Yes, the copyright is for the information on the page-- the XML recommendation; the standard itself. The actual methods involved could only be protected by patent; likewise, the actual serialization/"language" can only be protected by trade secret; no IPR protection other than trade secret protections has been recognized for information formats (though novel, patented techniques can be used in them). Obviously, W3C recommendations are relatively open and none of these protections are in place for XML.
A simple example is the PCI specification; the standard itself is copyrighted by PCI-SIG, and it requires a $3000 membership to get. You won't find the standard itself on the web-- at least for very long, because PCI-SIG sends out cease and desist letters to those who post it in violation of copyright. Copyright only protects the specific text of the standards document; so you'll find books like PCI System Architecture that act as a guide to the standard; but if you want to actually claim conformance, you need to have the actual standards text on hand. Also, particular techniques used in PCI (particularly, some bridging techniques) are protected by patent; however, those patents are freely available online from USPTO itself and free to redistribute-- only when I go so far as to implement them in a product or otherwise use them do I need to negotiate a license.
The situation is exactly the same with W3C; all W3C recommendations are copyrighted. W3C is exceptionally permissive with the license terms though; the license only really prohibits modification of the standards document and requires a link back to the W3C site. W3C's statutory protection against redistribution of their standards document is achieved through copyright. Patent wouldn't prevent it (as it is only a check on use, not redistribution), and trademark would only prevent you from using the term "XML".
Discharge time is dominated by internal resistance, which for lithium-ion chemistry is pretty low. Of course, you get much less than nominal capacity with extremely quick discharges; and of course, thermal budget is important; overheating Li-Ion batteries can result in pretty impressive fireworks.;)
You don't get the full 50 hp of a gasoline motor from 0 rpm.
Right; technically speaking, you even get negative horsepower below a certain engine speed, as there's friction and the engine isn't making any significant power to overcome compression. However, road speeds don't really have to have much to do with engine speeds when starting out, because of torque converters in automatic transmissions, and clutches in manuals.
Keep in mind that many hybrids are paired with continuously variable transmissions, too, which allow the engine to be in the powerband at much lower road speeds (which facilitates charging in stop and go traffic, as well as low-end efficiency).
So yes, there is some time involved in the motor spinning up, but it doesn't need to be proportional to the time spent accelerating in the car, and it's practically instantaneous. A better question is whether you have sufficent traction to use the 100 horsepower on the road from a stop.
It's for a hybrid car; so it's for a relatively short runtime that it's being charged repetitively onboard. (To aid in peak acceleration, but to allow the gasoline engine to be sized for cruise consumption).
Say 50 horsepower for 30 seconds of output; using your numbers for electrical-to-mechanical efficiency, that's about 26kW to charge in a minute; or about 51 horsepower at 70% alternator efficiency. So you could have a 50 horsepower gasoline engine running flat out at a stoplight charging the battery pack, and have 100 horsepower of initial acceleration for 30 seconds. Not so absurd, eh?
I have a lot of standards documents lying around that you need to join a standards body or pay a couple grand to get, and all of them have a notice on the title page that looks like that. Not 'PCI Copyright...', not 'IEEE 802.11b Copyright...'; just 'Copyright...'
Yes, the copyright is for the information on the page-- the XML recommendation; the standard itself. The actual methods involved could only be protected by patent; likewise, the actual serialization/"language" can only be protected by trade secret; no IPR protection other than trade secret protections has been recognized for information formats (though novel, patented techniques can be used in them). Obviously, W3C recommendations are relatively open and none of these protections are in place for XML. However, our original discussion was that whether the XML recommendation was copyrighted. You said:
It is an open standard as the W3C is a body for the maintenance of web standards and since they also handle XML, they maintain the standard; since it isn't closed it is therefore an 'open standard'. And it is NOT copyrighted (according to the W3C).
The standard -IS- copyrighted. W3C's own FAQs say this, and there is appropriate notice on the page.
Visually Perceptible Copies The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain three elements. They should appear together or in close proximity on the copies. The elements are:
2 The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology. The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles; and
Next, let's look at a bunch of copyright notices from software I have sitting around:
Copyright (c) 1998,1999,2000,2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Copyright (c) 2000 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright (C) 1995-2000 Simon G. Vogl Copyright (c) 2001 Wind River Systems, Inc. Copyright (C) 1992-2004 The FreeBSD Project. All rights reserved.
* Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1989, 1993
* The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Next, let's look at a standard that's relatively closed (the SD Memory card standard):
Copyright (C) 2000 (C) 2001 by SD Group (MEI, SanDisk, Toshiba)... Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without prior written permission of SD Group
Or another one (IEEE's boilerplate for their standards):
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
I haven't found one yet where people have put the name of something being copyrighted before the copyright notice. So let me get this straight-- you understand the requirements and no one else does? Not the US Copyright Office, not the legal staff for these organizations, etc?
I do not say this out of ignorance, I say this out of experience as I went through a copyright battle last year with an infringer and had to use the Internet Archive to show the individuals infringing took place on said date.
Well, I'm pretty familiar with this subject matter, as I was on the IPR committee of Symantec and a tech CTO, and I've been involved in IPR legal actions before and crafting strategy to protect IPR (including in this exact situation-- with standards bodies).
As I showed you earlier, the copyright symbol is displayed in the XML specification. Furthermore, putting the copyright symbol on a work is not a requirement to win damages; though, as you stated, it does help to prove willful infringement.
Look, you're confused, OK? Why don't you just admit it? There is clear notice of copyright on the XML recommendation (as exists on all W3C recommendations), and W3C has a specific license for distribution of the standards. If you duplicate a W3C standard, and don't keep with the requirements (e.g. you change the standard, or you remove the linkback to the canonical version on the W3C site, etc), you will get a C&D for violating the copyright and license agreement. If you don't comply with that C&D, you'll most likely get sued. And if you get sued, they will win.
US Copyright law no longer requires a notice of copyright on the copyrighted work for it to be protected by copyright law; nonetheless, the XML specification is protected by copyright. Anything someone creates is copyrighted by default under the current copyright regime; one has to explicitly put it into the public domain to disclaim copyright.
However, the documents are licensed under very permissive terms-- see the W3C Document License.
The original author of the document. Many documents are created by the W3C and we consequently hold the copyright. Owners who allow their works to be published on the W3C site retain the copyright, but agree to the W3C license for the redistribution of those materials from our site.
XML is indeed, when used in compliance with the specification, a meta-markup language, like SGML. Using XML DTDs or schemas, one defines a document format for markup. See http://xml.coverpages.org/sgml.html, for instance:
Both SGML and XML are "meta" languages because they are used for defining markup languages. A markup language defined using SGML or XML has a specific vocabulary (labels for elements and attributes) and a declared syntax (grammar defining the hierarchy and other features).
I understand being smacked down sucks, but come on-- stop spouting disinformation to try and defend yourself mmkay?
the official line of the Catholic Church (to which 80%+ of Christians belong) is against capital punishment.
80%+? Worldwide, there's about a billion catholics, and two billion Christians.. so 50% is more accurate.
If you only count English speaking countries, it's much lower. e.g. 30% or so of Christians in the United States are Catholic; it appears to be well under 30% in the UK as well.
Ah; someone wants to be pedantic based on their little dictionary. I'm sorry to say that, when it comes to a dictionary, size matters.
From the OED (rekeyed by hand for definitions only):
exploit. sb. Forms: (...) The etymological sense is thus 'something unfolded, brought out, or put forth'; the action of unfolding or developing.
1. Advantage, progress, speed, success, furtherance. Const. of to make exploit: to make speed, to meet with success.
2. The endeavour to gain advantage or mastery over (a person or place); an attempt to capture or subdue; hence, a military or naval expedition or enterprise.
3. An act or deed; a feat; in modern use, an achievement displaying a brilliant degree of bravery or skill.
4. Carrying out, execution, performance. to put in exploit: to put in practice.
5. Law. A citation or summons; a writ.
So it's hardly inconsistent with historical usage of the noun exploit; besides, words gain new meanings with time. The term 'exploit' you're bitching about is in wide usage. I guess because some of these other uses have gone out of fashion that you, the dictionary nazi, will singlehandedly keep us from choosing to adopt them again.
Some usage notes I like from OED:
1393 Gower Conf. II 258 The sail goth up, and forth they straught, But none esploit therof they caught.
1483 Caxton Gold. Leg. 87/4 He began to helpe them in theyr exployte of the see and anon the tempest cessed.
$5/minute? I've not come across an overage charge like that before; on every plan I've been on it's been in the range of.30-.70/minute for daytime minute overages..
And just one more thing; fixing an analog work in a digital form is not required. The penalty is just slightly less:
(6AB) If: (a) a person contravenes subsection (1), (2) or (2A); and (b) subsection (6AA) does not apply; the person is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units and/or imprisonment for not more than 5 years.
This is the sole criminal copyright infringement law in Australia and it has never been enforced (ever). It also happens to be completely irrelevant to this case.
Whoa! Wrong again. Sir, please put the crack pipe down.
In the 14-year period from 1989-90 to 2002-03 the DPP prosecuted 143 copyright cases and 138 trademarks cases (Smith & Urbas 2003). The DPP prosecutes copyright offences summarily, as allowed by the case of Ly v Jenkins [2001] FCA 1640 [note from mlyle: this does not include cases prosecuted by territory prosecutors].
Case study: Tran, Ng & Le
Tran and Ng were students at the University of Technology, Sydney, who developed a free music download site using MP3 technology. Le subsequently assisted in making copyrighted material available on the site. The site was said to have received some seven million hits. The matter was first investigated by MIPI and a brief was handed to the AFP before charges were prosecuted by the DPP in the Central Local Court in Sydney in December 2003. As no money or trade was involved, the charges were brought under s132(2)(b) for knowingly distributing copyrighted work, to an extent that affects prejudicially the owner of copyright, for a purpose other than trade. Ng and Le were sentenced to perform 200 hours community service. Tran was assessed as unsuitable for a community service order and was fined $5000. Tran and Ng each faced an additional charge reflecting their longer-term involvement and were convicted and received prison sentences of 18 months, suspended for three years.
An application on behalf of MIPI to be represented in the hearing was refused. MIPI advocated a full-time custodial penalty. It also sought an order for costs, which the DPP declined to put to the court. MIPI had estimated the loss caused to copyright holders by the defendants to be in the vicinity of $200million, whereas the AFP gave an estimated loss of $60million. On this point, the court found that the loss suffered was 'substantial' but could not be quantified with precision.
As I've posted about here in the past, Australia's extradition treaty is a reciprocal treaty with the US; Australia is allowed to extradite people from the US for anything that would be considered both a crime in the US and Australia, and vice versa.
Such terms are typical for reciprocal extradition treaties between countries with friendly relations.
Of course, your ignorance about international law provides you a good excuse to wave your arms in hysteria. I wouldn't want to take that away from you.:)
Copyright infringement isn't a criminal act in Australia
(2) A person shall not, at a time when copyright subsists in a work, distribute:
(a) for the purpose of trade; or (b) for any other purpose to an extent that affects prejudicially the owner of the copyright; an article that the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, to be an infringing copy of the work. ...
(6AA) If: (a) a person contravenes subsection (1), (2) or (2A); and (b) the article to which the contravention relates is an infringing copy because it was made by converting a work or other subject-matter from hardcopy or analog form into a digital or other electronic machine-readable form; the person is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than 850 penalty units and/or imprisonment for not more than 5 years.
ATSC HDTV has a data rate of 19.3 mbps (at the highest service profile, G3). Standard definition obviously requires much less (6 mbit/sec is pretty typical), and an equivalent quality level can be achieved with better codecs (MPEG-4, for instance).
These data rates are clearly feasible on a decent wireless network, especially when MIMO comes around.
Still, there are real quality of service issues. It would annoy me to not have a program tivoed because a neighbor broke their access point and is jamming the whole 2.4GHz ISM band, or whatever.
I know; I've developed boards using PCI Express switches. It is nice to use (routing 70-some signals for 64 bit PCI sucks); but right now, its deployment on the desktop has been limited to video.
Yes, but you still need to try 2^159 last blocks on average. This is 730750818665451459101842416358141509827966271488. That is a big number. If you have 2^20 machines doing 2^10 hash operations per second, it will take you 680564733841876926926749214863536422912
seconds. That's 7876906641688390357948486283142782 days. Or 21580566141612028377941058309980 years.
The current attack circulating doesn't let you collide with a pre-existing hash quickly. Of course, since SHA-1 has been shown to be weak in other ways, it's more likely that an attack such as that will be found in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
To repaste from my previous post:
Yes, the copyright is for the information on the page-- the XML recommendation; the standard itself. The actual methods involved could only be protected by patent; likewise, the actual serialization/"language" can only be protected by trade secret; no IPR protection other than trade secret protections has been recognized for information formats (though novel, patented techniques can be used in them). Obviously, W3C recommendations are relatively open and none of these protections are in place for XML.
A simple example is the PCI specification; the standard itself is copyrighted by PCI-SIG, and it requires a $3000 membership to get. You won't find the standard itself on the web-- at least for very long, because PCI-SIG sends out cease and desist letters to those who post it in violation of copyright. Copyright only protects the specific text of the standards document; so you'll find books like PCI System Architecture that act as a guide to the standard; but if you want to actually claim conformance, you need to have the actual standards text on hand. Also, particular techniques used in PCI (particularly, some bridging techniques) are protected by patent; however, those patents are freely available online from USPTO itself and free to redistribute-- only when I go so far as to implement them in a product or otherwise use them do I need to negotiate a license.
The situation is exactly the same with W3C; all W3C recommendations are copyrighted. W3C is exceptionally permissive with the license terms though; the license only really prohibits modification of the standards document and requires a link back to the W3C site. W3C's statutory protection against redistribution of their standards document is achieved through copyright. Patent wouldn't prevent it (as it is only a check on use, not redistribution), and trademark would only prevent you from using the term "XML".
Discharge time is dominated by internal resistance, which for lithium-ion chemistry is pretty low. Of course, you get much less than nominal capacity with extremely quick discharges; and of course, thermal budget is important; overheating Li-Ion batteries can result in pretty impressive fireworks. ;)
You don't get the full 50 hp of a gasoline motor from 0 rpm.
Right; technically speaking, you even get negative horsepower below a certain engine speed, as there's friction and the engine isn't making any significant power to overcome compression. However, road speeds don't really have to have much to do with engine speeds when starting out, because of torque converters in automatic transmissions, and clutches in manuals.
Keep in mind that many hybrids are paired with continuously variable transmissions, too, which allow the engine to be in the powerband at much lower road speeds (which facilitates charging in stop and go traffic, as well as low-end efficiency).
So yes, there is some time involved in the motor spinning up, but it doesn't need to be proportional to the time spent accelerating in the car, and it's practically instantaneous. A better question is whether you have sufficent traction to use the 100 horsepower on the road from a stop.
It's for a hybrid car; so it's for a relatively short runtime that it's being charged repetitively onboard. (To aid in peak acceleration, but to allow the gasoline engine to be sized for cruise consumption).
Say 50 horsepower for 30 seconds of output; using your numbers for electrical-to-mechanical efficiency, that's about 26kW to charge in a minute; or about 51 horsepower at 70% alternator efficiency. So you could have a 50 horsepower gasoline engine running flat out at a stoplight charging the battery pack, and have 100 horsepower of initial acceleration for 30 seconds. Not so absurd, eh?
BTW, one more thing: the notice I pasted you was not at the bottom of the web page, but at the bottom of the title area of the XML recommendation.
...', not 'IEEE 802.11b Copyright ...'; just 'Copyright ...'
If you look at the different recommendations, indeed, the date is different:
Copyright © 2001 W3C® (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. (canonical XML)
Copyright © 2002 The Internet Society & W3C® (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, docum ent use and software licensing rules apply. (XML-signature syntax and processing)
Copyright ©2003 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. (DOM level 2)
Copyright © 2004 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. (VoiceXML)
Copyright©2005W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. (XML-binary optimized packaging)
I have a lot of standards documents lying around that you need to join a standards body or pay a couple grand to get, and all of them have a notice on the title page that looks like that. Not 'PCI Copyright
Yes, the copyright is for the information on the page-- the XML recommendation; the standard itself. The actual methods involved could only be protected by patent; likewise, the actual serialization/"language" can only be protected by trade secret; no IPR protection other than trade secret protections has been recognized for information formats (though novel, patented techniques can be used in them). Obviously, W3C recommendations are relatively open and none of these protections are in place for XML. However, our original discussion was that whether the XML recommendation was copyrighted. You said:
...
It is an open standard as the W3C is a body for the maintenance of web standards and since they also handle XML, they maintain the standard; since it isn't closed it is therefore an 'open standard'. And it is NOT copyrighted (according to the W3C).
The standard -IS- copyrighted. W3C's own FAQs say this, and there is appropriate notice on the page.
Let's look at US Copyright Office Advisory Circular #3 ("Copyright Notice":
Visually Perceptible Copies
The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain three elements. They should appear together or in close proximity on the copies. The elements are:
1 The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright,"
or the abbreviation "Copr."; and
2 The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology.
The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery,
jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles; and
3 The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.*
Example: © 2004 Jane Doe
Next, let's look at a bunch of copyright notices from software I have sitting around:
Copyright (c) 1998,1999,2000,2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Copyright (c) 2000 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright (C) 1995-2000 Simon G. Vogl
Copyright (c) 2001 Wind River Systems, Inc.
Copyright (C) 1992-2004 The FreeBSD Project. All rights reserved.
* Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1989, 1993
* The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Next, let's look at a standard that's relatively closed (the SD Memory card standard):
Copyright (C) 2000 (C) 2001 by SD Group (MEI, SanDisk, Toshiba)
Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without prior written permission of SD Group
Or another one (IEEE's boilerplate for their standards):
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997, USA
Copyright © 2002 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
All rights reserved. Published 8 March 2002. Printed in the United States of America.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
I haven't found one yet where people have put the name of something being copyrighted before the copyright notice. So let me get this straight-- you understand the requirements and no one else does? Not the US Copyright Office, not the legal staff for these organizations, etc?
I do not say this out of ignorance, I say this out of experience as I went through a copyright battle last year with an infringer and had to use the Internet Archive to show the individuals infringing took place on said date.
Well, I'm pretty familiar with this subject matter, as I was on the IPR committee of Symantec and a tech CTO, and I've been involved in IPR legal actions before and crafting strategy to protect IPR (including in this exact situation-- with standards bodies).
As I showed you earlier, the copyright symbol is displayed in the XML specification. Furthermore, putting the copyright symbol on a work is not a requirement to win damages; though, as you stated, it does help to prove willful infringement.
Look, you're confused, OK? Why don't you just admit it? There is clear notice of copyright on the XML recommendation (as exists on all W3C recommendations), and W3C has a specific license for distribution of the standards. If you duplicate a W3C standard, and don't keep with the requirements (e.g. you change the standard, or you remove the linkback to the canonical version on the W3C site, etc), you will get a C&D for violating the copyright and license agreement. If you don't comply with that C&D, you'll most likely get sued. And if you get sued, they will win.
tr.v. scapegoated, scapegoating, scapegoats
To make a scapegoat of
US Copyright law no longer requires a notice of copyright on the copyrighted work for it to be protected by copyright law; nonetheless, the XML specification is protected by copyright. Anything someone creates is copyrighted by default under the current copyright regime; one has to explicitly put it into the public domain to disclaim copyright.
However, the documents are licensed under very permissive terms-- see the W3C Document License.
See the W3 IPR FAQ:
2. Who holds the copyright on W3C documents?
The original author of the document. Many documents are created by the W3C and we consequently hold the copyright. Owners who allow their works to be published on the W3C site retain the copyright, but agree to the W3C license for the redistribution of those materials from our site.
And it is NOT copyrighted (according to the W3C).
From the W3C XML specification:
Copyright © 2004 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply.
XML is indeed, when used in compliance with the specification, a meta-markup language, like SGML. Using XML DTDs or schemas, one defines a document format for markup. See http://xml.coverpages.org/sgml.html, for instance:
Both SGML and XML are "meta" languages because they are used for defining markup languages. A markup language defined using SGML or XML has a specific vocabulary (labels for elements and attributes) and a declared syntax (grammar defining the hierarchy and other features).
I understand being smacked down sucks, but come on-- stop spouting disinformation to try and defend yourself mmkay?
the official line of the Catholic Church (to which 80%+ of Christians belong) is against capital punishment.
80%+? Worldwide, there's about a billion catholics, and two billion Christians.. so 50% is more accurate.
If you only count English speaking countries, it's much lower. e.g. 30% or so of Christians in the United States are Catholic; it appears to be well under 30% in the UK as well.
Ah; someone wants to be pedantic based on their little dictionary. I'm sorry to say that, when it comes to a dictionary, size matters.
From the OED (rekeyed by hand for definitions only):
exploit. sb. Forms: (...) The etymological sense is thus 'something unfolded, brought out, or put forth'; the action of unfolding or developing.
1. Advantage, progress, speed, success, furtherance. Const. of to make exploit: to make speed, to meet with success.
2. The endeavour to gain advantage or mastery over (a person or place); an attempt to capture or subdue; hence, a military or naval expedition or enterprise.
3. An act or deed; a feat; in modern use, an achievement displaying a brilliant degree of bravery or skill.
4. Carrying out, execution, performance. to put in exploit: to put in practice.
5. Law. A citation or summons; a writ.
So it's hardly inconsistent with historical usage of the noun exploit; besides, words gain new meanings with time. The term 'exploit' you're bitching about is in wide usage. I guess because some of these other uses have gone out of fashion that you, the dictionary nazi, will singlehandedly keep us from choosing to adopt them again.
Some usage notes I like from OED:
1393 Gower Conf. II 258 The sail goth up, and forth they straught, But none esploit therof they caught.
1483 Caxton Gold. Leg. 87/4 He began to helpe them in theyr exployte of the see and anon the tempest cessed.
$5/minute? I've not come across an overage charge like that before; on every plan I've been on it's been in the range of .30-.70/minute for daytime minute overages..
Whoa! Wrong again. Sir, please put the crack pipe down.
From the Australian Institute of Criminology:
As I've posted about here in the past, Australia's extradition treaty is a reciprocal treaty with the US; Australia is allowed to extradite people from the US for anything that would be considered both a crime in the US and Australia, and vice versa.
:)
see my previous post.
Such terms are typical for reciprocal extradition treaties between countries with friendly relations.
Of course, your ignorance about international law provides you a good excuse to wave your arms in hysteria. I wouldn't want to take that away from you.
Copyright infringement isn't a criminal act in Australia
Additional sections exist for nondigital distribution, other modes of violation, etc. Source: Australian Copyright Act of 1968, as amended.
ATSC HDTV has a data rate of 19.3 mbps (at the highest service profile, G3). Standard definition obviously requires much less (6 mbit/sec is pretty typical), and an equivalent quality level can be achieved with better codecs (MPEG-4, for instance).
These data rates are clearly feasible on a decent wireless network, especially when MIMO comes around.
Still, there are real quality of service issues. It would annoy me to not have a program tivoed because a neighbor broke their access point and is jamming the whole 2.4GHz ISM band, or whatever.
You mean (x<<8) | (x>>24).
This only works if x is declared unsigned, too; else sign extension can bite you.
A wildcard certificate still costs $449 at InstantSSL. Read the parent's post more carefully mmkay? thx.
I know; I've developed boards using PCI Express switches. It is nice to use (routing 70-some signals for 64 bit PCI sucks); but right now, its deployment on the desktop has been limited to video.
Primarily PCI Express is a replacement for AGP, rather than PCI; it's primarily a video interface on the desktop.
(5*5)/(19*19) .0692520775
I think your math is faulty, in terms of board area 5x5 is 17% of the board, while 1/14 would be closer to 7%
Looks pretty close to 7% to me.
Fuel here is about $1.80-$2.20/US gallon; so that's about $4. So your fuel costs are still 3x higher. Tax represents a bit more than 50 cents of that.
Yes, but you still need to try 2^159 last blocks on average. This is 730750818665451459101842416358141509827966271488. That is a big number. If you have 2^20 machines doing 2^10 hash operations per second, it will take you 680564733841876926926749214863536422912
seconds. That's 7876906641688390357948486283142782 days. Or 21580566141612028377941058309980 years.
The current attack circulating doesn't let you collide with a pre-existing hash quickly. Of course, since SHA-1 has been shown to be weak in other ways, it's more likely that an attack such as that will be found in the near future.