I am on the board of my condominium, and we have struggled with this issue for a while. We would like to offer the residents something more than the standard Comcast cable/internet service (which is expensive, and not very good).
But here is the problem as I see it. A T1 line just isn't all that much bandwidth when it comes right down to it. Don't quote me (I'm Not A Techie), but its on the order of 1.5Mbps. Thus, if you hooked up 150 apartments, and assume that 10% might be using it simultaneously (a low estimate), you are talking about a meager 150Kbps per user (I'm over simplifying, I know). But anyway, wouldn't this be pretty slow? Anything wider than a T1 is going to drive the cost per unit up enormously, right?
I get DTV DSL (not for much longer) and am switching to a new DSL service at the cost of losing my dry pair (dedicated line), meaning I'll have to share my DSL with my voice line (yuk!). However, even though I know something about this, and I am in a position to actually do something, I just don't see any economical options.
If anyone can suggest options that would make sense for a building of 150 units, I'm very interested! (If this generates enough interest I may resubmit as an Ask Slashdot...).
Authors and inventors, which I interpret to mean the actual author or inventor, not the great-grandchildren of the author or inventor, or future sharholders in a corporation that descended from the author or inventor or purchased the rights from the author or inventor.
Yes and No. You are not misinterpreting it in the sense that the right initially attaches to an individual (the author/inventor). The question is whether that right should be alienable, i.e. can it be sold. Some rights in society are deemed to be inalienable, like Jefferson supposedly touted on about in the Declaration of Independence. For instance, you have a right not to be murdered, but you cannot sell someone the right to murder you. Other rights are alienable. You have the right to own land and quietly enjoy it, but you can sell that right to a buyer.
So, you are correct in thinking that the Constitution authorizes Congress to grant certain rights to individuals; however, the Constitution does not require that those rights be inalienable, and in fact, to do so would make no sense in the context of what the framers were trying to accomplish. An author has a right to his work, but even Jefferson et al. knew that he would have to license (i.e. sell) that right to a publisher to have it actually provide benefit to society.
The Constitution generally provides for the creation of alienable rights. Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech (meaning you have a right to speak your mind), but you can sign a contract with a private party agreeing to say only certain things, or refrain from saying other things (e.g. a confidentiality agreement).
As a lawyer currently working on online libel issues, I can offer a little bit of insight, but don't take this as actual legal advice!
(1) Forums/websites etc. are not nearly as immune from discovery (the formal process of discovering information) as they like to pretend. For instance, a recent decision by the Virginia Supreme Court held that AOL is not immune from a subpoena issued by a California court in a libel case.
(2) In order to get discovery from the forum, you will need to initiate a lawsuit. There are two ways you can go. If you have a reasonable idea of who the perpetrator is, you can sue them on theory alone. If you have no idea of the actual identity, you can bring a "John Doe" suit, and then seek third-party discovery to uncover the identity of the defendant.
(3) You need a lawyer to do any of this. Depending on where you are, the severity of the attack, the potential damages, and the ability to easily reach the suspected perpetrator, you may be able to find an attorney to handle this on a contingency basis. Unfortunately, because libel cases are notoriously hard to win, and don't usually pay a lot in damages, this may be very difficult.
(4) if you have business insurance you should check if it covers this type of claim.
A closing point: I have said before that the popularity of the internet didn't alter the fundamentals of libel and slander. It is cases like these (taking the poster at face value) that demonstrate what I mean. Just because the actionable speech is in an online forum instead of in a newspaper, or on the radio doesn't mean that it is fundamentally different than those media. On the flip side, there are significant protections built into the U.S. libel law, and those protections generally discourage all but the most serious and meritorious suits.
Good luck with you problem. It would be interesting to hear greater detail (what forum? what type of business? etc.).
automandc
Re:Yeah, lots of people don't use public transport
on
Pipeline Mass Transit?
·
· Score: 2
I wasn't going to post in this discussion, but this quote requires correction:
New York has an adequate public transport network, and Washington D.C.'s is absolutely first-rate
As a New Yorker living in Washington, all I can say is that the D.C. system really bites the big one, whereas the Subway rocks. People mistakenly think the D.C. Metro is "cool" or "good" because it is so aesthetically pleasing (actually, I find it neo-fascist and distrubing). In reality, the design decisions that were necessary to make the system look the way it does (e.g. large cathedral stations requiring deep tunneling) have also made it one of the least functional systems in the world. The Metro is heavily dependent on expensive, and impossible to maintain escalator systems, it is impossible for them to add new track capacity, since it is not possible to reconfigure stations, the cars are too long, with not enough doors...I could go on. Once the Metro is as old as the subway is now (in about 75 years), I am sure it will be just as grubby and "used" as the subway, only much less functional.
As to the main point of the the thread, and the article: I think mass transit is a major investment we should make. I particularly agree with the sentiment that cars have ruined the urban geography of the U.S. Also, anyone who thinks that cars don't require government funding should come observe some of the elections in the D.C. metro area (both Maryland and Virgina have road transportation issues at the top of their local issue hit list). Personally, I walk to work, and keep my car in an underground garage for when I need to go to Home Depot on the weekends.
In terms of the vacuum tubes: any one looking for prior art should go back to Buck Rogers newspaper strip from around 1929/1930.
For some people, that would probably work fine, but not in my case. Essentially, what you are talking about is using the iMac as a terminal to connect to whatever other machine.
At that level, I might as well just run VirtualPC (OK, well, it might not be that bad). Essentially there are two reasons a VNC wouldn't solve my problem: (1) I already have hardware I don't wish to get rid of (i.e. 19" CRT), and (2) I wouldn't want my use of the PC to be limited by problems/bottlenecks over the LAN and software issues on the Mac. In essence, I want to do what Gamgee5273 suggests, i.e. plug the Mac into a KVM and use it as an external monitor.
In the same vein, does anyone know if it's possible to use the built in LCD panel on an iMac as a monitor for a different computer (i.e. a "video-in" for the iMac monitor)?
I realize that it is probably a hardware hack, but if anyone has ever done this I'd be interested to hear. One of my major reasons for not getting a Mac is that I can't justify (afford) a G4 standalone, but I don't want two monitors on my desk unless I can use both of them simultaneously.
And after AUI there was (for a brief time) AAUI, which stood for Apple AUI. This was a 14 pin mini connector (I forget the connector type) that came on Quadras and the first few generations of PPCs. You could then get either a 10base-2 (thinnet/BNC) or 10base-T (RJ45) transceiver to connect to it.
Regular AUI Transcivers were a pain in the rear because they were bulky (they used to stick out of the back of a machine 3-4 inches!), and unless you physically screwed them to the network card they would always fall off when someone moved the table. AAUI connectors had this cool built-in clipping mechanism that held them tight, and the transceivers had a short "tail" so that they could dangle down under the table.
The other nice thing about the AAUI 10b2 transceivers was that they were self-terminating, meaning you didn't need a terminator (a little resister thingy, not a killer robot) if you were at the end of the chain. Then the Web got big, more consumer machines started coming with Ethernet standard, and RJ45 won the battle. Simple wiring is better for home users at the expense of needing an extra device (a hub) to conenct multiple (more than 2) devices.
I worked for Apple in the mid-nineties, when the PPC was new. I watched the entire (almost) death-spiral with particular interest.
I think the article is good, but it is only half the story. Apple is, and always has been, a hardware company. The thing that really screwed Apple during the Gil Amelio years was a total lack of hardware engineering. Apple tried to become a "beige box" company, and tried to have a solution for every problem. It just wouldn't work.
When Steve Jobs came back to the company, there was something like 85 SKUs for hardware systems. For those who aren't familar with marketing/retail, that's a lot. It wasn't like "You can have a 7200 with X Y or Z memory", it was "You can have a 7200 with 16MB, or you can have a 7200 with 32MB or you can have a 7200 with 64MB" and the vendor would have to stock all three. Impossible.
Plus, none of the hardware was exciting. People just plain didn't want to own it. It was like, sure, I can get a beige box that runs 7.5.2, crashes all the time, and has only Word 6 (god, what an abomination), or I can spend half as much, build my own Wintel, and get the newest Office.
The main thing the reintroduction of Steve Jobs did for Apple was put a single vision back in charge of both hardware and software. Even if Copland was further along than NeXT, it was hopelessly mired in a hardware development cycle that was just flawed. One of the main problems Copland faced was not only the need for backward compatibility of software, but the need to support 85 different configurations of non-industry-standard hardware. Impossible. Anyone remember the "Enablers"? God, what a mess.
One of Job's most controversial moves, and perhaps his smartest, was to draw a hard line in the sand at the G3, a processor that was barely even shipping when he announced the spec. Thus, he promised hardware compatibility only back to the currently brand-spanking new machines, guaranteeing that, at the end of a 3-5 year development cycle, the OS would only have to support hardware 3-5 years old. Man, did people scream and moan ("But I just bought an 8600/120!"), but now Apple is back where it needs to be. One of the biggest complaints over Win2K was its trouble with older hardware. MS was able to make Win2K fly by (1) not pitching it to home users, who were more likely to have funky sound cards, and (2) providing a lot of expensive support to hardware manufacturers to write compatible drivers in time for XP.
One pre-Jobs hardware move that Apple took that is now reaping benefits was to eschew its own good but expensive standards for adequate but cheap industry standard. Internal SCSI 4X CD Roms gave way to ATAPI; NuBUS gave way to PCI; etc. This made it even easier for the OS developers to support hardware.
Anyway, in order to understand the whole Apple picture, you have to consider the wretched state the hardware side was in in 1996, and realize that, even if no one bought the cube, they have come a really long way - and that is what made OSX possible.
Before you go too far down this path, consider that any music played in a retail establishment like Starbucks is technically a "public performance" and would need to be licensed for that purpose. The reason SB uses that kind of technology is (probably) because they pay licensing fees as part of the deal, hence the expiration (it is a limited use license).
Most stores don't bother with this, because they are not going to be targeted by the RIAA. However, Starbucks is using music to create an "ambiance" meaning that the music is part of their product, and the patrons are expected to linger and enjoy it. Thus, they are "selling" the music as much as the coffee (even if you don't want to pay for it).
Plugging in your own CD player, or hacking the system in order to play your own music will make Starbucks libel for copyright infringement, which I imagine they wouldn't appreciate.
Which demonstrates the vapid self-interest behind most people's moral philosophy.
More people are killed by reckless drivers who think they have the skill/technology/brains to drive at unsafe speeds, than by murder.
Nothing gets on my nerves more than some yahoo in a way-to-big SUV tailgating me at 80MPH simply because he has no f-ing clue about such concepts as reaction time or stopping distance.
Of course, when his unnecessary and reckless conduct causes my death it is an "accident," while a woman who shoots her abusive husband dead in his sleep is considered a "murderer"
My apparent contradiction is due to the difference between disputes between citizens of different States (as in the United States) and citizens of different countries.
In our federal republic, we have an important principle called comity that requires each state to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of all of the other states. This is written into the Constitution, and is an important statement on the relationship of the states to one another.
The Full Faith And Credit clause can also be considered one of the major causes of the Civil War. See, the Northern States were largely content to overlook slavery so long as it didn't affect them in any big way. However, the Southern States invoked the FFC clause to require Northern States, that didn't have slavery, to return escaped slaves to bondage, making them involuntary accomplices in a practice many of their individual citizens found morall repugnant. Thus, what was a regional issue became a national problem because the states were required to reach a consensus on whether the practice of slavery was morally justified.
In any case, as I was saying, FFC means that, in the U.S., the individual sovereigns (i.e. the state governments) are bound to respect and enforce one another's laws by the Constitution. The Federal courts are only a matter of convenience when it comes to tort claims like libel and defamation (there is no federal claim for libel, it can only be brought under state law).
However, when you talk about citizens of different countries, there is no fundamental principle of respect. All cooperation of law must be by explicit treaty. Treaties are all well and good, but countries rarely interpret treaties to be contrary to their own core principles. In the U.S. if a court finds a treaty to require something different from the Constitution, the Constitution wins. An example is France's refusal to extradite convicted killer Ira Einhorn because he faced the Death Penalty and had been tried in abstentia in Pennsylvania. The French court found that that was not consistent with its own laws, so it refused to carry out the extradition treaty. Another example is the UK's refusal to extradite Pinochet to Spain, despite the insistence by a Spanish Court that they do so.
The problem with treaty organizations like WIPO is that they are attempting to circumvent Court approval by taking the whole process out of the Court systems. Hopefully one day a U.S. Court will stand up and refuse to enforce a WIPO award, but it isn't likely. Plus, with the participation of the registrars, ICANN and WIPO are able to enforce their own awards (to the detriment of individual's property rights) without review by a court of the sovereign that granted the property right. That's confusing, but in essence it is saying that WIPO/ICANN are too much like the "one world government/black helicopters" the nutcases are worried about.
I largely agree with DavidBrown, and second his basic comments on jurisdiction (which is a very very complicated and tricky legal question that is litigated continuously).
For further background: The main case on jurisdiction is World Wide Volkswaagen. Here are the facts: Family living in NY state decides to move out west. They sell the house, pack up the family car (A VW) which they bought in NY from a NY Dealer (the National Distributor is in New Jersey). On the way to "the west", they are involved in a terrible accident in Oklahoma. The car, due to a manufacturing defect, catches fire and burns all of the occupants. The question is, can the family sue the NY dealer, New Jersey Distributor and German corporation in Oklahoma state court? The Supreme Court says no (as to the NY Dealer and New Jersey Distributor -- The German corp. settled out of court).
Essentially, unless you purposefully direct your conduct toward a jurisdiction, it is not enough that the results "happen" there. However, the definition of "direct" is liberally construed. Merely placing the car into the "stream of commerce" was not sufficient. However, if they had attempted to sell cars to Oklahoma residents, it would have been a different story.
I have not looked into the Virgina/Connecticut case (yet), but I would (wildly) speculate that the court found some purposeful connection between the Connecticut newspaper and Virginia. This probably has to do with the fact (rightly or wrongly) that Connecticut has decided to export its inmates to Virginia. While the Newspaper isn't responsible for that decision, it creates a connection of public interest between the two states that makes the reading of the Connecticut paper in Virginia much less surprising than in a totally unconnected state. Plus, the Conn. paper is clearly trying to influence prison policy in Virginia.
There is a rough standard on Internet cases beginning to emerge amongst the courts. In the standard analysis, there have been found to be three types of websites: passive, partially-interactive, and fully-interactive (I cannot remember the exact terms the courts have used. Check out the Bank of Mexico (Banamex) v. NarcoNews case referenced on/. a few months ago).
Generally, if you have a simple website that provides a one-way conduit for information, with no commercial purpose (i.e. no ads, or not linked to a commercial publication), it will be very difficult for anyone to get jurisdiction over you anywhere but where you live (where the server is).
If the site allows people to post information and/or exchange information, or is linked to a commercial publication (like the Conn. Newspaper), then it is possible, but not a given, that jurisdiction can be found in a distant place if the libel is sufficiently directed, and other factors exist, to create "minimum contacts."
Finally, if you offer stuff for sale in the other jurisdiction, then you are pretty much out-of-luck...you can be sued there. Which only makes sense. If I order something from Amazon, and don't pay them, they would expect my home state to enforce the law and compel me to pay (i.e. they expect the protection of law where I live). Thus, if they say bad things about me, I should be able to rely on the same law they are counting on to sue them.
Believe it or not, the Internet does not present an enormous problem for the U.S. legal system. The advantage of the commonlaw system in general is that it can adapt and mold itself to new facts (like new technologies) without wholly rejecting old precedent.
My previous comments are directed only toward U.S. Courts applying U.S. Law.
I think you will find that U.S. Courts don't pay much attention to what courts in other nations are doing. IIRC, there was a recent decision by a U.S. court to not enforce a British libel judgement because the U.S. Court found it repugnant to the U.S. Constitution.
What people should remember in the international context is that a Court in another country can say anything it wants, it doesn't mean that it has the power to enforce it. (Think of Salman Rushdie who was given a death sentence by the "courts" of Iran...it doesn't mean that Britain or the U.S. agreed to enforce that).
The concept of jurisdiction is directly equatable to the power of a court to compel (appearance, payment, incarceration etc.).
A person overseas may sue me in their own country (say, GB or Australia), but in order to actually collect (provided I don't voluntarily go to Australia or GB, or have assets there), they would have to bring that judgment to an Americancourt to enforce -- providing me with ample opportunity to argue under U.S. law. One of the main reasons a U.S. court will choose not to enforce a foreign judgment is if it believes the foreign court did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment. Thus, if the American court doesn' think the Australian court had jurisdiction, it won't enforce the judgment. What the Australian court will do with an American judgment is up to the Australians (I can't comment on that).
In another words, so long as you are in your own country (i.e., under the protection of your sovereign), no foreign court can do anything to you without your own government's permission (manifested through the Court System in the U.S.).
So even if the Courts of e.g. Iraq decide they have jurisdiction over me, I don't really care, so long as Baghdad isn't on my current vacation itinerary.
Also, I think that, while it is true that large corporations have the power/ability to make individual's lives hell, there are a lot of reasons this will not happen except in the unfortunate (and punishable) rare instance. Many states are adopting so-called SLAPP statutes to penalize plaintiffs who bring frivolous libel suits. Also, corporations (or any litigant) who abuses the court system (including the discovery process) to harrass their opponent faces stiff penalties. (And they are enforced). There are disturbing trends recently of corporations attempting to silence websites that are critical of them, but those efforts are mainly through the way-messed up Trademark line of attack. IP law in general is inimical of free speech. You won't get any argument from me that the IP laws are messed up and need overhaul. Also, the creation of WIPO and other "international" arbitration mechanisms screws up the balance of the courts.
This will almost certainly be modded down by those who enjoy proclaiming the evil of the American Court system, but I will try anyway.
1) This is not a "new" idea, nor is it limited to the Internet. Believe it or not, there are parallels that can be drawn between the internet and the off-line world. This case seems not too different from the (in)famous Hustler case, in which Hustler Magazine was sued in New Hampshire, despite the fact that very few of its magazines were sold there.
2) Jurisdiction does not equal liability. Just because the VA court found personal jurisdiction over the defendants, does not mean they will be found guilty. As someone points out below, it is very very difficult to win an libel suit against a Media defendant. Several doctrines have been developed over the years that apply equally to the print and online worlds. This case sounds very similar to the facts in New York Times v. Sullivan, which sets the bar very high for public officials who sue newspapers.
3) On the flip side, just because I publish on the internet should not be license to dispense with all modicum of responsible reporting. Although I do not know the facts of this case, it sounds like the defendants will probably win, since they are reporting on the opinions of others. However, one of the ongoing complaints around the world (including here in the USA) about the American press is that they don't always report stories fairly. (Ask the Palestinians for instance). The basic (and difficult to establish) doctrine of liability for libel and defamation is a minimum check against irresponsible reporting.
3) Believe it or not, bad reporting can be very damaging to people who don't necessarily deserve to be pilloried. The number of cases of people who have been tarred and feathered in the press is too many to count. There are standards of reporting, and there is good practice in journalism. Reporters should be held to them whether they print online or on the bathroom walls.
4) This case is in Federal Court for a reason. One of the fundamental rights (Article III of the U.S. Const.) is that citizens of different states can sue each other in the federal courts; it's called "diversity" jurisdiction. The purpose is to ensure that, for instance, a Connecticut reporter doesn't find his fate entirely in the hands of an elected Virginia State judge. The federal courts (don't laugh) are expected to be somewhat more even-keeled than the unpredictable state courts. With a few notable exceptions (DeCSS, Napster) that actually tends to be true.
5) Jurisdiction does not equal liability II: Another issue often overlooked by non-lawyers is the law applied (i.e. the "Choice of law"). Even if the defendants win their motion to have the case dismissed or transferred to Connecticut, the plaintiff can still sue them, they would just have to do it in Connecticut. However, the law of libel, and Choice of law doctrine in 90% of the states says that, when an interstate libel occurs, you apply the law of the state where the most harm occurred. Since the defendant's reputation is largely in Virginia, you would apply Virginia law...even if you are in Connecticut state court (or federal court in Conn, which is where you would be under diversity jurisdiction).
6) The advantage that people are clamoring for here is that online defendants should be allowed to snipe from their home jurisdictions across the internet at whatever target is convenient. If the target of a possibly unjustified, and unfair, attack wants to do anything to defend themselves, they have to do so at great expense in a distant jurisdiction. Think about that, who does that really hurt? It hurts the little guy who can't afford to take his grievance a long way away. Large corporations can litigate anywhere, but individuals cannot. It is exactly this type of jurisdiction limiting that large corporations fight for, and usually sneak into contracts with their customers, so that they can avoid the majority of suits that would be brought against them. (For instance, "I would sue XYZ Corp. for their crappy product, but the license agreement says that all suits have to be brought in California, and I live in New York... I just can't afford it.")
In short, don't jump to conclusions just because the defendant happens to use the internet and the plaintiff appears to be some 18th century small-town southern lawman. People who know how to use the internet can be bad too, and when they are, the law should apply to them equally.
I also wonder why anyone would shell the $10K (or more) for a plasma. I think they look awful, and the gas-flicker nauseates me if I am too close to the screen. In fact, I think Plasmas only look good when there is lots of light in the room (i.e. in a convention space), so you don't notice the transient effects as much (just my $.02 though)
I personally am a strong advocate of Sony's WEGA XBR series. For 1/3 the $$$ of plasma, (providing you have the place to put the beast) I just don't think you can get a better TV for the money. I've had the 36" for 2 years, and couldn't be happier.
The article linked to discusses the fact that quantum cryptography is only an extension of one-time-pad schemes in use since the early 20th century. It also outlines the problems with those systems (i.e. reuse of the meta-key used to transmit the pad-of-the-day, as in the Germans always using "Heil Hitler" as their meta-key, giving the Brits a big fat backdoor to their nominally one-time-only Enigma codes).
It seems to me that, if this article is correct, the advancement of this form of cryptography is probably no more "unbreakable" than the Titanic was unsinkable. The point is only to make it so that an eavesdropper gives away their presence by intercepting (and thereby destroying) some of the key.
IIRC, most quantum schemes contemplate "quantum" transmission (i.e. single photon encoded information) on for the key, while the actual encrypted message is still transmitted through normal means (which would allow for error correction, faster transmission, communications robustness etc.) So, the actual message is still interceptable, and therefore still susceptible to a brute-force attack.
Sure, you might not be able to get realtime intelligence the way the Allies did in WWII, or we did in the Cold War (thanks to tapping into unencrypted underwater cables), but you can still decypher messages given enough time and computing power.
Thus, I repeat, the scheme contemplated here, if I understand it correctly, is no more "unbreakable" than the Titanic was "unsinkable."
The map in the article shows Fairbanks to the East of the US/Canadian Border. I know that Alaska is remote, but I think we would miss that much of it if the Canadians start redrawing maps to their own advantage!
On a different note, the article mentions a tunnel to the Sakhalin (sp?) Islands, enthusiastically funded by Japan. In the 20 year time frame for the Bearing Strait tunnel, extending a tunnel all the way to the Japanese Mainland (Nippon) doesn't seem too far fetched. Forget Tierra Del Fuego to Johanesburg, try New York to Tokyo!
-no sig is good sig
I suggest you put your reading glasses on and take a closer look at the article yourself:
"The first Sony display products to appear will likely be high-end projection systems for commercial digital cinema, simulator training systems and
consumer home theater." (emphasis added)
Other references in the article makes clear that Sony is examining this as the next generation of home video display (high-end).
Just because something comes into law by way of treaty adoption doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be constitutional. The federal government would have no power to enforce an unconstitutional treaty provision (i.e. a treaty that says all Americans must be stripped searched for Hot Grits).
Oh, and IAAL.
I know that no one will read this so long after the orig. post, but: jurors do not have a "constitutional right of jury nullification". In fact, a juror who votes for acquital despite a firm belief in guilt is violating their oath as a juror (yes, in any jurisdiction) and is therefore a criminal. The rub is, you can never prove it, and no right minded court/prosecutor would ever attempt to. But, must dispel the myth: Jury nullification is not a "right". Sorry for the offtopic. automandc
Slashdot Mirror
But here is the problem as I see it. A T1 line just isn't all that much bandwidth when it comes right down to it. Don't quote me (I'm Not A Techie), but its on the order of 1.5Mbps. Thus, if you hooked up 150 apartments, and assume that 10% might be using it simultaneously (a low estimate), you are talking about a meager 150Kbps per user (I'm over simplifying, I know). But anyway, wouldn't this be pretty slow? Anything wider than a T1 is going to drive the cost per unit up enormously, right?
I get DTV DSL (not for much longer) and am switching to a new DSL service at the cost of losing my dry pair (dedicated line), meaning I'll have to share my DSL with my voice line (yuk!). However, even though I know something about this, and I am in a position to actually do something, I just don't see any economical options.
If anyone can suggest options that would make sense for a building of 150 units, I'm very interested! (If this generates enough interest I may resubmit as an Ask Slashdot...).
Yes and No. You are not misinterpreting it in the sense that the right initially attaches to an individual (the author/inventor). The question is whether that right should be alienable, i.e. can it be sold. Some rights in society are deemed to be inalienable, like Jefferson supposedly touted on about in the Declaration of Independence. For instance, you have a right not to be murdered, but you cannot sell someone the right to murder you. Other rights are alienable. You have the right to own land and quietly enjoy it, but you can sell that right to a buyer.
So, you are correct in thinking that the Constitution authorizes Congress to grant certain rights to individuals; however, the Constitution does not require that those rights be inalienable, and in fact, to do so would make no sense in the context of what the framers were trying to accomplish. An author has a right to his work, but even Jefferson et al. knew that he would have to license (i.e. sell) that right to a publisher to have it actually provide benefit to society.
The Constitution generally provides for the creation of alienable rights. Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech (meaning you have a right to speak your mind), but you can sign a contract with a private party agreeing to say only certain things, or refrain from saying other things (e.g. a confidentiality agreement).
(1) Forums/websites etc. are not nearly as immune from discovery (the formal process of discovering information) as they like to pretend. For instance, a recent decision by the Virginia Supreme Court held that AOL is not immune from a subpoena issued by a California court in a libel case.
(2) In order to get discovery from the forum, you will need to initiate a lawsuit. There are two ways you can go. If you have a reasonable idea of who the perpetrator is, you can sue them on theory alone. If you have no idea of the actual identity, you can bring a "John Doe" suit, and then seek third-party discovery to uncover the identity of the defendant.
(3) You need a lawyer to do any of this. Depending on where you are, the severity of the attack, the potential damages, and the ability to easily reach the suspected perpetrator, you may be able to find an attorney to handle this on a contingency basis. Unfortunately, because libel cases are notoriously hard to win, and don't usually pay a lot in damages, this may be very difficult.
(4) if you have business insurance you should check if it covers this type of claim.
A closing point: I have said before that the popularity of the internet didn't alter the fundamentals of libel and slander. It is cases like these (taking the poster at face value) that demonstrate what I mean. Just because the actionable speech is in an online forum instead of in a newspaper, or on the radio doesn't mean that it is fundamentally different than those media. On the flip side, there are significant protections built into the U.S. libel law, and those protections generally discourage all but the most serious and meritorious suits.
Good luck with you problem. It would be interesting to hear greater detail (what forum? what type of business? etc.).
automandc
New York has an adequate public transport network, and Washington D.C.'s is absolutely first-rate
As a New Yorker living in Washington, all I can say is that the D.C. system really bites the big one, whereas the Subway rocks. People mistakenly think the D.C. Metro is "cool" or "good" because it is so aesthetically pleasing (actually, I find it neo-fascist and distrubing). In reality, the design decisions that were necessary to make the system look the way it does (e.g. large cathedral stations requiring deep tunneling) have also made it one of the least functional systems in the world. The Metro is heavily dependent on expensive, and impossible to maintain escalator systems, it is impossible for them to add new track capacity, since it is not possible to reconfigure stations, the cars are too long, with not enough doors...I could go on. Once the Metro is as old as the subway is now (in about 75 years), I am sure it will be just as grubby and "used" as the subway, only much less functional.
As to the main point of the the thread, and the article: I think mass transit is a major investment we should make. I particularly agree with the sentiment that cars have ruined the urban geography of the U.S. Also, anyone who thinks that cars don't require government funding should come observe some of the elections in the D.C. metro area (both Maryland and Virgina have road transportation issues at the top of their local issue hit list). Personally, I walk to work, and keep my car in an underground garage for when I need to go to Home Depot on the weekends.
In terms of the vacuum tubes: any one looking for prior art should go back to Buck Rogers newspaper strip from around 1929/1930.
automandc
For some people, that would probably work fine, but not in my case. Essentially, what you are talking about is using the iMac as a terminal to connect to whatever other machine.
At that level, I might as well just run VirtualPC (OK, well, it might not be that bad). Essentially there are two reasons a VNC wouldn't solve my problem: (1) I already have hardware I don't wish to get rid of (i.e. 19" CRT), and (2) I wouldn't want my use of the PC to be limited by problems/bottlenecks over the LAN and software issues on the Mac. In essence, I want to do what Gamgee5273 suggests, i.e. plug the Mac into a KVM and use it as an external monitor.
Thanks for the creative suggestion though...
In the same vein, does anyone know if it's possible to use the built in LCD panel on an iMac as a monitor for a different computer (i.e. a "video-in" for the iMac monitor)?
I realize that it is probably a hardware hack, but if anyone has ever done this I'd be interested to hear. One of my major reasons for not getting a Mac is that I can't justify (afford) a G4 standalone, but I don't want two monitors on my desk unless I can use both of them simultaneously.
Regular AUI Transcivers were a pain in the rear because they were bulky (they used to stick out of the back of a machine 3-4 inches!), and unless you physically screwed them to the network card they would always fall off when someone moved the table. AAUI connectors had this cool built-in clipping mechanism that held them tight, and the transceivers had a short "tail" so that they could dangle down under the table.
The other nice thing about the AAUI 10b2 transceivers was that they were self-terminating, meaning you didn't need a terminator (a little resister thingy, not a killer robot) if you were at the end of the chain. Then the Web got big, more consumer machines started coming with Ethernet standard, and RJ45 won the battle. Simple wiring is better for home users at the expense of needing an extra device (a hub) to conenct multiple (more than 2) devices.
I worked for Apple in the mid-nineties, when the PPC was new. I watched the entire (almost) death-spiral with particular interest.
I think the article is good, but it is only half the story. Apple is, and always has been, a hardware company. The thing that really screwed Apple during the Gil Amelio years was a total lack of hardware engineering. Apple tried to become a "beige box" company, and tried to have a solution for every problem. It just wouldn't work.
When Steve Jobs came back to the company, there was something like 85 SKUs for hardware systems. For those who aren't familar with marketing/retail, that's a lot. It wasn't like "You can have a 7200 with X Y or Z memory", it was "You can have a 7200 with 16MB, or you can have a 7200 with 32MB or you can have a 7200 with 64MB" and the vendor would have to stock all three. Impossible.
Plus, none of the hardware was exciting. People just plain didn't want to own it. It was like, sure, I can get a beige box that runs 7.5.2, crashes all the time, and has only Word 6 (god, what an abomination), or I can spend half as much, build my own Wintel, and get the newest Office.
The main thing the reintroduction of Steve Jobs did for Apple was put a single vision back in charge of both hardware and software. Even if Copland was further along than NeXT, it was hopelessly mired in a hardware development cycle that was just flawed. One of the main problems Copland faced was not only the need for backward compatibility of software, but the need to support 85 different configurations of non-industry-standard hardware. Impossible. Anyone remember the "Enablers"? God, what a mess.
One of Job's most controversial moves, and perhaps his smartest, was to draw a hard line in the sand at the G3, a processor that was barely even shipping when he announced the spec. Thus, he promised hardware compatibility only back to the currently brand-spanking new machines, guaranteeing that, at the end of a 3-5 year development cycle, the OS would only have to support hardware 3-5 years old. Man, did people scream and moan ("But I just bought an 8600/120!"), but now Apple is back where it needs to be. One of the biggest complaints over Win2K was its trouble with older hardware. MS was able to make Win2K fly by (1) not pitching it to home users, who were more likely to have funky sound cards, and (2) providing a lot of expensive support to hardware manufacturers to write compatible drivers in time for XP.
One pre-Jobs hardware move that Apple took that is now reaping benefits was to eschew its own good but expensive standards for adequate but cheap industry standard. Internal SCSI 4X CD Roms gave way to ATAPI; NuBUS gave way to PCI; etc. This made it even easier for the OS developers to support hardware.
Anyway, in order to understand the whole Apple picture, you have to consider the wretched state the hardware side was in in 1996, and realize that, even if no one bought the cube, they have come a really long way - and that is what made OSX possible.
Before you go too far down this path, consider that any music played in a retail establishment like Starbucks is technically a "public performance" and would need to be licensed for that purpose. The reason SB uses that kind of technology is (probably) because they pay licensing fees as part of the deal, hence the expiration (it is a limited use license).
Most stores don't bother with this, because they are not going to be targeted by the RIAA. However, Starbucks is using music to create an "ambiance" meaning that the music is part of their product, and the patrons are expected to linger and enjoy it. Thus, they are "selling" the music as much as the coffee (even if you don't want to pay for it).
Plugging in your own CD player, or hacking the system in order to play your own music will make Starbucks libel for copyright infringement, which I imagine they wouldn't appreciate.
Sorry, I suggest you forget this endeavor.
More people are killed by reckless drivers who think they have the skill/technology/brains to drive at unsafe speeds, than by murder.
Nothing gets on my nerves more than some yahoo in a way-to-big SUV tailgating me at 80MPH simply because he has no f-ing clue about such concepts as reaction time or stopping distance.
Of course, when his unnecessary and reckless conduct causes my death it is an "accident," while a woman who shoots her abusive husband dead in his sleep is considered a "murderer"
In our federal republic, we have an important principle called comity that requires each state to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of all of the other states. This is written into the Constitution, and is an important statement on the relationship of the states to one another.
The Full Faith And Credit clause can also be considered one of the major causes of the Civil War. See, the Northern States were largely content to overlook slavery so long as it didn't affect them in any big way. However, the Southern States invoked the FFC clause to require Northern States, that didn't have slavery, to return escaped slaves to bondage, making them involuntary accomplices in a practice many of their individual citizens found morall repugnant. Thus, what was a regional issue became a national problem because the states were required to reach a consensus on whether the practice of slavery was morally justified.
In any case, as I was saying, FFC means that, in the U.S., the individual sovereigns (i.e. the state governments) are bound to respect and enforce one another's laws by the Constitution. The Federal courts are only a matter of convenience when it comes to tort claims like libel and defamation (there is no federal claim for libel, it can only be brought under state law).
However, when you talk about citizens of different countries, there is no fundamental principle of respect. All cooperation of law must be by explicit treaty. Treaties are all well and good, but countries rarely interpret treaties to be contrary to their own core principles. In the U.S. if a court finds a treaty to require something different from the Constitution, the Constitution wins. An example is France's refusal to extradite convicted killer Ira Einhorn because he faced the Death Penalty and had been tried in abstentia in Pennsylvania. The French court found that that was not consistent with its own laws, so it refused to carry out the extradition treaty. Another example is the UK's refusal to extradite Pinochet to Spain, despite the insistence by a Spanish Court that they do so.
The problem with treaty organizations like WIPO is that they are attempting to circumvent Court approval by taking the whole process out of the Court systems. Hopefully one day a U.S. Court will stand up and refuse to enforce a WIPO award, but it isn't likely. Plus, with the participation of the registrars, ICANN and WIPO are able to enforce their own awards (to the detriment of individual's property rights) without review by a court of the sovereign that granted the property right. That's confusing, but in essence it is saying that WIPO/ICANN are too much like the "one world government/black helicopters" the nutcases are worried about.
Did that help? If not, I can clarify further.
automan
For further background: The main case on jurisdiction is World Wide Volkswaagen. Here are the facts: Family living in NY state decides to move out west. They sell the house, pack up the family car (A VW) which they bought in NY from a NY Dealer (the National Distributor is in New Jersey). On the way to "the west", they are involved in a terrible accident in Oklahoma. The car, due to a manufacturing defect, catches fire and burns all of the occupants. The question is, can the family sue the NY dealer, New Jersey Distributor and German corporation in Oklahoma state court? The Supreme Court says no (as to the NY Dealer and New Jersey Distributor -- The German corp. settled out of court).
Essentially, unless you purposefully direct your conduct toward a jurisdiction, it is not enough that the results "happen" there. However, the definition of "direct" is liberally construed. Merely placing the car into the "stream of commerce" was not sufficient. However, if they had attempted to sell cars to Oklahoma residents, it would have been a different story.
I have not looked into the Virgina/Connecticut case (yet), but I would (wildly) speculate that the court found some purposeful connection between the Connecticut newspaper and Virginia. This probably has to do with the fact (rightly or wrongly) that Connecticut has decided to export its inmates to Virginia. While the Newspaper isn't responsible for that decision, it creates a connection of public interest between the two states that makes the reading of the Connecticut paper in Virginia much less surprising than in a totally unconnected state. Plus, the Conn. paper is clearly trying to influence prison policy in Virginia.
There is a rough standard on Internet cases beginning to emerge amongst the courts. In the standard analysis, there have been found to be three types of websites: passive, partially-interactive, and fully-interactive (I cannot remember the exact terms the courts have used. Check out the Bank of Mexico (Banamex) v. NarcoNews case referenced on /. a few months ago).
Generally, if you have a simple website that provides a one-way conduit for information, with no commercial purpose (i.e. no ads, or not linked to a commercial publication), it will be very difficult for anyone to get jurisdiction over you anywhere but where you live (where the server is).
If the site allows people to post information and/or exchange information, or is linked to a commercial publication (like the Conn. Newspaper), then it is possible, but not a given, that jurisdiction can be found in a distant place if the libel is sufficiently directed, and other factors exist, to create "minimum contacts."
Finally, if you offer stuff for sale in the other jurisdiction, then you are pretty much out-of-luck...you can be sued there. Which only makes sense. If I order something from Amazon, and don't pay them, they would expect my home state to enforce the law and compel me to pay (i.e. they expect the protection of law where I live). Thus, if they say bad things about me, I should be able to rely on the same law they are counting on to sue them.
Believe it or not, the Internet does not present an enormous problem for the U.S. legal system. The advantage of the commonlaw system in general is that it can adapt and mold itself to new facts (like new technologies) without wholly rejecting old precedent.
automan
I think you will find that U.S. Courts don't pay much attention to what courts in other nations are doing. IIRC, there was a recent decision by a U.S. court to not enforce a British libel judgement because the U.S. Court found it repugnant to the U.S. Constitution.
What people should remember in the international context is that a Court in another country can say anything it wants, it doesn't mean that it has the power to enforce it. (Think of Salman Rushdie who was given a death sentence by the "courts" of Iran...it doesn't mean that Britain or the U.S. agreed to enforce that).
The concept of jurisdiction is directly equatable to the power of a court to compel (appearance, payment, incarceration etc.).
A person overseas may sue me in their own country (say, GB or Australia), but in order to actually collect (provided I don't voluntarily go to Australia or GB, or have assets there), they would have to bring that judgment to an Americancourt to enforce -- providing me with ample opportunity to argue under U.S. law. One of the main reasons a U.S. court will choose not to enforce a foreign judgment is if it believes the foreign court did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment. Thus, if the American court doesn' think the Australian court had jurisdiction, it won't enforce the judgment. What the Australian court will do with an American judgment is up to the Australians (I can't comment on that).
In another words, so long as you are in your own country (i.e., under the protection of your sovereign), no foreign court can do anything to you without your own government's permission (manifested through the Court System in the U.S.).
So even if the Courts of e.g. Iraq decide they have jurisdiction over me, I don't really care, so long as Baghdad isn't on my current vacation itinerary.
Also, I think that, while it is true that large corporations have the power/ability to make individual's lives hell, there are a lot of reasons this will not happen except in the unfortunate (and punishable) rare instance. Many states are adopting so-called SLAPP statutes to penalize plaintiffs who bring frivolous libel suits. Also, corporations (or any litigant) who abuses the court system (including the discovery process) to harrass their opponent faces stiff penalties. (And they are enforced). There are disturbing trends recently of corporations attempting to silence websites that are critical of them, but those efforts are mainly through the way-messed up Trademark line of attack. IP law in general is inimical of free speech. You won't get any argument from me that the IP laws are messed up and need overhaul. Also, the creation of WIPO and other "international" arbitration mechanisms screws up the balance of the courts.
I won't defend ICANN or WIPO.
automan
automan
1) This is not a "new" idea, nor is it limited to the Internet. Believe it or not, there are parallels that can be drawn between the internet and the off-line world. This case seems not too different from the (in)famous Hustler case, in which Hustler Magazine was sued in New Hampshire, despite the fact that very few of its magazines were sold there.
2) Jurisdiction does not equal liability. Just because the VA court found personal jurisdiction over the defendants, does not mean they will be found guilty. As someone points out below, it is very very difficult to win an libel suit against a Media defendant. Several doctrines have been developed over the years that apply equally to the print and online worlds. This case sounds very similar to the facts in New York Times v. Sullivan, which sets the bar very high for public officials who sue newspapers.
3) On the flip side, just because I publish on the internet should not be license to dispense with all modicum of responsible reporting. Although I do not know the facts of this case, it sounds like the defendants will probably win, since they are reporting on the opinions of others. However, one of the ongoing complaints around the world (including here in the USA) about the American press is that they don't always report stories fairly. (Ask the Palestinians for instance). The basic (and difficult to establish) doctrine of liability for libel and defamation is a minimum check against irresponsible reporting.
3) Believe it or not, bad reporting can be very damaging to people who don't necessarily deserve to be pilloried. The number of cases of people who have been tarred and feathered in the press is too many to count. There are standards of reporting, and there is good practice in journalism. Reporters should be held to them whether they print online or on the bathroom walls.
4) This case is in Federal Court for a reason. One of the fundamental rights (Article III of the U.S. Const.) is that citizens of different states can sue each other in the federal courts; it's called "diversity" jurisdiction. The purpose is to ensure that, for instance, a Connecticut reporter doesn't find his fate entirely in the hands of an elected Virginia State judge. The federal courts (don't laugh) are expected to be somewhat more even-keeled than the unpredictable state courts. With a few notable exceptions (DeCSS, Napster) that actually tends to be true.
5) Jurisdiction does not equal liability II: Another issue often overlooked by non-lawyers is the law applied (i.e. the "Choice of law"). Even if the defendants win their motion to have the case dismissed or transferred to Connecticut, the plaintiff can still sue them, they would just have to do it in Connecticut. However, the law of libel, and Choice of law doctrine in 90% of the states says that, when an interstate libel occurs, you apply the law of the state where the most harm occurred. Since the defendant's reputation is largely in Virginia, you would apply Virginia law...even if you are in Connecticut state court (or federal court in Conn, which is where you would be under diversity jurisdiction).
6) The advantage that people are clamoring for here is that online defendants should be allowed to snipe from their home jurisdictions across the internet at whatever target is convenient. If the target of a possibly unjustified, and unfair, attack wants to do anything to defend themselves, they have to do so at great expense in a distant jurisdiction. Think about that, who does that really hurt? It hurts the little guy who can't afford to take his grievance a long way away. Large corporations can litigate anywhere, but individuals cannot. It is exactly this type of jurisdiction limiting that large corporations fight for, and usually sneak into contracts with their customers, so that they can avoid the majority of suits that would be brought against them. (For instance, "I would sue XYZ Corp. for their crappy product, but the license agreement says that all suits have to be brought in California, and I live in New York... I just can't afford it.")
In short, don't jump to conclusions just because the defendant happens to use the internet and the plaintiff appears to be some 18th century small-town southern lawman. People who know how to use the internet can be bad too, and when they are, the law should apply to them equally.
And IAAL.
Flame away,
automan
I personally am a strong advocate of Sony's WEGA XBR series. For 1/3 the $$$ of plasma, (providing you have the place to put the beast) I just don't think you can get a better TV for the money. I've had the 36" for 2 years, and couldn't be happier.
automan
-no sig is good sig.
It seems to me that, if this article is correct, the advancement of this form of cryptography is probably no more "unbreakable" than the Titanic was unsinkable. The point is only to make it so that an eavesdropper gives away their presence by intercepting (and thereby destroying) some of the key.
IIRC, most quantum schemes contemplate "quantum" transmission (i.e. single photon encoded information) on for the key, while the actual encrypted message is still transmitted through normal means (which would allow for error correction, faster transmission, communications robustness etc.) So, the actual message is still interceptable, and therefore still susceptible to a brute-force attack.
Sure, you might not be able to get realtime intelligence the way the Allies did in WWII, or we did in the Cold War (thanks to tapping into unencrypted underwater cables), but you can still decypher messages given enough time and computing power.
Thus, I repeat, the scheme contemplated here, if I understand it correctly, is no more "unbreakable" than the Titanic was "unsinkable."
automan(dc)
no sig is good sig.
CowboyNeal Saves the Day!
The map in the article shows Fairbanks to the East of the US/Canadian Border. I know that Alaska is remote, but I think we would miss that much of it if the Canadians start redrawing maps to their own advantage! On a different note, the article mentions a tunnel to the Sakhalin (sp?) Islands, enthusiastically funded by Japan. In the 20 year time frame for the Bearing Strait tunnel, extending a tunnel all the way to the Japanese Mainland (Nippon) doesn't seem too far fetched. Forget Tierra Del Fuego to Johanesburg, try New York to Tokyo! -no sig is good sig
Other references in the article makes clear that Sony is examining this as the next generation of home video display (high-end).
Just because something comes into law by way of treaty adoption doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be constitutional. The federal government would have no power to enforce an unconstitutional treaty provision (i.e. a treaty that says all Americans must be stripped searched for Hot Grits). Oh, and IAAL.
they need to get out in the sun more (or someone should invent a computer monitor that tans you while you code)
I know that no one will read this so long after the orig. post, but: jurors do not have a "constitutional right of jury nullification". In fact, a juror who votes for acquital despite a firm belief in guilt is violating their oath as a juror (yes, in any jurisdiction) and is therefore a criminal. The rub is, you can never prove it, and no right minded court/prosecutor would ever attempt to. But, must dispel the myth: Jury nullification is not a "right". Sorry for the offtopic. automandc