If I recall, the main reason is that Congress explicitly said "ISPs will not be classified as common carriers." The ruling that caused all this is based on the idea "if congress said they're not going to be common carriers you can't make rules that effectively turn them into common carriers."
I don't even think it's that they see nothing wrong with it; I don't think that would stop them. I think it's that they don't want to set a precedent that would make it harder for them to do the same thing later.
if there's no competition, then the one supplier is an authority controlling the forces of supply and demand, so it's not a free market. I agree with you completely.
Except the "Free Market" is defined as one in which "the forces of supply and demand are not controlled by a government or other authority". If any participant is big enough (the extreme being, of course, a monopoly) they can unilaterally affect the supply or demand. Therefore a real "Free Market" must consist of multiple players, none of whom has too large a share of the market. This is not even close to what we have now.
I use the stock firmware because when I tried tomato it kept hanging and needing power cycling every couple of days. This was some time back; I could try a newer version, but I haven't gotten around to it.
Beyond a decent firewall? Nothing functional. But it's cheaper and easier for the end user (being provided by the ISP) so a lot of folks just use that as their one line of defense and hope nobody's interested enough to hack the routers doing the NAT mangling.
Actually, I think you should probably have highlighted "as referred to in that provision". The paragraph two before the one you quoted said "That additional circumstance in no way alters the conclusion that the provision on a site of a clickable link to a protected work published and freely accessible on another site has the effect of making that work available to users of the first site and that it therefore constitutes a communication to the public. However, since there is no new public, the authorisation of the copyright holders is in any event not required for such a communication to the public." Therefore the link is a communication to the public, it's just that the provision doesn't apply.
However, both of us noted that the provision's inapplicability is based on the material being already available to everyone who can follow the link, so the important part we agree on.
If the paywall is designed such that authorization info gets carried along in the URL (as parameters, for example) and the link includes authorization info, it could get you to content that you couldn't reach directly (because you don't have the username/password to get the paywall to add the authorization info). It's not the smartest way to design an authentication system, but I've seen it in use in the past and I wouldn't bet money that nobody's using it now.
Fun fact: linking to content that used to be freely available but is no longer is called out as constituting infringement. The Internet Archive may have a problem.
While they don't host any infringing materials, a core assumption of the ruling is that "the thing being pointed to" is in fact authorized (in this case, news stories). The ruling states that creating the link is a communication to the public, and as such if the thing linked to is infringing, such a communication could be itself infringing or at least contributory. I don't think this helps them.
The emphasis on privacy came from muktware. The FSF notice says that the RYF certification is about freedom, control over the product, and privacy, and of the three I'd say (like you mention) that for a printer privacy is the least likely to be an issue. (Though it does relate to the 'nothing we'd call spyware' requirement.)
It used to be that way, til November 2009, but now the banks have to actually prove that it was the customer's error (Wikipedia's article on chip and pin mentions this in the "Bank's Liability" and "Criticism" sections).
well, both the proton and antiproton have mass, but in a sense, they have a sum of zero energy (since they came out of nothing, they add up to nothing). So one of them gets to have negative energy, and it's the one the black hole ate (otherwise you have a negative-energy proton floating around, which gets weird). So it's adding negative energy to a positive mass and winding up with a smaller positive mass.
The wikipedia article on Hawking Radiation can probably explain it better than me; I'm about at the limit of my understanding.
it sounds like what they're looking at is using prestressed silicon, that's kept from going boom by reinforcing materials that can be vaporized by current. Of course, this will eventually go public, and then we'll be talking about "The unlock failed and the phone got dusted."
As I understand it, that's almost exactly it. The catch is that the universe is now 2 protons heavier than it was, and it can't keep them. "Normally" the proton and antiproton would recombine and annihilate and it would be gone, but now that they're separated that can't happen. So the black hole's mass gets debited 2 proton masses. So the final result is that the hole is down 1 proton mass and the rest of the universe is up 1 proton mass.
Sort of yes. "...under the force of its own gravitational attraction" would be more precise, I think. Gravity is a force, and weight is the measure of the gravitational force on a particular item. But it's common to think of weight as the force of gravitational attraction itself, and it's shorter to type.
And yes, as it collapses and the distance from particle A to the center of mass of the rest of the star decreases, the force of gravitational attraction (weight) increases.
I've seen a number of versions of Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, and (especially) Alice in Wonderland that are not Disney. Significantly, not one of them actually follows the book; they're all loose interpretations with only the character names and settings (and frequently not even the setting) in common.
Slashdot Mirror
If I recall, the main reason is that Congress explicitly said "ISPs will not be classified as common carriers." The ruling that caused all this is based on the idea "if congress said they're not going to be common carriers you can't make rules that effectively turn them into common carriers."
I don't even think it's that they see nothing wrong with it; I don't think that would stop them. I think it's that they don't want to set a precedent that would make it harder for them to do the same thing later.
The flora in your intestines would probably beg to differ.
Thanks, I'll give that a shot :)
if there's no competition, then the one supplier is an authority controlling the forces of supply and demand, so it's not a free market. I agree with you completely.
Except the "Free Market" is defined as one in which "the forces of supply and demand are not controlled by a government or other authority". If any participant is big enough (the extreme being, of course, a monopoly) they can unilaterally affect the supply or demand. Therefore a real "Free Market" must consist of multiple players, none of whom has too large a share of the market. This is not even close to what we have now.
I use the stock firmware because when I tried tomato it kept hanging and needing power cycling every couple of days. This was some time back; I could try a newer version, but I haven't gotten around to it.
Beyond a decent firewall? Nothing functional. But it's cheaper and easier for the end user (being provided by the ISP) so a lot of folks just use that as their one line of defense and hope nobody's interested enough to hack the routers doing the NAT mangling.
which city are you living in? Where I am, 25k is rent and nothing else.
Actually, I think you should probably have highlighted "as referred to in that provision". The paragraph two before the one you quoted said "That additional circumstance in no way alters the conclusion that the provision on a site of a clickable link to a protected work published and freely accessible on another site has the effect of making that work available to users of the first site and that it therefore constitutes a communication to the public. However, since there is no new public, the authorisation of the copyright holders is in any event not required for such a communication to the public." Therefore the link is a communication to the public, it's just that the provision doesn't apply.
However, both of us noted that the provision's inapplicability is based on the material being already available to everyone who can follow the link, so the important part we agree on.
If the paywall is designed such that authorization info gets carried along in the URL (as parameters, for example) and the link includes authorization info, it could get you to content that you couldn't reach directly (because you don't have the username/password to get the paywall to add the authorization info). It's not the smartest way to design an authentication system, but I've seen it in use in the past and I wouldn't bet money that nobody's using it now.
Fun fact: linking to content that used to be freely available but is no longer is called out as constituting infringement. The Internet Archive may have a problem.
While they don't host any infringing materials, a core assumption of the ruling is that "the thing being pointed to" is in fact authorized (in this case, news stories). The ruling states that creating the link is a communication to the public, and as such if the thing linked to is infringing, such a communication could be itself infringing or at least contributory. I don't think this helps them.
I'm not sure I agree that constitutes harm. They already looked like a bunch of incompetent cock-smokers.
What we need is to build a giant ark-spaceship. I hear there's a giant star-goat headed this way...
according to the summary, they are both more directional and more efficient.
The emphasis on privacy came from muktware. The FSF notice says that the RYF certification is about freedom, control over the product, and privacy, and of the three I'd say (like you mention) that for a printer privacy is the least likely to be an issue. (Though it does relate to the 'nothing we'd call spyware' requirement.)
Would a picked pocket not be "card stolen", which already has liability limits for the customer?
It used to be that way, til November 2009, but now the banks have to actually prove that it was the customer's error (Wikipedia's article on chip and pin mentions this in the "Bank's Liability" and "Criticism" sections).
i was able to see it by going down to the bottom and hitting "load a few hundred more comments" a few times.
well, both the proton and antiproton have mass, but in a sense, they have a sum of zero energy (since they came out of nothing, they add up to nothing). So one of them gets to have negative energy, and it's the one the black hole ate (otherwise you have a negative-energy proton floating around, which gets weird). So it's adding negative energy to a positive mass and winding up with a smaller positive mass.
The wikipedia article on Hawking Radiation can probably explain it better than me; I'm about at the limit of my understanding.
it sounds like what they're looking at is using prestressed silicon, that's kept from going boom by reinforcing materials that can be vaporized by current. Of course, this will eventually go public, and then we'll be talking about "The unlock failed and the phone got dusted."
As I understand it, that's almost exactly it. The catch is that the universe is now 2 protons heavier than it was, and it can't keep them. "Normally" the proton and antiproton would recombine and annihilate and it would be gone, but now that they're separated that can't happen. So the black hole's mass gets debited 2 proton masses. So the final result is that the hole is down 1 proton mass and the rest of the universe is up 1 proton mass.
Sort of yes. "...under the force of its own gravitational attraction" would be more precise, I think. Gravity is a force, and weight is the measure of the gravitational force on a particular item. But it's common to think of weight as the force of gravitational attraction itself, and it's shorter to type.
And yes, as it collapses and the distance from particle A to the center of mass of the rest of the star decreases, the force of gravitational attraction (weight) increases.
I've seen a number of versions of Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, and (especially) Alice in Wonderland that are not Disney. Significantly, not one of them actually follows the book; they're all loose interpretations with only the character names and settings (and frequently not even the setting) in common.