So we're back to needing a mechanical source of electricity and batteries. Maybe implant piezo or electromechanical generators in the larger joints, and do a few jumping jacks every few minutes to recharge.
What about an implantable fuel cell "burning" the glucose through a membrane? (just google)
Depending on policy-based security requires that you also have a language for policies that make it impossible to write bad policies.
See, that's a good example of some sports very dear in the Corporate Olympic Games: blame-shifting (you need stamina) and finger-pointing (a game of speed). The software engineer is in a much better position now to win these games - bad policies is what happens at deployment/admin time.
"You know how volatile mercury is on earth," said Randy Gladstone of Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, in a press conference on Thursday. "It's probably more volatile than other metals on the moon."
We could finally have some benchmark against which we could judge whether companies (and governments!) were properly addressing security and privacy concerns.
We could but we won't. It is more likely to be: your data is private, but not from us, the govt and law enforcement. And that's for your own good and protection.
Mods: +1 Informative, please (yes, I know the chances a slim given how long TFA was pushed on/.). Anyway, thanks for the link.
That's actually a really, really insightful argument, and I'm surprised someone on Slashdot was able to articulate that distinction.
It doesn't take long to focus on what is the subject of the breach, especially if the "building" is millennia old. I'm rather surprised that very few perceived the flaw
(a custodian is just a steward/manager, not the owner. Unless there is an owner and the owner passes the rights to the custodian... but for an item on the world's heritage list, I assume that the "world" is the owner - inheriting the item... The photographers, which do have part of the ownership, are restricted in what they can do with images of the object of their ownership. It is like the "property manager" forbidding the owner to take photos of their property, just because they entered in a "property management contract").
What is protected? Does the protection extends to the building itself or only to the plans/drafts/etc?
3. In the US, it would be possible for the conservators/owners to stipulate that no one may approach Stonehenge without agreeing to some terms, one of which would be "no commercial photography." This would be a valid license.
In this case, the curators/owners would be entitled to ask for a penalty to be paid by the person in breach of the contract, meaning that:
going for the sellers of stock-photos is wrong. The person that breached the agreement terms is the person that took the shot and sold the rights (thus triggering the "no commercial photo" clause)
it is still not legal to invoke the copyright ownership as a reason for asking money. It was the agreement that was broken.
"By building two relatively small devices that act as "holographic interferometers" to measure the shaking or vibration in split beams of light traveling through a vacuum." is not a sentence. What will be achieved by doing this?
When the physical range of a theory's predictive power extends beyond our ability to construct experiments then you pretty much have to find another job.
Why find another job? After all, the guys that generate theories don't necessarily take the pain of proving them. The mathematicians are doing this for some centuries.
Everything they will use to explain 'reality' will be done with beautiful math.
The reverse is not necessarily true: there may be beautiful math that doesn't explain any reality. I'm putting this as a conjecture, for the math-heads to have something to do when the entire reality get explained.
The term "world heritage" is only a special designation which may give access to grants. It does not "belong" to UNESCO, it is theoretically under the 'ownership' of English Heritage.
Grants in what form? I don't think the term grants them the right to impose unreasonable restrictions or to assert copyright over images that don't belong to them. If grants in the form of funding: just from what sources these funds come from? (could it be that they are actually from taxes paid, among others, by the very photographers affected?)
They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property. This does happen also on entry to various museums which may explicitly forbid all photography or just commercial photography. If you photograph Stonehenge from somewhere else (especially from public land), then there can be no objection or claim to copyright.
This is what is, frankly, nonsense.
There are only two reasons to forbid photography in a museum:
One is banning flash photography to stop damage to paintings. [...]
Two is if there are things still copyright. [...]
I can imagine another dummy reason a museum can invoke: "don't take photos, I don't want my security setting to be photographed; and good luck trying to avoid it, I took the pain of making it unavoidable".
But, somehow... I don't know why... I can imagine this being invokable for the Stonehenge... not by a rational person anyway.
it is not quite clear to me on what legal basis English Heritage can claim ownership of the photos one takes. IANAL, but to my mind they can't claim copyright:
They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property.
Are you sure that the photos were shot after they enforced the "no photos on my property" rule (and in breach of this rule)? Somehow, I don't think the rule has been always in place, as I don't think they investigated when the photos they want down (or paid for) were actually shot. Somehow, looks like they are hungry for the money; probably explainable now that UK govt wants to cut 1/3 of the public service, but not necessary right.
I hereby solemnly declare that nothing is, indeed, real. Also real are, for the matter of generalization by induction, nobody and noone (which aren't just anybody or, respectively, anyone; paradoxically, the aren't somebody/someone either).
My friend, it is only the complex numbers that have an imaginary part.
I'm not a lawyer of course... 33(B).1 of the National Heritage Act 2002 is
The Commision may exploit any intellectual property, or any other intangible asset, relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings.
May I argue that, before exploiting any intellectual property, they need to prove that they are the owner of that property? Then, they need to prove that the said property pertains to "intellectual property"?
(I'd continue by arguing that it would be needed a proof they actually have/manifest even a rudimentary level of intellect to be allowed to have ownership over an "intellectual property", but this would be at the same level of craziness as the very concept of "intellectual property").
Step Three: Claim "Ownership" of aforementioned stuff.
While for RIAA has clear the legal bases of their claims (copyright law, in various incarnations), it is not quite clear to me on what legal basis English Heritage can claim ownership of the photos one takes. IANAL, but to my mind they can't claim copyright:
on the photo, because the photo (which is the form of expression of "artistic creation") is not theirs, is the photographer's
on the Stonehenge itself - because:
it is... shall I say?... a building, not at "form of expression"
even if a building would be a "form of expression", it is not theirs (being listed as world heritage)
even if it would be theirs and classified as a "form of artistical expression", the creation act trancedes any current temporal limit for "protection under the copyright law" (that is, unless in UK the copyright protection was extended beyond 5000 years!)
I mean, while he's up there, we can't hope for another movie
The bad news is that he'll make another movie.
Why is this bad news?
I think that the world would be poorer (more boring) without Rickrolling, LOLcats and Schwartzy's movies. You may not like them, even you may consider them silly or stoopeed, but how the world would be without "Ach'll be back" and "Hasta la vista, baby"?
are Californians stuck with the guvernator, then? (i.e. for the lack of credible candidates?) I mean, while he's up there, we can't hope for another movie, can we?
It's always funny to watch governments charge in and take the high road about collection of data.
To me is self-evident - the high road is design for speed, therefore the govs can collect the data more efficiently and thus data collection costs the tax payers less! See? The govt takes care of you!
I'd consider another lesson worth of paying attention to: Google admitted the (wrongful) collection of data and took the steps to correct much faster than any other corporate I know (take FB for example).
Slashdot Mirror
Great - so when my wireless internet enabled skin display gets infected with spam, I'll have adverts for viagra appearing on my chest. Brilliant
You just need to plug in the NoScript.
So we're back to needing a mechanical source of electricity and batteries. Maybe implant piezo or electromechanical generators in the larger joints, and do a few jumping jacks every few minutes to recharge.
What about an implantable fuel cell "burning" the glucose through a membrane? (just google)
Depending on policy-based security requires that you also have a language for policies that make it impossible to write bad policies.
See, that's a good example of some sports very dear in the Corporate Olympic Games: blame-shifting (you need stamina) and finger-pointing (a game of speed). The software engineer is in a much better position now to win these games - bad policies is what happens at deployment/admin time.
"You know how volatile mercury is on earth," said Randy Gladstone of Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, in a press conference on Thursday. "It's probably more volatile than other metals on the moon."
Must be because the Moon shows more oil and interest rate shocks
We could finally have some benchmark against which we could judge whether companies (and governments!) were properly addressing security and privacy concerns.
We could but we won't. It is more likely to be: your data is private, but not from us, the govt and law enforcement. And that's for your own good and protection.
All of them. According to 17 USC 102
Mods: +1 Informative, please (yes, I know the chances a slim given how long TFA was pushed on /.). Anyway, thanks for the link.
That's actually a really, really insightful argument, and I'm surprised someone on Slashdot was able to articulate that distinction.
It doesn't take long to focus on what is the subject of the breach, especially if the "building" is millennia old. I'm rather surprised that very few perceived the flaw
(a custodian is just a steward/manager, not the owner. Unless there is an owner and the owner passes the rights to the custodian... but for an item on the world's heritage list, I assume that the "world" is the owner - inheriting the item...
The photographers, which do have part of the ownership, are restricted in what they can do with images of the object of their ownership. It is like the "property manager" forbidding the owner to take photos of their property, just because they entered in a "property management contract").
1. Architectural works can be copyrighted.
What is protected? Does the protection extends to the building itself or only to the plans/drafts/etc?
3. In the US, it would be possible for the conservators/owners to stipulate that no one may approach Stonehenge without agreeing to some terms, one of which would be "no commercial photography." This would be a valid license.
In this case, the curators/owners would be entitled to ask for a penalty to be paid by the person in breach of the contract, meaning that:
"By building two relatively small devices that act as "holographic interferometers" to measure the shaking or vibration in split beams of light traveling through a vacuum." is not a sentence. What will be achieved by doing this?
For sure, they'll achieve more than!
When the physical range of a theory's predictive power extends beyond our ability to construct experiments then you pretty much have to find another job.
Why find another job? After all, the guys that generate theories don't necessarily take the pain of proving them. The mathematicians are doing this for some centuries.
Everything they will use to explain 'reality' will be done with beautiful math.
The reverse is not necessarily true: there may be beautiful math that doesn't explain any reality.
I'm putting this as a conjecture, for the math-heads to have something to do when the entire reality get explained.
You *could* extrapolate that to mean that our universe is [...]
in fact, unidimensional; you know, like the space address in a computer RAM, each byte at the prevAddr++.
The term "world heritage" is only a special designation which may give access to grants. It does not "belong" to UNESCO, it is theoretically under the 'ownership' of English Heritage.
Grants in what form? I don't think the term grants them the right to impose unreasonable restrictions or to assert copyright over images that don't belong to them.
If grants in the form of funding: just from what sources these funds come from? (could it be that they are actually from taxes paid, among others, by the very photographers affected?)
They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property. This does happen also on entry to various museums which may explicitly forbid all photography or just commercial photography. If you photograph Stonehenge from somewhere else (especially from public land), then there can be no objection or claim to copyright.
This is what is, frankly, nonsense.
There are only two reasons to forbid photography in a museum:
One is banning flash photography to stop damage to paintings. [...]
Two is if there are things still copyright. [...]
I can imagine another dummy reason a museum can invoke: "don't take photos, I don't want my security setting to be photographed; and good luck trying to avoid it, I took the pain of making it unavoidable".
But, somehow... I don't know why... I can imagine this being invokable for the Stonehenge... not by a rational person anyway.
They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property.
Are you sure that the photos were shot after they enforced the "no photos on my property" rule (and in breach of this rule)? Somehow, I don't think the rule has been always in place, as I don't think they investigated when the photos they want down (or paid for) were actually shot. Somehow, looks like they are hungry for the money; probably explainable now that UK govt wants to cut 1/3 of the public service, but not necessary right.
My interpretation would be that exploit in this context means something more akin to "manage".
Even so, to manage (or exploit) "any inttelectual property", shouldn't the said property exist in the first place?
In what misterious way has Stonehenge became subject of copyright law?
Which means that nothing is real?
I hereby solemnly declare that nothing is, indeed, real.
Also real are, for the matter of generalization by induction, nobody and noone (which aren't just anybody or, respectively, anyone; paradoxically, the aren't somebody/someone either).
My friend, it is only the complex numbers that have an imaginary part.
I'm not a lawyer of course... 33(B).1 of the National Heritage Act 2002 is
The Commision may exploit any intellectual property, or any other intangible asset, relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings.
May I argue that, before exploiting any intellectual property, they need to prove that they are the owner of that property? Then, they need to prove that the said property pertains to "intellectual property"?
(I'd continue by arguing that it would be needed a proof they actually have/manifest even a rudimentary level of intellect to be allowed to have ownership over an "intellectual property", but this would be at the same level of craziness as the very concept of "intellectual property").
Step Three: Claim "Ownership" of aforementioned stuff.
While for RIAA has clear the legal bases of their claims (copyright law, in various incarnations), it is not quite clear to me on what legal basis English Heritage can claim ownership of the photos one takes. IANAL, but to my mind they can't claim copyright:
Head explodes!
The bad news is that he'll make another movie.
Why is this bad news?
I think that the world would be poorer (more boring) without Rickrolling, LOLcats and Schwartzy's movies. You may not like them, even you may consider them silly or stoopeed, but how the world would be without "Ach'll be back" and "Hasta la vista, baby"?
Mathematics.
The discipline that applies into everything, but in itself is about nothing (real).
are Californians stuck with the guvernator, then? (i.e. for the lack of credible candidates?)
I mean, while he's up there, we can't hope for another movie, can we?
Getting money for something someone else has done. The NYC employees uses a Mac or LibreOffice, it matters not, Microsoft still collects.
Paradoxically, NY city "saves" 50 mils in 5 years. WTF?
F#ck yeah, and I'm on /. to grow my share!
FTFY.
It's always funny to watch governments charge in and take the high road about collection of data.
To me is self-evident - the high road is design for speed, therefore the govs can collect the data more efficiently and thus data collection costs the tax payers less! See? The govt takes care of you!
I'd consider another lesson worth of paying attention to: Google admitted the (wrongful) collection of data and took the steps to correct much faster than any other corporate I know (take FB for example).