To make matters worse these treaties are often decided behind closed doors and never subjected to proper scrutiny. One wonders what threats are used to ensure some measures are foisted upon unwilling populaces.
That's silly. Treaties are not irrevocable or binding in perpituity. They can be repudiated, adjusted or amended. The US has certainly been criticized often enough for doing this unilaterally.
At least not in this case, where the guy hasn't even set foot in the USA while perpetrating the alleged crime.
The tricky bit here is that with the internet you do not have to have a physical presence in a particular country to commit a crime there. Robbing a US bank while sitting at a computer in Spain is perfectly feasible. Shouldn't it be reasonable to expect that the criminal face extradition to the US under those conditions?
The whining here is because slashdotters don't believe in the concept of intellectual property, not that that extradition of criminals who have committed crimes by wire is unreasonable.
but the question is, if Griffiths committed no crime in his home country, should the US be allowed to hijack.au laws?
Why not? Surely the extradition of Oz citizens is covered by treaties between the US and Australia. These treaties were signed by freely elected representatives of both countries. If the provisions of such treaties obligate Australia to extradite a person who commited a certain type of crime in the US, rule of law would make it logical that he be extradited.
Asimov must be rolling in his grave. This looks about as far away from his writings regarding robots one could imagine. His robots never revolted or broke their programming. In the end they became the guardians of humanity.
IANAL, but my reading of this is that clause 4 had nothing to do with the Sega case. This was a reverse engineering case in which copies of Sega microcode was made during the reverse engineering process. This was ruled legal under copyright law of 1995, but probably illegal under the DCMA. Clause 4 has nothing to do with this case.
In my opinion there should be something similar in patent to protect against these silly patent lawsuits.
If such a clause were to exist patents would be worthless. Everybody would use trade secrets instead.
And as far as this being a silly lawsuit, I doubt it. This is not a software or business process case.
Hey, if you're extremely worried about the RAM resources, are too cheap to shell out that extra $40 for 256 MB of memory, or expect to run the whole thing on TI-83 calculator, then maybe next Windows is not for you.
There are plenty of otherwise perfectly good PIII machines out there with 1+ GHz CPUs that are limited to 1/2 GB of RAM. Adding another 256MB DIMM may not be an option.
There's no objective criterion for saying one movie is better than another anyway.
I agree with that, certainly. But these numbers don't purport to measure quality, only popularity. To me there are much better measures than gross that show say, Titanic outdoing Star Wars when in fact Star Wars attracted a larger audience. (And played in many theatres as long as a year).
Throwing up hands is not acceptable. Those factors could be washed out by a weighted measurement that accounted for the number of tickets purchased overall in a given year.
To be honest I don't particularly like this statistic. Ratings should be based on number of tickets sold, not gross. On that system Gone With the Wind is #1.
You have to remember that the PPC only has about 1% of the global computing marketshare.
Nah. The PPC has about 3% of the global market share in desktop computers. Everywhere else it has a much higher market share. The PPC rules in communications and networking devices, not to mention that it is dominant in game consoles. All in all there are more PPCs sold than x86 CPUs.
You are living a couple of years in the past. There are satellite TV services (Voom.com) that broadcast 30+ HDTV channels, and HDTVs aplenty in the stores. Copy protection has also been standardized.
About the only reason to delay purchasing now is that prices are dropping fairly rapidly. Intel has entered the HDTV silicon market and is expected to drive costs of LCOS sets down by $1000 over the next year.
If a company goes overseas and offers you a job that pays $0.70/h, 12 hours a day, in a tiny little hot room, there's no way you would do it, right?
Actually China is losing manufacturing jobs faster than any country on earth. Insufficient investment in infrastructure is making China expensive compared to more developed countries like Mexico.
C# and.Net would be given a serious run for its money
Well, uh, C# is not near as widely used as Java at least at the moment. And Java is not a competitor to what is Microsoft's Windows API. Two different things altogether.
If Java is not open-sourced - soon - it will die.
What do you base the idea that Java needs to be open sourced on to compete with C#/.Net? Java's disdavantages have nothing to do with the way it is sourced, and in fact it as far far greater open source support than C#/.Net. There is nothing comparable to the Jakarta project for.Net. In fact we are seeing Jakarta projects like Log4j starting to be ported to ASP.NET because of the glaring deficiences in that platform.
As far as web services go, explain to me how open source will do one blessed thng for Java in that area.
What is really sad is that Windows is not at all any great shakes at providing a decent user experience. It's like escaping the bear - all you have to do is run faster than the other guy.
In particular installations of anything half complex are torture. I just sent a fair number of hours wrestling with MCMS, and the number different half-baked user interfaces involved is mind numbing. Why the hell should Service Pack 1a install in a completely different manner than the way SP1 does? Utter nonsense.
This at least is where Linux has it's best opportunity - while Linux sucks at providing a UI, there is no reason to believe that the competition has achieved an unassailable nirvana. Far from it.
I find that this parallels my own experience to a great extent. I have found that using a good spam filter with a whitelist is indeed more accurate that my own ability to filter email manually.
Once I reached the conclusion that this was the case it made a heck of a lot os sense to use a spam filter.
Even if you could, through some miracle, observe evolution today, it would be a far stretch to assume that, based on that observation, evolution created life.
Let me say it again - evolution does not explain the genesis of life. Theories of the origin of life are based on chemical thermodynamics. There is no split whatsoever because evolution does not attempt to explain genesis.
And as far as observation of evolution today, that has in fact been done many times, both in lab experiment and in nature.
So the old theory that keeping source code secret will help prevent security attacks has now proven to be invalid, for the reason that you can't be sure that the code will in fact reliably remain secret. When the code inevitably gets out you will have a shitstorm of problems.
Now open source has in reality been proven the best way.
So I suppose we would have to split the discussion into ongoing and past evolution. Is evolution occuring today? Did evolution create life?
There is no reason to believe that what is going on today in observable evolution is any different from what occurred a billion years ago. Such a split has no justifcation.
As far as evolution addressing the origin of life, since when? Genesis is not addressed by evolution. There is a lot of speculation as to how life arose, but the science behind it is based on chemical thermodynamics.
Whereas Einstein didn't have to deal with such a split.
Slashdot Mirror
To make matters worse these treaties are often decided behind closed doors and never subjected to proper scrutiny. One wonders what threats are used to ensure some measures are foisted upon unwilling populaces.
That's silly. Treaties are not irrevocable or binding in perpituity. They can be repudiated, adjusted or amended. The US has certainly been criticized often enough for doing this unilaterally.
At least not in this case, where the guy hasn't even set foot in the USA while perpetrating the alleged crime.
The tricky bit here is that with the internet you do not have to have a physical presence in a particular country to commit a crime there. Robbing a US bank while sitting at a computer in Spain is perfectly feasible. Shouldn't it be reasonable to expect that the criminal face extradition to the US under those conditions?
The whining here is because slashdotters don't believe in the concept of intellectual property, not that that extradition of criminals who have committed crimes by wire is unreasonable.
but the question is, if Griffiths committed no crime in his home country, should the US be allowed to hijack .au laws?
Why not? Surely the extradition of Oz citizens is covered by treaties between the US and Australia. These treaties were signed by freely elected representatives of both countries. If the provisions of such treaties obligate Australia to extradite a person who commited a certain type of crime in the US, rule of law would make it logical that he be extradited.
Asimov must be rolling in his grave. This looks about as far away from his writings regarding robots one could imagine. His robots never revolted or broke their programming. In the end they became the guardians of humanity.
CNBC basically described the situation as Echostar caving in to Viacom's demands for a $.72/year fee hike.
Looks like content is king.
That's a pretty thin rope to hang someone by.
Maybe so, but I'd bet that there is more than one rope.
Ansel Adams, who died in 1983, knew that digital cameras would be the future of photography long before Kodak filed any of these patents.
Kodak isn't claiming a patent on digital cameras.
IANAL, but my reading of this is that clause 4 had nothing to do with the Sega case. This was a reverse engineering case in which copies of Sega microcode was made during the reverse engineering process. This was ruled legal under copyright law of 1995, but probably illegal under the DCMA. Clause 4 has nothing to do with this case.
In my opinion there should be something similar in patent to protect against these silly patent lawsuits.
If such a clause were to exist patents would be worthless. Everybody would use trade secrets instead.
And as far as this being a silly lawsuit, I doubt it. This is not a software or business process case.
Then, there was the Trilogy.....
Don't forget the Hobbit, Silmarillon, The Unfinished Tales, etc.
And you know what? I will probably buy them all.
Hey, if you're extremely worried about the RAM resources, are too cheap to shell out that extra $40 for 256 MB of memory, or expect to run the whole thing on TI-83 calculator, then maybe next Windows is not for you.
There are plenty of otherwise perfectly good PIII machines out there with 1+ GHz CPUs that are limited to 1/2 GB of RAM. Adding another 256MB DIMM may not be an option.
There's no objective criterion for saying one movie is better than another anyway.
I agree with that, certainly. But these numbers don't purport to measure quality, only popularity. To me there are much better measures than gross that show say, Titanic outdoing Star Wars when in fact Star Wars attracted a larger audience. (And played in many theatres as long as a year).
Not to mention other factors...
Throwing up hands is not acceptable. Those factors could be washed out by a weighted measurement that accounted for the number of tickets purchased overall in a given year.
Using just gross, is well, gross.
Top 10 grossing films:
To be honest I don't particularly like this statistic. Ratings should be based on number of tickets sold, not gross. On that system Gone With the Wind is #1.
if you are going to offer a statement that flatly contradicts them, please reference.
f /0 /2fc4d7ed5373763f88256dfc000f972f?OpenDocument
http://swampfox.ws/members/swampfox/velocity.ns
You have to remember that the PPC only has about 1% of the global computing marketshare.
Nah. The PPC has about 3% of the global market share in desktop computers. Everywhere else it has a much higher market share. The PPC rules in communications and networking devices, not to mention that it is dominant in game consoles. All in all there are more PPCs sold than x86 CPUs.
You are living a couple of years in the past. There are satellite TV services (Voom.com) that broadcast 30+ HDTV channels, and HDTVs aplenty in the stores. Copy protection has also been standardized.
About the only reason to delay purchasing now is that prices are dropping fairly rapidly. Intel has entered the HDTV silicon market and is expected to drive costs of LCOS sets down by $1000 over the next year.
If a company goes overseas and offers you a job that pays $0.70/h, 12 hours a day, in a tiny little hot room, there's no way you would do it, right?
Actually China is losing manufacturing jobs faster than any country on earth. Insufficient investment in infrastructure is making China expensive compared to more developed countries like Mexico.
C# and .Net would be given a serious run for its money
.Net. In fact we are seeing Jakarta projects like Log4j starting to be ported to ASP.NET because of the glaring deficiences in that platform.
Well, uh, C# is not near as widely used as Java at least at the moment. And Java is not a competitor to what is Microsoft's Windows API. Two different things altogether.
If Java is not open-sourced - soon - it will die.
What do you base the idea that Java needs to be open sourced on to compete with C#/.Net? Java's disdavantages have nothing to do with the way it is sourced, and in fact it as far far greater open source support than C#/.Net. There is nothing comparable to the Jakarta project for
As far as web services go, explain to me how open source will do one blessed thng for Java in that area.
What is really sad is that Windows is not at all any great shakes at providing a decent user experience. It's like escaping the bear - all you have to do is run faster than the other guy.
In particular installations of anything half complex are torture. I just sent a fair number of hours wrestling with MCMS, and the number different half-baked user interfaces involved is mind numbing. Why the hell should Service Pack 1a install in a completely different manner than the way SP1 does? Utter nonsense.
This at least is where Linux has it's best opportunity - while Linux sucks at providing a UI, there is no reason to believe that the competition has achieved an unassailable nirvana. Far from it.
I find that this parallels my own experience to a great extent. I have found that using a good spam filter with a whitelist is indeed more accurate that my own ability to filter email manually.
Once I reached the conclusion that this was the case it made a heck of a lot os sense to use a spam filter.
I think maybe even going back to the Laserdisc days.
Want to by my player and rotted out Laserdiscs?
For College the freshmans bigest mistake
Let me guess. You are an English Lit major.
Even if you could, through some miracle, observe evolution today, it would be a far stretch to assume that, based on that observation, evolution created life.
Let me say it again - evolution does not explain the genesis of life. Theories of the origin of life are based on chemical thermodynamics. There is no split whatsoever because evolution does not attempt to explain genesis.
And as far as observation of evolution today, that has in fact been done many times, both in lab experiment and in nature.
So the old theory that keeping source code secret will help prevent security attacks has now proven to be invalid, for the reason that you can't be sure that the code will in fact reliably remain secret. When the code inevitably gets out you will have a shitstorm of problems.
Now open source has in reality been proven the best way.
And security by obscurity fails again.
So I suppose we would have to split the discussion into ongoing and past evolution. Is evolution occuring today? Did evolution create life?
There is no reason to believe that what is going on today in observable evolution is any different from what occurred a billion years ago. Such a split has no justifcation.
As far as evolution addressing the origin of life, since when? Genesis is not addressed by evolution. There is a lot of speculation as to how life arose, but the science behind it is based on chemical thermodynamics.
Whereas Einstein didn't have to deal with such a split.
There is no such split.