The legislation will only happen in countries where the industry (as a big players or as a group) don't have enough influence over the legislature to keep such a thing from happens.
I don't know what countries could might this goal, but it's small enough to not matter, especially when companies will just make sure they don't legally exist in those countries.
It's cynical thinking yes, but pragmatic I'm afraid.
That's ignoring the decades of legal challenges if it actually did happen, or any fallout on open source projects when companies realize the most cost effective way to mitigate this risk is to push it onto software companies.
I was lucky to only spend a small amount of my career dealing with the cube farm, in do computer research work.
Everyone used closed-ear headphones. In theory, people were listening to music, but many people including myself, used them regardless to both block sound and visually indicate to others "I can't hear you".
First, yes, It's all just theoretical discussion until there's case law. Something like this, that's pretty unlikely to happen. This is a discussion on a Internet forum, one would think discussions are just that. I don't see the need to get belligerent about it.
As I said, beyond the explicit perjury penalty, there would certainly be (in theory) penalties for falsifying information in the notification.
Personally, don't think they'd actually be criminal beyond (vi)'s explicit perjury penalty (if it applied in anyway), but was just relating the opinions of my law professors I've had the discussion with.
The main argument (ignoring any that address the grammar of the law, which very fit and miss when talking American English) is that (vi) mentions the accuracy of the information in the notification. In addition to (v) that address the good faith belief (and (v)'s mention of agency). The overlap suggests that the first clause in (vi) has to be operative in some manner for it to be included.
If you want to talk plain text (which really means little given the looseness of grammar in the law, even major SCOTUS decisions have ignored sentence clauses of the Constitution for seemingly arbitrary reasons), In (vi), neither the second or third clauses can be individually excluded with the sentence making sense. The perjury clause is subordinate to the accuracy clause, but is adjunct to the agency clause.
There's no way to parse that sentence's grammar that really makes sense, Whether you want the perjury to apply to just the agency, just the accuracy, or both. So I don't think an appeal to the 'plain text' of it clears anything up.
I doubt there's much of anything useful in terms notes on legislative intent for something that minute, but can't access that easily from off-campus anyway, and given the politeness of the discussion, I doubt it would matter.
Again, just opinion and the results of my reading and discussion with my law professors. Take it for what you want. There's no need to get rude about it.
The wording of U.S. Code 17 Â 512(c)(vi) has been interpreted that way, and to cover the entirety of the notification. Not sure what the case law is.
My professors that I've spoken with on the matter are of the opinion that either it applies to both or that if it doesn't apply to the entirety of the notification, that it be on par with statements in a federal criminal complaint (in though it's a civil matter, because of the criminal implications of copyright infringement), which if knowingly false would basically amount to perjury.
You realize how many things have to be attested to under penalty of perjury? You realize how many times people have gone to jail for the most straight-forwardly blatant fail statements in such cases? Next to none if any.
Any doubt? DMCA takedown requests have to be attested to under penalty of perjury. Ever hear of a false/improper DMCA request? How about someone going to jail for making a false one? (Keep in mind a statement made under penalty of perjury by an automated system does not make the person whose authority the system is being used under in any immune).
When I took AP CS in highschool, they were just switching to C++. We actually hard two years of courses and AP was the second year. I pushed to skip the first class (which was basic at the time) and after taking the final was able to.
The school didn't even normally give the exam. After some parental rage, they finely setup so I could take the exam (just me). 45 minutes of test taking earned me a 5/5. Though since all the changes in the exam at the time my college just gave credit for an elective instead of saving from taking a course.
Nothing wrong with the current page. It has severed well for a long time with minor evolutionary changes. It is familiar and comforting, and works perfectly.
I have spent much time looking at the new page, but nothing on it seemed like it gave something the old one didn't.
Unfortunately, broadband choices are very limited in most of the U.S. (elsewhere too I'm sure, but only know the states).
Where I currently live despite it being a moderate sized city, with an extreme tech community. Your only options are cable through Comcast or DSL through Centurylink. When you factor in what speed you can get where in the city. Voting with your wallet isn't much of an option.
Back when there was some competition and choice in my area for DSL service, my standard question was "Could I run a commercial porn busisness off this connection and max it out 24/7/365?". (Assuring them that wasn't my intended use, but I wanted that freedom).
One ISP responded by saying, 'Of course, actually until recently one of our customers was one of the biggest porn companies in the US'.
ISPs have no shame. There's hope of getting anywhere with that.
Most have fine-print in their contracts that unlimited isn't really unlimited.
It sucks.
One thing you can do is look into a business account. You pay more, but you get unlimited bandwidth, and can often run servers and such that aren't allow with a consumer account.
If you want to try to fight the issue, look carefully at your bill and what taxes are being applied. Look up the text of the laws the taxes are based upon. If memory serves one of the common taxes that has to do with telecommunications (wish I could remember the name) has certain requirements of not interfering with you usage in certain ways that/should/ keep them from capping you.
If you haven't already, disconnect all your computer displays, and spend at least a week using the existing technology and software for the blind. Until you've had that first hand experience, you can't begin to consider the problem.
Indoor humidity isn't a concern with evaporative cooling, because it works when the humid is very low. If the indoor air is getting moist enough to be a problem, the swamp cooler's not making it any colder.
So you contact Autodesk and demand the promised support or a full refund of the purchase price. They took on Lightscape's financial and contractual obligations when they purchased them.
Of course, it'll probably take you more in time/lawyer fees to own up to it.
First, check your state's labor laws. Such a contract is explicitly not enforcable under California state law for example.
Keep in mind that signing a contract agreeing to hand over the rights does not in fact hand over the rights (at least copyright), vague blanket agreements can't transfer copyright.
All else failing, apply the Mom-clause. Write up a document transfer all your IP rights to your mother, have it signed notorized and so forth. Once she owns all you rights, you don't own them to sign them away. When you don't working there, have her sign them back. (This assumes you trust your mother.).
Well, coding style and software engineering aside, you need to do some testing if you think this will increase you speed.
Quick test to illustrate. 1,000,000 lines of C code, using gcc 3.3.4, default options.
Time to compile spread of 1000 files (with 8 lines of include and function body per file): ~2 minutes
Time to compile all in a single file: unknown
Why is the second time unknown? My computer doesn't have the memory to do it. Now I could pump up the memory of my machine (assuming I've got a 64-bit machine) to let me do the second compilation, but I doubt it'll be faster.
"The Feds arrested him after he flashed a police helicopter searching for the source of the beam."
The guy should get life for stupidity. After all the news about the Feds trying to track down the people pointing laser pointers at planes, he goes and points one at a police helicopter. How stupid can you get?
There's no doubt that Apple knew the update would break Real's hack. They aren't idiots, that would have checked. The question is whether they intended to break it.
Personally, I think they looked at what Real did, realized that it was the result of a bug in the DRM code, and fixed.
Knowledge on how to use technology we buy is useful. The techniques used on the PICs are going to be used elsewhere.
AMD isn't doing this to help the poor people of the world, it's doing it to make money. Cheap machines will allow impoverished people to get the net and become new customers. If the cheap machines turn out to be popular in richer areas, great. They can sell more, cut their production costs, or even offset the cost by charging people in richer countries more for them.
When AMD sells out of their first production run (which is most likely fair less than the number of poor people that want them), they'll look to see if its profitable to do another run. A main factor is going to be the size of the market, and people in richer countries buying them is going to increase the market. So, if you want these machines to be available to the poor people of the world, we should buy them. Thus encouraging AMD to keep producing them.
As it turns out, based on the slashdot response. There's a demand for cheap/low power/well build computers like these in the states.
Hopefully AMD will see that, and start offering a similiar model (designed with easy hacking/linux-use in mind) for us slashdotters. Our market provides us with only one effective way of sending the message that we want these, by buying them.
Yes, they aren't designed for the average slashdot person, but they aren't being sold at a lose. People buying them to hack away at is just making these machines more profitable to build and sell overseas.
Besides, the poster was talking about understanding the bios/os handshake, and what lock-out mechanisms were used. This is useful knowledge to have.
I think your lawyer friend overlooked a few things.
The entire model of bittorrent is distributed distribution. Giving pieces of the dataset to people in the torrent will by nature of the system makes those people redistribute those pieces. Willing giving people copies with the understanding that they will distribute those pieces given them permission to distribute them.
Consider the alternative. If the people who receive those piece are not granted the right to distribute them, then provding those pieces to them (through a system which you know will cause them to redistribute them) is knowingly providing material assistance to their distribution.
So if an copyright owner connects to a torrent and starts sending out pieces, and the receivers don't gain the right to redistribute them, the owner is committing contributory copyright infringement against his own copyright, an utterly absurd concept.
A copyright owner knowingly taking material action to distribute his work with the understanding that the direct and immediate result of his action will be redistribution, is clearly giving permission to those redistributing it to do so. At the very minimum, he loses any ability to collect damages, as helping people redistribute is explicitly not taking reasonable action to mitigate the damages.
This clearly applies to all pieces of the dataset the copyright owner sends out. Whether the act of offering to send out any arbitrary piece of the work currently on your computer (as one does when seeding on bittorrent), and carrying through with that offer for some time, implies permission for other pieces is certainly argueable.
Slashdot Mirror
The legislation will only happen in countries where the industry (as a big players or as a group) don't have enough influence over the legislature to keep such a thing from happens.
I don't know what countries could might this goal, but it's small enough to not matter, especially when companies will just make sure they don't legally exist in those countries.
It's cynical thinking yes, but pragmatic I'm afraid.
That's ignoring the decades of legal challenges if it actually did happen, or any fallout on open source projects when companies realize the most cost effective way to mitigate this risk is to push it onto software companies.
Was this like 50+ years after the very short period of actual piracy in the Caribbean and most of the Atlantic fizzle out?
Have they be doing their pirate research with Disney movies?
I was lucky to only spend a small amount of my career dealing with the cube farm, in do computer research work.
Everyone used closed-ear headphones. In theory, people were listening to music, but many people including myself, used them regardless to both block sound and visually indicate to others "I can't hear you".
First, yes, It's all just theoretical discussion until there's case law. Something like this, that's pretty unlikely to happen. This is a discussion on a Internet forum, one would think discussions are just that. I don't see the need to get belligerent about it.
As I said, beyond the explicit perjury penalty, there would certainly be (in theory) penalties for falsifying information in the notification.
Personally, don't think they'd actually be criminal beyond (vi)'s explicit perjury penalty (if it applied in anyway), but was just relating the opinions of my law professors I've had the discussion with.
The main argument (ignoring any that address the grammar of the law, which very fit and miss when talking American English) is that (vi) mentions the accuracy of the information in the notification. In addition to (v) that address the good faith belief (and (v)'s mention of agency). The overlap suggests that the first clause in (vi) has to be operative in some manner for it to be included.
If you want to talk plain text (which really means little given the looseness of grammar in the law, even major SCOTUS decisions have ignored sentence clauses of the Constitution for seemingly arbitrary reasons), In (vi), neither the second or third clauses can be individually excluded with the sentence making sense. The perjury clause is subordinate to the accuracy clause, but is adjunct to the agency clause.
There's no way to parse that sentence's grammar that really makes sense, Whether you want the perjury to apply to just the agency, just the accuracy, or both. So I don't think an appeal to the 'plain text' of it clears anything up.
I doubt there's much of anything useful in terms notes on legislative intent for something that minute, but can't access that easily from off-campus anyway, and given the politeness of the discussion, I doubt it would matter.
Again, just opinion and the results of my reading and discussion with my law professors. Take it for what you want. There's no need to get rude about it.
The wording of U.S. Code 17 Â 512(c)(vi) has been interpreted that way, and to cover the entirety of the notification. Not sure what the case law is.
My professors that I've spoken with on the matter are of the opinion that either it applies to both or that if it doesn't apply to the entirety of the notification, that it be on par with statements in a federal criminal complaint (in though it's a civil matter, because of the criminal implications of copyright infringement), which if knowingly false would basically amount to perjury.
You realize how many things have to be attested to under penalty of perjury? You realize how many times people have gone to jail for the most straight-forwardly blatant fail statements in such cases? Next to none if any.
Any doubt? DMCA takedown requests have to be attested to under penalty of perjury. Ever hear of a false/improper DMCA request? How about someone going to jail for making a false one? (Keep in mind a statement made under penalty of perjury by an automated system does not make the person whose authority the system is being used under in any immune).
When I took AP CS in highschool, they were just switching to C++. We actually hard two years of courses and AP was the second year. I pushed to skip the first class (which was basic at the time) and after taking the final was able to.
The school didn't even normally give the exam. After some parental rage, they finely setup so I could take the exam (just me). 45 minutes of test taking earned me a 5/5. Though since all the changes in the exam at the time my college just gave credit for an elective instead of saving from taking a course.
Nothing wrong with the current page. It has severed well for a long time with minor evolutionary changes. It is familiar and comforting, and works perfectly.
I have spent much time looking at the new page, but nothing on it seemed like it gave something the old one didn't.
Unfortunately, broadband choices are very limited in most of the U.S. (elsewhere too I'm sure, but only know the states).
Where I currently live despite it being a moderate sized city, with an extreme tech community. Your only options are cable through Comcast or DSL through Centurylink. When you factor in what speed you can get where in the city. Voting with your wallet isn't much of an option.
Back when there was some competition and choice in my area for DSL service, my standard question was "Could I run a commercial porn busisness off this connection and max it out 24/7/365?". (Assuring them that wasn't my intended use, but I wanted that freedom).
One ISP responded by saying, 'Of course, actually until recently one of our customers was one of the biggest porn companies in the US'.
ISPs have no shame. There's hope of getting anywhere with that.
Most have fine-print in their contracts that unlimited isn't really unlimited.
It sucks.
One thing you can do is look into a business account. You pay more, but you get unlimited bandwidth, and can often run servers and such that aren't allow with a consumer account.
If you want to try to fight the issue, look carefully at your bill and what taxes are being applied. Look up the text of the laws the taxes are based upon. If memory serves one of the common taxes that has to do with telecommunications (wish I could remember the name) has certain requirements of not interfering with you usage in certain ways that /should/ keep them from capping you.
Abusive contracts are perfectly legal, just not always binding.
The myth concerned arrows with wooden shafts. They covered the fact that hollow plastic and aluminum arrows were routinely split by hobbyists .
The parts of the software are installed and activated before the EULA is even displayed to the user.
If you haven't already, disconnect all your computer displays, and spend at least a week using the existing technology and software for the blind. Until you've had that first hand experience, you can't begin to consider the problem.
Indoor humidity isn't a concern with evaporative cooling, because it works when the humid is very low. If the indoor air is getting moist enough to be a problem, the swamp cooler's not making it any colder.
So you contact Autodesk and demand the promised support or a full refund of the purchase price. They took on Lightscape's financial and contractual obligations when they purchased them.
Of course, it'll probably take you more in time/lawyer fees to own up to it.
Sounds like your colleages don't understand the difference between in the document and deducible from the document.
First, check your state's labor laws. Such a contract is explicitly not enforcable under California state law for example.
Keep in mind that signing a contract agreeing to hand over the rights does not in fact hand over the rights (at least copyright), vague blanket agreements can't transfer copyright.
All else failing, apply the Mom-clause. Write up a document transfer all your IP rights to your mother, have it signed notorized and so forth. Once she owns all you rights, you don't own them to sign them away. When you don't working there, have her sign them back. (This assumes you trust your mother.).
Well, coding style and software engineering aside, you need to do some testing if you think this will increase you speed.
Quick test to illustrate. 1,000,000 lines of C code, using gcc 3.3.4, default options.
Time to compile spread of 1000 files (with 8 lines of include and function body per file): ~2 minutes
Time to compile all in a single file: unknown
Why is the second time unknown? My computer doesn't have the memory to do it. Now I could pump up the memory of my machine (assuming I've got a 64-bit machine) to let me do the second compilation, but I doubt it'll be faster.
"The Feds arrested him after he flashed a police helicopter searching for the source of the beam."
The guy should get life for stupidity. After all the news about the Feds trying to track down the people pointing laser pointers at planes, he goes and points one at a police helicopter. How stupid can you get?
There's no doubt that Apple knew the update would break Real's hack. They aren't idiots, that would have checked. The question is whether they intended to break it.
Personally, I think they looked at what Real did, realized that it was the result of a bug in the DRM code, and fixed.
Knowledge on how to use technology we buy is useful. The techniques used on the PICs are going to be used elsewhere.
AMD isn't doing this to help the poor people of the world, it's doing it to make money. Cheap machines will allow impoverished people to get the net and become new customers. If the cheap machines turn out to be popular in richer areas, great. They can sell more, cut their production costs, or even offset the cost by charging people in richer countries more for them.
When AMD sells out of their first production run (which is most likely fair less than the number of poor people that want them), they'll look to see if its profitable to do another run. A main factor is going to be the size of the market, and people in richer countries buying them is going to increase the market. So, if you want these machines to be available to the poor people of the world, we should buy them. Thus encouraging AMD to keep producing them.
As it turns out, based on the slashdot response. There's a demand for cheap/low power/well build computers like these in the states.
Hopefully AMD will see that, and start offering a similiar model (designed with easy hacking/linux-use in mind) for us slashdotters. Our market provides us with only one effective way of sending the message that we want these, by buying them.
Haven't you been reading the articles on these?
Yes, they aren't designed for the average slashdot person, but they aren't being sold at a lose. People buying them to hack away at is just making these machines more profitable to build and sell overseas.
Besides, the poster was talking about understanding the bios/os handshake, and what lock-out mechanisms were used. This is useful knowledge to have.
I think your lawyer friend overlooked a few things.
The entire model of bittorrent is distributed distribution. Giving pieces of the dataset to people in the torrent will by nature of the system makes those people redistribute those pieces. Willing giving people copies with the understanding that they will distribute those pieces given them permission to distribute them.
Consider the alternative. If the people who receive those piece are not granted the right to distribute them, then provding those pieces to them (through a system which you know will cause them to redistribute them) is knowingly providing material assistance to their distribution.
So if an copyright owner connects to a torrent and starts sending out pieces, and the receivers don't gain the right to redistribute them, the owner is committing contributory copyright infringement against his own copyright, an utterly absurd concept.
A copyright owner knowingly taking material action to distribute his work with the understanding that the direct and immediate result of his action will be redistribution, is clearly giving permission to those redistributing it to do so. At the very minimum, he loses any ability to collect damages, as helping people redistribute is explicitly not taking reasonable action to mitigate the damages.
This clearly applies to all pieces of the dataset the copyright owner sends out. Whether the act of offering to send out any arbitrary piece of the work currently on your computer (as one does when seeding on bittorrent), and carrying through with that offer for some time, implies permission for other pieces is certainly argueable.