Actually, it more-or-less does, at least in where Title 1 is concerned. The DMCA itsself is just the US's implementation of requirements agreed to internationally in a 1996 WIPO treaty, in which signatories agreed to pass laws criminalising circumvention of copyright protection technology. Similar laws exist in Europe (Via national implementations of the European Union Copyright Directive), Canada, Australia, and much of the rest of the world. WIPO is a big organisation.
The notice-and-takedown provisions (Title 2) were not, AFAIK, required by any WIPO agreement and as such are not so universal outside of the US.
Oh, that's going to be a legal minefield. You've obviously got all the fun of state laws on recording conversations, for a start - do you need to have everyone you talk to agree to be recorded? Then there is the possibility of the records being used in legal proceedings against you - not just run-ins with the government, but civil cases too. Child custody, for example: If you and your ex lived together with these things for a year raising a child, you'll both have a rich library of footage that could be edited to cast the other in a very bad light. And the children, too... better make sure you take the glasses off or stop recording every time you need to change your baby or bathe your young child. There was a time once not long ago when family videos of the children in the bath were seen as innocent recordings of a carefree age - now, they'll get you twenty years in jail and a lifetime on the sex offender register.
I work Helldesk. I can see a use for a display like that: Display alerts of network status and pending tickets. Now technicians can be much faster in their response time. The same thing would work for, say, shelf-stackers or cleaners in a store: Have it bring up alerts telling them what needs stocking in real time. A considerable boost in worker efficiency, which in turn means fewer workers. If the store can lay off just one employee, the savings will easily pay for giving the rest google glass and having an appropriate app written.
The 'commander in chief' thing only applies to the military. This was a law enforcement operation. It was managed by a rather large number of officials, some federal and some state, including a few appointed by Obama (I'm not going to look up names, too tired right now). So he may have some responsibility, but only by proxy and by inaction. By the same logic you use, you could say he is responsible whenever the post office loses a letter.
Cruice control send up swith the same issue. If the algorithm exceeds target speed for even a few seconds - steep hill,or got rammed from behind by another driver - then you still end up with a ticket.
The stuck-up, annoyingly smug computer. It's a billion times smarter than the rest of the crew put together, and doesn't try to hide it. A computer so obnoxious, most conversations ended with someone cutting the power to shut it up. I want to see ORAC again.
How many other computers, when asked if they can perform a video analysis task, announce they just did it - but won't share the result, considering such menial number-crunching beneath them?
That's only between their own products, at two meters range, in an EM-shielded enclosure, on a way when Jupiter aligns with Mars and the antennas are sprinkled with pixie dust. The real stuff, too, not that sugary substitute.
It isn't that easy to get internet to rural areas. The technology exists, yes - but the business case isn't strong. In the city, you can run a cable along a street and it'll pass straight past a hundred or more potential paying customers - the cable is expensive, but their subscription fees pay to lay it. In the country, you might have to lay thousands of meters of cable in order to reach just one subscriber. Unless that subscriber is obscenely wealthy, it's impossible to turn a profit on that. Even in a small town, the population density is much less than in a city. The only viable option is a wireless service - I notice that all three of the examples you give as your options are wireless - but these face a severe technological disadvantage: They are vulnerable to interference, offer a fraction of the bandwidth a fiber or even multitap coaxial can provide, and suffer from contention. You're paying $160 for a connection most city-dwellers would laugh at, and you're only a few miles out of town. Truely rural america still consists of vast swathes of farmland or near-virgin territory, dotted around with small towns and homesteads. If you're a couple miles from a commuter city, you're only suburban.
Internet service is a commercial operation: Providers aren't going to set up service they can't make money on. This has happened before, when electricity became an infrastructure - providers wouldn't offer service in rural areas, because the money to be made couldn't possibly cover the cost of setting up the cables. That problem was solved by throwing tax money at it: The government established a Rural Electrification Administration to heavily subsidise (mostly via very-low-interest loans) construction of power and later telephone lines to rural areas. Today only the most remote, isolated dwelling is without access to grid power, thanks to that subsidy... but that sort of government involvement is expensive, and everyone pays.
"result in is another generation of children [1] too afraid to test limits,"
That may be the intended result.
In the early days of the internet, there was a very casual attitude to hackers. It was fully expected that most aspiring technical types would go through a 'phase' of aggressive exploration and pranking, and so long as they didn't do any serious damage it was regarded as a standard part of the learning process and something they would eventually mature out of once they no longer felt they had to prove their skills by such a game. If someone broke your system, you'd fix the hole and silently congratulate someone who'd shown skill, initiative and enthusiasm for the field. Things are very different now. With computers much more involved in high-value commercial and governmental usage, their is much less room to tolerate hacking attempts - that playful, still-learning script kiddie could get lucky and cost the company millions. So attacks that once would have been shrugged off now result in calling in the police and the lawyers.
Also, Wargames 2 exists: It was a direct-to-DVD sequel generally regarded as an insult to the original.
Attitudes towards potentially dangerous material are often contradictory. For example, in an episode of Mythbusters the team required thermite for an experiment. They made this themselves, in a procedure not shown. The ingredients bottles were blurred out to hide the labels. Jamie sarcastically warned viewers never to mix 'blur' and 'blur.' So clearly, someone at the studio considered this information to be too dangerous to reveal to the audience - either because it could be used to create a weapon, or because of the risk someone would experiment with it and then sue the studio after they burned their hand off. And yet, this material that so scared the studio is widely known. Not only can it be looked up with ease on the internet, but it's the textbook example of a redox reaction - quite literally the textbook example. When I studied chemistry in a perfectly ordinary public school it was the example in the textbooks, including not just the ingredients but instruction in how to calculate the correct ratio and, thanks to a practical demonstration given by the teacher, instruction in the importance of particle size, correct safe preperation method and means of ignition. Does that mean the school chemistry text is a terrorism handbook?
You probably could use thermite for terrorism too. If it's used to weld rails, it can be used to sever them too. Sever a rail, derail a train. Could kill hundreds of people if you time it right.
It looks to me like a confusing use of 'the x administration' to designate a particular division of time, even when the subject at hand has little connection to event separating time periods.
If you want it to go boom, yes. If you want to just make a really nasty neutron pulse, fatally irradiating everyone on board, you need much simpler arrangements. Slotin managed to do it accidentially.
You'd still need a state sponsor though - there's nowhere else you might obtain a sufficient amount of refined plutonium. You shouldn't need anything too bulky - the demon core did it, and that was less than ten centimeters across. You'd still need a good excuse as to why you are carrying on pieces of metal that could be weaponised simply by smashing someone's skull in.
I managed to get a leatherman with many many blades onto an international flight after 9/11, entirely accidentially. Forgot I'd packed it in my hand luggage, rather than the cargo luggage. That wasn't a flight into or out of the US though, so it didn't go via the TSA. Don't know how it got through UK security - blind luck, probably. All those layers of metal probably looked like a blur on the xray, and they only have a few seconds to look at each item.
There was a time that would have been a good plan. That time was before the invention of radio. Try that today and every TV channel outside the US, and a few of those in, will be carrying endless footage of the hell-on-earth that results. Starvation, disease, warlords recruiting children as forced soldiers in their fight for control, and the US getting the blame for it all.
Destroying all military infrasturcture would almost work, but you only end up postponing the problem: Eventually they will rebuild, unless you're willing to re-bomb the country every couple of years, and even then they could continue their nuclear work in disguised locations* and set up an unconventional delivery mechanism like a nuke in a shipping container addressed to New York.
* Extra evil-points if they build a refinary underneath Glorious Leader's Orphanage, School and Homeless Kitten Shelter. Go on, bomb that...
There are political concerns. The impact on the world perception of the US, which is already getting a nasty reputation for unprovoked invasions of dubious justification following Afganistan and Iraq. Then there is the impact on the careers of politicians too - even though defeating NK's military would be a piece of cake, you'd still be left with a decade-long insurgency requiring expensive peacekeeping operations costing many billions of dollars in a time of financial crisis. Now is not a time anyone in the US government wants to be seen starting another war, but a defensive action is much easier to endure. So politically, it'd be far better if NK were to launch the first missile. The US can wait for it, can try to play the diplomatic game to secure allies, and can position forces in the area ready to leap into action at short notice... but they won't fire the first shot.
Sort of. If you look closely, you see that the Ubuntu is $100 cheaper list-price but has a $100 discount there. The Windows one has a $200 discount. So the final price comes to the same for each, $1049. The only hardware difference I see is the hard drive: Windows has 2TB, Ubuntu has 1TB. Which explains why the latter is $100 cheaper: Not license fee difference, but just that it has a cheaper drive. I'm not sure why this is, but perhaps Microsoft specifies 2TB as a minimum for a Windows 8 desktop. Just to speculate.
The whole thing might be just a bargaining ploy - give the appearance of seriously considering selling Linux OEM, and Microsoft may offer cheaper OEM licenses in order to reduce the appeal.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it more-or-less does, at least in where Title 1 is concerned. The DMCA itsself is just the US's implementation of requirements agreed to internationally in a 1996 WIPO treaty, in which signatories agreed to pass laws criminalising circumvention of copyright protection technology. Similar laws exist in Europe (Via national implementations of the European Union Copyright Directive), Canada, Australia, and much of the rest of the world. WIPO is a big organisation.
The notice-and-takedown provisions (Title 2) were not, AFAIK, required by any WIPO agreement and as such are not so universal outside of the US.
When it starts doing #1, watch as stores fit wire mesh inside the walls.
Oh, that's going to be a legal minefield. You've obviously got all the fun of state laws on recording conversations, for a start - do you need to have everyone you talk to agree to be recorded? Then there is the possibility of the records being used in legal proceedings against you - not just run-ins with the government, but civil cases too. Child custody, for example: If you and your ex lived together with these things for a year raising a child, you'll both have a rich library of footage that could be edited to cast the other in a very bad light. And the children, too... better make sure you take the glasses off or stop recording every time you need to change your baby or bathe your young child. There was a time once not long ago when family videos of the children in the bath were seen as innocent recordings of a carefree age - now, they'll get you twenty years in jail and a lifetime on the sex offender register.
I work Helldesk. I can see a use for a display like that: Display alerts of network status and pending tickets. Now technicians can be much faster in their response time. The same thing would work for, say, shelf-stackers or cleaners in a store: Have it bring up alerts telling them what needs stocking in real time. A considerable boost in worker efficiency, which in turn means fewer workers. If the store can lay off just one employee, the savings will easily pay for giving the rest google glass and having an appropriate app written.
The 'commander in chief' thing only applies to the military. This was a law enforcement operation. It was managed by a rather large number of officials, some federal and some state, including a few appointed by Obama (I'm not going to look up names, too tired right now). So he may have some responsibility, but only by proxy and by inaction. By the same logic you use, you could say he is responsible whenever the post office loses a letter.
There is one consequence: For a few months, every right-wing blog and news site carried articles blaming Obama personally for the whole fiasco.
Cruice control send up swith the same issue. If the algorithm exceeds target speed for even a few seconds - steep hill,or got rammed from behind by another driver - then you still end up with a ticket.
Marvin did what he was told. He just complained continuously about how underutilised he was. Brain the size of a planet.
The stuck-up, annoyingly smug computer. It's a billion times smarter than the rest of the crew put together, and doesn't try to hide it. A computer so obnoxious, most conversations ended with someone cutting the power to shut it up. I want to see ORAC again.
How many other computers, when asked if they can perform a video analysis task, announce they just did it - but won't share the result, considering such menial number-crunching beneath them?
That's only between their own products, at two meters range, in an EM-shielded enclosure, on a way when Jupiter aligns with Mars and the antennas are sprinkled with pixie dust. The real stuff, too, not that sugary substitute.
Just put it on top of Westminster clock tower, and relay via wireless. Safe from backhoes. You get the best signal up there, anyway.
It isn't that easy to get internet to rural areas. The technology exists, yes - but the business case isn't strong. In the city, you can run a cable along a street and it'll pass straight past a hundred or more potential paying customers - the cable is expensive, but their subscription fees pay to lay it. In the country, you might have to lay thousands of meters of cable in order to reach just one subscriber. Unless that subscriber is obscenely wealthy, it's impossible to turn a profit on that. Even in a small town, the population density is much less than in a city. The only viable option is a wireless service - I notice that all three of the examples you give as your options are wireless - but these face a severe technological disadvantage: They are vulnerable to interference, offer a fraction of the bandwidth a fiber or even multitap coaxial can provide, and suffer from contention. You're paying $160 for a connection most city-dwellers would laugh at, and you're only a few miles out of town. Truely rural america still consists of vast swathes of farmland or near-virgin territory, dotted around with small towns and homesteads. If you're a couple miles from a commuter city, you're only suburban.
Internet service is a commercial operation: Providers aren't going to set up service they can't make money on. This has happened before, when electricity became an infrastructure - providers wouldn't offer service in rural areas, because the money to be made couldn't possibly cover the cost of setting up the cables. That problem was solved by throwing tax money at it: The government established a Rural Electrification Administration to heavily subsidise (mostly via very-low-interest loans) construction of power and later telephone lines to rural areas. Today only the most remote, isolated dwelling is without access to grid power, thanks to that subsidy... but that sort of government involvement is expensive, and everyone pays.
"result in is another generation of children [1] too afraid to test limits,"
That may be the intended result.
In the early days of the internet, there was a very casual attitude to hackers. It was fully expected that most aspiring technical types would go through a 'phase' of aggressive exploration and pranking, and so long as they didn't do any serious damage it was regarded as a standard part of the learning process and something they would eventually mature out of once they no longer felt they had to prove their skills by such a game. If someone broke your system, you'd fix the hole and silently congratulate someone who'd shown skill, initiative and enthusiasm for the field. Things are very different now. With computers much more involved in high-value commercial and governmental usage, their is much less room to tolerate hacking attempts - that playful, still-learning script kiddie could get lucky and cost the company millions. So attacks that once would have been shrugged off now result in calling in the police and the lawyers.
Also, Wargames 2 exists: It was a direct-to-DVD sequel generally regarded as an insult to the original.
Attitudes towards potentially dangerous material are often contradictory. For example, in an episode of Mythbusters the team required thermite for an experiment. They made this themselves, in a procedure not shown. The ingredients bottles were blurred out to hide the labels. Jamie sarcastically warned viewers never to mix 'blur' and 'blur.' So clearly, someone at the studio considered this information to be too dangerous to reveal to the audience - either because it could be used to create a weapon, or because of the risk someone would experiment with it and then sue the studio after they burned their hand off. And yet, this material that so scared the studio is widely known. Not only can it be looked up with ease on the internet, but it's the textbook example of a redox reaction - quite literally the textbook example. When I studied chemistry in a perfectly ordinary public school it was the example in the textbooks, including not just the ingredients but instruction in how to calculate the correct ratio and, thanks to a practical demonstration given by the teacher, instruction in the importance of particle size, correct safe preperation method and means of ignition. Does that mean the school chemistry text is a terrorism handbook?
You probably could use thermite for terrorism too. If it's used to weld rails, it can be used to sever them too. Sever a rail, derail a train. Could kill hundreds of people if you time it right.
The jargon file is more how they were used. Language changes, especially in tech circles.
It looks to me like a confusing use of 'the x administration' to designate a particular division of time, even when the subject at hand has little connection to event separating time periods.
It never came up. Chuck Norris never had to get on an international flight.
He walks.
All the way.
If you want it to go boom, yes. If you want to just make a really nasty neutron pulse, fatally irradiating everyone on board, you need much simpler arrangements. Slotin managed to do it accidentially.
You'd still need a state sponsor though - there's nowhere else you might obtain a sufficient amount of refined plutonium. You shouldn't need anything too bulky - the demon core did it, and that was less than ten centimeters across. You'd still need a good excuse as to why you are carrying on pieces of metal that could be weaponised simply by smashing someone's skull in.
I managed to get a leatherman with many many blades onto an international flight after 9/11, entirely accidentially. Forgot I'd packed it in my hand luggage, rather than the cargo luggage. That wasn't a flight into or out of the US though, so it didn't go via the TSA. Don't know how it got through UK security - blind luck, probably. All those layers of metal probably looked like a blur on the xray, and they only have a few seconds to look at each item.
But how many of those 300 would volunteer to be in the first twenty?
Different things indeed. An ass is approximately 25% larger than an arse, due to the relative size of the American posterior.
fchan or e621 :>
There was a time that would have been a good plan. That time was before the invention of radio. Try that today and every TV channel outside the US, and a few of those in, will be carrying endless footage of the hell-on-earth that results. Starvation, disease, warlords recruiting children as forced soldiers in their fight for control, and the US getting the blame for it all.
Destroying all military infrasturcture would almost work, but you only end up postponing the problem: Eventually they will rebuild, unless you're willing to re-bomb the country every couple of years, and even then they could continue their nuclear work in disguised locations* and set up an unconventional delivery mechanism like a nuke in a shipping container addressed to New York.
* Extra evil-points if they build a refinary underneath Glorious Leader's Orphanage, School and Homeless Kitten Shelter. Go on, bomb that...
There are political concerns. The impact on the world perception of the US, which is already getting a nasty reputation for unprovoked invasions of dubious justification following Afganistan and Iraq. Then there is the impact on the careers of politicians too - even though defeating NK's military would be a piece of cake, you'd still be left with a decade-long insurgency requiring expensive peacekeeping operations costing many billions of dollars in a time of financial crisis. Now is not a time anyone in the US government wants to be seen starting another war, but a defensive action is much easier to endure. So politically, it'd be far better if NK were to launch the first missile. The US can wait for it, can try to play the diplomatic game to secure allies, and can position forces in the area ready to leap into action at short notice... but they won't fire the first shot.
Sort of. If you look closely, you see that the Ubuntu is $100 cheaper list-price but has a $100 discount there. The Windows one has a $200 discount. So the final price comes to the same for each, $1049. The only hardware difference I see is the hard drive: Windows has 2TB, Ubuntu has 1TB. Which explains why the latter is $100 cheaper: Not license fee difference, but just that it has a cheaper drive. I'm not sure why this is, but perhaps Microsoft specifies 2TB as a minimum for a Windows 8 desktop. Just to speculate.
The whole thing might be just a bargaining ploy - give the appearance of seriously considering selling Linux OEM, and Microsoft may offer cheaper OEM licenses in order to reduce the appeal.