All very true, but that's not what I was commenting on. I was just commenting that telling the jury they could nullify wouldn't likely have changed anything. Explaining the theory and evolution of copyright law and the societal balance that it is intended to strike might have, but that's a different question.
I recall reading that people, when given a range of options, tend to pick a middle one. So, they didn't take the minimum, and likely didn't take the maximum. They might even have simply averaged the two fenceposts.
That's as may be, but nullification clearly wouldn't be a "middle road", it would be a conscious decision to refute the charges, and if the jurors had been thinking that direction they clearly would have at least have chosen the minimum statutory damages available.
You clearly have never read an unedited manuscript. If you had, you'd never suggest anyone with a computer writing a novel and having it published.
I've read several of them. If you'd like to, go to Baen.com and buy some "eARC" editions of their books. There may have been some minimal editing done on them, but they're supposed to be "basically straight from the author's word processor". Granted that the ones I've read have all been from established authors whose experience may allow them to produce slightly more-polished output, but the errors have been fairly minimal, and not all that annoying or distracting.
Is the judge allowed to tell the jury about jury nullification? If he is, then his/her hands are never tied.
I doubt that would have had any effect in this case. Three different juries: The first found that Thomas-Rasset willfully infringed and awarded $222K; the second was given instructions that were slightly more favorable to her, and found she infringed and awarded $1.9M; the third was only asked to reconsider the very high award of the second and awarded $1.5M.
In all three cases, if the juries had had any inclination to favor Thomas-Rasset they could at the very least have awarded the statutory minimum of $750 per song, or $18,000, but they awarded 12, 105 and 83 times that minimum. What makes you think they'd have voted to nullify?
Ah, yes, then. You could probably do just fine with Gig-E to most individual sources/sinks, as long as you ran them back to switches which could actually switch the full aggregate bandwidth, then 100GbE to form the internal "backbone" connecting the switches (which would need some 100GbE ports).
Nowadays, any source in our facility can be assigned to any input on any mixer in any control room.
That's the case in well-engineered TV studios as well, but they do it a different way. They have big video/audio switchers -- think about a big panel with 100 analog inputs lined up along the left edge and 100 analog outputs along the top each and wire each of the 100x100 = 10,000 intersection points and make each intersection independently activated under software control. In practice, they don't actually make switches that big, instead they use, say, 20x20 switches and then cascade them in really clever ways to simulate the 100x100 panel with far fewer actual interconnects.
Still, all of that stuff is really expensive, and the cabling required to connect every video source and every video sink to the switch is complex, expensive and just plain huge. Packet switching will make it much, much better -- when the networks can handle the data volume.
Why do people in this industry need 6 simultaneous unbuffered streams?
A typical broadcast studio has dozens, if not hundreds of simultaneous streams. Several editing suites running at once, a few people reviewing incoming feeds and selecting content from a variety of other sources, a couple of studios with 3-4 cameras each, plus actual output streams for each of the channels being produced, with large master control panels mixing the inputs to make them.
I spent a couple of years working for Philips Broadcast Television Systems (BTS), which makes equipment to run these systems. I worked on the router control systems, a bunch of embedded 68K (this was almost 20 years ago) that control big video and and audio switchers, many with hundreds of inputs and outputs (technical terms: "gazintas" and "gazaoutas"). It's unbelievable how many video and audio streams even a small studio manages, and the wiring to support it all is massive, as in foot-thick bundles routed all over under the raised floor. It makes your typical data center cable management problem look like child's play.
Besides just cabling costs, I could see packet-switched video enormously simplifying the engineering effort required to build and maintain these facilities. And it would also eliminate the need for lots of very expensive hardware like the switches BTS sold. Even with 100GbE, I'll bet large studios will still end up with cable bundles and link aggregation, but it would be vastly better than what can be done now.
They even made it illegal to sell a radio that could receive in the bands where the cellphone transmissions are made.
Actually, they only made it illegal to sell scanners that could receive the transmissions. It's not illegal to listen, just illegal to sell devices that enable listening. Though in that case because of the law banning the devices there's a good argument to be made that you do have some expectation of privacy, which clearly does not apply in the case of Wifi, since there is no such device ban, nor anything remotely like it.
Also, I think the fact that it is possible (and easy) to enable Wifi encryption means precisely that unencrypted Wifi does not provide any expectation of privacy -- because if you'd wanted privacy you'd have encrypted the Wifi.
I get a sore back from standing in once place for extended periods of time. I can walk for 8 hours, without a problem, but stand for 30 minutes and I'm going to have to sit down gently because my back is yelling at me.
I don't stand in one position all day. Get a low (~1 foot) stool and put it under your desk in front of you, then you can put one foot up on it from time to time. I stand most of the day and change positions frequently, often every few minutes or so.
Also, get one of those soft mats to stand on (I forget what they're called). Without one my feet get tired, but with it I can stand all day.
Finally, my desk has electric motors that raise/lower it with the touch of a button. So I switch back and forth between standing and sitting a couple of times per day, usually. I try to spend most of my time standing (burns calories and strengthens many muscles), but if my legs are tired from riding my bike or something, I might spend more time sitting. Whichever, I can mix it up and whenever I get uncomfortable in my current position, I move. It works really well.
Though I do agree that the motorized desk seems like a silly expense. Why not just have a high desk and a tall chair? I guess one argument is that doing that requires someone to set the desk at the right height, while the motorized desks easily adjust to whoever happens to be using them. But it's a weak argument.
For people who want to home-build a (legal, personal) gun, the BATFE has provisions for applying for a serial number to then inscribe/afix to the result.
It's perfectly legal to build a firearm at home without a serial number of any sort, as long as you never sell the gun. If you want to sell guns that you manufacture, then you need to jump through the additional hoops with the BATFE.
Google: Might sell my personal data to annoying advertisers or cancel an account if I upset them.
Or not, actually. Google doesn't sell personally-identifiable data to anyone, and the hullabaloo about account cancellations was never true (at least if you're talking about complete cancellation, e.g. gmail, etc.); it was conflation of stories about people whose Google+ accounts were shut down for name policy violation with some guy whose account was completely shut off because he was using it to distribute kiddie porn.
So, to be more accurate, you should say "Google: Will use my personal data to show me targeted advertising, unless I opt out, and might cancel my account if I use it for illegal purposes."
FSB: Polonium poisoning.
To be fair, it's pretty unlikely they'd do that to you, though I certainly agree with the general sentiment, and not just with respect to the FSB. But then I tend to be more fearful of government agencies than of corporations in general. Both can get out of control, but at least I can usually choose whether or not I want to fund corporations, and they don't tend to use force on people.
This is about object recognition, not face recognition. Of course, face recognition could also be applied, but Google would likely apply the same privacy rules as they do on Google+ -- it's done only with human approval and notifies the subjects automatically and gives them the opportunity to remove the label.
I wonder what a crosswind on the 'formerly a trailing edge' side does ?
Well, it would seem to me that while in subsonic mode the crosswind would potentially produce lift on the supersonic wings, but those wings are quite small and flat and don't produce a great deal of lift (unless the crosswind is several hundred miles per hour, in which case there are bigger problems). While in supersonic mode, the crosswind would produce much more lift, but that would also occur at high altitudes where there's plenty of room for an unexpected climb/drop. Actually, it would probably fly supersonic at very high altitudes where lower air density would also serve to reduce the amount of lift produced still further. Oh, and flaps would be up, too, and the wings would be at basically 0 degrees AoA to the crosswind. It seems unlikely to me that it would be a problem, but I'm not an aerospace engineer of any sort, or even a pilot.
Slashdot Mirror
Full specifications are available. There is no security through obscurity here.
If you read slashdot, you know that corporations are evil. So, clearly, the time to incorporate is when you decide to become evil.
All very true, but that's not what I was commenting on. I was just commenting that telling the jury they could nullify wouldn't likely have changed anything. Explaining the theory and evolution of copyright law and the societal balance that it is intended to strike might have, but that's a different question.
I recall reading that people, when given a range of options, tend to pick a middle one. So, they didn't take the minimum, and likely didn't take the maximum. They might even have simply averaged the two fenceposts.
That's as may be, but nullification clearly wouldn't be a "middle road", it would be a conscious decision to refute the charges, and if the jurors had been thinking that direction they clearly would have at least have chosen the minimum statutory damages available.
You clearly have never read an unedited manuscript. If you had, you'd never suggest anyone with a computer writing a novel and having it published.
I've read several of them. If you'd like to, go to Baen.com and buy some "eARC" editions of their books. There may have been some minimal editing done on them, but they're supposed to be "basically straight from the author's word processor". Granted that the ones I've read have all been from established authors whose experience may allow them to produce slightly more-polished output, but the errors have been fairly minimal, and not all that annoying or distracting.
Is the judge allowed to tell the jury about jury nullification? If he is, then his/her hands are never tied.
I doubt that would have had any effect in this case. Three different juries: The first found that Thomas-Rasset willfully infringed and awarded $222K; the second was given instructions that were slightly more favorable to her, and found she infringed and awarded $1.9M; the third was only asked to reconsider the very high award of the second and awarded $1.5M.
In all three cases, if the juries had had any inclination to favor Thomas-Rasset they could at the very least have awarded the statutory minimum of $750 per song, or $18,000, but they awarded 12, 105 and 83 times that minimum. What makes you think they'd have voted to nullify?
Ah, yes, then. You could probably do just fine with Gig-E to most individual sources/sinks, as long as you ran them back to switches which could actually switch the full aggregate bandwidth, then 100GbE to form the internal "backbone" connecting the switches (which would need some 100GbE ports).
I'm not sure what you mean by "station".
Well, I worked in this space almost 20 years ago...
Nowadays, any source in our facility can be assigned to any input on any mixer in any control room.
That's the case in well-engineered TV studios as well, but they do it a different way. They have big video/audio switchers -- think about a big panel with 100 analog inputs lined up along the left edge and 100 analog outputs along the top each and wire each of the 100x100 = 10,000 intersection points and make each intersection independently activated under software control. In practice, they don't actually make switches that big, instead they use, say, 20x20 switches and then cascade them in really clever ways to simulate the 100x100 panel with far fewer actual interconnects.
Still, all of that stuff is really expensive, and the cabling required to connect every video source and every video sink to the switch is complex, expensive and just plain huge. Packet switching will make it much, much better -- when the networks can handle the data volume.
Why do people in this industry need 6 simultaneous unbuffered streams?
A typical broadcast studio has dozens, if not hundreds of simultaneous streams. Several editing suites running at once, a few people reviewing incoming feeds and selecting content from a variety of other sources, a couple of studios with 3-4 cameras each, plus actual output streams for each of the channels being produced, with large master control panels mixing the inputs to make them.
I spent a couple of years working for Philips Broadcast Television Systems (BTS), which makes equipment to run these systems. I worked on the router control systems, a bunch of embedded 68K (this was almost 20 years ago) that control big video and and audio switchers, many with hundreds of inputs and outputs (technical terms: "gazintas" and "gazaoutas"). It's unbelievable how many video and audio streams even a small studio manages, and the wiring to support it all is massive, as in foot-thick bundles routed all over under the raised floor. It makes your typical data center cable management problem look like child's play.
Besides just cabling costs, I could see packet-switched video enormously simplifying the engineering effort required to build and maintain these facilities. And it would also eliminate the need for lots of very expensive hardware like the switches BTS sold. Even with 100GbE, I'll bet large studios will still end up with cable bundles and link aggregation, but it would be vastly better than what can be done now.
I guess I'm going to my local Walmart and picking up a Nexus 7 now. Walmart, of all places!
Or just buy it directly from Google. https://play.google.com/store/devices
They even made it illegal to sell a radio that could receive in the bands where the cellphone transmissions are made.
Actually, they only made it illegal to sell scanners that could receive the transmissions. It's not illegal to listen, just illegal to sell devices that enable listening. Though in that case because of the law banning the devices there's a good argument to be made that you do have some expectation of privacy, which clearly does not apply in the case of Wifi, since there is no such device ban, nor anything remotely like it.
Also, I think the fact that it is possible (and easy) to enable Wifi encryption means precisely that unencrypted Wifi does not provide any expectation of privacy -- because if you'd wanted privacy you'd have encrypted the Wifi.
I get a sore back from standing in once place for extended periods of time. I can walk for 8 hours, without a problem, but stand for 30 minutes and I'm going to have to sit down gently because my back is yelling at me.
I don't stand in one position all day. Get a low (~1 foot) stool and put it under your desk in front of you, then you can put one foot up on it from time to time. I stand most of the day and change positions frequently, often every few minutes or so.
Also, get one of those soft mats to stand on (I forget what they're called). Without one my feet get tired, but with it I can stand all day.
Finally, my desk has electric motors that raise/lower it with the touch of a button. So I switch back and forth between standing and sitting a couple of times per day, usually. I try to spend most of my time standing (burns calories and strengthens many muscles), but if my legs are tired from riding my bike or something, I might spend more time sitting. Whichever, I can mix it up and whenever I get uncomfortable in my current position, I move. It works really well.
Though I do agree that the motorized desk seems like a silly expense. Why not just have a high desk and a tall chair? I guess one argument is that doing that requires someone to set the desk at the right height, while the motorized desks easily adjust to whoever happens to be using them. But it's a weak argument.
Why cant the software detect movement of the face
It does, if you turn that feature on. It requires you to blink.
For people who want to home-build a (legal, personal) gun, the BATFE has provisions for applying for a serial number to then inscribe/afix to the result.
It's perfectly legal to build a firearm at home without a serial number of any sort, as long as you never sell the gun. If you want to sell guns that you manufacture, then you need to jump through the additional hoops with the BATFE.
Polonium poisoning of one man vs the dissemination of personal information of billions
Who has Google disseminated personal information to?
Google: Might sell my personal data to annoying advertisers or cancel an account if I upset them.
Or not, actually. Google doesn't sell personally-identifiable data to anyone, and the hullabaloo about account cancellations was never true (at least if you're talking about complete cancellation, e.g. gmail, etc.); it was conflation of stories about people whose Google+ accounts were shut down for name policy violation with some guy whose account was completely shut off because he was using it to distribute kiddie porn.
So, to be more accurate, you should say "Google: Will use my personal data to show me targeted advertising, unless I opt out, and might cancel my account if I use it for illegal purposes."
FSB: Polonium poisoning.
To be fair, it's pretty unlikely they'd do that to you, though I certainly agree with the general sentiment, and not just with respect to the FSB. But then I tend to be more fearful of government agencies than of corporations in general. Both can get out of control, but at least I can usually choose whether or not I want to fund corporations, and they don't tend to use force on people.
In Soviet Russia, the government protects your privacy. (Head LITERALLY explodes!)
Is Russia using snipers to protect privacy? How does that work?
This is about object recognition, not face recognition. Of course, face recognition could also be applied, but Google would likely apply the same privacy rules as they do on Google+ -- it's done only with human approval and notifies the subjects automatically and gives them the opportunity to remove the label.
Google has been hesitant to enforce a strict set of standards akin to Apple, and the results are beginning to show.
Do Apple's policies limit "the amount of pings [apps] make to various web servers"?
I wonder what a crosswind on the 'formerly a trailing edge' side does ?
Well, it would seem to me that while in subsonic mode the crosswind would potentially produce lift on the supersonic wings, but those wings are quite small and flat and don't produce a great deal of lift (unless the crosswind is several hundred miles per hour, in which case there are bigger problems). While in supersonic mode, the crosswind would produce much more lift, but that would also occur at high altitudes where there's plenty of room for an unexpected climb/drop. Actually, it would probably fly supersonic at very high altitudes where lower air density would also serve to reduce the amount of lift produced still further. Oh, and flaps would be up, too, and the wings would be at basically 0 degrees AoA to the crosswind. It seems unlikely to me that it would be a problem, but I'm not an aerospace engineer of any sort, or even a pilot.
I'm surprised Cisco would screw that up.
The only thing that keeps me from using Linux exclusively is compatibility with MS Office for work stuff.
I solved that by going to work for Google :-)
AFAIK the stock OS on the Nexus 7 doesn't recognise USB storage devices, which is a shame. Keyboards definitely work fine.
You have to root it, but Stickmount works on the Nexus 7: http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1093875-how-to-use-usb-drives-with-nexus-7-root/