Once again it's time to start something up?? WTF? I think you missed the boat. Look House bill HR133 and Senate bill S321 are both designed and to limit the exposure of small ISP's. Ant the whole regulatory scheme is crafted my the bigger monopolies. This is in the interest of STABLE service and we won't have to re-invent the wheel, we invented it just fine the last time.
Look, let the big guys play the way they need to, they will prevail in the end and in the end we'll have better service at lower prices. as the MCI board said to Covad:
Show me the facts! Do you have a link? This to me seems factually incorrect.
No flame intended but snarking at them losing their OEM market has nothing to do with it and Apples notebook line could give a rats ass about NVidia. MS and NVIDIA have no relationship at all. WTF? Are you a troll? Unfortunately ow I have bitten, so maybe I'm just being a chump, but sinece I've already responed , I'll finish.
Look, your figures don't add up. Matrox, ATI etc. have much less than 80% ofg the market. They are more around 7% and to top it off everyone including pegasus and gen-h are in the mix. and gaining marketshre quickly, especially being supported by OpenSoure. Look at KPW, thy pulled 800% growth last year in their direct competitiion with NVIDIA. I believe you need to check your facts.
I don't think he/she's dumb. NVidia dethrowned (sp) them using IP developed and consolidated by leverage buyout, not a better R&D pipeline. Check your facts. NVidia is not the biggest player on the block , but they are known for their buy vs. build mentality. This is a known formula that always seems to end in bankruptcy.
On Dec. 19, 1991, Southern Local and Northern Local school districts filed a lawsuit against the state in the Perry County Common Pleas Court on behalf of Nathan DeRolph, a sophomore in the Northern Local school district. The suit alleged that Pennsylvania's public school funding system was unconstitutional. At the conclusion of the case, Judge Linton Lewis, Jr. ruled that Pennsylvania's system of school funding was unconstitutional. The decision was appealed, and on Aug. 30, 1995 the Pennsylvania Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed Judge Lewis' decision. The case was then appealed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the case on Jan. 17, 1996.
(Back to top)
DeRolph I: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's First Decision
On March 24, 1997, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania's public school financing system violates Section 2, Article VI of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which mandates a thorough and efficient system of common school throughout the state. This decision is now known as "DeRolph I."
The Supreme Court's majority opinion cited these specific statutes unconstitutional:
Operation of the school funding program;
The emphasis of Pennsylvania's school funding system on property tax may no longer be used as the primary source of funding;
The requirement of school districts borrowing through the spending reserve and emergency school assistance loan programs; and
A lack of sufficient funding in the General Assembly's biennium budget for the construction and maintenance of public school buildings.
The Supreme Court would not retain jurisdiction of the case because it is the trial court's responsibility to rule on the constitutionality of the enacted legislation and render an opinion. Either party could then appeal the trial court's decision directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
(Back to top)
The State's Response
After DeRolph I, the General Assembly introduced many different types of legislation and ideas to create a new educational funding system.
Joint subcommittees were formed to create recommendations and many senators and representatives developed their own recommendations. On Jan. 28, 1998, the legislative leaders from the House and the Senate announced a school funding plan. The plan was placed in House Bill 650 (HB 650), and the funding component was a joint resolution that authorized the issuance of general obligation bonds to pay for school facilities. The joint resolution was placed on the ballot and passed by voters on Nov. 2, 1999.
Additional legislation was passed to support the new school funding system. Below is a list of key legislation for the school funding system:
Senate Bill 102: Created the Pennsylvania School Facilities Commission and provided $300 million in appropriations. Signed May 20, 1997.
Senate Bill 55: Established school district performance standards. Signed August 22, 1997.
House Bill 412: Provided for fiscal accountability by requiring school districts to maintain budget reserves, set-asides for building maintenance, textbooks and instructional materials and created the school district solvency assistance fund. Signed August 22, 1997.
House Bill 650: Outlined the methodology for determining the base cost of an education for 1999 through 2004 and provided $170 million in appropriations for school facilities construction, including an additional $30 million for the Emergency Repair Program. Signed February 13, 1998.
House Bill 1: Implemented the PennsylvaniaReads initiative that provided reading grants and volunteer tutors to help youngsters from kindergarten through fourth grade improve their reading skills. Signed March 30, 1999.
House Bill 282: This bill marked the first time the state created an education budget separate from its main operating budget as required in HB 650. Signed June 30, 1999.
Senate Joint Resolution 1: Authorized issuance of general obligation bonds to pay for school facilities. Approved by voters November 2, 1999.
Senate Bill 192: Committed $2.5 billion over 12 years for school construction and repair. The funding was a result of the money received by the state from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. Signed March 3, 2000.
Click here for a complete list of legislative activity on school funding.
On February 26, 1999 Judge Lewis ruled the state's response unconstitutional and the case was appealed directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
(Back to top)
DeRolph II: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Second Decision
On May 11, 2000, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that the state's response to the 1997 DeRolph case had not met the "thorough and efficient" standard set in Section 2, Article VI of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Supreme Court majority cited seven specific areas to be addressed by the state:
Continued reliance on local property taxes as a primary means to fund Pennsylvania's schools has not been specifically addressed.
The cost of an adequate education formula that was revised by the state has structural deficiencies and may not reflect the actual amount per pupil that is required to provide an adequate education.
Continuing attention must be given to the mechanism implemented to fund the construction of new school facilities and to repair older, decaying school buildings, until the task is complete. Additionally, requiring local districts to pass levies as a prerequisite for obtaining state funding should be reviewed.
The School Solvency Assistance Fund established by House Bill 412 must be reevaluated, so that funds are available and used only in case of extreme emergencies.
The unfunded mandates in House Bill 412 and Senate Bill 55 must be addressed and immediately funded.
The phenomenon known as phantom revenue (when the growing property wealth of a school district gives the illusion of an increasing revenue stream that is not realized by the school district for a variety of reasons) has not been eliminated.
Strict, statewide academic guidelines must be developed and rigorously followed throughout all of Pennsylvania's public school districts.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will retain jurisdiction of the case and continue it until June 15, 2001, when the state will need to prove they have sufficiently addressed the issues listed above.
Your post speaks to a marrage of business and education. They are one in the same. The business of governement that is. If the UUS government (the biggest business) encouraged a more socialist view, this would never have happened. The people of the US are under the false impression that they live in a democracy. They don't. They live in a republic. Big difference. Democrocy has failed time and time again throughout history, why do the arrogant americans beleive it will succeed this time? Because they are mainly steeped deep in the fundamental beleif that they, as citizens can overcome and do it on their own. Fact is they can't. You need a powerful governement to assist and pave the way for the citizens to succeed. The americans beleive the government is only there to build roads and basic infrastructure. You have the tools use them!
Not that the answers weren't up to par, but more that the response out of all the candidates was poor. These were obviously written by an aide and only reflect more campaign rehdoric.
Was going to happen when they work with a company called ZapMe. If I was to get into a business relatinship with we'regoingtofuckyourealbad Inc., I guess I'd have to figure going in that I was going to take it in the shorts.
This points out a fundemental problem with the U.S. education system. Those folks in the U.S. are being taught by teachers and administrators that are just plain stupid. WTF did they think was going to happen. Now after they invested 4K US, what are they going to do next? I'll bet they go and hire a consultant for another 4K US and blow even moe education money. It''s a shame that the US educates it's folks with teachers that carpool from the trailor park each day and that little johnnies teacher is also trailor park patty, just on her day job because that's the only caliber of people they can find that will work for 20K US a year. Hell, garbage men in my country get more than that. Wake up america, if you want to compete, educate your population. Even at the higher levels of education, even up to post grad studies, the US pales comapred to most 2nd world countries.
This would rock for day to day transportation. All in all with purchase+maintenance+fuel-insurance It would be fairly commperable to what we're riding around in today. Except of course the dilemma of taking the kids to the Saturday socer games.
The revolutionary aspects of nanotechnology should force the law to change prospectively or at least provide a mechanism to properly address nanotechnology. All too often, the law is one of the last societal institutions to adapt to technological advances. Improvements in communication and societal consciousness particularly with the revolutionary advances in technology that the world is experiencing should make prospective change feasible.
Regulation and the ethical considerations in the computer law and biotechnology demonstrate the problems that can occur with revolutionary new technology which contain new concepts. The window of this opportunity may soon be too late as every day passes. New companies are being incorporated that focus exclusively on nanotechnology and revolutionary advances in this area are likely to occur at any given moment. These advances, once they begin occurring, will likely accelerate much faster than past technologies and lead into what is known as the "Nanotechnology Revolution."
Although the prophetic vision of Drexler's coming era of nanotechnology was published over fifteen years ago, although the Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to Smalley a few years ago for his nanotechnological achievement, although the brilliant minds such as Ralph Merkle at Xerox PARC and now Xyvex Corp. have been long working hard at designing atomic manipulators, although leading scientists in the field, such as Robert Freitas have authored volumes of texts on the applications of nanotechnology to medicine, although all these achievements and many others have been occurring for over a decade, there has only been one legal article devoted to the subject and it was published over five years ago.1
As a matter of fact, the term "nanotechnology" only appears in thirteen articles in all the published legal scholarly materials and law reviews in the United States. Thus, despite the improved foresight and opportunity of prospective change and all the legal discussion of biotechnology and cloning, discussion of nanotechnology in the legal arena is almost nonexistent at a point in time that is dangerously close to revolutionary nanotechnological developments. Although the legal field and scientific fields are akin to night and day, integration and understanding between the two fields are crucial and discussion of the legal implications of nanotechnology is necessary immediately for properly developed and educated regulation. One particular area of nanotechnology that necessitates prospective regulation is a particularly interesting class of nanotechnology termed "replicating nanotechnology."
This is perhaps one of the more important classes of technology in all of man's technological development. Although nanotechnology will change our all our lives as we know them, it does not necessarily follow that changes in the law are that revolutionary. It might require only slight modification and perhaps the law is already present and we simply need to readjust it accordingly. As Amelia Boss, is a law professor at Temple University School of Law and a member of the Permanent Editorial Board of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"),2 has stated in our discussions about the legal implications of nanotechnology: "It is always easiest to say Ithis is new technology; we need new law.' The harder, and more interesting challenge, is to demonstrate how the new technology simply repackages old problems, and how concepts that have developed over the centuries really do work when applied to new situations." Professor Boss's assertion could be true, at least in theory, however, nanotechnology will likely necessitate a revolution in legal adaption.
Nanotechnology law will be unlike biotechnology law, computer law or any other type of revolutionary technology. One will not be able to simply take in account all existing law and analyze where in the current body of existing law changes or additions will occur with nanotechnology. Initially, this will be possible and inevitable, but Nanotechnology will replace all manufacturing processes for all present goods, not only producing them at a higher rate, but goods and technology that will be able to respond to an almost infinite amount of properties or tasks that are logistically possible. When it begins to be applied to every aspect of our lives, it will affect every component of our lives and law. Computers are a range of products. The automobile is a range of products. The assembly line was applicable to a range of products. Fire is even applicable to a range of uses. However, nanotechnology will be applicable to almost all processes, even biological. The law will not be able to respond in a similar manner as it has in the past. Before analyzing replicating nanotechnology, it is important to understand the replicating aspect in isolation before for evaluating the nanotechnological aspect and to distance the distraction of the implications of this newly emerging nanotechnology, which, although it is becoming more and more advanced, the lay person still knows very little about it. The replicating aspect can be first applied in discussing the implications to replicating micro or macrotechnology. This case study approach is irrelevant to analyzing replicating nanotechnology, because they are likely to be developed in conjunction with one another, however, it provides an excellent basis for a mental exercise in understanding the sometimes unfathomable impact of not only nanotechnology, but self-replicating nanotechnology.
Disclamer: because I'm employed by N-P-13's parent company, I'm not going to identify them direcly.
I believe you are referencing Northern District of California, who ruled on the N-P-13 issues.
N-P-13 is an offering from a software development and publishing company. Among other things, the company makes educational versions of their software, which are available to students and educators at a significant discount. Defendant SIDIF buys and sells computer hardware and software on the open market. N-P-13's parent company alleges that SIDIF improperly acquired an educational version of N-P-13 software, which it then adulterated and sold as full retail versions to non-educational users. In its complaint, N-P-13 alleged that the agreement was a licensing agreement and not an actual sale, that SIDIF infringed N-P-13 copyright, and that SIDIF infringed N-P-13 trademark.
The court found that the Off Campus Reseller Agreement, which governs the educational seller's relationship with N-P-13's parent company, was a licensing agreement and not an actual sale. Because the first sale doctrine, implemented by the defendant, is triggered only by an actual sale, and because a copyright owner does not forfeit his right to distribution by entering into a licensing agreement, this factor weighs in favor of the plaintiff. The OCRA is a licensing agreement. Thus, contrary to SIDIF's assertions, the OCRA does not represent a first sale between the seller and N-P-13. SIDIF's failure to trace its N-P-13 products to a sale renders the first sale doctrine inapplicable and subjects SIDIF to potential liability under copyright law.
The court also found that SIDIF committed copyright infringement as a matter of law under Section 501(a). By obtaining Adobe software from a party to an N-P-13 licensing agreement, N-P-13 was bound by any restrictions imposed by that agreement. Thus, SIDIF committed copyright infringement.
Lastly, the court found that SIDIF did not infringe N-P-13's trademark. Although N-P-13 attempts to parallel its case to Shell Oil, the Court found Shell Oil distinguishable. The court found that the mere distribution by N-P-13 of admittedly unadulterated software is insufficient to establish trademark infringement.
In N-P-13's parent company, v. N-P-13 Inc. the Northern District of California held that the agreement under which software was distributed was a licensing agreement, not subject to the Copyright Act provision that copyright did not extend to resale of copyrighted items following their initial sale. The court also found that the license agreement applied to the distributor, even though it was not signatory. Last, the court held that the distributor committed copyright infringement by violating the licensing agreement.
The nanoplotter is designed to plot holograms, gratings, masks, etc. with extremely high precision and resolution combined with high speed. The plotter writes with a krypton or an N-P-now19 laser on a coated glass master. The system has high plotting flexibility. The plotter consists of a spindle and a linear stage. Both axes use air bearings, direct drive motors and high-resolution encoders. Plotting is done in a polar inchfan coordinate system (data are remapped to this coordinate system from common formats). The plotter writes with an HeNe or a krypton laser that is modulated with bragg cells. A focus detector keeps the beam in focus on the glass master. The plot size is only limited by the glass master, which can have a diameter of up to 160 mm. Data can be read in common formats and coordinate systems. Plotting is done in a polar system. The resolution is dependent on the size of the hologram. Small holograms can have extremely high resolution. Mechanical/electronical resolution of 100 nm is possible. The optical resolution is better than 600 nm. 256 levels of grey-scale can be achieved.
The use of MALDI or 22320" TOF has a fundamental impact on the analytical process, because it detects biomolecules directly and therefore labels and separation steps are not needed. MALDI 22320"-TOF MS directly measures molecules during time-of-flight according to the difference in molecular weights, combining separation, detection and characterization in one single step. Characterization of a molecule is obtained because the weight of a molecule is a physical standard and allows unambiguous identification. This combined process of separation, detection and characterization takes place in less than milliseconds because the molecular ions are flying through the high vacuum without resistance, and, with GPL'd bioinformatics software, the signals are immediately recorded as electronic signals in the computer, ready for further data mining and archiving.
Unless we do get some new techniques then we will eventually hit the quantum barrier, but probably still later than expected.
Sir, In many industries we are already there. I work with a firm that spends a great deal of time with rotary dynamics. Currently we are nowhere near the quantum barrier however, the leaps made in using the 1860' rotaryfan algorithms in applied dynamics is producing tremendous results. The industry standard components you referenced are still the baseline, however when implemented with non-standard power and AI systems to control them, (sort of a neural network) the performance of the rotary response is greatly acheived. We were close to reaching the hof threasholds, however the glass ceiling we were shooting for was re-assessed and it looks like we have a bit further to go. In any event the SE architechture does appear to have great advantages over conventional methods.
that the word "perpetual" only exists in the "Modifications" section, and not under "Grant of Rights"
To be honest, I'm really not sure, however I do know the fine print is not your standard GPL wording, this had me wondering about the future of the program well before I left.
Just because the base binaries are covered under the phrase you quoted, mandatory tools and other components such as "Spin" are not. Please don't flame me, I heard about this being posted from a friend who thought I'd be interested so I thought I'd share a littel background.
This is not as innocent as they sound in the press release or on their Plan 9 site. You would propably get a better deal working through a third party such as Vita Nuova or one of the others who will more than likely have press releases out tomorrow. If nothing else, you can download the binaries, but to really use them with the horsepower expected, you'll need the tools. These are not GPL'd and without them, you may as well be running generic Linux from LinuxOne.
I worked with this program when I left Lucent's SW development division when Lance Boxer came in from MCI. This "Sweet deal" is not so sweet when you really know what's behind it. BL has done this before and they are doing it again. There is quite a bit on fine print in the licensing, basically stating that use in any other than a "racreational" (read home) workstation is prohibited under the agreement.
What this means in laymans terms is that if you use Plan 9 ib any sort of business environment, including not for profit corporations, expect to pay bigtime for the honor. Please make checks payable to Lucent. The system wasn't even designed for "recreational use" with it's single protocol to refer to and communicate with processes, programs, and data, including aspects of both the user interface and the network. In this way the system provides a uniform means of access to diverse computing resources, which may be distributed across a network of servers, terminals, and other devices. IMO, this is true and blue developed solely for exploiting the Open Source community and they current open source hype that the press is giving companies that support it. This isn't BSD, and this isn't the next great thing. This is a stripped down *nix environment where you will need to go back to BL and Lucent time after time. Not a great move for BL.
I just grabbed my multimeter and see about 1.5M Ohms, so the max. current that would flow from a 9V battery through me is 6 microamps, even though the battery will probably deliver at least an amp into a short circuit.
Only on a good day, most of the time it would be substancially less.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but in our society(ies) it seems to be simpler to just not write anything that you wouldn't want others to read.
That's because Windows sux.
Look, let the big guys play the way they need to, they will prevail in the end and in the end we'll have better service at lower prices. as the MCI board said to Covad:
ALL YOUR CLEC ARE BELONG TO US!
No flame intended but snarking at them losing their OEM market has nothing to do with it and Apples notebook line could give a rats ass about NVidia. MS and NVIDIA have no relationship at all. WTF? Are you a troll? Unfortunately ow I have bitten, so maybe I'm just being a chump, but sinece I've already responed , I'll finish.
Look, your figures don't add up. Matrox, ATI etc. have much less than 80% ofg the market. They are more around 7% and to top it off everyone including pegasus and gen-h are in the mix. and gaining marketshre quickly, especially being supported by OpenSoure. Look at KPW, thy pulled 800% growth last year in their direct competitiion with NVIDIA. I believe you need to check your facts.
It scares me too. Any decrerase in competition (ha, I said tit) is bad, and will ultimately lead to higher prices and less selection for us.
Just my 2 cents.
The Beginning
On Dec. 19, 1991, Southern Local and Northern Local school districts filed a lawsuit against the state in the Perry County Common Pleas Court on behalf of Nathan DeRolph, a sophomore in the Northern Local school district. The suit alleged that Pennsylvania's public school funding system was unconstitutional. At the conclusion of the case, Judge Linton Lewis, Jr. ruled that Pennsylvania's system of school funding was unconstitutional. The decision was appealed, and on Aug. 30, 1995 the Pennsylvania Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed Judge Lewis' decision. The case was then appealed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the case on Jan. 17, 1996.
(Back to top)
DeRolph I: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's First Decision
On March 24, 1997, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania's public school financing system violates Section 2, Article VI of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which mandates a thorough and efficient system of common school throughout the state. This decision is now known as "DeRolph I."
The Supreme Court's majority opinion cited these specific statutes unconstitutional:
(Back to top)
The State's Response
After DeRolph I, the General Assembly introduced many different types of legislation and ideas to create a new educational funding system.
Joint subcommittees were formed to create recommendations and many senators and representatives developed their own recommendations. On Jan. 28, 1998, the legislative leaders from the House and the Senate announced a school funding plan. The plan was placed in House Bill 650 (HB 650), and the funding component was a joint resolution that authorized the issuance of general obligation bonds to pay for school facilities. The joint resolution was placed on the ballot and passed by voters on Nov. 2, 1999.
Additional legislation was passed to support the new school funding system. Below is a list of key legislation for the school funding system:
Click here for a complete list of legislative activity on school funding.
On February 26, 1999 Judge Lewis ruled the state's response unconstitutional and the case was appealed directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
(Back to top)
DeRolph II: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Second Decision
On May 11, 2000, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that the state's response to the 1997 DeRolph case had not met the "thorough and efficient" standard set in Section 2, Article VI of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Supreme Court majority cited seven specific areas to be addressed by the state:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will retain jurisdiction of the case and continue it until June 15, 2001, when the state will need to prove they have sufficiently addressed the issues listed above.
(Back to top)
Your post speaks to a marrage of business and education. They are one in the same. The business of governement that is. If the UUS government (the biggest business) encouraged a more socialist view, this would never have happened. The people of the US are under the false impression that they live in a democracy. They don't. They live in a republic. Big difference. Democrocy has failed time and time again throughout history, why do the arrogant americans beleive it will succeed this time? Because they are mainly steeped deep in the fundamental beleif that they, as citizens can overcome and do it on their own. Fact is they can't. You need a powerful governement to assist and pave the way for the citizens to succeed. The americans beleive the government is only there to build roads and basic infrastructure. You have the tools use them!
Not that the answers weren't up to par, but more that the response out of all the candidates was poor. These were obviously written by an aide and only reflect more campaign rehdoric.
This points out a fundemental problem with the U.S. education system. Those folks in the U.S. are being taught by teachers and administrators that are just plain stupid. WTF did they think was going to happen. Now after they invested 4K US, what are they going to do next? I'll bet they go and hire a consultant for another 4K US and blow even moe education money. It''s a shame that the US educates it's folks with teachers that carpool from the trailor park each day and that little johnnies teacher is also trailor park patty, just on her day job because that's the only caliber of people they can find that will work for 20K US a year. Hell, garbage men in my country get more than that. Wake up america, if you want to compete, educate your population. Even at the higher levels of education, even up to post grad studies, the US pales comapred to most 2nd world countries.
This would rock for day to day transportation. All in all with purchase+maintenance+fuel-insurance It would be fairly commperable to what we're riding around in today. Except of course the dilemma of taking the kids to the Saturday socer games.
Regulation and the ethical considerations in the computer law and biotechnology demonstrate the problems that can occur with revolutionary new technology which contain new concepts. The window of this opportunity may soon be too late as every day passes. New companies are being incorporated that focus exclusively on nanotechnology and revolutionary advances in this area are likely to occur at any given moment. These advances, once they begin occurring, will likely accelerate much faster than past technologies and lead into what is known as the "Nanotechnology Revolution."
Although the prophetic vision of Drexler's coming era of nanotechnology was published over fifteen years ago, although the Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to Smalley a few years ago for his nanotechnological achievement, although the brilliant minds such as Ralph Merkle at Xerox PARC and now Xyvex Corp. have been long working hard at designing atomic manipulators, although leading scientists in the field, such as Robert Freitas have authored volumes of texts on the applications of nanotechnology to medicine, although all these achievements and many others have been occurring for over a decade, there has only been one legal article devoted to the subject and it was published over five years ago.1
As a matter of fact, the term "nanotechnology" only appears in thirteen articles in all the published legal scholarly materials and law reviews in the United States. Thus, despite the improved foresight and opportunity of prospective change and all the legal discussion of biotechnology and cloning, discussion of nanotechnology in the legal arena is almost nonexistent at a point in time that is dangerously close to revolutionary nanotechnological developments. Although the legal field and scientific fields are akin to night and day, integration and understanding between the two fields are crucial and discussion of the legal implications of nanotechnology is necessary immediately for properly developed and educated regulation. One particular area of nanotechnology that necessitates prospective regulation is a particularly interesting class of nanotechnology termed "replicating nanotechnology."
This is perhaps one of the more important classes of technology in all of man's technological development. Although nanotechnology will change our all our lives as we know them, it does not necessarily follow that changes in the law are that revolutionary. It might require only slight modification and perhaps the law is already present and we simply need to readjust it accordingly. As Amelia Boss, is a law professor at Temple University School of Law and a member of the Permanent Editorial Board of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"),2 has stated in our discussions about the legal implications of nanotechnology: "It is always easiest to say Ithis is new technology; we need new law.' The harder, and more interesting challenge, is to demonstrate how the new technology simply repackages old problems, and how concepts that have developed over the centuries really do work when applied to new situations." Professor Boss's assertion could be true, at least in theory, however, nanotechnology will likely necessitate a revolution in legal adaption.
Nanotechnology law will be unlike biotechnology law, computer law or any other type of revolutionary technology. One will not be able to simply take in account all existing law and analyze where in the current body of existing law changes or additions will occur with nanotechnology. Initially, this will be possible and inevitable, but Nanotechnology will replace all manufacturing processes for all present goods, not only producing them at a higher rate, but goods and technology that will be able to respond to an almost infinite amount of properties or tasks that are logistically possible. When it begins to be applied to every aspect of our lives, it will affect every component of our lives and law. Computers are a range of products. The automobile is a range of products. The assembly line was applicable to a range of products. Fire is even applicable to a range of uses. However, nanotechnology will be applicable to almost all processes, even biological. The law will not be able to respond in a similar manner as it has in the past. Before analyzing replicating nanotechnology, it is important to understand the replicating aspect in isolation before for evaluating the nanotechnological aspect and to distance the distraction of the implications of this newly emerging nanotechnology, which, although it is becoming more and more advanced, the lay person still knows very little about it. The replicating aspect can be first applied in discussing the implications to replicating micro or macrotechnology. This case study approach is irrelevant to analyzing replicating nanotechnology, because they are likely to be developed in conjunction with one another, however, it provides an excellent basis for a mental exercise in understanding the sometimes unfathomable impact of not only nanotechnology, but self-replicating nanotechnology.
I believe you are referencing Northern District of California, who ruled on the N-P-13 issues.
N-P-13 is an offering from a software development and publishing company. Among other things, the company makes educational versions of their software, which are available to students and educators at a significant discount. Defendant SIDIF buys and sells computer hardware and software on the open market. N-P-13's parent company alleges that SIDIF improperly acquired an educational version of N-P-13 software, which it then adulterated and sold as full retail versions to non-educational users. In its complaint, N-P-13 alleged that the agreement was a licensing agreement and not an actual sale, that SIDIF infringed N-P-13 copyright, and that SIDIF infringed N-P-13 trademark.
The court found that the Off Campus Reseller Agreement, which governs the educational seller's relationship with N-P-13's parent company, was a licensing agreement and not an actual sale. Because the first sale doctrine, implemented by the defendant, is triggered only by an actual sale, and because a copyright owner does not forfeit his right to distribution by entering into a licensing agreement, this factor weighs in favor of the plaintiff. The OCRA is a licensing agreement. Thus, contrary to SIDIF's assertions, the OCRA does not represent a first sale between the seller and N-P-13. SIDIF's failure to trace its N-P-13 products to a sale renders the first sale doctrine inapplicable and subjects SIDIF to potential liability under copyright law.
The court also found that SIDIF committed copyright infringement as a matter of law under Section 501(a). By obtaining Adobe software from a party to an N-P-13 licensing agreement, N-P-13 was bound by any restrictions imposed by that agreement. Thus, SIDIF committed copyright infringement.
Lastly, the court found that SIDIF did not infringe N-P-13's trademark. Although N-P-13 attempts to parallel its case to Shell Oil, the Court found Shell Oil distinguishable. The court found that the mere distribution by N-P-13 of admittedly unadulterated software is insufficient to establish trademark infringement.
In N-P-13's parent company, v. N-P-13 Inc. the Northern District of California held that the agreement under which software was distributed was a licensing agreement, not subject to the Copyright Act provision that copyright did not extend to resale of copyrighted items following their initial sale. The court also found that the license agreement applied to the distributor, even though it was not signatory. Last, the court held that the distributor committed copyright infringement by violating the licensing agreement.
The nanoplotter is designed to plot holograms, gratings, masks, etc. with extremely high precision and resolution combined with high speed. The plotter writes with a krypton or an N-P-now19 laser on a coated glass master. The system has high plotting flexibility. The plotter consists of a spindle and a linear stage. Both axes use air bearings, direct drive motors and high-resolution encoders. Plotting is done in a polar inchfan coordinate system (data are remapped to this coordinate system from common formats). The plotter writes with an HeNe or a krypton laser that is modulated with bragg cells. A focus detector keeps the beam in focus on the glass master. The plot size is only limited by the glass master, which can have a diameter of up to 160 mm. Data can be read in common formats and coordinate systems. Plotting is done in a polar system. The resolution is dependent on the size of the hologram. Small holograms can have extremely high resolution. Mechanical/electronical resolution of 100 nm is possible. The optical resolution is better than 600 nm. 256 levels of grey-scale can be achieved.
The use of MALDI or 22320" TOF has a fundamental impact on the analytical process, because it detects biomolecules directly and therefore labels and separation steps are not needed. MALDI 22320"-TOF MS directly measures molecules during time-of-flight according to the difference in molecular weights, combining separation, detection and characterization in one single step. Characterization of a molecule is obtained because the weight of a molecule is a physical standard and allows unambiguous identification. This combined process of separation, detection and characterization takes place in less than milliseconds because the molecular ions are flying through the high vacuum without resistance, and, with GPL'd bioinformatics software, the signals are immediately recorded as electronic signals in the computer, ready for further data mining and archiving.
Sir, In many industries we are already there. I work with a firm that spends a great deal of time with rotary dynamics. Currently we are nowhere near the quantum barrier however, the leaps made in using the 1860' rotaryfan algorithms in applied dynamics is producing tremendous results. The industry standard components you referenced are still the baseline, however when implemented with non-standard power and AI systems to control them, (sort of a neural network) the performance of the rotary response is greatly acheived. We were close to reaching the hof threasholds, however the glass ceiling we were shooting for was re-assessed and it looks like we have a bit further to go. In any event the SE architechture does appear to have great advantages over conventional methods.
Regards
To be honest, I'm really not sure, however I do know the fine print is not your standard GPL wording, this had me wondering about the future of the program well before I left.
This is not as innocent as they sound in the press release or on their Plan 9 site. You would propably get a better deal working through a third party such as Vita Nuova or one of the others who will more than likely have press releases out tomorrow. If nothing else, you can download the binaries, but to really use them with the horsepower expected, you'll need the tools. These are not GPL'd and without them, you may as well be running generic Linux from LinuxOne.
What this means in laymans terms is that if you use Plan 9 ib any sort of business environment, including not for profit corporations, expect to pay bigtime for the honor. Please make checks payable to Lucent. The system wasn't even designed for "recreational use" with it's single protocol to refer to and communicate with processes, programs, and data, including aspects of both the user interface and the network. In this way the system provides a uniform means of access to diverse computing resources, which may be distributed across a network of servers, terminals, and other devices. IMO, this is true and blue developed solely for exploiting the Open Source community and they current open source hype that the press is giving companies that support it. This isn't BSD, and this isn't the next great thing. This is a stripped down *nix environment where you will need to go back to BL and Lucent time after time. Not a great move for BL.
Only on a good day, most of the time it would be substancially less.
LOL, that was a little unexpected. Very funny.