I didn't think that "there's an infinite number of twin primes" was in question. Like so:
Let S(k) be the set of all prime numbers less than or equal to k, where k is at least 3 [S(3) would be {2, 3}]. Let P be the product of them all. Then P+1 and P-1 are prime and not in S(k). Therefore S(P+1) is at least two larger than S(k) (and probably much more than 2; finding those others, that's the tricky part). Rinse, repeat.
What part of this is difficult?
Georgia would be my guess; Atlanta has a good number of car dealers but it also has a fair number of folks who'd want to buy a Tesla without dealing with them. Failing that, a round trip ticket to CA and a one way car transport bill would probably only be about $2-3k, not that much on top of the car itself.
True, but when the government decides to regulate corporations, they have a right to speak, like the individual person does.
Why? I mean, I know of the general assertion that "an association of people must have the same rights as each individual" but I'm not sure I agree, as long as the individuals are not losing any rights in the process. The shareholders and employees of ABC can contribute funds as they wish to further ABC's interests; why does ABC itself also need to be able to, except that it can use more money that way? Five thousand individuals can donate more than me, and I'm fine with that; 5000 people should have more political clout than just me. But should one 'person' have more clout than 5000 people, just because it has a bigger bank account?
The answer to this question is usually "back when, this starving guy said 'what the hell', decided it wasn't half bad, got his neighbors into it, and it became the 'local specialty', which was thereafter sought out by foodies." When that's not it, odds are good that it's "to prove they can."
They appear to not have those in their disc catalog either. But who does? If I can't get it from anybody else, Netflix not having it doesn't seem like a substantial disadvantage.
Not to mention the natural wake/sleep cycle changes as you age. Adolescence tends to shift the natural wake-up time back by a couple of hours. Yes, teenagers wanting to sleep in later than preadolescents (and stay up later) seems to have a biological basis. http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_body/take_care/how_much_sleep.html
I wonder what would happen if I used the "use own key" provision for CrashPlan and kept the key on a piece of paper in a safety deposit box. Under this doctrine they can get to the encrypted form, but with "use own key", CrashPlan (in theory) can't decrypt the data, so they need the key... which is somewhere that requires a warrant. (Or at least is going to require a judge to tell me that it doesn't, which I would tend to count as close enough to a court order for jazz.) Seems like that could get me something reasonably close to warrant protection.
The downside of course is that switching to "use own key" is going to mean re-uploading all the backed up data.
That's true, but they really should have had a functional shield generator aboard the Death Star II before declaring it "fully functional". (Of course, the one calling it functional was the Emperor; he may have been exaggerating a bit, secure in the feeling that nobody would dare contradict him...)
Gyroplane rotorcraft (such as the PAL-V 1 et al) have slightly less stringent requirements than full helicopters for a private license. Which is not to say that it's fast and cheap, but probably not quite the 10-15 thousand dollars for a helo. And part of the beauty of the PAL-V 1 and the like is that you can lane split (motorcycle laws permitting) on your way to the airport:)
The existence of fair use may be based on the right of free speech (though the description in law does not seem to me to indicate this), but in practice it is defined as a restriction and exception to the rights of copyright holders:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
I wish it were a right. I could sue for being prevented from making copies for legitimate purposes. But as is, it's an "if you manage to do this it's not an infraction".
I think the original idea was more about "if you used to have it commercially available but stopped (e.g. because it's no longer economically feasible), it reverts". But these are good questions to keep in mind, if only to force clarifying language.
I read that idea in a Heinlein book; you assess your own property and anyone can purchase it for that price. You can (in response to the offer) raise your assessment to a level where nobody wants it, but then you owe 5 years back taxes on the new assessed value.
I wasn't aware it had actually been implemented anywhere, but I'd be interested in seeing the results.
well, he did mention '...digitize our history so that all have access' and '...the Copyright Office['s] customers - the public', so there may be some basis for hope. Not enough for me to bet a nickel on, though.
US17 301c also says 'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067.' which would imply that the entirety of Title 17 would be inapplicable (permanently, even). But then 301e says 'The scope of Federal preemption under this section is not affected by the adherence of the United States to the Berne Convention or the satisfaction of obligations of the United States thereunder.' so if (as I recall) the copyright extensions were supposed to match Berne Convention standards, they may still apply. IANA copyright lawyer, though.
Well, 301c also says that 'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067.' Which would seem to mean that the entirety of Title17 is inapplicable. But then there's 301e, which says 'The scope of Federal preemption under this section is not affected by the adherence of the United States to the Berne Convention or the satisfaction of obligations of the United States thereunder', and since (if I recall right) the extensions were supposed to meet Berne Convention standards, the exemption from title 17 may itself not apply to the extensions.
For Mickey Mouse in particular, none of the above applies, because "Steamboat Willie" isn't a 'sound recording'. But 301f has similar language, but aimed at 'works of visual art' and referencing the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. If that applies to motion pictures (as opposed to photography/painting/sculpture), then that's also still covered by state law, at least as far as 'rights extending beyond the life of the author'. But I haven't read the VARA.
I dunno about music, but that's my rationalization for scarfing up old issues of IASFM, F&SF, and Analog... lots of good stuff in there that will never be in print again because by the time it's out of copyright there won't be any sources left. (Okay, that may be pessimistic. But 'never in print again in my lifetime' I'd put money on, if I had any way to collect.)
problem is this won't cause the DMCA to get dropped, it'll just make the one decent part (safe harbor) useless. Sort of like how fair-use is legal*, but useless because you can't actually do any of the stuff without breaking the DMCA.
* 'Legal' here in the sense of 'not forbidden'. Fair use (currently) isn't a right, it's a restriction on lawsuits.
I would expect if her 100k hardware failed she'd have a maintenance plan, and if that didn't work, could get financing for a new one. Financing new software might be more difficult.
the key was either part of the stream or is embedded in something on the receiver's system. After all, something on the system decrypted it. That reduces the search space considerably, even if you just try each 16 byte chunk in order.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't think that "there's an infinite number of twin primes" was in question. Like so: Let S(k) be the set of all prime numbers less than or equal to k, where k is at least 3 [S(3) would be {2, 3}]. Let P be the product of them all. Then P+1 and P-1 are prime and not in S(k). Therefore S(P+1) is at least two larger than S(k) (and probably much more than 2; finding those others, that's the tricky part). Rinse, repeat. What part of this is difficult?
Ah, I see. I was interpreting the question more as "where is it going to be legal for them to have the car delivered".
Georgia would be my guess; Atlanta has a good number of car dealers but it also has a fair number of folks who'd want to buy a Tesla without dealing with them. Failing that, a round trip ticket to CA and a one way car transport bill would probably only be about $2-3k, not that much on top of the car itself.
no, but they can put requirements on the sale that effectively mandate a certain business model. After all, you have to register it, right?
True, but when the government decides to regulate corporations, they have a right to speak, like the individual person does.
Why? I mean, I know of the general assertion that "an association of people must have the same rights as each individual" but I'm not sure I agree, as long as the individuals are not losing any rights in the process. The shareholders and employees of ABC can contribute funds as they wish to further ABC's interests; why does ABC itself also need to be able to, except that it can use more money that way? Five thousand individuals can donate more than me, and I'm fine with that; 5000 people should have more political clout than just me. But should one 'person' have more clout than 5000 people, just because it has a bigger bank account?
The answer to this question is usually "back when, this starving guy said 'what the hell', decided it wasn't half bad, got his neighbors into it, and it became the 'local specialty', which was thereafter sought out by foodies." When that's not it, odds are good that it's "to prove they can."
They appear to not have those in their disc catalog either. But who does? If I can't get it from anybody else, Netflix not having it doesn't seem like a substantial disadvantage.
Not to mention the natural wake/sleep cycle changes as you age. Adolescence tends to shift the natural wake-up time back by a couple of hours. Yes, teenagers wanting to sleep in later than preadolescents (and stay up later) seems to have a biological basis. http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_body/take_care/how_much_sleep.html
I wonder what would happen if I used the "use own key" provision for CrashPlan and kept the key on a piece of paper in a safety deposit box. Under this doctrine they can get to the encrypted form, but with "use own key", CrashPlan (in theory) can't decrypt the data, so they need the key... which is somewhere that requires a warrant. (Or at least is going to require a judge to tell me that it doesn't, which I would tend to count as close enough to a court order for jazz.) Seems like that could get me something reasonably close to warrant protection. The downside of course is that switching to "use own key" is going to mean re-uploading all the backed up data.
Small/Medium Business
That's true, but they really should have had a functional shield generator aboard the Death Star II before declaring it "fully functional". (Of course, the one calling it functional was the Emperor; he may have been exaggerating a bit, secure in the feeling that nobody would dare contradict him...)
Except putting the shield generator outside the shield. WTF!?!?!
Gyroplane rotorcraft (such as the PAL-V 1 et al) have slightly less stringent requirements than full helicopters for a private license. Which is not to say that it's fast and cheap, but probably not quite the 10-15 thousand dollars for a helo. And part of the beauty of the PAL-V 1 and the like is that you can lane split (motorcycle laws permitting) on your way to the airport :)
The existence of fair use may be based on the right of free speech (though the description in law does not seem to me to indicate this), but in practice it is defined as a restriction and exception to the rights of copyright holders:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
I wish it were a right. I could sue for being prevented from making copies for legitimate purposes. But as is, it's an "if you manage to do this it's not an infraction".
I think the original idea was more about "if you used to have it commercially available but stopped (e.g. because it's no longer economically feasible), it reverts". But these are good questions to keep in mind, if only to force clarifying language.
I read that idea in a Heinlein book; you assess your own property and anyone can purchase it for that price. You can (in response to the offer) raise your assessment to a level where nobody wants it, but then you owe 5 years back taxes on the new assessed value.
I wasn't aware it had actually been implemented anywhere, but I'd be interested in seeing the results.
well, he did mention '...digitize our history so that all have access' and '...the Copyright Office['s] customers - the public', so there may be some basis for hope. Not enough for me to bet a nickel on, though.
US17 301c also says 'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067.' which would imply that the entirety of Title 17 would be inapplicable (permanently, even). But then 301e says 'The scope of Federal preemption under this section is not affected by the adherence of the United States to the Berne Convention or the satisfaction of obligations of the United States thereunder.' so if (as I recall) the copyright extensions were supposed to match Berne Convention standards, they may still apply. IANA copyright lawyer, though.
Well, 301c also says that 'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067.' Which would seem to mean that the entirety of Title17 is inapplicable. But then there's 301e, which says 'The scope of Federal preemption under this section is not affected by the adherence of the United States to the Berne Convention or the satisfaction of obligations of the United States thereunder', and since (if I recall right) the extensions were supposed to meet Berne Convention standards, the exemption from title 17 may itself not apply to the extensions.
For Mickey Mouse in particular, none of the above applies, because "Steamboat Willie" isn't a 'sound recording'. But 301f has similar language, but aimed at 'works of visual art' and referencing the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. If that applies to motion pictures (as opposed to photography/painting/sculpture), then that's also still covered by state law, at least as far as 'rights extending beyond the life of the author'. But I haven't read the VARA.
I dunno about music, but that's my rationalization for scarfing up old issues of IASFM, F&SF, and Analog... lots of good stuff in there that will never be in print again because by the time it's out of copyright there won't be any sources left. (Okay, that may be pessimistic. But 'never in print again in my lifetime' I'd put money on, if I had any way to collect.)
problem is this won't cause the DMCA to get dropped, it'll just make the one decent part (safe harbor) useless. Sort of like how fair-use is legal*, but useless because you can't actually do any of the stuff without breaking the DMCA.
* 'Legal' here in the sense of 'not forbidden'. Fair use (currently) isn't a right, it's a restriction on lawsuits.
I would expect if her 100k hardware failed she'd have a maintenance plan, and if that didn't work, could get financing for a new one. Financing new software might be more difficult.
are those voting shares?
same way a phone book is, I guess.
the key was either part of the stream or is embedded in something on the receiver's system. After all, something on the system decrypted it. That reduces the search space considerably, even if you just try each 16 byte chunk in order.