As someone with a lot of knowledge about regulatory requirements and conformity testing, I can say without a doubt the CPSC is on the right track here.
The industry's response is all posturing. Testing the metal edges in a ruler for harmful chemicals such as lead is very easy to do, and really not very expensive. Traceability of the raw materials to a source heat lot is essentially free. A single heat lot could produce tens of thousands of rulers, so a single metallurgical test may add a penny or two for a whole lot. There exist many standards for the plastic itself with regards to flame resistance and plastics testing but there is no national standard that I'm aware of regarding plastics toxicity and what is an acceptable level of lead and mercury.
If indeed the companies discontinue the kits because of the safety testing requirements, then that is basically an admission that they were never doing the safety testing of their own volition to begin with. I'm not even going to make up some bullshit "it's for the kids" argument. Fact is, citizens expect that the products companies sell are safe, whether they be for kids, adults or even pets. Kids may be the first to draw attention where a lack of safety testing exists, but we should all be demanding safer products for ourselves.
Instead of resisting this, they should be taking the opportunity to give themselves market differentiation by voluntarily starting safety testing.
I concur. This is for thiefs to convert stolen credit cards into untraceable currency.
Most people do not want to buy gold as an investment. There's just a vocal minority of people who think it's a great investment and speculators are pushing the price up. The gold bubble will collapse, as it always does and people will lose their asses. Thing about gold is it isn't really in short supply, comparatively speaking. There are other precious metals that are in much shorter supply.
It's not a canard, you're either misreading or twisting what I said in plain english.
Using your own example... Microsoft took the TCP/IP stack from BSD and put it in Windows. PORTIONS of that code remained BSD licensed, but the end result was not BSD licensed and Microsoft was(is) under no obligation to release that source code. The end users of Windows have no right to see, let alone modify, Microsoft's version of the TCP/IP stack, even though portions of it are BSD licensed.
The BSD's weren't affected by this, obviously, because the BSD's continue to publish the source code for their software. That's my point. I'm trying to be as concise as I can on this topic, but some people just can't comprehend.
New hypothetical... The BSD TCP/IP stack was LGPL. Microsoft takes it and makes a TCP/IP stack for windows with it. Microsoft now owes the source code for the TCP/IP DLL to every recipient of that binary DLL. Each end user receiving Windows would have had access to the source code for the TCP/IP stack. Thankfully, given the woefully inadequate security in Windows past, I'm glad they didn't because we would have seen some bitchen worms that couldn't be removed without borking the TCP/IP drivers.
Anyway, my point is simply that the GPL and LGPL enforce the users rights. If you're a developer struggling to make a buck and want to do so by selling closed source software, the BSD is a great license because you can co-opt the work of others without being required to give anything back to the people that made it.
With a GPL license, the developers must provide the source code to any recipients of the binaries. The end users now have the same right to modify the program that the original developer had.
With a BSD license, the end user has no guarantee that the source code will be available.
The whole point is moot if the developer is willing to create a program without standing on the backs of work done by others. If you develop your own software from the ground up, you don't need to consider the GPL or BSD. You can just be like every other closed-source developer.
I wasn't aware you could obtain the source for OSX. I'm not a mac user and have never tried it. If it is in fact available, that's out of the kindness of Apple's heart because they're under no obligation to release the source code for their improvements to BSD software.
Ultimately the GPL is designed to protect the rights of end users. The freedom to modify programs they use, and the freedom to use them as they wish.
You're correct that there are more "free" licenses out there, but they're only more "free" if you're the developer. With a BSD or other similar license, there is no guarantee that the program will continue to give the end users any freedoms that the repackager had.
Indeed, but treaties are negotiated behind closed doors away from the prying eyes of the public. Once the treaties are signed, congress often ratifies them with laws that are very similar to the treaty we signed.
I don't like how treaties are negotiated. I really don't like congress either, but that's only because they're all a bunch of pandering morons. In theory congress could work much better.
Thats kind of a big problem with our legal system and how laws are treated. Treaties roughly have the legal force of a constitutional amendment, but congress crooks can do it without us getting a chance to vote.
It's an end run around the people too. Sadly, we're often ignored. I've only talked to a few people offline who are even aware of what the DMCA is, but of those who know, all are against it. If congress tried to pass a super-DMCA the more traditional legislative way now, people would probably be very pissed off but congress could pass it anyway.
As Trent Reznor pointed out in an interview with Digg's Kevin Rose, this business model can only work for those who are already well established or can accept not being megastars.
Getting traction in a market flooded with crap when you don't have advertising money is a losing battle.
Not greedy, lazy. Most companies don't realize just how inexpensive it can be to get old molds modified.
Depending on whether the patent number is a boss or not determines how easily it can be corrected. In some cases, a skilled machinist can remove the patent markings from the mold with nothing more than a file and a polishing stone set. And yet, most mold shops buy their molds from someone else and don't have the skilled person to do the work.
It's a conundrum to be sure. Companies need to stop marking products as patented when the patent expires, but what these "trolls" are doing isn't socially beneficial.
Wiki entries take a lot of work to create. My experience in reading entries that I am personally an expert in leads me to believe that in many cases the wiki entries are in fact written by experts or pseudo-experts. The abuse seems to occur on topics that encourage more bias, such as topics about specific laws, corporations, products or people.
Entries on hard sciences seem to garner a lot less abuse, probably because the errors would be so much easier to spot. For instance, Lindsay Lohan's wiki entry is frequently edited and those edits are often reversed for lack of citations.
Is her wiki entry accurate? Probably only as accurate as reports from AP, which is to say it is only as accurate as her publicist(or the courts lol) deems willing to share.
In contrast, the edits on the topic "Numerical Control" are rarely reversed and occur somewhat less frequently. That wiki entry is quite accurate.
So I don't think you have to be a moron to accept what Wikipedia says. But you do need a discerning mind and a willingness to fact check citations.
It's crowdsourced knowledge, which is likely correct in many cases but is still subject to errors and abuse from bored teenagers and people with an agenda.
Mod AC up. Without a power factor, there's no way to determine the actual wattage consumed knowing just the RMS voltage and current.
26 amps at 110V 1 phase is a lot different than say 26 amps at 7200V 3 phase. The summary at least is pretty non-specific, although the article that I didn't fucking read probably was a tad more specific.
There doesn't necessarily need to be industry wide standards. If a major device manufacturer devised a scheme and put it on the market before anyone else, it would become the industry standard.
As far as validation, yes it can be very quick. DQ and 510k could be done by the devices company and the manufacturer would do the IQ/OQ/PQ. These could happen in parallel if there is some confidence that no modifications are necessary. Otherwise you just wasted a bunch of money.
The medical devices manufacturing market has excess capacity right now. If a retro-fit kit were designed tomorrow and orders placed immediately, the parts could be in manufacturing in 2 weeks and first parts out the door in less than a month.
The absurdity of it is that she made $50 and they're calling that a business. It's no less worse than officials in Oregon shutting down a little kids lemonade stand for not complying with health regulations.
It is a moral outrage because governments cannot simply decide that by virtue of being the government they are entitled to money even when they provide no service. Taxes are justified as socially acceptable and beneficial because the government provides a wealth of services for that money. This on the other hand is simple robbery and telling someone they can't earn $50 in 5 years without it being a business is ridiculous.
I make more than that selling shit in garage sales, but nobody is forcing me to get a business license as a retailer.
It IS ridiculous to say that someone needs to pay a business tax to engage in any activity that nets money. Blogging isn't special because it's on the internet. It is speech, even if she did get paid a paltry sum for it.
It's not absurd, it's restraint on speech. To say that you need a business license to use your free speech rights if that earns you a dollar is just absurd. There is likely an income threshold where a business license isn't needed if you don't make enough money.
She needs a lawyer. If the state laws in PA really are that fucked up and she needs a business license, she could take it to court and it will likely be found unconstitutional.
If she does get the business license though, she can now write off all business expenses including the time she used to write in the blog. That includes a percentage of her home bills that are a needed as a part of the business.
Her federal taxable income will go way down and she will be eligible for small business tax deductions and credits.
She can be taxed pro rata based on the money she made, but that's it. Anything else would likely be considered in a court of law as prior restraint on speech.
The PDF specification includes a lot of active content features that most linux readers don't even support.
One in particular comes to mind and that is javascript. Although javascript isn't directly executed by the host machine(it's interpreted), that makes it a really attractive attack vector.
IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer peripherals and accessories, namely, cables and connectors, surge protectors, universal power supplies and flash drives. FIRST USE: 20041024. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041024
That's the industry associated with Geek Squad's trademark at the USPTO office. See trademark serial 78589781. Religion wasn't specified when they registered, so Best Buy is kind of out of luck here.
If the God Squad were using the logo as a retailer of electronics or any other market that Best Buy currently engages in, then they might have a case.
This isn't a parody and it's still not infringing. Best Buy couldn't make an argument that any of their consumers might confuse God Squad with Geek Squad. They could try, but it's obviously false.
Those are usually just for supplementary water heating. Solar thermal doesn't really work on a roof top, not for electricity generation anyway.
I suppose if you pumped hot water through a thermoelectric generator(peltier cooler run in reverse basically), you could get some electricity out of a roof top thermal system. This wouldn't be very efficient or make much electricity.
Solar thermal has a lot of potential in large scale applications, but it really doesn't scale down very well. Bigger solar thermal plants are vastly more efficient than smaller plants.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone with a lot of knowledge about regulatory requirements and conformity testing, I can say without a doubt the CPSC is on the right track here.
The industry's response is all posturing. Testing the metal edges in a ruler for harmful chemicals such as lead is very easy to do, and really not very expensive. Traceability of the raw materials to a source heat lot is essentially free. A single heat lot could produce tens of thousands of rulers, so a single metallurgical test may add a penny or two for a whole lot. There exist many standards for the plastic itself with regards to flame resistance and plastics testing but there is no national standard that I'm aware of regarding plastics toxicity and what is an acceptable level of lead and mercury.
If indeed the companies discontinue the kits because of the safety testing requirements, then that is basically an admission that they were never doing the safety testing of their own volition to begin with. I'm not even going to make up some bullshit "it's for the kids" argument. Fact is, citizens expect that the products companies sell are safe, whether they be for kids, adults or even pets. Kids may be the first to draw attention where a lack of safety testing exists, but we should all be demanding safer products for ourselves.
Instead of resisting this, they should be taking the opportunity to give themselves market differentiation by voluntarily starting safety testing.
I concur. This is for thiefs to convert stolen credit cards into untraceable currency.
Most people do not want to buy gold as an investment. There's just a vocal minority of people who think it's a great investment and speculators are pushing the price up. The gold bubble will collapse, as it always does and people will lose their asses. Thing about gold is it isn't really in short supply, comparatively speaking. There are other precious metals that are in much shorter supply.
It's not a canard, you're either misreading or twisting what I said in plain english.
Using your own example... Microsoft took the TCP/IP stack from BSD and put it in Windows. PORTIONS of that code remained BSD licensed, but the end result was not BSD licensed and Microsoft was(is) under no obligation to release that source code. The end users of Windows have no right to see, let alone modify, Microsoft's version of the TCP/IP stack, even though portions of it are BSD licensed.
The BSD's weren't affected by this, obviously, because the BSD's continue to publish the source code for their software. That's my point. I'm trying to be as concise as I can on this topic, but some people just can't comprehend.
New hypothetical...
The BSD TCP/IP stack was LGPL. Microsoft takes it and makes a TCP/IP stack for windows with it. Microsoft now owes the source code for the TCP/IP DLL to every recipient of that binary DLL. Each end user receiving Windows would have had access to the source code for the TCP/IP stack. Thankfully, given the woefully inadequate security in Windows past, I'm glad they didn't because we would have seen some bitchen worms that couldn't be removed without borking the TCP/IP drivers.
Anyway, my point is simply that the GPL and LGPL enforce the users rights. If you're a developer struggling to make a buck and want to do so by selling closed source software, the BSD is a great license because you can co-opt the work of others without being required to give anything back to the people that made it.
My point stands. In your hypothetical example...
With a GPL license, the developers must provide the source code to any recipients of the binaries. The end users now have the same right to modify the program that the original developer had.
With a BSD license, the end user has no guarantee that the source code will be available.
The whole point is moot if the developer is willing to create a program without standing on the backs of work done by others. If you develop your own software from the ground up, you don't need to consider the GPL or BSD. You can just be like every other closed-source developer.
I wasn't aware you could obtain the source for OSX. I'm not a mac user and have never tried it. If it is in fact available, that's out of the kindness of Apple's heart because they're under no obligation to release the source code for their improvements to BSD software.
Ultimately the GPL is designed to protect the rights of end users. The freedom to modify programs they use, and the freedom to use them as they wish.
You're correct that there are more "free" licenses out there, but they're only more "free" if you're the developer. With a BSD or other similar license, there is no guarantee that the program will continue to give the end users any freedoms that the repackager had.
Indeed, but treaties are negotiated behind closed doors away from the prying eyes of the public. Once the treaties are signed, congress often ratifies them with laws that are very similar to the treaty we signed.
I don't like how treaties are negotiated. I really don't like congress either, but that's only because they're all a bunch of pandering morons. In theory congress could work much better.
Thats kind of a big problem with our legal system and how laws are treated. Treaties roughly have the legal force of a constitutional amendment, but congress crooks can do it without us getting a chance to vote.
It's an end run around the people too. Sadly, we're often ignored. I've only talked to a few people offline who are even aware of what the DMCA is, but of those who know, all are against it. If congress tried to pass a super-DMCA the more traditional legislative way now, people would probably be very pissed off but congress could pass it anyway.
As Trent Reznor pointed out in an interview with Digg's Kevin Rose, this business model can only work for those who are already well established or can accept not being megastars.
Getting traction in a market flooded with crap when you don't have advertising money is a losing battle.
Not greedy, lazy. Most companies don't realize just how inexpensive it can be to get old molds modified.
Depending on whether the patent number is a boss or not determines how easily it can be corrected. In some cases, a skilled machinist can remove the patent markings from the mold with nothing more than a file and a polishing stone set. And yet, most mold shops buy their molds from someone else and don't have the skilled person to do the work.
It's a conundrum to be sure. Companies need to stop marking products as patented when the patent expires, but what these "trolls" are doing isn't socially beneficial.
Wiki entries take a lot of work to create. My experience in reading entries that I am personally an expert in leads me to believe that in many cases the wiki entries are in fact written by experts or pseudo-experts. The abuse seems to occur on topics that encourage more bias, such as topics about specific laws, corporations, products or people.
Entries on hard sciences seem to garner a lot less abuse, probably because the errors would be so much easier to spot. For instance, Lindsay Lohan's wiki entry is frequently edited and those edits are often reversed for lack of citations.
Is her wiki entry accurate? Probably only as accurate as reports from AP, which is to say it is only as accurate as her publicist(or the courts lol) deems willing to share.
In contrast, the edits on the topic "Numerical Control" are rarely reversed and occur somewhat less frequently. That wiki entry is quite accurate.
So I don't think you have to be a moron to accept what Wikipedia says. But you do need a discerning mind and a willingness to fact check citations.
but I wouldn't cite it in court! What a moron.
It's crowdsourced knowledge, which is likely correct in many cases but is still subject to errors and abuse from bored teenagers and people with an agenda.
Mod AC up. Without a power factor, there's no way to determine the actual wattage consumed knowing just the RMS voltage and current.
26 amps at 110V 1 phase is a lot different than say 26 amps at 7200V 3 phase. The summary at least is pretty non-specific, although the article that I didn't fucking read probably was a tad more specific.
There doesn't necessarily need to be industry wide standards. If a major device manufacturer devised a scheme and put it on the market before anyone else, it would become the industry standard.
As far as validation, yes it can be very quick. DQ and 510k could be done by the devices company and the manufacturer would do the IQ/OQ/PQ. These could happen in parallel if there is some confidence that no modifications are necessary. Otherwise you just wasted a bunch of money.
It doesn't have to take years.
The medical devices manufacturing market has excess capacity right now. If a retro-fit kit were designed tomorrow and orders placed immediately, the parts could be in manufacturing in 2 weeks and first parts out the door in less than a month.
The absurdity of it is that she made $50 and they're calling that a business. It's no less worse than officials in Oregon shutting down a little kids lemonade stand for not complying with health regulations.
It is a moral outrage because governments cannot simply decide that by virtue of being the government they are entitled to money even when they provide no service. Taxes are justified as socially acceptable and beneficial because the government provides a wealth of services for that money. This on the other hand is simple robbery and telling someone they can't earn $50 in 5 years without it being a business is ridiculous.
I make more than that selling shit in garage sales, but nobody is forcing me to get a business license as a retailer.
I'd like to point out too that more generically, this is what Geocities and a variety of other free web hosting services did 10 years ago.
It IS ridiculous to say that someone needs to pay a business tax to engage in any activity that nets money. Blogging isn't special because it's on the internet. It is speech, even if she did get paid a paltry sum for it.
It's not absurd, it's restraint on speech. To say that you need a business license to use your free speech rights if that earns you a dollar is just absurd. There is likely an income threshold where a business license isn't needed if you don't make enough money.
She needs a lawyer. If the state laws in PA really are that fucked up and she needs a business license, she could take it to court and it will likely be found unconstitutional.
If she does get the business license though, she can now write off all business expenses including the time she used to write in the blog. That includes a percentage of her home bills that are a needed as a part of the business.
Her federal taxable income will go way down and she will be eligible for small business tax deductions and credits.
She can be taxed pro rata based on the money she made, but that's it. Anything else would likely be considered in a court of law as prior restraint on speech.
I don't have that kind of time. Here's one.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS10-054.mspx
Microsoft acknowledges that it affects Windows all the way back to XP SP3 but I'd bet my lunch money it affects SP1 also.
The PDF specification includes a lot of active content features that most linux readers don't even support.
One in particular comes to mind and that is javascript. Although javascript isn't directly executed by the host machine(it's interpreted), that makes it a really attractive attack vector.
Oh god they're countless. Sure, the publicly known privilege escalations are patched now, but there are a few that were around for many many years.
The old NT login bug was there for a long time before MS fixed it.
Likely not.
IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer peripherals and accessories, namely, cables and connectors, surge protectors, universal power supplies and flash drives. FIRST USE: 20041024. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041024
That's the industry associated with Geek Squad's trademark at the USPTO office. See trademark serial 78589781. Religion wasn't specified when they registered, so Best Buy is kind of out of luck here.
If the God Squad were using the logo as a retailer of electronics or any other market that Best Buy currently engages in, then they might have a case.
This isn't a parody and it's still not infringing. Best Buy couldn't make an argument that any of their consumers might confuse God Squad with Geek Squad. They could try, but it's obviously false.
Trademarks only apply in specific markets.
Those are usually just for supplementary water heating. Solar thermal doesn't really work on a roof top, not for electricity generation anyway.
I suppose if you pumped hot water through a thermoelectric generator(peltier cooler run in reverse basically), you could get some electricity out of a roof top thermal system. This wouldn't be very efficient or make much electricity.
Solar thermal has a lot of potential in large scale applications, but it really doesn't scale down very well. Bigger solar thermal plants are vastly more efficient than smaller plants.