SONY would have to patent everything within a year in the US; I am not sure that you even have that grace period everywhere else.
No..... 1 year following lawful disclosure.
The unlawful disclosure of confidential information by criminals is subject to adjudication by the courts.
The unlawfully disclosed material may very well be deemed to be a condition that allows Sony to continue to pursue the patents, and publications made from unlawfully disclosed materials may be excluded from valid prior art.
Anything that can't be answered in two sentences gets an email. Anything too laborious to email works better face to face in a meeting or conference call
I had to work with a higher-up IT manager who "never reads e-mail" and works at a remote site; also, whenever I do send an e-mail, the reply is always "Call to discuss; I don't use e-mail".
He doesn't do video conferencing either; in fact, it's impossible to schedule a meeting, because he either has no time available for that, or he misses the meeting appointment --- he never setup his voicemail box, says he doesn't use voicemail -- and it's sometimes difficult to get him on the phone as well.
Also, if any work doesn't get done for their location, the central IT workers always gets scolded.
He often makes crap up that he claims he asked us to do, and if we try to e-mail him anything he always ignores it or says "NO, call me to discuss.".
You wouldn’t charge a five-year old with disturbing the peace for throwing a tantrum in public.
Oh really? Tell that to St. Petersburg school officials calling police and officers who arrested 5yr old gold for tantrum, and Salecia Johnson arrested and charged with battery and criminal property destruction for actions during Temper tantrum in 2012.
Anyways.... people who are of diminished capacity and a danger to themselves and others get locked up, just the same as any criminal.
You’d have to appoint an attorney to stand for the critter’s interests who would argue diminished capacity
They don't have diminished capacity; they have standard capacity for their species.
Also; they could be charged with a strict liability offense such as drunknen and or disorderly conduct, or poo-flinging, in which they commit a crime even with no mens rea.
It seems routine to me that a company such as a Telco or Cableco is making an application
for various things and asserting that there is or is not effective competition in a certain market.
It is used as justification on the application to allow the Telco/Cable company to do things
they might not be allowed to do otherwise.
If there is effective competition in the market; they can essentially raise rates and do a number of other things
however they please. If there is not effective competition in the market, then those things are more restricted,
but they can essentially acquire other companies in the market however they please without objection
(since there is no competition, the other Telco/Cable co. in the market must not be a competitor).
Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section
623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Communications Act”),2
and the
Commission’s implementing rules,3
and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the
Communities because of the competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”)
providers, DIRECTV, Inc. (“DIRECTV”), and DISH Network (“DISH”). The petitions are unopposed.
and when the electric grid needs it most, they are producing only 15 percent of peak.
Do why not mount the panels on something that can change their orientation to keep them pointed at
the angle that maximizes expected power collection based on time of the day?
Or just point south to maximize power collected during the day by charging batteries.
At 5pm start discharging the batteries to offset increased demand and sell energy back to the grid at the higher price.
In my experience, these CDs will play fine in a PC (and iTunes can rip them without issue), but many car stereos struggle with them.
I would say in this case the CD players that have trouble playing the media session are somewhat defective.
It's a pretty shitty thing for manufacturers to do this, especially if they know that certain units will be unable to play the media which consumers expect to play, they are literally intentionally making a less useful product since it will cause problems and generate more sales being returned for refund, but it's clearly not antitrust, since competing players can of course play the media, they just need to be revised to correct implementation problems.
Bing's copyright filter based on the Creative Commons licensing system will let users get royalty-free images which they can use, share, or modify for either personal or commercial use.
Sorry... you can't safely vet for copyright using an automated tool.
What happens when someone mistakenly (or maliciously?) mislabels a copyright-protected work managed by a rights troll as CC0 or CCBY ?
The fact that they were leveraging their monopoly in digital players to advance a format that stifled competition is.
*Cough* Bullshit. At no point in time did Apple have a monopoly on digital players. In fact, one of the biggest competitors in this market is the Windows PC, which millions of people use and can play many open audio formats such as MP3 which people purchase from competitors such as Amazon or Rhapsody. 10 years ago there were plenty of competing digital players, which all ultimately failed in the marketplace following Apple's success with the iPod on their own merits or lack of consumer perception of merits compared to iPod.
It just turns out Apple had popularized many innovations in the digital player space, and it was not as if Apple added on DRM later to snuff out competition, they came to market with these features at time of the 2003 launch of the iTunes store. For example, in 2001 Apple launched the iPod. There were plenty of digital players at the time such as the Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox or the SonicBlue Rio.
Last I checked; antitrust legislation doesn't mean you're under an obligation to help competitors interoperate or consume components of your product.
Shoppers at the iTunes store willingly accepted this DRM, at a time when there were competing alternatives Such as Microsoft Windows Protected WMA and RealNetworks Helix used by other digital media playing devices.
The iPod connected via firewire; it synced with a PC using itunes, and it contained a hard drive with an innovative Anti-Skip feature; at a time when nearly all the digital players were using limited capacity flash, Microdrives, or required a burned CDROM to be inserted.
So I guess the question becomes, would it still be unlawful if third-parties were allowed to license the DRM to produce their own music players?
I would like to make a competing DVD player, but they won't let me have access to the software and crypto codes I need, without signing an onerous agreement with the DVDCCA that unfairly restricts legal customer use of the player and playing backup media.
"It would be egregious and unlawful for a major retailer, such as Tower Records, for example, to require that all music CDs purchased at Tower Records can be played only with CD players purchased at Tower Records. Yet, this is precisely what Apple has done."
No... CDs are an industry standard format, which the consumer experience shows can be used with any devices, so selling a CD that cannot be played in a CD player would be deceptive marketing. Instead it would be more like Tower records creating a proprietary media format, say Compact Cubes, instead of Compact Disks, which store the music in a completely different format, and of course, they would manufacture the Cubes for their cube players; they would both be in a proprietary form factor, both would be patented, and a custom firmware on each Cube needed to boot the player which would only work if digitally signed by the Cube maker.
Strictly speaking..... nothing requires the maker of the proprietary media to license it to competitors.
Otherwise.... Where are all the 3rd party clones of the Nintendo Wii or Sony Playstation that can consume the same media,
or games for those platforms not licensed by the maker?
Apple will say that it is impossible to put media on the ipod with out itunes... I know a few jailborken ipods that show otherwise.
How is it an antitrust violation to make hardware that requires an included proprietary tool (iTunes) to be used, in order to configure, operate, or manage the device?
My USB RFID reader only works if I use proprietary but free of cost software as well.
Also, it requires a proprietary program called a hardware driver.
I can think of a few major access control hardware products that also have a required (free) Windows based software program you are required to download and install, before you can manage the device.
The difference in gas miliage between 45-50 MPH and 70-75 seems to be far more influenced by traffic conditions
Yes.... perhaps we have been measuring the wrong thing all along. Miles driven are not fungible.
We could take a standardized mile, but it would not reflect the real world.
Instead we should say...
The total fuel consumption rate accelerating from 0 to 65, maintaining speed at 65 and driving a distance from point A to point B is X.
X forms a "baseline"
Next you need to add realistic random traffic to the road, and an intelligent agent which attempts to maintain 65 while it is safe to do so.
And you obtain a "second baseline"; real-world gas consumption.
Then if you want to decide whether a different speed limit other than 65 is beneficial or not, you need to make the adjustment, and
compare the results against the second baseline over a few thousand trials with a representative sample of travelers.
The ideal circumstances on a road by yourself does not reflect this complex system, and simple physics cannot even solve the N body problem, let alone this one; the only way to come at a decent answer is to experiment and gather the statistics.
OK... Now imagine your ISP had the cap and Amazon did not pay your ISP anything extra, and your ISP is not a related entity to Amazon, so they have no financial incentive to favor Amazon, and your ISP decided to waive the cap for Amazon prime educational videos.
That's more like the Wikipedia situation.
Maybe the description "Network Neutrality" is not even the goal we should want it's really
Non-interference; as in, no use of network traffic management to promote a commercial service
sold by yourself or a related entity by delivering better network performance or by waiving network access fees or discounting overage, and no accepting financial compensation in exchange for providing Non-equal access by doing the same.
However: it is acceptable to waive data usage counting or caps, or allow a 3rd party to pay customers' bill, for access to an application or website as a community service. To qualify as a community service, the purpose of the resource must be non-profit, and there can be no charge or display of advertising while using the resource provided for free as a community service.
I always thought 'sextuplets' were what you called nymphomaniac twin sisters!
Twin is two. Sex is 6.
A sextuplet is a tight-nit group of 6; typically used to refer to the birth of 6 kids together.
In the case of primes; it is 6 primes found sequentially which are very close to each other,
where the largest prime is within 16 units distance of the smallest of the 6 primes.
Sure Microsoft; after you sign this memorandum where you enter into binding agreement to fork over payment for all costs associated with the audit, plus an additional non-refundable fee of 6139000¥ plus a 31390¥ retainer.
Costs to Include payment for some additional vacation time for management and senior staff and the cost of purchasing additional computers, server equipment, software, and gov't employees, labor, overtime hours desired to assist with the audit, and other ordinary expenses.
You seem to be suggesting a solution in which someone will both cooperatively pass laws spanning multiple nations,
Actually.. I guess I would rather not. Another alternative that would not require it would be to require providers impose a $1 to $5 per call termination fee for any oversea telemarketing call, regardless of whether a product successfully sold or not, and at least 25% of any extra fee collected needs to be paid to the person who was called.
I would like to add a "Telemarketing call reporting" function, where the person who receives the call will enter a code such as "#", during the call, then if the other parties disconnects the call within 5 seconds, or the person presses "#" two more times; the call will automatically be reported as a telemarketing call requiring charging for the service.
In this case, no extra international cooperation is required, since the person making the call terminates the call in the country they are calling, they are automatically subject to any and all fees which may be imposed for the call, and, there are already laws that will cause the originating telecom provider to pay for any and all fees that are due and not paid by the caller.
Telemarketers targeting the US will have their operations calling from Canada or elsewhere, and in Canada they'll be calling from the US or elsewhere.
What we need is a law prohibiting telemarketing from an overseas operation to be passed in both countries,
and a cooperative agreement to enforce the other country's law locally.
And a regulation that companies which provide termination for overseas calls either refuse any call,
or ensure through their contractual agreements and technology on their network that caller id will always be present and reflects a valid telephone number for the actual country of origin unique and persistent to the calling party.
Slashdot Mirror
SONY would have to patent everything within a year in the US; I am not sure that you even have that grace period everywhere else.
No..... 1 year following lawful disclosure.
The unlawful disclosure of confidential information by criminals is subject to adjudication by the courts.
The unlawfully disclosed material may very well be deemed to be a condition that allows Sony to continue to pursue the patents, and publications made from unlawfully disclosed materials may be excluded from valid prior art.
Anything that can't be answered in two sentences gets an email. Anything too laborious to email works better face to face in a meeting or conference call
I had to work with a higher-up IT manager who "never reads e-mail" and works at a remote site; also, whenever I do send an e-mail, the reply is always "Call to discuss; I don't use e-mail".
He doesn't do video conferencing either; in fact, it's impossible to schedule a meeting, because he either has no time available for that, or he misses the meeting appointment --- he never setup his voicemail box, says he doesn't use voicemail -- and it's sometimes difficult to get him on the phone as well.
Also, if any work doesn't get done for their location, the central IT workers always gets scolded.
He often makes crap up that he claims he asked us to do, and if we try to e-mail him anything he always ignores it or says "NO, call me to discuss.".
Sometimes Not using the Phone is not an option.
You wouldn’t charge a five-year old with disturbing the peace for throwing a tantrum in public.
Oh really? Tell that to St. Petersburg school officials calling police and officers who arrested 5yr old gold for tantrum, and Salecia Johnson arrested and charged with battery and criminal property destruction for actions during Temper tantrum in 2012.
Anyways.... people who are of diminished capacity and a danger to themselves and others get locked up, just the same as any criminal.
You’d have to appoint an attorney to stand for the critter’s interests who would argue diminished capacity
They don't have diminished capacity; they have standard capacity for their species.
Also; they could be charged with a strict liability offense such as drunknen and or disorderly conduct, or poo-flinging, in which they commit a crime even with no mens rea.
It seems routine to me that a company such as a Telco or Cableco is making an application for various things and asserting that there is or is not effective competition in a certain market.
It is used as justification on the application to allow the Telco/Cable company to do things they might not be allowed to do otherwise.
If there is effective competition in the market; they can essentially raise rates and do a number of other things however they please. If there is not effective competition in the market, then those things are more restricted, but they can essentially acquire other companies in the market however they please without objection (since there is no competition, the other Telco/Cable co. in the market must not be a competitor).
Example: 3/29/13 Comcast Cable Petitions for Effective Competition, Pennsylvania.
I think Web 5.0 will be called The Cloud of Things or simply The CloudThingNet, or the ThingNet seeing as....
Web 2.0 was about user feedback and social media; Web 3.0 was about application-rich web content, and Web 4.0 was about Cloud computing.
and when the electric grid needs it most, they are producing only 15 percent of peak.
Do why not mount the panels on something that can change their orientation to keep them pointed at the angle that maximizes expected power collection based on time of the day?
Or just point south to maximize power collected during the day by charging batteries.
At 5pm start discharging the batteries to offset increased demand and sell energy back to the grid at the higher price.
But when you say intelligent agent, this would be modeled on typical standards of driving
A good study/experiment has to include a control group, so the unrealistic nature of the modelled baseline should be detected for sure.
In my experience, these CDs will play fine in a PC (and iTunes can rip them without issue), but many car stereos struggle with them.
I would say in this case the CD players that have trouble playing the media session are somewhat defective.
It's a pretty shitty thing for manufacturers to do this, especially if they know that certain units will be unable to play the media which consumers expect to play, they are literally intentionally making a less useful product since it will cause problems and generate more sales being returned for refund, but it's clearly not antitrust, since competing players can of course play the media, they just need to be revised to correct implementation problems.
Bing's copyright filter based on the Creative Commons licensing system will let users get royalty-free images which they can use, share, or modify for either personal or commercial use.
Sorry... you can't safely vet for copyright using an automated tool.
What happens when someone mistakenly (or maliciously?) mislabels a copyright-protected work managed by a rights troll as CC0 or CCBY ?
The fact that they were leveraging their monopoly in digital players to advance a format that stifled competition is.
*Cough* Bullshit. At no point in time did Apple have a monopoly on digital players. In fact, one of the biggest competitors in this market is the Windows PC, which millions of people use and can play many open audio formats such as MP3 which people purchase from competitors such as Amazon or Rhapsody. 10 years ago there were plenty of competing digital players, which all ultimately failed in the marketplace following Apple's success with the iPod on their own merits or lack of consumer perception of merits compared to iPod.
It just turns out Apple had popularized many innovations in the digital player space, and it was not as if Apple added on DRM later to snuff out competition, they came to market with these features at time of the 2003 launch of the iTunes store. For example, in 2001 Apple launched the iPod. There were plenty of digital players at the time such as the Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox or the SonicBlue Rio.
Last I checked; antitrust legislation doesn't mean you're under an obligation to help competitors interoperate or consume components of your product.
Shoppers at the iTunes store willingly accepted this DRM, at a time when there were competing alternatives Such as Microsoft Windows Protected WMA and RealNetworks Helix used by other digital media playing devices.
The iPod connected via firewire; it synced with a PC using itunes, and it contained a hard drive with an innovative Anti-Skip feature; at a time when nearly all the digital players were using limited capacity flash, Microdrives, or required a burned CDROM to be inserted.
So I guess the question becomes, would it still be unlawful if third-parties were allowed to license the DRM to produce their own music players?
I would like to make a competing DVD player, but they won't let me have access to the software and crypto codes I need, without signing an onerous agreement with the DVDCCA that unfairly restricts legal customer use of the player and playing backup media.
"It would be egregious and unlawful for a major retailer, such as Tower Records, for example, to require that all music CDs purchased at Tower Records can be played only with CD players purchased at Tower Records. Yet, this is precisely what Apple has done."
No... CDs are an industry standard format, which the consumer experience shows can be used with any devices, so selling a CD that cannot be played in a CD player would be deceptive marketing. Instead it would be more like Tower records creating a proprietary media format, say Compact Cubes, instead of Compact Disks, which store the music in a completely different format, and of course, they would manufacture the Cubes for their cube players; they would both be in a proprietary form factor, both would be patented, and a custom firmware on each Cube needed to boot the player which would only work if digitally signed by the Cube maker.
Strictly speaking..... nothing requires the maker of the proprietary media to license it to competitors.
Otherwise.... Where are all the 3rd party clones of the Nintendo Wii or Sony Playstation that can consume the same media, or games for those platforms not licensed by the maker?
Apple will say that it is impossible to put media on the ipod with out itunes... I know a few jailborken ipods that show otherwise.
How is it an antitrust violation to make hardware that requires an included proprietary tool (iTunes) to be used, in order to configure, operate, or manage the device?
My USB RFID reader only works if I use proprietary but free of cost software as well. Also, it requires a proprietary program called a hardware driver.
I can think of a few major access control hardware products that also have a required (free) Windows based software program you are required to download and install, before you can manage the device.
The difference in gas miliage between 45-50 MPH and 70-75 seems to be far more influenced by traffic conditions
Yes.... perhaps we have been measuring the wrong thing all along. Miles driven are not fungible.
We could take a standardized mile, but it would not reflect the real world.
Instead we should say...
The total fuel consumption rate accelerating from 0 to 65, maintaining speed at 65 and driving a distance from point A to point B is X.
X forms a "baseline"
Next you need to add realistic random traffic to the road, and an intelligent agent which attempts to maintain 65 while it is safe to do so.
And you obtain a "second baseline"; real-world gas consumption.
Then if you want to decide whether a different speed limit other than 65 is beneficial or not, you need to make the adjustment, and compare the results against the second baseline over a few thousand trials with a representative sample of travelers.
The ideal circumstances on a road by yourself does not reflect this complex system, and simple physics cannot even solve the N body problem, let alone this one; the only way to come at a decent answer is to experiment and gather the statistics.
DIY HERF gun.
If people aren't painting their roofs white and silver today, do they really think their paint will change that?
I would if the Home owner's association police would allow it.
I'm afraid no new mod types will appear until Slashdot Beta has a minor update to make it Slashdot General Release.
We'll ignore for a few minutes the fact that the moderation system and threaded discussion in effect goes away.
OK... Now imagine your ISP had the cap and Amazon did not pay your ISP anything extra, and your ISP is not a related entity to Amazon, so they have no financial incentive to favor Amazon, and your ISP decided to waive the cap for Amazon prime educational videos.
That's more like the Wikipedia situation.
Maybe the description "Network Neutrality" is not even the goal we should want it's really Non-interference; as in, no use of network traffic management to promote a commercial service sold by yourself or a related entity by delivering better network performance or by waiving network access fees or discounting overage, and no accepting financial compensation in exchange for providing Non-equal access by doing the same.
However: it is acceptable to waive data usage counting or caps, or allow a 3rd party to pay customers' bill, for access to an application or website as a community service. To qualify as a community service, the purpose of the resource must be non-profit, and there can be no charge or display of advertising while using the resource provided for free as a community service.
I always thought 'sextuplets' were what you called nymphomaniac twin sisters!
Twin is two. Sex is 6.
A sextuplet is a tight-nit group of 6; typically used to refer to the birth of 6 kids together.
In the case of primes; it is 6 primes found sequentially which are very close to each other, where the largest prime is within 16 units distance of the smallest of the 6 primes.
Outsource their Advertising business to a subsidiary that has no control of what search results appear on the page.
Let that subsidiary do all business in Europe; let the search company not do any business in Europe.
And then the search company can simply ignore all requests to control search results as out of jurisdiction.
Sure Microsoft; after you sign this memorandum where you enter into binding agreement to fork over payment for all costs associated with the audit, plus an additional non-refundable fee of 6139000¥ plus a 31390¥ retainer.
Costs to Include payment for some additional vacation time for management and senior staff and the cost of purchasing additional computers, server equipment, software, and gov't employees, labor, overtime hours desired to assist with the audit, and other ordinary expenses.
Fuck, I barely speak English, I don't want to learn a new language.
English is fine. PHP on the other hand, is not.
You seem to be suggesting a solution in which someone will both cooperatively pass laws spanning multiple nations,
Actually.. I guess I would rather not. Another alternative that would not require it would be to require providers impose a $1 to $5 per call termination fee for any oversea telemarketing call, regardless of whether a product successfully sold or not, and at least 25% of any extra fee collected needs to be paid to the person who was called.
I would like to add a "Telemarketing call reporting" function, where the person who receives the call will enter a code such as "#", during the call, then if the other parties disconnects the call within 5 seconds, or the person presses "#" two more times; the call will automatically be reported as a telemarketing call requiring charging for the service.
In this case, no extra international cooperation is required, since the person making the call terminates the call in the country they are calling, they are automatically subject to any and all fees which may be imposed for the call, and, there are already laws that will cause the originating telecom provider to pay for any and all fees that are due and not paid by the caller.
Telemarketers targeting the US will have their operations calling from Canada or elsewhere, and in Canada they'll be calling from the US or elsewhere.
What we need is a law prohibiting telemarketing from an overseas operation to be passed in both countries, and a cooperative agreement to enforce the other country's law locally.
And a regulation that companies which provide termination for overseas calls either refuse any call, or ensure through their contractual agreements and technology on their network that caller id will always be present and reflects a valid telephone number for the actual country of origin unique and persistent to the calling party.