The book is called The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame, this was made into a movie by some British guys, including half of Monty Python. The rights to distribute this movie were bought by Disney, who changed the title and plastered their name all over it. It is now Disney's Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.
Since the name is Disney's creation, they probably have enough of a case. Remember, this is the corp that sued a Florida day-care center (supposedly, I couldn't find a reference on the 'net).
When I graduated, my major was Computer Science and Engineering (CSE). During my time in college, there was a change in the accreditation board, ABET (Acc. Board of Engineering Tech., IIRC) lost the right to accredit "science" courses. This meant that lots of smaller colleges lost the right to say they had a CS degree. The new board (don't recall who, offhand) had much tougher requirements, such as a certain percentage of PhD degreed professors. My school dropped the mixed CSE degree as did just about everyone else. The degree is now Computer Engineer, but nothing much else has changed.
From what I've been able to discern, what I learned in school covered the same ground as most of CS, perhaps with less theory. We did cover Turing machines, FSMs, advanced data structures, AI, operating systems, architecture, etc. But we also covered the physics of semiconductors and lots of electrical, mechanical and electronic engineering and physics which isn't directly relevant to CS. As it turns out, I work in 3D graphics and games where all that physics did come in useful, but that's something of a fluke.
I did graduate ten years ago, so some of this has undoubtedly changed.
One nitpick, Tom says that the worst case for Z buffering would be if the application sent its triangles sorted from back to front. He then says that "no application would deliberately do" that. However, in order for alpha blended transparency to work correctly, the triangles have to be sorted in just that order. Does this mean the z buffer enhancements are useless for transparent objects?
In Diaspora, they discover some "carpets" that communicate by waving feelers around. They conclude that these are showing intelligent communication, but there is no way we can communicate with them. Check it out, a really cool book that makes everything else seem sort of mundane by comparison.
Is there any guarantee when you purchase a CD to the record company that you won't/can't copy that CD? Hell no
They'll be able to make sure you cannot copy a CD when they start pushing DVD-Audio. DVD-Audio will be copy-protected, leading to the same issues as DVD. Since DeCSS is illegal (sorry to say), the same will apply to attempts to copy from DVD Audio.
DVD Audio give you more bits/sample, which is useless since the current system already gives 110 S/N ratio (or so). It also gives you 192KHz, good for sampling signals of 96KHz. However, the fact is that humans cannot hear over 15KHz or so. In other words, DVD-Audio gives you nothing.
So, why would people buy it? When CDs weren't exactly flying off the shelf (over 30 bucks a pop), the recording industries stopped accepting returns on vinyl. This meant that stores couldn't afford to stock as much vinyl, so people started buying more CDs since that's what was available. Such tricks worked once, they'll try them again.
When music is mostly distributed in DVD, copy protection will be a reality. In conjunction with the fact that current and future devices will not have digital outputs, just archiving collections will become illegal.
The same will likely happen to books when the e-book finally gets off the ground.
I've written one in Prograph, although it has been several years since I last looked at the language. Basically, you define blocks with input and output data streams. At the top of the sort block, you make a sort of gateway block that splits into two streams, each of which sends data to the block itself. It is actually pretty easy.
So this new Uber-chip does 75 million triangles, and has a fill rate of 1.2 - 2.6 G/pixels. Doesn't that seem familiar to anybody? Those are the box specs for the PSX2. The extra memory will be quite helpful, but this isn't very impressive so far.
West End Games - Paranoia was the first meta-roleplaying game, one that specifically skewers the genre itself, while having a lot of fun in the process.
Even the fabled Star Wars license couldn't keep them afloat, however...
In the context of websites, "Yahoo" is a trademark. Remember that trademarks are specific to a given business type. In that context, "Yahoo" didn't mean anything and thus was a valid trademark. This is why Apple Computer prevailed against Apple Records (who threatened to sue at one point). "Fandom" isn't recognized as a trademark, merely a description.
Basic number crunching under either C variant is slower, in general, than FORTRAN or assembler. This Dr. Dobbs article explains part of the problem. The other part is the aliasing problem, where the compiler has to put in redundant load/store pairs because it can't tell when a pointer is going to change a memory location. This alone results in real-world performance hits of over 10% on some RISC architectures.
There are ways around this, such as the "restrict" keyword being added to C99 and template metaprogramming, but the issues still remain.
If the Democrats move (further) to the right, they'll lose their traditional base. If would be suicide, the right won't trust them and the left would abandon them. This would split the right into two competing groups and leave the field open for a new leftist party.
This sounds like someone just recreating Frank Tipler's book. Hopefully, this author won't go insane and claim that he has proof of the resurrection of the dead at the end of the universe.
Martin Gardner did a pretty funny review of the first book (I can't find any links to it online) in which he refers to Tipler's Final Anthropic Principle (FAP) as the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP). Honestly, there is nothing new here at all.
The DMCA (.pdf link) is required for compliance with the WIPO. As such, the government had to pass it in order to comply with international standards.
As such, gettting rid of it isn't something the President can really do. The only remedy that I can see is that the Supreme Court reject it as unconstitutional, which seems unlikely. If they do, then we have a conflict between the government and an NGO. I have no idea what would happen at that point.
OK, I think I understand now what you are trying to say. There is no right to fair use, as you said, what I disagree with is your assertion that "fair use" is a defense. First, in case anyone is interested I will explain what I found.
English common law is based on the right to property, basically that you can do what you want with your own stuff. The Constitution says, Art I, Section 8, clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
In other words, certain rights stay with the producer, these rights are marked in the Copyright Act. This is list of rights given to the copyright holder. The International version is the Berne Convention. The US version specifies exceptions for fair use and the Berne simply states that individual states have the option of allowing exceptions. Thus I have to agree with you that there is no Right to Fair Use.
The problem is that you then assert that Fair Use is a Legal Defense to the crime of copyright violation. This sounds similar to saying that Insanity is a Legal Defense to the crime of murder. The two situations are not the same. Since the Copyright Act states specifically what rights copyright has, and that this doesn't include the right to restrict fair use, copying under fair use is not a crime.
By your definition, going to a friend's house is a crime of trespassing with a Legal Defense of "I Had Permission". Instead, it is a case of no crime being committed.
To summarize, Fair Use is NOT a right, but it is NOT a crime. Thus, everybody is wrong.
This is troubling, though. Since the DMCA gives the copyright holder the right to encrypt, that does effectively remove Fair Use for personal use. Fair Use copying is still not a crime, but is impossible to do without committing another crime. The DMCA is basically implementing the WIPO treaties, so we may be stuck. Even if the Supreme Court rules that the DMCA violates the Constitution (remember the limited Times part), the WIPO requires it and the US did sign.
And by pulling the "license", not "purchase" trick, any remedy under consumer law has been rendered irrelevant. IANAL, but I think under current law Fair Use is screwed.
So, apology for the troll remark, you were rather condescending so I thought you were just looking for trouble, but you did have a good point and caused at least one person to check facts.
CDs became the de facto standard because the recording industry decided to stop allowing stores to return unsold vinyl. Unfortunately, I can't find relevant links.
DAT, by comparison, was attacked by the recording industry. Only the widespread, uncontrolled nature of the Internet has made mp3's as successful as they are.
I think you are trolling, but if not does this count?
Section 107:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
He wasn't seriously trying to say the Internet/gaming reduces violence. Others are trying to say there is a positive correlation, and he is showing that the facts show a negative one. He then uses the same faulty "logic" to come up with his conclusion.
Many (most?) people don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, this person for example. Even for those people, the facts do not support the argument and that is Jamie's point.
Not a semantic difference, I didn't explain myself very well.
To go the other way, standard semi-conductor computers rely on QM to work. I don't remember the details, but my Physics of Semi-Conductors class was based thoroughly on QM. The thing is, at the level where computation took place, the quantum weirdness effects were no longer relevant. As such, you can formulate the workings entirely deterministically even though they are based on non-deterministic events.
The question whether the brain uses quantum level effects is still open. Roger Penrose took a lot of flak for suggesting such effects in his book. Even though it wasn't really relevant to his main point (our current knowledge of science is incomplete and the answer to the mind/brain connection may require new theories), this part was the one most critics chose to attack. Currently, no serious scientific theory suggests a non-deterministic component, AFAIK (which, admittedly, is not far).
Saying Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic is questionable. QM says that (for example) the spin on a given electron measurement can only be given by probability, but those probabilities are themselves deterministic. If you consider the "waveform" itself to be the definition QM uses, then QM is deterministic as anything.
If everything above the level of waveforms in deterministic, as it seems to be, then the brain can still be deterministic as well.
QM has been used in the question of freewill on both sides since it was formulated.
Yes, but isn't the fact that Slashdot was cracked enough to establish "reasonable doubt"? I can use my other accounts to do all kinds of malicious damage and claim that it was the evil hackers who took my password that are causing the problem.
Of course, there are other kallisti's I've run into, and kallisti is kind of a troublemaker name, anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
Since the name is Disney's creation, they probably have enough of a case. Remember, this is the corp that sued a Florida day-care center (supposedly, I couldn't find a reference on the 'net).
From what I've been able to discern, what I learned in school covered the same ground as most of CS, perhaps with less theory. We did cover Turing machines, FSMs, advanced data structures, AI, operating systems, architecture, etc. But we also covered the physics of semiconductors and lots of electrical, mechanical and electronic engineering and physics which isn't directly relevant to CS. As it turns out, I work in 3D graphics and games where all that physics did come in useful, but that's something of a fluke.
I did graduate ten years ago, so some of this has undoubtedly changed.
One nitpick, Tom says that the worst case for Z buffering would be if the application sent its triangles sorted from back to front. He then says that "no application would deliberately do" that. However, in order for alpha blended transparency to work correctly, the triangles have to be sorted in just that order. Does this mean the z buffer enhancements are useless for transparent objects?
In Diaspora, they discover some "carpets" that communicate by waving feelers around. They conclude that these are showing intelligent communication, but there is no way we can communicate with them. Check it out, a really cool book that makes everything else seem sort of mundane by comparison.
They'll be able to make sure you cannot copy a CD when they start pushing DVD-Audio. DVD-Audio will be copy-protected, leading to the same issues as DVD. Since DeCSS is illegal (sorry to say), the same will apply to attempts to copy from DVD Audio.
DVD Audio give you more bits/sample, which is useless since the current system already gives 110 S/N ratio (or so). It also gives you 192KHz, good for sampling signals of 96KHz. However, the fact is that humans cannot hear over 15KHz or so. In other words, DVD-Audio gives you nothing.
So, why would people buy it? When CDs weren't exactly flying off the shelf (over 30 bucks a pop), the recording industries stopped accepting returns on vinyl. This meant that stores couldn't afford to stock as much vinyl, so people started buying more CDs since that's what was available. Such tricks worked once, they'll try them again.
When music is mostly distributed in DVD, copy protection will be a reality. In conjunction with the fact that current and future devices will not have digital outputs, just archiving collections will become illegal.
The same will likely happen to books when the e-book finally gets off the ground.
I've written one in Prograph, although it has been several years since I last looked at the language. Basically, you define blocks with input and output data streams. At the top of the sort block, you make a sort of gateway block that splits into two streams, each of which sends data to the block itself. It is actually pretty easy.
So this new Uber-chip does 75 million triangles, and has a fill rate of 1.2 - 2.6 G/pixels. Doesn't that seem familiar to anybody? Those are the box specs for the PSX2. The extra memory will be quite helpful, but this isn't very impressive so far.
Even the fabled Star Wars license couldn't keep them afloat, however...
Idiocracy.
In the context of websites, "Yahoo" is a trademark. Remember that trademarks are specific to a given business type. In that context, "Yahoo" didn't mean anything and thus was a valid trademark. This is why Apple Computer prevailed against Apple Records (who threatened to sue at one point). "Fandom" isn't recognized as a trademark, merely a description.
There are ways around this, such as the "restrict" keyword being added to C99 and template metaprogramming, but the issues still remain.
It is located here
Personally, I think this has already happened...
He re you go...
Martin Gardner did a pretty funny review of the first book (I can't find any links to it online) in which he refers to Tipler's Final Anthropic Principle (FAP) as the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP). Honestly, there is nothing new here at all.
I haven't seen anyone post this rather amusing method of fighting bad patents and committing market manipulation at the same time.
As such, gettting rid of it isn't something the President can really do. The only remedy that I can see is that the Supreme Court reject it as unconstitutional, which seems unlikely. If they do, then we have a conflict between the government and an NGO. I have no idea what would happen at that point.
English common law is based on the right to property, basically that you can do what you want with your own stuff. The Constitution says, Art I, Section 8, clause 8:
In other words, certain rights stay with the producer, these rights are marked in the Copyright Act. This is list of rights given to the copyright holder. The International version is the Berne Convention. The US version specifies exceptions for fair use and the Berne simply states that individual states have the option of allowing exceptions. Thus I have to agree with you that there is no Right to Fair Use.
The problem is that you then assert that Fair Use is a Legal Defense to the crime of copyright violation. This sounds similar to saying that Insanity is a Legal Defense to the crime of murder. The two situations are not the same. Since the Copyright Act states specifically what rights copyright has, and that this doesn't include the right to restrict fair use, copying under fair use is not a crime.
By your definition, going to a friend's house is a crime of trespassing with a Legal Defense of "I Had Permission". Instead, it is a case of no crime being committed.
To summarize, Fair Use is NOT a right, but it is NOT a crime. Thus, everybody is wrong.
This is troubling, though. Since the DMCA gives the copyright holder the right to encrypt, that does effectively remove Fair Use for personal use. Fair Use copying is still not a crime, but is impossible to do without committing another crime. The DMCA is basically implementing the WIPO treaties, so we may be stuck. Even if the Supreme Court rules that the DMCA violates the Constitution (remember the limited Times part), the WIPO requires it and the US did sign.
And by pulling the "license", not "purchase" trick, any remedy under consumer law has been rendered irrelevant. IANAL, but I think under current law Fair Use is screwed.
So, apology for the troll remark, you were rather condescending so I thought you were just looking for trouble, but you did have a good point and caused at least one person to check facts.
DAT, by comparison, was attacked by the recording industry. Only the widespread, uncontrolled nature of the Internet has made mp3's as successful as they are.
Section 107:
Or perhaps ; ;SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) in which "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use".
Many (most?) people don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, this person for example. Even for those people, the facts do not support the argument and that is Jamie's point.
To go the other way, standard semi-conductor computers rely on QM to work. I don't remember the details, but my Physics of Semi-Conductors class was based thoroughly on QM. The thing is, at the level where computation took place, the quantum weirdness effects were no longer relevant. As such, you can formulate the workings entirely deterministically even though they are based on non-deterministic events.
The question whether the brain uses quantum level effects is still open. Roger Penrose took a lot of flak for suggesting such effects in his book. Even though it wasn't really relevant to his main point (our current knowledge of science is incomplete and the answer to the mind/brain connection may require new theories), this part was the one most critics chose to attack. Currently, no serious scientific theory suggests a non-deterministic component, AFAIK (which, admittedly, is not far).
If everything above the level of waveforms in deterministic, as it seems to be, then the brain can still be deterministic as well.
QM has been used in the question of freewill on both sides since it was formulated.
According to this an earlier eruption may have almost wiped out the human race.
Of course, there are other kallisti's I've run into, and kallisti is kind of a troublemaker name, anyway...