According to Comcast's letter, what Level 3 was offering Comcast was free connections from their network enable data to flow faster for Comcast users; and all comcast had to do was make the physical connection available. If Level 3 did not do this then Comcast would have had to bear the brunt of the traffic its self. That is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Otherwise Comcast would have purchase additional bandwidth connections to provide their customers with access to the data they are requesting. What Level 3 offered was equatable and on the whole very inexpensive for Comcast and would have provided better service to their customers.
Businesses don't pay a data provider for access to customers. They pay for access to the network nothing more nothing less. I buy a certain amount of bandwidth to the internet. That gives anyone on the internet access to my content who wants it. When someone from Comcast requests data from my service I am not arbitrarily sending unwanted data to Comcast, Comcast users are utilizing the bandwidth they paid for from their internet provider to get bandwidth from my internet provider. It's that simple my internet provider makes money from me their customer, Comcast makes money from theirs customers. Only big tier 1 providers like Level 3 get to make money from both ends. Comcast becomes a level 3 customer to ensuring that their customers have access to content that is available from level 3's network. Such as my data.
Some idiot with a business degree is trying to change the system that has been in place since the internet was created to their favor. They want to limit consumer choices by making sure that your or I, or the Facebook's, or Myspace's, or Youtube's can't get a foothold to get started without them making money from it first. It's a whole new world of media consolidation.
Distracted driving also includes talking to passengers, looking at people walking down the street, thinking about the bills you have to pay, humming that top 40 song you heard on the radio yesterday, incessantly checking your speedometer instead of watching the road, because the police in your city use the speeding ticket as a revenue stream, putting on makeup while driving, eating while driving, adjusting the radio, yelling at the kids. looking at that flashing sign for the donut shop down the road. How is he going to prevent these even more dangerous forms of distracted driving? He can't, a driver who is susceptible to being a distracted driver can find something to get distracted by while more capable drivers won't be affected any more than they are by talking on their cellphones.
There needs to be a series of legal tests to identify if you are actually licensing a copy or buying a copy. I think a key means of identification would be the right of free replacement. For example if I buy music on iTunes am I buying or licensing. If I am licensing I should be able to request a replacement copy any time my original copy becomes damaged or lost because I require the item in question in order to be able to exercise my license. Apple and every software, movie, and music company will not do this for the most part. They claim you license it, but in reality they treat it as if you bought it. Therefore they should lose the argument that you only license the right to use the item in question.
Another test should be if the second party to a license is able to request and to receive individual modifications to the license. If the person has no ability to modify said license then the license should be considered unenforceable. A license is a two way document, that should grant both parties just as many rights as it takes away.
It's really simple you pay your ISP for a connection and the right to a certain transit speed for any traffic you wish to send or receive over it. That makes the bandwidth you use within those limits your property not theirs. What this boils down to is the Telecoms want to charge you once to allow you to make that bandwidth your property, then they want to charge the companies that wish to be able to reach you using the bandwidth that you have already paid for. They are for all intents and purposes selling that which they do not own.
Actually you can be detained and searched up to 100 Miles from the Border.... It's the Constitution free zone... Roughly 2/3rd of the US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
That's a BS argument and has been refuted in the real world and has resulted in accidents at the intersection in question being reduced significantly.
"The data show that the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T+0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase." - The Influence of the Time Duration Of Yellow Traffic Signals On Driver Response, Stimpson/ Zador/ Tarnoff, ITE Journal, November 1980
"Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the length of the yellow." - Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE, 1985
"Olson and Rothery reported in 1972 that their research showed that drivers were "virtually" certain to stop if their required deceleration rate was less than 8 feet per second squared and virtually certain to continue if the deceleration rate required was in excess of 12 feet per second squared" - Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE, 1985
"The average implied deceleration rate of the group with the highest crash rate was slightly over 13 feet per second squared, and the deceleration rate for the group with the lowest crash rate was 8.5 feet per second squared" - "Effect of Clearance Interval Timing on Traffic Flow and Crashes at Signalized Intersections", Zador/ Stein/ Shapiro/ Tarnoff, ITE Journal, November 1985
Increasing Yellow signal times is proven to work, but I don't object to them also requiring a prepare to stop timer as well.
Try reading the studies these cameras increase not decrease accidents, the accidents cost more to repair, are more likely to injure people involved, and perversely are more likely to result in a fatality.
I started out leaning towards being pro-camera figuring like most people they are a good thing, then I started doing research to prove the point I wanted to make. I had to change my views on the matter and oppose them.
It's all about the money honey! These cameras are nothing but a dangerous revenue generating scheme.
When the police become militarized, it is we the people who become the enemy. And we all know what the military does to people they consider enemies. That's what is currently happening in this country. We need to go back to the concept of peace officers, not police officers. I am also a vet btw.
Sure they are sipping from the Champagne because once you have the ability to do something it's far easier to lobby for expansions of that ability, than it would have been to get it as they really wanted it to be in the first place...
Once they charge for subscriptions then they become a commercial organization and they would most likely be under the gun for more stringent copyright claims and enforcement. They currently benefit from the non-commercial use provisions of the fair use doctrine.
This is code I used for an online web chat way back in 1996
$input_text =~ s!( i )! I !g; $input_text =~ s!( np)!no problem\!!gi; $input_text =~ s!(AFK)!\*Away from keyboard\*!gi; $input_text =~ s!( wb)!Welcome back:)!gi; $input_text =~ s!(l8r)!See you later!gi; $input_text =~ s!(brb)!\*be right back\*!gi; $input_text =~ s!( bbl)!I will be back later!gi; $input_text =~ s!(bbiab)!I will be back in a bit!gi; $input_text =~ s!(btw)!by the way!gi; $input_text =~ s!( IRL )!\*in real life\*!gi; $input_text =~ s!(j\/k)!\*just kidding\*;)!gi; $input_text =~ s!(cya)!See you later!gi; $input_text =~ s!( oic)! Oh I see\!!gi; $input_text =~ s!(GTMA)!great minds think alike!gi; $input_text =~ s!(IMHO)!In my humble opinion!gi; $input_text =~ s!(PMFJI)!Pardon me for jumping in here!gi; $input_text =~ s!(wtg)!Way to go\!!gi; $input_text =~ s!(lol)!\*laughing out loud\*!gi; $input_text =~ s!(rofl)!\*rolling on the floor laughing\*!gi; $input_text =~ s!( aka )! also known as !gi;
Seems to meet all the definitions of the patent which means the patent meets all the specifications of patently obvious
At the bottom of every Google Search result page is a link titled Dissatisfied? Help us improve. Click it. Tell them the link is spam. Google ends up filtering them out of the search results, and we all win!
The key here is that these would not be exclusive rights. The Nation Icon would only secure Commercial rights, which is a power explicitly granted in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Copyrights protect against both commercial, and non-commercial uses.
It would work exactly the same. The price is low enough so as long as you realistically believe that you have a chance to generate some income from the intellectual property in question, you would have the incentive to continue the registration. Corporations would likely possess many more registrations is all, they would pay the exact same fee. You have to do it that way due to the Equal Protection clause. All IP owners weigh the prospects for each one when deciding if it worth renewing the copyright for the coming year, or not. Much of the $50-$100 fee would go towards maintaining the accurate database of all copyrights and copyright holders.
Copyright is indeed described. However, there is no description, restrictions, or limitations in the Constitution for the proposal I suggested which is creating a new class of intellectual property, a "National Icon" status. Therefore Congress is free to create it without requiring a Constitutional amendment. Again this is not a Copyright, but would grant a similar protection against commercial use as do copyrights, but would not expire as long as the icon is in active use by the creator. I have little doubt that something like this would past court review.
Not really, it would fall under the commerce clause.
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
While copyright was limited, a new intellectual property status called "National Icon" would not be directly limited by the Constitution. The idea is if Disney is going to continue to use their money and political influence to craft legislation to suppress the progress of all the Arts and Sciences (extend all copyrights) in order to protect their interest in Mickey Mouse, separate it out!
A simple way around this is to allow Disney to keep Mickey, you do this by creating a new class of limited rights for National Icons. This would be similar to copyright but would not expire. These would require a specific act of Congress for a copyrightable work to be awarded this status but would not expire as long as the company in question is still actively using and marketing the iconic item in question.
It can't happen without amending the U.S. Constitution.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8
The key word there is limited time. The problem has arisen is that the courts have defined limited as anything short of forever, and I think it stretches the Constitution beyond all meaning. Originally you could register a copyright for 7 years, and renew it one time for another 7. This was when shipping between cities could take weeks, and to cross continents could take years. With modern distribution copyright durations should be decreasing not increasing. Copyright was never intended to be a life time income source, and it definitely was not intended to cover heirs.
Give them 7 years, after 7 years, they have to renew the copyright every year for $50-100. If they fail to renew it it becomes public domain. Prohibit the outsourcing of this process, require the actual copyright holder to submit a signed statement each year with the renewal, change the forms yearly to prevent them from stockpiling 100 years of renewals. This process should have a search-able registry of all active copyrights and who to contact about licensing rights. This would allow economically supported works to continue in copyright as long as it is economically supported, but it would also allow orphan works to enter the public domain much faster. It's called balance, and would be a revenue generator for the Government.
Also they could require the work to actually be available for purchase during the previous year, or else you can not renew it. This would stop the Disney-ish practice of copyright holders removing their their copyrighted works from the market to generate a artificial demand later on for their product.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Comcast's letter, what Level 3 was offering Comcast was free connections from their network enable data to flow faster for Comcast users; and all comcast had to do was make the physical connection available. If Level 3 did not do this then Comcast would have had to bear the brunt of the traffic its self. That is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Otherwise Comcast would have purchase additional bandwidth connections to provide their customers with access to the data they are requesting. What Level 3 offered was equatable and on the whole very inexpensive for Comcast and would have provided better service to their customers.
Businesses don't pay a data provider for access to customers. They pay for access to the network nothing more nothing less. I buy a certain amount of bandwidth to the internet. That gives anyone on the internet access to my content who wants it. When someone from Comcast requests data from my service I am not arbitrarily sending unwanted data to Comcast, Comcast users are utilizing the bandwidth they paid for from their internet provider to get bandwidth from my internet provider. It's that simple my internet provider makes money from me their customer, Comcast makes money from theirs customers. Only big tier 1 providers like Level 3 get to make money from both ends. Comcast becomes a level 3 customer to ensuring that their customers have access to content that is available from level 3's network. Such as my data.
Some idiot with a business degree is trying to change the system that has been in place since the internet was created to their favor. They want to limit consumer choices by making sure that your or I, or the Facebook's, or Myspace's, or Youtube's can't get a foothold to get started without them making money from it first. It's a whole new world of media consolidation.
Distracted driving also includes talking to passengers, looking at people walking down the street, thinking about the bills you have to pay, humming that top 40 song you heard on the radio yesterday, incessantly checking your speedometer instead of watching the road, because the police in your city use the speeding ticket as a revenue stream, putting on makeup while driving, eating while driving, adjusting the radio, yelling at the kids. looking at that flashing sign for the donut shop down the road. How is he going to prevent these even more dangerous forms of distracted driving? He can't, a driver who is susceptible to being a distracted driver can find something to get distracted by while more capable drivers won't be affected any more than they are by talking on their cellphones.
There needs to be a series of legal tests to identify if you are actually licensing a copy or buying a copy. I think a key means of identification would be the right of free replacement. For example if I buy music on iTunes am I buying or licensing. If I am licensing I should be able to request a replacement copy any time my original copy becomes damaged or lost because I require the item in question in order to be able to exercise my license. Apple and every software, movie, and music company will not do this for the most part. They claim you license it, but in reality they treat it as if you bought it. Therefore they should lose the argument that you only license the right to use the item in question.
Another test should be if the second party to a license is able to request and to receive individual modifications to the license. If the person has no ability to modify said license then the license should be considered unenforceable. A license is a two way document, that should grant both parties just as many rights as it takes away.
It's really simple you pay your ISP for a connection and the right to a certain transit speed for any traffic you wish to send or receive over it. That makes the bandwidth you use within those limits your property not theirs. What this boils down to is the Telecoms want to charge you once to allow you to make that bandwidth your property, then they want to charge the companies that wish to be able to reach you using the bandwidth that you have already paid for. They are for all intents and purposes selling that which they do not own.
Actually you can be detained and searched up to 100 Miles from the Border.... It's the Constitution free zone... Roughly 2/3rd of the US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
err the last link above should have been http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/finalreport.pdf
That's a BS argument and has been refuted in the real world and has resulted in accidents at the intersection in question being reduced significantly.
Increasing Yellow signal times is proven to work, but I don't object to them also requiring a prepare to stop timer as well.
Try reading the studies these cameras increase not decrease accidents, the accidents cost more to repair, are more likely to injure people involved, and perversely are more likely to result in a fatality.
Start here...
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/05/15/traffic-enforcement-cameras-lead-to-increased-accidents-injuries-and-deaths/
the move on to
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/23/red-light-cameras-in-the-volunteer-state-unsafe-unconstitutional-and-unnecessary/
and a oldie but goodie...
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/23/red-light-cameras-in-the-volunteer-state-unsafe-unconstitutional-and-unnecessary/
I started out leaning towards being pro-camera figuring like most people they are a good thing, then I started doing research to prove the point I wanted to make. I had to change my views on the matter and oppose them.
It's all about the money honey! These cameras are nothing but a dangerous revenue generating scheme.
I was incorrect they do have 12 feeds available...
If there is a dozen ROV's around the well, why are they only releasing the feeds from 8 of them.... They should release the rest of them.
When the police become militarized, it is we the people who become the enemy. And we all know what the military does to people they consider enemies. That's what is currently happening in this country. We need to go back to the concept of peace officers, not police officers. I am also a vet btw.
Sure they are sipping from the Champagne because once you have the ability to do something it's far easier to lobby for expansions of that ability, than it would have been to get it as they really wanted it to be in the first place...
If you stop visiting them, if you stop linking to them, they will either open up or die. Either way it's no big loss.
What is not noted as well is the contract with RIM which made all Blackberries default to using Bing.
Once they charge for subscriptions then they become a commercial organization and they would most likely be under the gun for more stringent copyright claims and enforcement. They currently benefit from the non-commercial use provisions of the fair use doctrine.
Just be glad they didn't think about demanding payment for the use of the number zero....
This is code I used for an online web chat way back in 1996
$input_text =~ s!( i )! I !g; :)!gi; ;)!gi;
$input_text =~ s!( np)!no problem\!!gi;
$input_text =~ s!(AFK)!\*Away from keyboard\*!gi;
$input_text =~ s!( wb)!Welcome back
$input_text =~ s!(l8r)!See you later!gi;
$input_text =~ s!(brb)!\*be right back\*!gi;
$input_text =~ s!( bbl)!I will be back later!gi;
$input_text =~ s!(bbiab)!I will be back in a bit!gi;
$input_text =~ s!(btw)!by the way!gi;
$input_text =~ s!( IRL )!\*in real life\*!gi;
$input_text =~ s!(j\/k)!\*just kidding\*
$input_text =~ s!(cya)!See you later!gi;
$input_text =~ s!( oic)! Oh I see\!!gi;
$input_text =~ s!(GTMA)!great minds think alike!gi;
$input_text =~ s!(IMHO)!In my humble opinion!gi;
$input_text =~ s!(PMFJI)!Pardon me for jumping in here!gi;
$input_text =~ s!(wtg)!Way to go\!!gi;
$input_text =~ s!(lol)!\*laughing out loud\*!gi;
$input_text =~ s!(rofl)!\*rolling on the floor laughing\*!gi;
$input_text =~ s!( aka )! also known as !gi;
Seems to meet all the definitions of the patent which means the patent meets all the specifications of patently obvious
At the bottom of every Google Search result page is a link titled Dissatisfied? Help us improve. Click it. Tell them the link is spam. Google ends up filtering them out of the search results, and we all win!
The key here is that these would not be exclusive rights. The Nation Icon would only secure Commercial rights, which is a power explicitly granted in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Copyrights protect against both commercial, and non-commercial uses.
It would work exactly the same. The price is low enough so as long as you realistically believe that you have a chance to generate some income from the intellectual property in question, you would have the incentive to continue the registration. Corporations would likely possess many more registrations is all, they would pay the exact same fee. You have to do it that way due to the Equal Protection clause. All IP owners weigh the prospects for each one when deciding if it worth renewing the copyright for the coming year, or not. Much of the $50-$100 fee would go towards maintaining the accurate database of all copyrights and copyright holders.
Copyright is indeed described. However, there is no description, restrictions, or limitations in the Constitution for the proposal I suggested which is creating a new class of intellectual property, a "National Icon" status. Therefore Congress is free to create it without requiring a Constitutional amendment. Again this is not a Copyright, but would grant a similar protection against commercial use as do copyrights, but would not expire as long as the icon is in active use by the creator. I have little doubt that something like this would past court review.
Not really, it would fall under the commerce clause.
While copyright was limited, a new intellectual property status called "National Icon" would not be directly limited by the Constitution. The idea is if Disney is going to continue to use their money and political influence to craft legislation to suppress the progress of all the Arts and Sciences (extend all copyrights) in order to protect their interest in Mickey Mouse, separate it out!
A simple way around this is to allow Disney to keep Mickey, you do this by creating a new class of limited rights for National Icons. This would be similar to copyright but would not expire. These would require a specific act of Congress for a copyrightable work to be awarded this status but would not expire as long as the company in question is still actively using and marketing the iconic item in question.
It can't happen without amending the U.S. Constitution.
The key word there is limited time. The problem has arisen is that the courts have defined limited as anything short of forever, and I think it stretches the Constitution beyond all meaning. Originally you could register a copyright for 7 years, and renew it one time for another 7. This was when shipping between cities could take weeks, and to cross continents could take years. With modern distribution copyright durations should be decreasing not increasing. Copyright was never intended to be a life time income source, and it definitely was not intended to cover heirs.
Give them 7 years, after 7 years, they have to renew the copyright every year for $50-100. If they fail to renew it it becomes public domain. Prohibit the outsourcing of this process, require the actual copyright holder to submit a signed statement each year with the renewal, change the forms yearly to prevent them from stockpiling 100 years of renewals. This process should have a search-able registry of all active copyrights and who to contact about licensing rights. This would allow economically supported works to continue in copyright as long as it is economically supported, but it would also allow orphan works to enter the public domain much faster. It's called balance, and would be a revenue generator for the Government.
Also they could require the work to actually be available for purchase during the previous year, or else you can not renew it. This would stop the Disney-ish practice of copyright holders removing their their copyrighted works from the market to generate a artificial demand later on for their product.