Not a *very* niche market at all nor do you need a better diesel infrastructure. Truckers would most likely love having diesel/electric hybrid considering the price of fuel and the incredibly low profit margins. Even if the rigs did cost more, it at least would be a fixed cost as opposed to the very varible cost of diesel.
In a graph is made up of two things, edges and vertices.
In a web graph, vertices are webpages and edges are hyperlinks.
PageRank determines how many incoming edges a vertex has. Given the nature of the web, this is a nontrivial problem because a vertex only knows its outgoing edges.
The assumption for PageRank is that the more incoming edges a vertex has, the more popular it is. So you would use this to figure out how popular a particular vertex is.
Given this you could do like Google and combine it with a search engine to prioritize the results.
I don't think that Comcast really cares about all the people quitting the internet service.
Keep in mind that AT&T Broadband is still the largest cable company in the U.S. So I think that what Comcast really wants is the regions that AT&T Broadband cable television is covering.
So although people may be leaving cable modems to go to dsl they aren't necessarily going to leave their cable television service, which is what I think Comcast really wants.
If nothing else,
32 bits = 4 gigabytes of addressable memory
64 bits = 16 exabytes of addressable memory
And in case you need help with the SI units, click here.
What does someone need 16 exabytes of memory for right now, I don't know, but there are applications that might need more than 4 gigabytes of memory. (For example, data warehouses.)
(I think I did the math right for the amounts of memory, but feel free to check for yourself.)
If the DMCA is not used to stifle academic research on cryptography then it is worthless. Nobody who has supported this law could be so naive as to think otherwise.
Apparently people were "naive" enough to support this law without stifling academic research on cryptography because encryption research is given an exception in the DMCA.
Further, it seems to me that Prof. Felton's research was not a violation of the DMCA, but IANAL, so read the following and decide for yourself.
The folowing is Chapter 12, Sec. 1201, paragraph (g) of Public Law 105-304 (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02 281:|TOM:/bss/d105query.html|) is a copy of the whole law for those who want to read it.
`(g) ENCRYPTION RESEARCH-
`(1) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this subsection--
`(A) the term `encryption research' means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption technology or to assist in the development of encryption products; and
`(B) the term `encryption technology' means the scrambling and descrambling of information using mathematical formulas or algorithms.
`(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if--
`(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work;
`(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research;
`(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and
`(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--
`(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security;
`(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and
`(C) whether the person provides the copyright owner of the work to which the technological measure is applied with notice of the findings and documentation of the research, and the time when such notice is provided.
`(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to--
`(A) develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the sole purpose of that person performing the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2); and
`(B) provide the technological means to another person with whom he or she is working collaboratively for the purpose of conducting the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2) or for the purpose of having that other person verify his or her acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2).
`(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this chapter, the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce shall jointly report to the Congress on the effect this subsection has had on--
`(A) encryption research and the development of encryption technology;
`(B) the adequacy and effectiveness of technological measures designed to protect copyrighted works; and
`(C) protection of copyright owners against the unauthorized access to their encrypted copyrighted works.
The report shall include legislative recommendations, if any
I think this guy has it right on, you should pay your $10 to have the rights to an album and then you can listen to it or own it in any medium that you want
IANAL, but I believe that under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 you do have that right, assuming it is for personal use and you are willing to move it to the new medium yourself
Re:The RIAA's problem began 15 years ago...
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 1
H ere is the law if you want to take a look at the precise language.
Huh? I don't quite follow you... are you trying to say that any law that a lot of people break should be voided? There sure do seem to be a lot of drunk drivers on the roads this time of year, maybe we should just legalize drunk driving, then? That make sense to you? If it doesn't, that bit of your argument doesn't either...
Here are a couple of examples of repealing or altering laws because a great number of people constantly broke them.
The 18th ammendment of the US constitution, the one that created prohibition, is a good example of an act of legislation getting repealed because few people followed it. It was eventually repealed by the 21st amemendment of the US constitution because it didn't really stop people from drinking, it just made them outlaws.
Automobile speed limits are an example of altering a law because so many people violate it. If you speed alone, you get a speeding ticket. But on the whole, if we all speed, they raise the speed limit.
In general, laws that make most people criminals are both unpopular and expensive to enforce. Copyright laws as they stand today in the United States could make everybody online a criminal assuming enough bad judical precedents are set. So perhaps copyright laws should be relaxed in an effort to increase public support of copyright laws and to reduce court costs.
From what I recall hearing about all of this (which I recommend taking with a grain of salt due to the fact that I cannot find links to back all of this stuff up) was that this was to be a universial chat and instant messaging client, and Netscape gave mozilla.org the source code to AIM as a starting point. AOL quickly found out about this and in response Netscape pressured mozilla.org to pull the project. Please note, this is merely what I recall hearing about the situation.
But I do ask all of you to ponder this, why was the chat module pulled if Mozilla didn't have the source code? One reason could be that AOL didn't want to have their lead in instant messaging being undercut. But then again, AOL doesn't seem to mind that AIM and ICQ compete against each other.
Actually, Mozilla.org released the API for AIM, but it got pulled soon afterward. Here is the page where it was and it tells why the API was pulled from the site.
Earlier today, major computer makers committed to making laptops using the Pentium 4 processor. Compaq is considering bulking up their laptop designs to make room for the 1 pound heat sink, and to allow car batteries to be placed in the computer. Dell on the other hand is thinking of shrinking their laptop case by removing the heat sink and submerging the motherboard in nitrogen cooled flourinert, and removing the battery cases and instead shipping an electrical generator with the machine. IBM was still considering a method of cooling the chip and providing power that would not involve people breaking their backs.
Slashdot Mirror
It all has to do with the seven word rule. If you can explain it in seven words or less it can still be funny.
... aw crap never mind
For example, with the current issue:
See, with the ^H it's funny because it's
Not a *very* niche market at all nor do you need a better diesel infrastructure. Truckers would most likely love having diesel/electric hybrid considering the price of fuel and the incredibly low profit margins. Even if the rigs did cost more, it at least would be a fixed cost as opposed to the very varible cost of diesel.
You mean something like this?
Do you use 802.1x?
a) Yes
b) No
c) I don't have wireless you insensitive clod.
d) Cowboy Neal manually changes my WEP keys every five minutes.
In a graph is made up of two things, edges and vertices.
In a web graph, vertices are webpages and edges are hyperlinks.
PageRank determines how many incoming edges a vertex has. Given the nature of the web, this is a nontrivial problem because a vertex only knows its outgoing edges.
The assumption for PageRank is that the more incoming edges a vertex has, the more popular it is. So you would use this to figure out how popular a particular vertex is.
Given this you could do like Google and combine it with a search engine to prioritize the results.
In theory, with 64 bits, you could address 16 exabytes. Each 64 bit address would refer to a byte, not a bit, so you don't divide by 8.
I don't think that Comcast really cares about all the people quitting the internet service.
Keep in mind that AT&T Broadband is still the largest cable company in the U.S. So I think that what Comcast really wants is the regions that AT&T Broadband cable television is covering.
So although people may be leaving cable modems to go to dsl they aren't necessarily going to leave their cable television service, which is what I think Comcast really wants.
If nothing else,
32 bits = 4 gigabytes of addressable memory
64 bits = 16 exabytes of addressable memory
And in case you need help with the SI units, click here.
What does someone need 16 exabytes of memory for right now, I don't know, but there are applications that might need more than 4 gigabytes of memory. (For example, data warehouses.)
(I think I did the math right for the amounts of memory, but feel free to check for yourself.)
If the DMCA is not used to stifle academic research on cryptography then it is worthless. Nobody who has supported this law could be so naive as to think otherwise.
2 281:|TOM:/bss/d105query.html|) is a copy of the whole law for those who want to read it.
Apparently people were "naive" enough to support this law without stifling academic research on cryptography because encryption research is given an exception in the DMCA.
Further, it seems to me that Prof. Felton's research was not a violation of the DMCA, but IANAL, so read the following and decide for yourself.
The folowing is Chapter 12, Sec. 1201, paragraph (g) of Public Law 105-304 (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR0
`(g) ENCRYPTION RESEARCH-
`(1) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this subsection--
`(A) the term `encryption research' means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption technology or to assist in the development of encryption products; and
`(B) the term `encryption technology' means the scrambling and descrambling of information using mathematical formulas or algorithms.
`(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if--
`(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work;
`(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research;
`(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and
`(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--
`(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security;
`(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and
`(C) whether the person provides the copyright owner of the work to which the technological measure is applied with notice of the findings and documentation of the research, and the time when such notice is provided.
`(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to--
`(A) develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the sole purpose of that person performing the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2); and
`(B) provide the technological means to another person with whom he or she is working collaboratively for the purpose of conducting the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2) or for the purpose of having that other person verify his or her acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2).
`(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this chapter, the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce shall jointly report to the Congress on the effect this subsection has had on--
`(A) encryption research and the development of encryption technology;
`(B) the adequacy and effectiveness of technological measures designed to protect copyrighted works; and
`(C) protection of copyright owners against the unauthorized access to their encrypted copyrighted works.
The report shall include legislative recommendations, if any
Now I'm probably missing something, but how would regulators distinguish between voice over IP versus other network traffic?
other people who havent purchased the right to listen to that music shouldnt have it.
So it isn't legal to give someone a CD for Christmas?
I think this guy has it right on, you should pay your $10 to have the rights to an album and then you can listen to it or own it in any medium that you want
IANAL, but I believe that under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 you do have that right, assuming it is for personal use and you are willing to move it to the new medium yourself
H ere is the law if you want to take a look at the precise language.
Here are a couple of examples of repealing or altering laws because a great number of people constantly broke them.
The 18th ammendment of the US constitution, the one that created prohibition, is a good example of an act of legislation getting repealed because few people followed it. It was eventually repealed by the 21st amemendment of the US constitution because it didn't really stop people from drinking, it just made them outlaws.
Automobile speed limits are an example of altering a law because so many people violate it. If you speed alone, you get a speeding ticket. But on the whole, if we all speed, they raise the speed limit.
In general, laws that make most people criminals are both unpopular and expensive to enforce. Copyright laws as they stand today in the United States could make everybody online a criminal assuming enough bad judical precedents are set. So perhaps copyright laws should be relaxed in an effort to increase public support of copyright laws and to reduce court costs.
I will conciede that I was wrong regarding the actual release of the source code. This is thanks to the anonymous coward who posted a clever way you can still get to the original page, albeit not directly at http://www.mozilla.org/webtools/bonsai/cvsvie w2.cgi?diff_mode=context&whitespace_mode=show&root =/cvsroot&subdir=mozilla-org/html/projec ts/chat&command=DIFF_FRAMESET&root=/cvsroot&file=i m-apispec.html&rev1=1.1&rev2=1.5
But I do ask all of you to ponder this, why was the chat module pulled if Mozilla didn't have the source code? One reason could be that AOL didn't want to have their lead in instant messaging being undercut. But then again, AOL doesn't seem to mind that AIM and ICQ compete against each other.
Actually, Mozilla.org released the API for AIM, but it got pulled soon afterward. Here is the page where it was and it tells why the API was pulled from the site.
Earlier today, major computer makers committed to making laptops using the Pentium 4 processor. Compaq is considering bulking up their laptop designs to make room for the 1 pound heat sink, and to allow car batteries to be placed in the computer. Dell on the other hand is thinking of shrinking their laptop case by removing the heat sink and submerging the motherboard in nitrogen cooled flourinert, and removing the battery cases and instead shipping an electrical generator with the machine. IBM was still considering a method of cooling the chip and providing power that would not involve people breaking their backs.