The article says "The two Colorado laws allow perhaps a quarter-million residents with private wells to begin rainwater harvesting." That is a rather narrow exception.
In the State of Colorado, USA, the installation of rainwater collection barrels is subject to... state statutes. The movement and holding of rainwater is inextricably linked with ownership of water rights and is enshrined in the constitution of the State of Colorado. The use of water in Colorado and other western states is governed by what is known as the prior appropriation doctrine. Since all water arriving in Colorado has been allocated to "senior water right holders" since the 1850s, rainwater prevented from running downstream may not be available to its rightful owner. In 2009, legislation in Colorado was enacted that permits capture of rain water for residential use subject to strong limitations and conditions.[14] To be permitted, a residence may not be connected to a domestic water supply system serving more than 3 single-family dwellings. The permit must be purchased from the State Engineer's office and is subject to water usage restrictions.
Or, more briefly: The state already sold that rain to the water company while it was still in the air. If it falls on your land and you collect some for yourself, you are stealing water from that company.
They do apply, and Megaupload obeys - as soon as a DMCA takedown is received, the offending file is pulled. The problem is finding them. Most megaupload pirate files are encrypted rars posted in private forums, so it is difficult for the enforcers to find them - and when one is pulled, the sneaky pirates just reupload it (slightly altered to thrawt hashing) within minutes. While this officially breaks the megaupload TOS, unofficially it is widely assumed they support this practice - obeying the letter of the law, but not the intention - since a substantial part of their profit comes from pirate traffic.
They did one in the UK called Knock-Off Nigel. It backfired a bit. Far from making the guy down the pub into a social outcast rejected for his cheapskate ways, it just reminded everyone that their workplace likely has a pirate who will give away movies.
When everyone is in posession of computers, the only way to render copyright at all enforceable in any way is draconian regulation of technology. Not worth it.
I don't think it matters. This type of thing happens some way below the office of president, and he has no authority. I'm sure if he put in a word unofficially it would be obeyed, but that's all. The president isn't responsible for everything.
Nothing that we know of. Classified payload, perhaps? Maybe it is disguised as a communications, weather or science sat? It's highly unlikely, but can't be absolutly disproven. That makes it a great conspiracy theory.
It's possible to have a conspiracy theory that survives even if it can be disproven beyond all doubt too, if it has a good enough narative that believers want it desperatly to be true. The moon landing hoax, for example, or anti-vax claims of a global coverup.
I don't know about Java, not being a coder in it myself, but in C you can inline small function calls so they don't pushpop. You don't even need to on the very small ones - any decent optimising compiler will do it for you transparently.
There was the rather amusing story recently of a hacker group proposing to build a free-access global communication network in space beyond the authority of government to censor. No mention of how they might fund such a venture though. Such practical considerations often elude idealists.
The appeal is in political considerations. No need to worry about getting your bomber or missile through neutral airspace. No need to maintain airfields or missile sites, or keep a ship or submarine on station. You want a place to go boom, it goes boom. Wherever it is. And other than your target, no-one else need care. It'd also be a lot faster than missile or bomber, which is good on targets of opportunity - if intel says you that a terrorist cell leader or enemy general is in a particular building, you can make it Not Be There within minutes and without warning. If you had to send in a bomber, the target will have left by the time you get there.
Probably just China and Russia. The rest of the world is either on good terms with the US and will be for the forseeable future, or doesn't have the technological capability just yet for space weaponry. Though I'm sure they'll catch up.
If they did, do you think we'd know about it? They put up classified payloads all the time. Like all good conspiracy theories, it may or may not be true... but you can't prove it isn't.
The DoD did express some interest years back in hypervelocity rods. Streamlined rods of titanium or such that could be dropped from orbit with precise aim, for when you want to blow up a target without the political problems of sending aricraft or missiles through neutral airspace.
The rules for tablets are not clearly set yet. With PCs, it has long been clear: The hardware is one product, the OS another. Completly seperate, from different companies, legally speaking. For tablets though, they are trapped in a confusing world somewhere between PCs and mobile phones, where it isn't clear if the OS is a seperate product at all or merely a component of the tablet not intended to be user-servicable.
The sticker is not optional. If they don't get the sticker, they won't qualifiy for bulk-discount OEM licences, which means their tablets will have to cost at least a hundred dollars more and so be completly unsellable. This is assuming Windows 8 ARM will even *run* on a device without a locked-down secure boot.
Because they sell it! If they don't make an OEM licence available, then the tablet isn't going to ship with windows, and they won't make the OEM licence available to any manufacturer who doesn't get the sticker. The only other way they might be able to put windows on a tablet would be buying a retail licence, but that'll likely cost more than every other component of the tablet put together.
NAT is also the nemesis of PC multiplayer gamers. Less so on consoles, where users aren't expected to wish to host their own private servers for friends.
Another question is how many will realise that NAT makes it impossible for p2p file sharing users to seed, and that perhaps allowing this 'problem' to continue could be to their advantage.
Slightly more precise tracking, possibly - rather than just tracking households by IP address, they could track individual computers within. As they already achieve that using cookies though, really nothing at all changes privacy-wise.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. FFTs are used in many fields, but cryptography is not one of them. Not since the old analog radio scramblers of decades past.
The article says "The two Colorado laws allow perhaps a quarter-million residents with private wells to begin rainwater harvesting." That is a rather narrow exception.
Or, more briefly: The state already sold that rain to the water company while it was still in the air. If it falls on your land and you collect some for yourself, you are stealing water from that company.
Im British. Over here, it's a water butt.
They do apply, and Megaupload obeys - as soon as a DMCA takedown is received, the offending file is pulled. The problem is finding them. Most megaupload pirate files are encrypted rars posted in private forums, so it is difficult for the enforcers to find them - and when one is pulled, the sneaky pirates just reupload it (slightly altered to thrawt hashing) within minutes. While this officially breaks the megaupload TOS, unofficially it is widely assumed they support this practice - obeying the letter of the law, but not the intention - since a substantial part of their profit comes from pirate traffic.
They did one in the UK called Knock-Off Nigel. It backfired a bit. Far from making the guy down the pub into a social outcast rejected for his cheapskate ways, it just reminded everyone that their workplace likely has a pirate who will give away movies.
When everyone is in posession of computers, the only way to render copyright at all enforceable in any way is draconian regulation of technology. Not worth it.
None of them by me. Some movies aren't worth watching, even for free.
I don't think it matters. This type of thing happens some way below the office of president, and he has no authority. I'm sure if he put in a word unofficially it would be obeyed, but that's all. The president isn't responsible for everything.
In parts of the US, it is illegal to own a water butt. States sell exclusive water catchment rights to various water companies.
Ah, but you assume it all had to go up in one piece!
Sometimes speed is more important than binary size. Just so long as you remember to keep your loops small enough to fit in cache.
Nothing that we know of. Classified payload, perhaps? Maybe it is disguised as a communications, weather or science sat? It's highly unlikely, but can't be absolutly disproven. That makes it a great conspiracy theory.
It's possible to have a conspiracy theory that survives even if it can be disproven beyond all doubt too, if it has a good enough narative that believers want it desperatly to be true. The moon landing hoax, for example, or anti-vax claims of a global coverup.
I don't know about Java, not being a coder in it myself, but in C you can inline small function calls so they don't pushpop. You don't even need to on the very small ones - any decent optimising compiler will do it for you transparently.
There was the rather amusing story recently of a hacker group proposing to build a free-access global communication network in space beyond the authority of government to censor. No mention of how they might fund such a venture though. Such practical considerations often elude idealists.
The appeal is in political considerations. No need to worry about getting your bomber or missile through neutral airspace. No need to maintain airfields or missile sites, or keep a ship or submarine on station. You want a place to go boom, it goes boom. Wherever it is. And other than your target, no-one else need care. It'd also be a lot faster than missile or bomber, which is good on targets of opportunity - if intel says you that a terrorist cell leader or enemy general is in a particular building, you can make it Not Be There within minutes and without warning. If you had to send in a bomber, the target will have left by the time you get there.
Probably just China and Russia. The rest of the world is either on good terms with the US and will be for the forseeable future, or doesn't have the technological capability just yet for space weaponry. Though I'm sure they'll catch up.
If they did, do you think we'd know about it? They put up classified payloads all the time. Like all good conspiracy theories, it may or may not be true... but you can't prove it isn't.
The DoD did express some interest years back in hypervelocity rods. Streamlined rods of titanium or such that could be dropped from orbit with precise aim, for when you want to blow up a target without the political problems of sending aricraft or missiles through neutral airspace.
The rules for tablets are not clearly set yet. With PCs, it has long been clear: The hardware is one product, the OS another. Completly seperate, from different companies, legally speaking. For tablets though, they are trapped in a confusing world somewhere between PCs and mobile phones, where it isn't clear if the OS is a seperate product at all or merely a component of the tablet not intended to be user-servicable.
The sticker is not optional. If they don't get the sticker, they won't qualifiy for bulk-discount OEM licences, which means their tablets will have to cost at least a hundred dollars more and so be completly unsellable. This is assuming Windows 8 ARM will even *run* on a device without a locked-down secure boot.
"Why not? How can they control who buys Windows?"
Because they sell it! If they don't make an OEM licence available, then the tablet isn't going to ship with windows, and they won't make the OEM licence available to any manufacturer who doesn't get the sticker. The only other way they might be able to put windows on a tablet would be buying a retail licence, but that'll likely cost more than every other component of the tablet put together.
A nice even mix of R and D I see there. They may disagree on a few things, but they both know who pays for the campaigning.
NAT is also the nemesis of PC multiplayer gamers. Less so on consoles, where users aren't expected to wish to host their own private servers for friends.
Another question is how many will realise that NAT makes it impossible for p2p file sharing users to seed, and that perhaps allowing this 'problem' to continue could be to their advantage.
Slightly more precise tracking, possibly - rather than just tracking households by IP address, they could track individual computers within. As they already achieve that using cookies though, really nothing at all changes privacy-wise.