Supreme Court uphold his conviction
This is not a precedent that should be blithely tossed around without noting the history of abuse that it engendered.
This court ruling, and others explicitly based on it led to the Pulitzer Prize winning author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the text of the First Amendment at a union rally (1923) and many others being arrested for belonging to, or participating in, groups espousing views regarded as "radical" by the government in this period (I'm talking about unions and religious societies, not the Communist Party or subversive groups)
In short -- "the crowded theater" can and has been something as seemingly innocuous as Slashdot, and the cry was not false Better put a lawyer - a criminal lawyer - on retainer before expressing any opinions in public;-> _____________
Interesting insights. However, I've always wondered why 'dark matter that steadfastly refused to cluster like ordinary matter' would be such a problem. [I understand that it would impact some current theories of galaxy formation, etc. but I'll get to that in a moment]
First off, 'ordinary matter' may well a minority constituent of the universe (Sure *we* like it, but it's all we've seen)
We've been modeling galactic dynamics as an attraction-only model, yet I have never seen any discussion of the 'exclusion-type' epiphenomena that we commonly observe on earth. An example would be the manner in which large rocks float (seemingly counterintuitively) to the surface of shaken gravel. (This has many practical applications: they recently reversed avalanche survival procedure to reflect this -- so we're betting lives on it!) Other exclusionary epiphenomena include immiscible droplets (e.g. oil 'excluded' from water by the greater polar attraction between water molecules) and cellular membranes (which are lipid bilayers in aqueous environments)
If the dark matter interacted more strongly with itself than with 'ordinary matter' then we might expect similar exclusionary epiphenomena... droplets or bubbles of 'ordinary matter' excluded from a sea of dark matter. Given how extremely tenuous matter (of all types) was in space even in the first Billion years, this effect might simply speed the creation of the initial protogalaxies slightly.
Once excluded, 'ordinary matter' would exhibit the intragalactic dynamics we would otherwise predict from our models. AFAIK, current theories of inter-galaxy dynamics would be unaffected, since they acknowledge 'something's out there' but don't specify how that 'something' would interact with *itself*.
I agree this is all speculative, but the key is that all interactions between dark matter and ordinary matter are unchanged, it's only the interaction between dark matter and dark matter that is changed. I'd expect this to be detectable through very subtle variations in 'observable matter' (galaxy) dynamics, reflecting the underlying distribution of dark matter, but I don't think experiments/models of sufficient detail exist yet.
I've seen you on a lot of the topics I browse, so I assume we have similar interests. Please understand that I don't mean to be obnoxious when I say this, but it is my understanding that there is no mathematical requirement for a Calibi-Yau space to have a specific curvature (positive negative or zero)
Instead of saying that "The two have distinct curvature due to their differences in size", wouldn't it be more accurate (and enlightening) to consider that the two have different sizes due to their curvature?
A (terribly) gross analogy: a 'garden hose' of infinite length is an non-bounded two dimensional surface embedded in a three dimensional space. The difference between the nature of its [infinite, essentially zero curvature] length and its [finite, positive curvature) circumference can be seen as a function of the curvature. Less curvature = larger diameter hose; a much lower curvature would be like a subway tunnel, much closer to flat locally, but of identical global geometry.
[Sorry for mixing the r=1/kappa definition of curvature where it doesn't quite fit. All readers actively involved in the large-scale warping of space, please cover your eyes -- no, not while you're.... >GLURP ] _____________
Re:Could mean some bucks for The Open Group, too
on
UNIX.com On eBay?
·
· Score: 1
Interesting comments. I've downloaded the Open Group trademark use guidelines, but don't know when I'll have a chance to read it. However:
1) "Proper use" may be all-caps, but that does not mean all-lowercase isn't an infringement. Licensed users, fair-use users (everyone who has that "*nix is a trademark of..." disclaimer), and the press would be interested in 'proper use'. Infringers obviously aren't, but that doesn't mean they can't be sued.
2) Wasn't UnixWare a licensed usage (when UNIX belonged to ATT). Didn't SCO have to negotiate use of that trademark? I vaguely recall they did. Details would be appreciated, if some reader has them. [OOps - just spotted this. Section 4.1 of the trademark agreement says: "The Licence specifically prohibits Licensees of any Trade Marks from registering with the relevant trade mark authorities specific forms of the Trade Marks including trade marks used in combination." Of course infringers aren't licensees;->]
3) Even if this wasn't a matter of legal firepower (which of course it is) I don't think any of us would expect to last five nanoseconds in court trying to use a domain-name like coca-cola.com (Look ma! A hyphen, I'm unique!) or CocaCola.com (one word) or playing the Capitalization game (since Coca Cola (TM) is properly capitalized)
I really think the 'laser wiretap' is overblown. After all microwaves, etc. are quite a bit easier to tap thna a laner, since lasers are more tightly collimated.
*HOWEVER* I'd like to point out that (on a purely
technical level) tapping a technical signal is easier than you might think, because the intruder can amplify the signal at the point of interception, and therefore needs to divert only a fraction of the signal.
Even the tricky issue of 'the optical edge' (inserting the optical element without the boundary of the optical element causing a detectable interruption) is easily handled by using "edgeless" optical 'diverters' like smoke or steam
Get out your pocket pointer laser, and a phototransistor. Point the phototransistor at a point along the laser beam, and insert some of the following in the beam at that point:
Smoke/Steam/mist - if you see the beam, so will the phototransistor; no edge to temporarily interrupt the beam; even if you accidentally trigger the gadget that automatically photographs beam blocking objects, then photo won't show anything very incriminating (re: your identity)
For silly hacker/cracker movie scripts:
a transparent helium balloon (they 'light up' when the beam hits them)
Slashdot Mirror
Thousands (perhaps millions) of people around the country, who have sufficient interest in music to care deeply about the distribution and cost issues and who are likely to have been 'customers' in the past are boycotting CDs, etc.
According to 'lost revenue' studies like these every boycott appears to be piracy!
Hey, maybe MP3's *do* cut revenues... because when the RIAA acts rashly and insensitively on the MP3 issue, it ticks people off.
-----------
This is only intended to be semi-serious, but it illustrates a point about study assumptions
_____________
I like the general principle of quantum searching, and think that it may have glossed over the single most important issue in actual practice:
... there is a high probability you will get the right result."
"It would be most useful where you have partial information and probabilities," Grover explained. "(If) you are 90 percent sure it is John and 10 percent it's James and 50 percent it's on Broadway
Unfortunately, this never happens, and for good reason: I'm never 90% sure (or 10% or 50%) of anything. I may use those terms in speech, but they are mathematically meaningless (undefined) -- no matter what my lifeline says on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"
If it turns out I'm *really* looking for Jahn on Boardwalk, the quantum search engine can tell me I must've had my probablilities wrong. But there is no way that I can ascertain this in advance. Though I can construct test data to represent defined amounts of uncertainty, here is no tool for measuring "How sure I am" (40%? 50%? 60%?)
In short: {i}The trick to quantum searching is formulating the right query -- and that may be impractical or impossible[/i] [b] I hereby dub this the 'Jeopardy' Problem[/b] -- how do I phrase it in the form of a question? (short of "What is the phone number of John Smith of 4225 Broadway Apt 3c?")
Will the search engine give me the same answer if I say I'm 40% sure it's John as it would if I'm 60% sure its John? Should it? On one hand, the two situations may be very different, on the other, they may be essentially identical.
There are many other very down-to-earth and practical problems that we'd see instantly, if it weren't for that magic word "quantum" -- do you have *any* idea how many people named John or Jim live on Broadway? Hundreds. And how many live "off Broadway"? Possibly thousands depending on how far "off" you're willing to accept.
A boolean search can find that list for you. Tell me how a "quantum search" can derive additional information from the query -- when you are looking for John Smith, and I am looking for John Doe. Quantum ain't magic. It can't read minds. Not with current technology!
_____________
Thanks for the update. I'd seen those implications in the ECD website, but...
I am not sure that NiMH batteries were invented by ECD. The ECD website only claims a) all "significant" manufacturers of NiMH have a license with them (implying that some don't - why?) and b) the first commercial NiMH manufacturer 'used' Ovionics technolgy. This company (Gold Peak) was also 'one of ECD's early licensees' -- this seems like an odd way of saying "we invented NiMH". It is almost as if they are trying to imply that without actually saying it
I tried checking the USPTO database, but if he had the groundbreaking patents, they are too old to show up on the database. I concluded this by checking the bibliographic entries for current Ovshinsky NiMH patents (which contain the patent numbers of preceding/related art) I presume he would cite his own groundbreaking patents. It is possible that I'd learn more by reading the complete applications, but IANAL (and no one's paying me for *that* depth of research)
I was aware of their early flexible amorphous solar cells in the 70's, but I didn't know these were a major part of today's market. Are they?
Besides I'm not sure that one major product (or maybe two) in 40 years is a "decent track record in products" (ECD was founded in 1960) ECD seems to have some viable products, but I'm surprised that they seem to be incremental improvements over the state of the art, while their past (and present) technology always seems billed as 'revolutionary'
Of course, that can happen. I think Harry Bede is a good example. He designed and produced the BD-5 airplanes and an interesting 'inline' automobile -- both products I'd have bought instantly (well, once I could afford them) but his companies can't seem to stay in production very long.
_____________
Here are a few resources for anyone with the guts to make a go of it, and the brains to do it right. Some cover artificial islands, and some natural.
Proposed Inhabited Artificial Islands in International Waters
United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea Alas, for an 'artificial island' server farm, Article 121 states "3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf." Sections 60 and 80 confirm this. For 'natural islands' the key article seems to be Article 76, covering the 'continental shelf' provision.
Isn't the new volcanic island off New Zealand? if so, this summary of the New Zealand Geologic and Oceanographic Service's interpretation of UNCLOS may be useful.
There's a lot more, but basically sovereignity does *not* depend on actually possessing territory (the Vatican was sovereign during the time when Italy claimed its territory, as acknowledged by the other major powers) and actually possessing territory, the consent of the governed, and an independent, fully functioning government with military forces sufficient to defend that territory is not enough to guarantee sovereignity. (Taiwan was once thrown out of the UN because it was deemed to lack sovereignity despite possessing all of these)
Happy planning -- and best'o'luck to you!
_____________
As soon as I heard the name "Ovonyx" I was reminded of Stanford Ovshinsky, a physicist who claimed to revolutionize amorphous silicon technology, reportedly 'inventing' a field of Materials Science called "ovonics". He was a minor hero to me as a teenager (the 70's). I'm not such a fan now.
/. for not checking further, I think readers might want to.
/. article
Though I can hardly blame
Sure enough, on the "About the Corporation" page, it confirms: "The Corporation Ovonyx, Inc. (Ovonyx) was formed in 1999 as a joint venture between Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. (ECD) and Messrs. Tyler Lowrey and Ward Parkinson. ECD is Ovshinsky's company (founded in 1960). Surprisingly, no link or further information is provided on ECD, which according to the Ovonyx Corporate page "has been actively pursuing phase-change material and device structure development,optimization and characterization for many applications - but principally for optical and electrical memories."
From what I recall from the 70's/80's, ECD wasn't 'focused' in these areas, but on solar panels (hence the name "Energy Conversion Devices"). This may explain why "ECD's contribution to the Ovonyx joint venture was all of its intellectual property (IP) in this area" [optical and electrical memory]. Perhaps ECD didn't feel it could make use of this IP, and turned it over to two former top Micron Technology (chip) execs. Read on for details
THE BACKGROUND
Ovshinsky was a darling of the Japanese in the 70's/80's when Americans were in shock because the Japanese were using American findings like the management theories of Edwards Deming (who was revered like a god in Japan), 'process control', and "just in time" to turn out cars that the US auto giants couldn't match. American business was also awash in culture shock from dealing with the Japanese business systems (kureitsu, etc.) as equals and as a potential market.
Ovshinsky raised money by chiding US corps that they would miss the Next Big Thing if they didn't invest in his work, but his primary business relationships were with the Japanese.
The PBS show NOVA even did a one hour documentary on him ("Japan's American Genius" 10/27/87) that seemed to promise that cheap high efficiency amorphous solar cells would be around any day now. I've kept my eyes peeled ever since (I instantly made the Ovonyx connection in 5/2000!), and never heard anything about ECD. The advances in amorphous technology always seemed to come from elsewhere.
I haven't been impressed by ECD's ability to bring *any* product to market in 40 years, and I don't know of any breakthroughs they have made or licensed -- and all their 'background' and 'product' links seem to point to nonexistent documents in a 'drafts' folder. However, I may be wrong, or perhaps the documents are being updated, so I refer you to ECD's home page, which is (perhaps unsurprisingly, considering Ovshinsky supposedly pioneered 'ovonics') http://www.ovonic.com not to be confused with the OVONYX site in the
Perhaps I am a little jaded, because I was once a big fan of Ovshinsky (as he was presented), but what I've read in the OVONIX and ECD (OVONIC)web sites seems to have an unusual, almost Microsoftian degree of 'spin'. Caveat emptor.
However, if anyone out there knows of some concrete product or technical advance that proceeded directly from ECD or Ovshinsky, I would be *most* happy to hear about it. You have to reclaim those childhood heroes when you can! It's good for the soul.
_____________
You damn Earthling internet pirates!
The Cydonian Face is a copyrighted work of artistic expression protected by the DMCA. If tens of millions of miles of distance isn't access control, I don't know what is! Pirate websites like this which distribute images created by NASA hardware hackers with 'homemade' imagers and transmitters are taking food out of the mouths of starving artists like Lars "It even rhymes with Mars, how dumb can these humans be" Ulrich of Metallica -- not to mention the management and staff of the MPAA (Martian Protected Art Association) and RIAA (Rich Influential Alien Agents)
Use licenses are available under the terms of the JPL (Jammed Pubic License) for noncommercial private use only. Retransmission or distribution of these images and videos, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Martian League Baseball, is expressly prohibited.
_____________
How much do you want to bet that when I try to specify copper Alphas, that dimwit teenager in Academic Purchasing (who thinks he's 3l337 because he can remember the HardOCP URL 2 times out of three) will get me a stack'o'coppermines instead?
Oh, and think of all the lovely conversations you'll overhear waiting in line with that last Y power connector for your Beowulf as the wannabe Mr. Know-it-alls ("I order all my systems on-line!") tie up the Saturday salesclerks with impossibly self-contradictory orders.
_____________
So exactly what "protection" does a "traditional copyrighted work" -- book, artwork, or musical composition -- use to protect itself from copying? None. Because that's not what "traditional copyright protection" does.
We must not let them confuse these terms! Unlike the great debate over the usage of 'hacker' , the "protections of copyright" are spelled out explicitly in legislation and case law. Those protections are primarily: 1) the right to litigate and collect damages for violations; and 2) the right to apply for pre-emptive relief (by court-order) to stop on-going violations before more damage is done (if you can convince a judge)
We often let the software industry use the term 'copyright protection' when they really mean 'copy protection', but we cannot allow this confusion to be codified into law or fossilized as a centerpiece of the larger intellectual property debate.
Copyright protection means The Law allows the copyright owner to control their own works (or work they have purchased the copyrights to). Copy protection simply blocks any non-revenue access without regard to whether it is legal or not.
'Copyright protection' specifically allows 'fair use'; 'copy protection' intends to prevent 'fair use' -- or any use, other than the 'minimal intended use' (e.g. viewing DVDs on MS platforms)
_____________
When establishing a new standard, trademark the name. This can be perfectly compliant with OSS.
Write a 'nominal fee' ($1) license for Kerberos (tm) and "Kerberoid"(tm) (or some other word that describes Kerberos compatibility), and explicit terms under which the license is automatically issued upon receipt of payment. Then give the Trademark to EFF (or IETF - thought IETF is less likely to enforce, and may move more slowly on changes)
It is not to late to trademark Kerberos, since the originator has clear a clear history of title and trade use on this trade name for this "product".
If one requirement for licensing is 'interoperability' with a reference standard, then MSFT Kerberos becomes a litigable violation. A clever lawyer may find a way to make 'Kerberos compatible' a violation, though it would not be straightforward.
_____________
Yes, I've seen this kind of ad increasingly on Prime Time TV. Recall that IPO which mocked its senseless profligacy during the superbowl? I used to love that kind of self-mocking humor, but I feel it's passed a threshold.
It's official. Technology marketing for the Big Companies has ceased to even remotely concern itself with the quality of the product. It's all pure name recognition from here to the Meltdown.
Of course, that's not entirely unnecessary now. I can't keep track of who still exists, who was bought, sold, merged (and under what new name even with a scorecard. (*sigh* It took me years to get used to Enco/Humble becoming Exxon in the 70's, back when we only had a few major changes all decade. Then came the 80's, the MBAs, junk bonds, the LBO (leveraged buyout), the RBOCs (Baby Bells)... Suddenly I feel the need to change my sig.
_____________
Other have addressed some of the reasons why this is hardly the panacea it seems at first glance. I just want to note that whenever a law is passed to control an 'out of control' practice, the public's resistance to that practice diminishes.
Even the most inept telephone telemarketer has a few stories of conversions: people who start off following the "Put me on your No-Call list" script of DMA-supported so-called 'consumer' groups, but end up as buyers. The secret is that the longer you talk, the more likely you are to buy. Most people who follow a No-Call script would have hung up point-blank before. The 'don't call' script offers a tiny foot in the door of otherwise definite no-gos. The Telemarketers have scripts of their own to capitalize on this.
Why do you think Publisher's Clearinghouse makes you fiddle with so many stickers to complete one of their sweepstakes stickers? So the visions of payoff, and other irrational notions can dance in your head. Even after you hang up after your Don't-Call spiel, don't you secretly wish they call back, so you can nail them in small claims. Only a tiny handful of people have ever successfully sued (not enough to pay for a single DMA trade seminar luncheon) while telemarketers do many successful conversions every hour, in every state.
And now we dangle the 'bounty' of a potential windfall, albeit a modest one, in front of every newbie, casual user, and kid?
Less spam will get filtered and discarded unread and more spam will be scrutinized for 'illegal' elements that qualify it for the bounty. People will be less cautious about prtecting their e-mail, because it's a potential pay-off as well as an annoyance, and because watching your privacy is hard work, and humans will seek any rationalization to avoid such a tedious and thankless task. "Spam is illegal" is just such an excuse
Publishers Clearing House would love this! PCH spends several times as much on its interactive sticker-laden mailings than it does on the grand prize - and made decades of tidy profit on this marketing model. They are proof of concept.
Salesmen - especially shady ones - are cynical masters of psychology, unlike engineers.
I'll close with a general warning tht you should keep in mind for the next year of so:We are at a critical time when private data is still largely unregulated in the US, and is not as tightly regulated as it will be, even in Europe. They can gather and share information now that they may never be allowed to gather again.
_____________
--- Borland C++
--- C++ Compiler
--- Borland Turbo C++ Suite
--- Borland C++ Builder
The license cited is for Borland C++ Builder -- a completely different product from Borland C++. This betrays either gross neglect, or deliberate inflammatory rhetoric. Anyone, anywhere could screw thenselves up using the wrong product in almost any task. Therefore getting the name right is the most basic act that anyone can be expected to do.
Besides, as has been noted elsewhere, Borland C++ Builder *generates* code for you. You can write and distribute the binary, or any source code you write -- but not source code that Borland writes.
_____________
The problem with your 'full-featured' pricing agent is that as a general rule, users will be asking it to evaluate criteria that they themselves cannot. Buying is a complex choice with objective and subjective criteria like service, location, etc.
In other words, I'd prefer a list of "100 best prices in order" or "all prices within 5% of the best", rather than having someone make a list of 'bad companies' for me. I can remember who the companies *I* dislike are.
I *don't* want my constantly computer bugging me with questions about the dishwasher I bought six months ago, and how I rate that seller's services, etc.; and I don't want it filtering my vision if it can't know that I kinda wish I'd bought it somewhere else. I know these things already, I can scan down a list and cross out the undesirables.
On the other hand, since I doubt that users are really going to reconsider most of their default settings. (Gee, hon, since you always overuse lawn pesticides and contaminate the river anyway, you might as well check the 'evil' companies for a better price on that Weed-Away.) this could very likely result in them making suboptimal choices.
...Like never even seeing that gorgeous house from a "motivated seller" -- because it's a 'visiting executive' house owned by RJ Reynolds, United Fruit, or Amalgamated Toxins... oops, forgot to turn off the 'bad guy filter'.
_____________
>>>The entire point of the Internet is to relay information. Information must, by definition, be meaningful to its recipient.
Actually, I was going to suggest something that is -- well, not quite the opposite, but certain very dissimilar to what most people would expect from this premise.
I have a huge variety of interests, and despite searching the web about a dozen times a day for disparate minutiae, I really don't have too much difficulty finding what I want. Of course, most people find my search strategies incomprehensible.
What I really want, which would require AI, rather than just clever search design, is this: I develop new interests constantly, but it's a hit or miss prospect. Sometimes I find torrents of them, while at other times, nothing new comes down the pike in weeks. I realize that there is a time dependency too -- often an article that didn't interest me last year fascinates me this year, or vice versa.
If an AI could point me at stuff I'd like and don't know about (aside from the limited domain of music, books etc.) I'd be very happy. If it could flash a dozen or two words on the screen to indicate the *themes* it's extrapolating from my current interests, I'd be fascinated.
Often a golf caddy cal tell you things about your game that you never knew. And certainly the legend of the butler is someone who can assist you in myriad ways because he observes things about you that you might not, yourself. [Chesterton]
But spare me from AskJeeves or some gottverdammt prying market-profiling 'personalized portal'
_____________
TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS
CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION
SUBCHAPTER II - COMMON CARRIERS
Part I - Common Carrier Regulation
Sec. 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
(a) Definitions
As used in this section -
(2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which has the capacity
(A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or
(B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.
So *that* definition checks out, anyway. Let's see what the law prohibits:
(b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment
(1) Prohibitions
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States -
[...]
(C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine;
Now, I'm sorry for the ugliness (can we please have the preformatted text tag back? Pretty please?) but you can check for yourself that this is indeed the proper nested reference.
Good news:
1) a computer that has a printer (and modem) is a 'telephone facsimile machine'
2) Spammers *can't* use a computer to send spam to my 'telephone facsimile machine'
Bad news:
If you back up a couple of nested levels, you see items like
So yes, if the spammer is using a dial-in to the internet, they are surely breaking the law. This probably applies to a lot of small-timers (a good chunk of the more clueless spams, but not necessarily a large percentage of total spam)
Unfortunately, if the spammer has a network link, instead of a dial-up account then the courts may not see this as an appropriate law to apply. You really can't blame them -- the word "telephone" could hardly be more prominent. As far as deciding what constitutes a telephone -- Three words: Technology. Judges. Barf.
But what if you use a dial-up ISP? Well, it could easily be argued that *he* didn't send the spam over the phone line, *you* did. He had no idea that you would choose to access your inbox via telephone. He addressed the e-mail to your inbox. [analogy: if someone mails you an advertisement, and you tell your secretary to fax your to the branch office where you're working this week... then YOU faxed the advertisement, not the advertiser.]
I suspect your case would be only slightly stronger if your entire domain was connected to the internet via modem or DSL. They could argue "lack of intent" and "unusual circumstances" (or similar concepts). You could argue "reckless disregard" or (or similar concepts). It's a pissing match.
That's why I chose to argue (elsewhere in this thread) from 'postal' mail principles, rather than telephone. Since I made that post, I actually found a substantial body of law supporting an anti-spam position. It turns out that we have far more (court approved) anti-junk mail power than we generally use (because it's too inconvenient as a practical matter). However, it's great precedent, and in the e-mail arena, unlike snail mail the whole process can be automated.
_____________
No, spam does not present free speech issues. I am as ardent a free-speech advocate as anyone, but it is well established that a "No Soliciting" sign is not a violation of free speech, and that disregarding such a sign is actionable -- even by constitutionally protected groups, such as a religion.
1. Not a public forum
My e-mailbox is not a public space by virtue of connecting to the internet, any more than my driveway or front door are, by virtue of being accessible by public roads. Or even my USPS mailbox -- "[A] letterbox, once designated an 'authorized depository', does not at the same time undergo a transformation into a 'public forum' of some limited nature to which the First Amendment guarantees access to all comers." Justice Rehnquist in U.S. Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh, 453 U.S. 114 (1981) (skip down to Greenburgh)
2. The paper 'junk mail' analogy demolished
So how does paper 'junk mail' survive? Partly though lots of expensive lobbying, and partly through a special right granted to the USPS, whereby they have quasi-ownership of my mailbox. (The US is one of the few countries to have a "Statutory Mail Box Restriction") The USPS can even prosecute my neighbors for leaving a note in my mailbox that could have been mailed (18 U.S.C. 1725) even if I, as the owner of the mailbox permit and even welcome the hand-delivery. ("Greenburgh" and other cases) However, the USPS cannot 'choose' to deny delivery of "objectionable" bulk mail, per cases like Bol ger v. Youngs Drugs Prods. (1983) (though Judge Brandeis ruled they could 'choose' to refuse to deliver certain political newspapers in Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921) So much for freedom of the press)
However, to bring this back to 'spam', I as a private recipient can ban junk mail from my mailbox, by filing a form with the USPS. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court, despite the First Amendment arguments by the Direct Marketing Assoc. The whole DMA "free speech" argument for spam is based on a premise that has long been defeated for snail mail
3. Abuse of 'Opt-out' is a crime, and should be an additional charge
Finally, even if Federal Law requires an opt-out address, any savvy user knows that much of the spam on the Internet at large contains fraudulent opt-out options. Not only would 'opting out' put you at risk for 'harvesting' (and hence more spam), but most spammers are fly-by-night operators who are long gone by the time you hit 'reply'. In fact, a recent article investigated and found that the bulk of spam reaches dead addresses even for those foolish enough to accept the offer being made.
In short, such spam is useless to everyone, the sender, the potential customer, and the millions of 'innocent victims'. Most users never learn this, because they are conditioned to ignore the opt-out, after a few 'harvesting' opt-outs flood their e-mail with even more spam. Here one abuse (harvesting) creates a hospitable environment that supports another (fake opt-out), a cycle that repeats in many ways throughout the spam 'industry'.
If your workplace puts a fake (or placebo) certificate where the elevator inspection card belongs, is that not a crime even more serious than failure to have a timely inspection (the former is willful criminal intent, the latter may be an accident)? If a con artist is caught in the act of trying to cheat a citizen, is it just 'free speech' until they actually walk off with the cash? Similarly, a 'fake opt-out' should a crime separate from 'failure to comply with spam regs'.
As of April 19, 2000 at least 18 states had passed or were working on legislation to restrict or regulate spam. There are, of course, serious jurisdictional issues.
_____________
The FBI explicitly noted that their proposals would shut down gun sales nationally if any one of the 8-15 "key" record systems did not return a response. This was a "feature", not a bug.
Ordinarily, any "hit" any of these computerized databases will refer your inquiry to a criminal records analyst (currently being hired and trained) and either slow your approval or trigger a formal delay (or denial). Only one condition will 'clear' a sale: All databases queried, all systems responding, no records found. The regulations are explicit: if any one system fails to respond, no retail sales will be 'cleared'.
The FBI determines which computer systems will be linked, and is encouraging various agencies to get the interface specs and consider participating. The official list includes at least:
- National Crime Information Center (NCIC, a compilation of networks and systems whose exact makeup is not readily available; includes wanted persons, missing persons, stolen property, stolen cars, stolen boats, fugitives, more. It reportedly can handle a million automated inquiries per day.)
- Interstate Identification Index (III, a linkage of individual states' records; one state police department reports it goes down almost daily)
- National Instant Check System Index (NICS)
- Department of Defense
- Immigration and Naturalization Service
- Veteran's Administration
- FBI State Records files
- State Department
Other computer-system operators that have been mentioned as part of the database network include: Internal Revenue Service; Drug Enforcement Agency; U.S. Border Patrol; U.S. Customs Dept.; a Protective Orders database (there have been vague references to such a thing, related to domestic violence laws, federal availability is unclear) and of course, not to forget, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms._____________
Up to 50% of the legally registered guns in the US are not properly entered in the Federal database, due to incompetence, illegal procedures, and the outright destruction of thousands of legally submitted, but unprocessed records by BATF employees to 'reduce backlog'.
Under the current system, the NFRTR return "No record found" if a registration inquiry is made for one of these guns, which is considered proof of illegal possession, and grounds for prosecution. Dealers and private owners who submitted legal paperwork have gone to jail because the BATF denied knowledge of them.
In other words, any legal gun owner has a 50-50 chance of facing a costly legal case, and possible jail time, because the NFRTR records have been in shambles all along. This is confirmed by the 1995 Congressional of Thomas A. Busey, then Chief of the National Firearms Act Branch of the BATF (see below) "...when I first came in a year ago, our error rate was between 49 and 50 percent"
The BATF has stonewalled and denied for years, but have been forced to admit detail after painful detail (only to deny them all again the following year) A Google search for "Gary Schaible" (no quotes) will turn up dozens of documents and links to further information. (Special Agent Schaible was a BATF spokesman whose testimony to courts and Congress has been full of inaccuracies and outright purjury.)
Anyone who owns legal guns, or believes that registration can ever work should read "Institutional Perjury", an article by Col (ret.) James H. Jeffries, III USMC, Reserve (a retired DOJ lawyer, practicing firearms law in Greensboro, N.C) outlining some of the BATF abuses. (This includes the Busey quote above, but does not cover the famous "Gestapo tactics" incidents)
Reform from within hasn't worked either. Here's as affadavit by Eric Martin Larson of the GAO (Government Accounting Office) regarding systematic errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) and his efforts to have them corrected. This is just one of his many reports and letters to Congress, but after his initial failure, his later reports are painstaking line by line and word by word responses to BATF tetimony and documents, and are very diffficult to read without the originals in front of you
---------------------------------------------
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
[roughly: "...swords don't kill people; people kill people."]
-- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD),
_____________
Guido the Clueless writes "The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for those of you not from The Great White North) has an article on why the media use the term 'criminal' versus 'community-minded businessman with strong family values'." Well, at least it's an understanding of why they use the term incorrectly...
Now why are we so sure that we know the "correct" meanings of the word, and the proper use of the term?
1) 99% of the world certainly doesn't agree
2) It's irrelevant that "we" feel "we" are the people they are talking about. Would we let pedophiles decide what *they* should correctly be called? Sorry, if we have our preferred term and it doesn't catch on, tough luck.
3) even 'hacker' *was* used at MIT in the 70's to
describe computer cracking. There was a variety of distinctions and terms usd, none universal (white hat, evil, chaotic neutral, underground, etc.) And it wasn't that the issue didn't arise. There were countless discussions of how outsiders (and even many apparent cognoscienti) 'didn't understand hacking'
Sorry guys. I would've loved to have won this one -- and I suspect that someday we will (when society recognizes the need for these distinctions and adopts terms -- of it's choosing -- to reflect them.
Right now, were just militant whining PC advocates (Political Correctness -- the *other* PC)
_____________
I'm as big a fan of satire as anyone, but in IDG's defense, one of the great satirists of all time, Ambrose Bierce, was badly bitten by a failure to protect his 'title theme'
Bierce's 'Devils Dictionary' (modern title) mocks society so trenchantly that it's hard to believe parts of it were published as early as 1881
His newspaper made him use the more reverent "Cynic's Word Book" as a title for his column and his wit became so famous and popular that by the time his book came out, the world had been flooded with The Cynic's This, The Cynic's That, and The Cynic's T'other. His book, swamped out by its own imitators, sold poorly.
It's public domain now (available at e-text sites -- alas, many also distribute stripped down demo versions of modern commercial e-packagings. Make sure you get the complete original). Though some of his quips suffer from over a century of unattributed borrowing, there are still gems on every page. It would have been a best seller, if people could find it among all the dross.
"... for Dummies" may not deserve the same accolades, but if IDG chooses to use this amusing (well, it was amusing in 1991) demarcation for its series, it's just as valid as SAMS, PhotoFacts or Chilton's. Half the reason people want to call themselves '... for dummies' is to steal a bit of (now tired) wit -- which pretty much tells you what to expect from the rest of their 'parody' or 'instructions'. The fact is, most '...for Dummies' like most "Cynic's Whatnot", are just capitalizing on the popularity of someone else's concept.
That's not to say that some of the parodies aren't quite good -- but it wouldn't be hard to change the title a bit, for *greater* parody effect. Stealing the trademarked element of the title is neither essential, nor particularly clever.
_____________
Periodically, I feel obligated to remind people that the famous phrase "shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" (actual quote) is not only prone to abuse, it was born of judicial abuse
;->
Justice Holmes coined this memorable phrase in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Schenck printed 15,000 leaflets: the front contained the text of Section I of the 13th
Amendment, and the flip side of the leaflet had phrases and slogans like: "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your Rights", "your right to assert your opposition to the draft", and "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain."
Schenck spent 10(?) years in jal for merely telling his citizens their constitutional rights The 'fire in a crowded theater' argument was used to allow the Supreme Court uphold his conviction
This is not a precedent that should be blithely tossed around without noting the history of abuse that it engendered.
This court ruling, and others explicitly based on it led to the Pulitzer Prize winning author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the text of the First Amendment at a union rally (1923) and many others being arrested for belonging to, or participating in, groups espousing views regarded as "radical" by the government in this period (I'm talking about unions and religious societies, not the Communist Party or subversive groups)
In short -- "the crowded theater" can and has been something as seemingly innocuous as Slashdot, and the cry was not false Better put a lawyer - a criminal lawyer - on retainer before expressing any opinions in public
_____________
Interesting insights. However, I've always wondered why 'dark matter that steadfastly refused to cluster like ordinary matter' would be such a problem. [I understand that it would impact some current theories of galaxy formation, etc. but I'll get to that in a moment]
First off, 'ordinary matter' may well a minority constituent of the universe (Sure *we* like it, but it's all we've seen)
We've been modeling galactic dynamics as an attraction-only model, yet I have never seen any discussion of the 'exclusion-type' epiphenomena that we commonly observe on earth. An example would be the manner in which large rocks float (seemingly counterintuitively) to the surface of shaken gravel. (This has many practical applications: they recently reversed avalanche survival procedure to reflect this -- so we're betting lives on it!) Other exclusionary epiphenomena include immiscible droplets (e.g. oil 'excluded' from water by the greater polar attraction between water molecules) and cellular membranes (which are lipid bilayers in aqueous environments)
If the dark matter interacted more strongly with itself than with 'ordinary matter' then we might expect similar exclusionary epiphenomena... droplets or bubbles of 'ordinary matter' excluded from a sea of dark matter. Given how extremely tenuous matter (of all types) was in space even in the first Billion years, this effect might simply speed the creation of the initial protogalaxies slightly.
Once excluded, 'ordinary matter' would exhibit the intragalactic dynamics we would otherwise predict from our models. AFAIK, current theories of inter-galaxy dynamics would be unaffected, since they acknowledge 'something's out there' but don't specify how that 'something' would interact with *itself*.
I agree this is all speculative, but the key is that all interactions between dark matter and ordinary matter are unchanged, it's only the interaction between dark matter and dark matter that is changed. I'd expect this to be detectable through very subtle variations in 'observable matter' (galaxy) dynamics, reflecting the underlying distribution of dark matter, but I don't think experiments/models of sufficient detail exist yet.
Your comments would be appreciated
_____________
Hi, spiralx,
I've seen you on a lot of the topics I browse, so I assume we have similar interests. Please understand that I don't mean to be obnoxious when I say this, but it is my understanding that there is no mathematical requirement for a Calibi-Yau space to have a specific curvature (positive negative or zero)
Instead of saying that "The two have distinct curvature due to their differences in size", wouldn't it be more accurate (and enlightening) to consider that the two have different sizes due to their curvature?
A (terribly) gross analogy: a 'garden hose' of infinite length is an non-bounded two dimensional surface embedded in a three dimensional space. The difference between the nature of its [infinite, essentially zero curvature] length and its [finite, positive curvature) circumference can be seen as a function of the curvature. Less curvature = larger diameter hose; a much lower curvature would be like a subway tunnel, much closer to flat locally, but of identical global geometry.
[Sorry for mixing the r=1/kappa definition of curvature where it doesn't quite fit. All readers actively involved in the large-scale warping of space, please cover your eyes -- no, not while you're.... >GLURP ]
_____________
1) "Proper use" may be all-caps, but that does not mean all-lowercase isn't an infringement. Licensed users, fair-use users (everyone who has that "*nix is a trademark of..." disclaimer), and the press would be interested in 'proper use'. Infringers obviously aren't, but that doesn't mean they can't be sued.
2) Wasn't UnixWare a licensed usage (when UNIX belonged to ATT). Didn't SCO have to negotiate use of that trademark? I vaguely recall they did. Details would be appreciated, if some reader has them. [OOps - just spotted this. Section 4.1 of the trademark agreement says: "The Licence specifically prohibits Licensees of any Trade Marks from registering with the relevant trade mark authorities specific forms of the Trade Marks including trade marks used in combination." Of course infringers aren't licensees
3) Even if this wasn't a matter of legal firepower (which of course it is) I don't think any of us would expect to last five nanoseconds in court trying to use a domain-name like coca-cola.com (Look ma! A hyphen, I'm unique!) or CocaCola.com (one word) or playing the Capitalization game (since Coca Cola (TM) is properly capitalized)
__________
*HOWEVER* I'd like to point out that (on a purely
technical level) tapping a technical signal is easier than you might think, because the intruder can amplify the signal at the point of interception, and therefore needs to divert only a fraction of the signal.
Even the tricky issue of 'the optical edge' (inserting the optical element without the boundary of the optical element causing a detectable interruption) is easily handled by using "edgeless" optical 'diverters' like smoke or steam
Get out your pocket pointer laser, and a phototransistor. Point the phototransistor at a point along the laser beam, and insert some of the following in the beam at that point:
Smoke/Steam/mist - if you see the beam, so will the phototransistor; no edge to temporarily interrupt the beam; even if you accidentally trigger the gadget that automatically photographs beam blocking objects, then photo won't show anything very incriminating (re: your identity)
For silly hacker/cracker movie scripts:
a transparent helium balloon (they 'light up' when the beam hits them)
a sheet of glass (monitor the edge of the sheet)
talcum powder (or powder of choice)
__________