Antitrust laws are ex post facto in that you can't know if you were violating the laws until it has been tried in court. It is a completely arbitrary law. If the antitrust laws specifically said if you do x, y and z, you are in violation of the law, then it would be valid.
However, the antitrust laws specifically leave the decision up to the court. More specifically, the FTC Act bans "unfair" trade practices. Please, what exactly is an "unfair" trade practice? Who defines that?
As Alan Greenspan wrote, antitrust "is a world in which the law is so vague that business-men have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge's verdict -- after the fact."
ex post facto
adj. Latin for "after the fact," which refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increasing the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Therefore, if a state legislature or Congress enacts new rules of proof or longer sentences, those new rules or sentences do not apply to crimes committed before the new law was adopted.
Also:
void for vagueness
adj. referring to a statute defining a crime which is so vague that a reasonable person of at least average intelligence could not determine what elements constitute the crime. Such a vague statute is unconstitutional on the basis that a defendant could not defend against a charge of a crime which he/she could not understand, and thus would be denied "due process" mandated by the 5th Amendment, applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.
Void for Vagueness is one of the major arguments being put forward for dismissing DMCA cases
Given that the law was not actually defined until just today. I think it falls under both categories.
Of course, in todays political climate of legislating from the bench, (see today's Supreme Court decision which is now basing Constitutional law on opinion polls*) it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that courts find it legal...
* Even though I happen to think that the death penalty for the mentally disabled is wrong, the Supreme Court doesn't decide the law, especially based on "public opinion polls", just rules on it.
Aren't ex post facto (retroactive) laws unconstitutional? If anything, I'd expect that the retroactive portion could easily be won in court due to the fact that the law is "void for vagueness". (for that time period)
Of course, here on Slashdot, I have the unpopular opinion that antitrust law is also ex post facto and therefore should be void which means Microsoft should get off scott free. (I can feel myself being modded down just typing that). I'll just chalk it up to me feeling Ayn Randish today and shrug...
In any case, I can't believe that we have laws today that flagrantly violate the constitution in that they leave it completely undefined as to what the law actually is.
How can one obey a law that doesn't define what breaking the law actually is? How is it that one defines the law willy nilly after it has been passed?
Just a quick note. I think that Windows command-line has gotten more and more "bash"-like. In Win2k, I just wrote:
for %i in (*.d) do X %i
which is equivalent to your example above... I'm a bit confused as to your Windows bashing (excuse the pun)
Re:The best way to expose a bad law is to enforce
on
Still in DMCA Prison
·
· Score: 1
Yes, do you think they don't do this now? Otherwise, they'd be too busy ticketing speeders and not going to stop some murderer or something. Ever hear of the whole "checks and balances" thing? This is part of it. The executive branch (who the police are a part of) do not have to enforce any laws, however, that doesn't relieve them of any responsibility, which is where the judicial branch comes into play.
Even in the judicial branch, you have the right to a trial by a jury. And the jury can acquit based not only based on guilt vs. innocence but also on whether they feel the law is "fair" or not (of course, judges seem to trump this a lot which I think is wrong). You also see judges who acquit based on whether they think the law is right or wrong (with of course the option to appeal, etc)
Humans put 7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, nature putes 400 billion tons of CO2. Not enough to convince a lot of scientists that it is "real". Further you totally ruin your post by claiming that depletion of the ozone layer would increase temperatures, when it would actually decrease the temperature.
Then you claim that the rise in sea level is from melting icecaps... sigh... If the entire Northern icecap melted, the sea level would remain the same. (Think about displacement and that the northern icecap is "floating") Now, if the entire Souther polar cap covering Antartica were to melt, it is estimated that sea levels would rise 200ft, but for that to happen, there would have to be a 37C rise in temperature there.
I think that there is a lot more to put our efforts into rather than a "claim" of global warming
Ahem.... Tell me how to write this in Java:
void ChangesA(int *a) { *a = 1; }
void ChangesA(int[] a) { a[0] = 1; }
calling it?
int a;
ChangesA(new int[] { a });
with obvious optimization if you are calling it frequently...
Java primitives are clunky and are IMO a holdover/crutch from C++.
I think one of the biggest problems I see with newbie Java programmers with a C++ background is that they never learned proper OO techniques. So they find clever ways to write procedural programs in Java...
From a quick look at the abstract, the whole "new compression" thing is as it applies to laying data down onto the media. And from the looks of it, the big deal is it is using a hybrid of silicon and MO for a "3d" memory using the above mention "compression scheme".
I'm sure others can look at this and shoot it down for the rest of us
Funny... The whole cease-and-desist orders, and extorting money thing reminded me of government. What cracks me up is the mindset that a corporation doing this is bad, but the government taking your money (at gunpoint mind you), and giving it to people who don't make an honest living (e.g. Welfare) is good. Both are bad!
I should point out that the problem isn't patents and corporations getting patents. Its the superflous patents that shouldn't have been granted in the first place, and the "looters" who think they can get away with trying to enforce those patents.
Oh well, who is John Galt?
2) On the local radio show here in Dallas, Flynt's story was that the girl's roomate was his primary source, and she just heard one side of a phone conversation. So I guess his story isn't consistent.
3) Flynt did this as a "surprise" when he was appearing on CNN.
4) The "victim" denies she ever had sex with Bush.
Need I say more? Oh, and I'm trying to figure out where this girl is a 15 year old? Its not there on either of the URLs you posted. And I don't see any mention of him forcing her to have an abortion.
No. Look up the word 'initiative' as it pertains to the working of committees in Congress. He doesn't claim 'creatorship.' He does claim that he initiated the process of procuring funding (through congressional action) to help spawn the Internet from ARPANET.
He never claimed 'creatorship.' Ever.
Let me get this straight... when he says: 'I took the initiative in creating the internet'...
It states you must take an oath that you believe to be the first inventor of the subject matter.
I don't think quitting would get you out of trouble, most IP contracts I've seen have a "as long as you live" type of deal when it comes to trying to obtain/defend patents etc...
However, I also think the contract would become void or there is usually some clause in the contract saying that they can't force you to do something illegal. (which IMO this is).
Even more troubling, would be for you to sign the document and have the USPTO come after you with your Ask Slashdot post in hand to take you to jail or something.
I think the best distributed processing project I've been involved with is GIMPS, the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search.
Mersenne numbers are numbers of the form 2^p-1, (2 to the pth power minus 1) Generally, when Mersenne numbers are mentioned, Mersenne numbers with prime exponents are what is actually meant. The Mersenne number 2^p-1 is abbreviated Mp.
A Mersenne prime is a Mersenne number Mp which is prime. P must itself be prime, otherwise Mp has a trivial factorization. Namely if p is divisible by a and b, then 2^p-1 is divisible by 2^a-1 and 2^b-1. More generally, gcd(c^a-1,c^b-1)=c^(gcd(a,b))-1.
So basically, what it boils down to is that you can test the primality of a Mersenne number a lot faster (Using a Lucas-Lehmer test), with a computer and find REALLY big prime numbers. For example, the biggest prime # found to date is the Mersenne Prime where p=6972593 which has 2,098,960 digits in it.
The EFF is offering a $100k award to the first person to get a 10M digit prime number.
I highly suggest you switch from boring old D.Net or SETI@Home and go for finding big prime numbers
Yeah, but for spectral analysis to work it depends on what wavelengths are absorbed by a source between you and the "sugar". But I've always wondered on an interstellar level, how do you figure out what the "true" wavelengths that are being filtered out are? I mean, both the "light" source and the "sugar" are moving at most likely different high relative velocities to Earth, so I'd think that'd screw the entire spectrum, with blue shifts and red shifts, up enough to throw everything off.
I was thinking about that Sharper Image air cleaner that moves air w/o a fan (although at like 7cfm or something).
And if you go to this page, they claim 400cfm using the same tech. Maybe its worth checking out... plus, pulsed plasma field sounds cool. In addition it seems it cleans the air as well, so it might cut down on the dust in your PC. (But then again, high voltage electricity sounds bad EMF-wise)
Now, granted it is Sharper Image and all, but maybe its worth looking into?
The AS/400 is such an entirely bizarre beast of a computer, I highly doubt that Linux could/would be ported to it. Especially since there are plenty of RS/6000's and S390's to go around... Although I wouldn't mind seeing it done since OS/400 is such a piece of crap.
I find it hard to believe that the RIAA thinks they could stop piracy through this lawsuit. In all actuality, I think my.mp3.com would help deter piracy, in that it is a more "legitimate" channel to get mp3s from. In the past, I have in found it quite useful (such as wanting to buy an album at 2am and then being able to listen to it immediately).
In any case, I think the real issue is that the RIAA is trying to get rid of a potential future competitor. The music industry was caught with it's collective pants down by not offering a service like this before, and the only way to catch up is litigation. If the labels were smart, they'd offer mp3's in leiu of CDs, and make an extra $1/album (since it supposedly costs $1/cd in materials).
Funny thing is that Judge Rakoff claims that by converting to mp3, the work is not "transformed"; but as many people know, a lot of quality is lost in converting to mp3 (especially at 128kb).
Slashdot Mirror
Antitrust laws are ex post facto in that you can't know if you were violating the laws until it has been tried in court. It is a completely arbitrary law. If the antitrust laws specifically said if you do x, y and z, you are in violation of the law, then it would be valid.
However, the antitrust laws specifically leave the decision up to the court. More specifically, the FTC Act bans "unfair" trade practices. Please, what exactly is an "unfair" trade practice? Who defines that?
As Alan Greenspan wrote, antitrust "is a world in which the law is so vague that business-men have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge's verdict -- after the fact."
Emphasis mine
ex post facto
adj. Latin for "after the fact," which refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increasing the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Therefore, if a state legislature or Congress enacts new rules of proof or longer sentences, those new rules or sentences do not apply to crimes committed before the new law was adopted.
Also:
void for vagueness
adj. referring to a statute defining a crime which is so vague that a reasonable person of at least average intelligence could not determine what elements constitute the crime. Such a vague statute is unconstitutional on the basis that a defendant could not defend against a charge of a crime which he/she could not understand, and thus would be denied "due process" mandated by the 5th Amendment, applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.
Void for Vagueness is one of the major arguments being put forward for dismissing DMCA cases
Given that the law was not actually defined until just today. I think it falls under both categories.
Of course, in todays political climate of legislating from the bench, (see today's Supreme Court decision which is now basing Constitutional law on opinion polls*) it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that courts find it legal...
* Even though I happen to think that the death penalty for the mentally disabled is wrong, the Supreme Court doesn't decide the law, especially based on "public opinion polls", just rules on it.
Aren't ex post facto (retroactive) laws unconstitutional? If anything, I'd expect that the retroactive portion could easily be won in court due to the fact that the law is "void for vagueness". (for that time period)
Of course, here on Slashdot, I have the unpopular opinion that antitrust law is also ex post facto and therefore should be void which means Microsoft should get off scott free. (I can feel myself being modded down just typing that). I'll just chalk it up to me feeling Ayn Randish today and shrug...
In any case, I can't believe that we have laws today that flagrantly violate the constitution in that they leave it completely undefined as to what the law actually is.
How can one obey a law that doesn't define what breaking the law actually is? How is it that one defines the law willy nilly after it has been passed?
Goodbye TTT
Just a quick note. I think that Windows command-line has gotten more and more "bash"-like. In Win2k, I just wrote:
for %i in (*.d) do X %iwhich is equivalent to your example above... I'm a bit confused as to your Windows bashing (excuse the pun)
Yes, do you think they don't do this now? Otherwise, they'd be too busy ticketing speeders and not going to stop some murderer or something. Ever hear of the whole "checks and balances" thing? This is part of it. The executive branch (who the police are a part of) do not have to enforce any laws, however, that doesn't relieve them of any responsibility, which is where the judicial branch comes into play.
Even in the judicial branch, you have the right to a trial by a jury. And the jury can acquit based not only based on guilt vs. innocence but also on whether they feel the law is "fair" or not (of course, judges seem to trump this a lot which I think is wrong). You also see judges who acquit based on whether they think the law is right or wrong (with of course the option to appeal, etc)
I remember at the PDC in 1997 MS was handing out buttons saying "Microsoft Loves Java"... I think I still have one around somewhere.
Sigh...
Humans put 7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, nature putes 400 billion tons of CO2. Not enough to convince a lot of scientists that it is "real". Further you totally ruin your post by claiming that depletion of the ozone layer would increase temperatures, when it would actually decrease the temperature.
Then you claim that the rise in sea level is from melting icecaps... sigh... If the entire Northern icecap melted, the sea level would remain the same. (Think about displacement and that the northern icecap is "floating") Now, if the entire Souther polar cap covering Antartica were to melt, it is estimated that sea levels would rise 200ft, but for that to happen, there would have to be a 37C rise in temperature there.
I think that there is a lot more to put our efforts into rather than a "claim" of global warming
Tell me how to write this in Java:
void ChangesA(int *a) { *a = 1; }
calling it?
with obvious optimization if you are calling it frequently...
Java primitives are clunky and are IMO a holdover/crutch from C++.
I think one of the biggest problems I see with newbie Java programmers with a C++ background is that they never learned proper OO techniques. So they find clever ways to write procedural programs in Java...
Apparently someone is serious about it...
From a quick look at the abstract, the whole "new compression" thing is as it applies to laying data down onto the media. And from the looks of it, the big deal is it is using a hybrid of silicon and MO for a "3d" memory using the above mention "compression scheme".
I'm sure others can look at this and shoot it down for the rest of us
Funny... The whole cease-and-desist orders, and extorting money thing reminded me of government. What cracks me up is the mindset that a corporation doing this is bad, but the government taking your money (at gunpoint mind you), and giving it to people who don't make an honest living (e.g. Welfare) is good. Both are bad! I should point out that the problem isn't patents and corporations getting patents. Its the superflous patents that shouldn't have been granted in the first place, and the "looters" who think they can get away with trying to enforce those patents. Oh well, who is John Galt?
Well lets see:
1) Consider the source.
2) On the local radio show here in Dallas, Flynt's story was that the girl's roomate was his primary source, and she just heard one side of a phone conversation. So I guess his story isn't consistent.
3) Flynt did this as a "surprise" when he was appearing on CNN.
4) The "victim" denies she ever had sex with Bush.
Need I say more? Oh, and I'm trying to figure out where this girl is a 15 year old? Its not there on either of the URLs you posted. And I don't see any mention of him forcing her to have an abortion.
Why in the world does this have a score of 3?
No. Look up the word 'initiative' as it pertains to the working of committees in Congress. He doesn't claim 'creatorship.' He does claim that he initiated the process of procuring funding (through congressional action) to help spawn the Internet from ARPANET. He never claimed 'creatorship.' Ever.
Let me get this straight... when he says: 'I took the initiative in creating the internet'...
There is no claim to 'creatorship'???
It states you must take an oath that you believe to be the first inventor of the subject matter.
I don't think quitting would get you out of trouble, most IP contracts I've seen have a "as long as you live" type of deal when it comes to trying to obtain/defend patents etc... However, I also think the contract would become void or there is usually some clause in the contract saying that they can't force you to do something illegal. (which IMO this is).
Even more troubling, would be for you to sign the document and have the USPTO come after you with your Ask Slashdot post in hand to take you to jail or something.
Of course, IANAL and so and and so forth...
I think the best distributed processing project I've been involved with is GIMPS, the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search.
Mersenne numbers are numbers of the form 2^p-1, (2 to the pth power minus 1) Generally, when Mersenne numbers are mentioned, Mersenne numbers with prime exponents are what is actually meant. The Mersenne number 2^p-1 is abbreviated Mp.
A Mersenne prime is a Mersenne number Mp which is prime. P must itself be prime, otherwise Mp has a trivial factorization. Namely if p is divisible by a and b, then 2^p-1 is divisible by 2^a-1 and 2^b-1. More generally, gcd(c^a-1,c^b-1)=c^(gcd(a,b))-1.
So basically, what it boils down to is that you can test the primality of a Mersenne number a lot faster (Using a Lucas-Lehmer test), with a computer and find REALLY big prime numbers. For example, the biggest prime # found to date is the Mersenne Prime where p=6972593 which has 2,098,960 digits in it.
The EFF is offering a $100k award to the first person to get a 10M digit prime number.
I highly suggest you switch from boring old D.Net or SETI@Home and go for finding big prime numbers
Yeah, but for spectral analysis to work it depends on what wavelengths are absorbed by a source between you and the "sugar". But I've always wondered on an interstellar level, how do you figure out what the "true" wavelengths that are being filtered out are? I mean, both the "light" source and the "sugar" are moving at most likely different high relative velocities to Earth, so I'd think that'd screw the entire spectrum, with blue shifts and red shifts, up enough to throw everything off.
I was thinking about that Sharper Image air cleaner that moves air w/o a fan (although at like 7cfm or something).
And if you go to this page, they claim 400cfm using the same tech. Maybe its worth checking out... plus, pulsed plasma field sounds cool. In addition it seems it cleans the air as well, so it might cut down on the dust in your PC. (But then again, high voltage electricity sounds bad EMF-wise)
Now, granted it is Sharper Image and all, but maybe its worth looking into?The AS/400 is such an entirely bizarre beast of a computer, I highly doubt that Linux could/would be ported to it. Especially since there are plenty of RS/6000's and S390's to go around... Although I wouldn't mind seeing it done since OS/400 is such a piece of crap.
Oops forgot the CD-ROM
$10 case$31 64 MB (PC100)
$48 MSI MB w/ 4MB video and Sound
$7 Cheapo v.90 Modem
$5 Cheapo 10/100 Network card
$55 P2/266
$2 CPU fan
$24 24x CDROM
-------------
$182
Hmm... I think your numbers are WAY off... I just checked pricewatch:
$10 case$31 64 MB (PC100)
$48 MSI MB w/ 4MB video and Sound
$7 Cheapo v.90 Modem
$5 Cheapo 10/100 Network card
$55 P2/266
$2 CPU fan
-------------
$158
Sorry, you CAN buy a BARE BONES MINIMUM P2/266 w/ 64 megs for $200
I find it hard to believe that the RIAA thinks they could stop piracy through this lawsuit. In all actuality, I think my.mp3.com would help deter piracy, in that it is a more "legitimate" channel to get mp3s from. In the past, I have in found it quite useful (such as wanting to buy an album at 2am and then being able to listen to it immediately).
In any case, I think the real issue is that the RIAA is trying to get rid of a potential future competitor. The music industry was caught with it's collective pants down by not offering a service like this before, and the only way to catch up is litigation. If the labels were smart, they'd offer mp3's in leiu of CDs, and make an extra $1/album (since it supposedly costs $1/cd in materials).
Funny thing is that Judge Rakoff claims that by converting to mp3, the work is not "transformed"; but as many people know, a lot of quality is lost in converting to mp3 (especially at 128kb).