This was done in California using students from Berkeley, a small subset of all of North America (considering a Canadian was one of the authors).
Additionally, they asked respondents their "social economic" level, they didn't go to the IRS and verify anything. People tend to lie about their income, its a well known fact, so all you have is a bunch of people who you know are lairs cause of the testing they did word that they are in the income bracket they specified. Something tells me this isn't a "valid" way to build a research report by going on the word of the people you already know are lairs.
Their method for telling if someone is rich or poor in their driver study? By the car they drove, cause apparently people don't take out loans for ridiculous amounts of money even though they should otherwise be unable to ever afford the car in question. No, instead this experiment on the drivers gauged how much someone was willing to spend on a car to show off, and typically, in any age or income bracket, the one who buys something to use as a status symbol is a prick. We already knew that.
In addition, their so called "studies" was done using students who "pretended" to be rich or pretended to be "poor", therefor were playing the role of a rich person they had in their mind. In other words they were playing on their stereotype that they feel rich people would steal, while the poor are "honest" people.
Another one of their great studies used non-managers and were told to pretend to be managers, again your using people to play a role and they are going to be stereotypical of what they perceive managers to be. Which again invalidates their results.
This can barely be called a experiment. It was flawed from the start. This isn't tech related, this isn't science related, and its not even a study that matters if someone was willing to bother reading their testing methods. Wired wrote up a good article on this load of crap.
This is what the scientific process pretty much requires. The ability to duplicate the experiment using equipment/people who were not there the first time.
I believe what he was saying is a figure of speech. As most other types of science today can be done at multiple locations even if the price tag is a lot higher then a mere $20. While anything out of CERN cannot be independently verified so it doesn't matter if their project costs $20 billion dollars, or $1, if it cannot be done in controlled conditions somewhere else it fails the ability to have a peer evaluation with independent testing procedures.
Morals are subjective, not objective. Humanities morals and ethics have changed over time and they'll continue to change same as our laws. I do not see your point?
Making noise (which the R/C copter would do) while a hunt is going on has been time and time again shown to be impeding the hunt in US States and in Canadian Provinces. Additionally, till 500 feet where it becomes "air traffic", going over ones land low to the ground aircraft or not is trespassing as a few other posters have mentioned.
If you in the next farm over, and your making too much noise during hunting season so that it travels onto the property of those legally hunting, and the hunters complain, you can and will be charged with impeding the hunt.
Instead of worrying about FRAND, how about we drop Stallman and his ridiculous GPL and work with something that is more free to people instead of one makes archaic poison pill?
While I do not necessarily condone pigeon shooting (biodegradable clays are easier to clean up, you simply don't), legally harassing any form of hunting is illegal in all US states. Including South Carolina.
50-1-137. Impeding or obstructing hunting, trapping, fishing, or harvesting of marine species unlawful; penalty.
It is unlawful for a person willfully to impede or obstruct another person from lawfully hunting, trapping, fishing, or harvesting marine species. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished as provided by Section 50-1-130. In addition to the criminal penalty, any person convicted must have his privilege to hunt, trap, fish, or harvest marine species recreationally or commercially revoked for one year.
SECTION 50-1-130. General penalties. [SC ST SEC 50-1-130]
Unless a different penalty is specified, any person who violates a provision of this title is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not less than ten days nor more than thirty days.
They could go to small claims or similar and try to extract his 300$ in damages, but at the same time, they can also be facing a 30 day jail sentence for harassment. If the hunters press charges.
Vocational training, even if not directly related to the students chosen field is not only suggested by the Chinese Labor law, its nearly required to be done by universities. During the Mao era, sending students off to farms to work the fields was considered a "good" educational experience for the students, now that China has viable factories to handle the students, they are sent there.
Article 66 The State, through various means, take various measures to expand vocational training undertakings, the development of professional skills of laborers, improve the quality of workers and enhance their employment capability and work ability.
Article 67 The people's government at all levels should develop vocational training into the socio-economic development planning, and various forms of vocational training to encourage and support qualified enterprises, institutional organizations, social organizations and individuals.
Article 68 The employing units shall establish a vocational training system, the extraction and use of funds for vocational training in accordance with state regulations, according to its practical, planned way and laborers with professional training.
Fact #1 - Foxconn currently employs 1.3 MILLION people. It employed 920,000 people in 2010 when the suicides happened.
Fact #2 - The number of suicides (and attempted suicides) in a year that sparked "outrage" is 18.
Fact #3 - The suicide rate in the United States is 11.8 per 100,000 people.
Fact #4 - The suicide rate in the Peoples Republic of China is sitting at 22.2 per 100,000 people.
Fact #5 - Basic math skills, show that Foxconn enjoys a suicide rate of 2 per 100,000 people.
Don't you think that the suicide rate would be higher then the rest of China if things were actually that bad? After all its a tenth of the rest of China, and its nearly 6 times under the American suicide rate.
Fact is, currently in China, based on what I'm getting from Chinese media, and the wife's family, jobs are in a shorter supply then people who are leaving rural areas to go to work in these factories. Companies like Foxconn are well known, and people fight over the jobs.
The internships are paying at least minimum wage, as the article suggests. Foxconn on top of the salary of its employees includes free accommodations and food, which makes Foxconn a very attractive place to work as many of the employees work there simply to afford to send their income back "home" where their parents live in impoverished conditions. China is labelled a "developing" country for a reason.
Overtime in China is restricted to no more then 36 hours a month, and no more then 3 hours on any one day, overtime must be paid out at 1.5 times. Over time on weekends is automatically double time, and over time on holidays is triple time. Salaried workers like here, where you could work a 60 hour a week without any additional compensation is outright illegal.
Yes workers do start work at say 8am, and end at 8pm in China, giving them a 12 hour day, however, like is the custom in many countries (including Europe) lunch breaks in China typically involve at least 2 hours, and 4 hour lunch breaks are common. There working hours before reaching over time is however limited to 40 like most of the world. Which is similar to here, you work from 9am to 5:30pm, with a half hour unpaid lunch in many jobs or you simply get docked the half hour's pay between 9 to 5.
As for this "living minimum wage" its not a issue with Foxconn its a issue with everyone in China, which is why the Chinese have been increasing it between 15-30% per year for the last few years. The Chinese standards of living are increasing, costs are increasing due to the industrialization, and while it might not be ideal, their minimum wages have been increasing at a greater rate then any developed nation. Complaining about that, is like complaining that the 7.25$ that is minimum wage in NY is the company that employs you fault that it costs 3 times that to live in NYC. It happens everywhere
Colour of right is pleading ignorance of the law or situation, or having the belief that something else should protect you. Getting charged for theft cause you borrowed a buddies car without specifying when you'd bring it back, and he filed a stolen vehicle report cause you didn't bring it back in a hour, and brought it back 4 hours later can be a situation where colour of right applies. A computer hacker paid by a employer or company as a contractor to hack into the data bases of their own company to test for vulnerabilities, that is later charged can plead colour of right, because he had permission to do it and therefor shouldn't be charged under the law.
I would love to see you or anyone else get permission for hacking DRM from the Publisher/studio in question so that you may plead colour of right for breaking the DRM on a disk.
The Copyright Act in no way, shape or form excuses anyone from the Criminal Code of Canada. With regards to DRM or anything else period. Actually for that matter, the CC takes precedence legally when multiple legal matters might "conflict" under the Canadian legal system.
Before you call someone a "liar", and a "shill", please read and understand that Canadian law for hacking is very broad, and its contained in my reply to JonySuede. Breaking any kind of digital protection or password system is currently illegal, whether or not you like that fact. Just like it is in most of the world.
When you fraudulently obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service, its illegal in Canada. That includes DRM schemes and any other number of ways to secure data. Breaking DRM protection on a CD/DVD is legally equivalent to breaking the encryption used to secure data on a CD filled with confidential information. There is ZERO distinction in the law between the two.
342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right, (a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service, (b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system,
(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system, or
(d) uses, possesses, traffics in or permits another person to have access to a computer password that would enable a person to commit an offence under paragraph (a), (b) or (c)
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Also
(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully (a) destroys or alters data;
(b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access thereto.
This is the part of the Criminal Code used to prosecute any kind of "hacking" related offense. And without permission to break the DRM on a DVD, its still legal to do such.
Back ups are legal, however, breaking DRM on the CD/DVD to do it is not, yes its a Catch-22 but its still the law at the moment.
I am going to assume your American, cause our legal process is done differently.
Provisions being added are quite rare unless there is bickering amongst the parties, with things being removed, and others added as a compromise at times. With the current Conservative majority, there is no need to compromise, which means the law was tabled, and will be passed as is, since this is what the Conservative party is looking for. Additionally, lobbying like is done in the United States is illegal.
The Conservative party has always felt that the restrictions posed by American Lawmakers and the international agreements that Canada signed under the Liberal government were too restrictive, which is why they sided with the Supreme Court when they deemed Peer to Peer file sharing is legal as mentioned in my first post. This change in law is nothing but adding more specifics outlining that its illegal, but as I previously said, its already illegal to do the same things, its just listed now under computer law and copyright law, but it was already there.
These articles on C-11 are just fear mongering, without any real facts to back up the fear building its attempting to do. No thanks in part to people who don't know the Canadian political system, our laws, and people who are trying to find any excuse to blame the current Conservative government, when in reality, all of our international agreements for copyright laws and piracy were signed by the Liberal Party of Canada.
but simultaneously effectively revokes all of those exemptions if or whenever the work in question has any form of digital lock..
Breaking any type of "digital" lock on something, whether copyrighted or not, without the owners permission under Canadian law is illegal.
Adding it directly onto the copyright law changes nothing, other then well nothing. Considering the users of P2P sharing who are at the moment legal to do so, are not all parties to the lock breaking, only one person is, and regardless of the copyright law, they are still in violation of computer laws by bypassing any sort of digital lock. So at best (or worst depending on your view) this might mean that the more serious hacking laws will have a second copyright infringement charge added to their list of offenses.
C-11 is really just renaming some things in the original copyright acts, doesn't change the fact you must go to court to prove your case before having someone's website pulled, charged or anything.
It adds a bunch of non-specifics about the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT in the law), that we signed and never actually changed our copyrights to agree with. Its you know only been 10 years since the Liberals signed it and had not done anything about it Federally.
Also, most of the law, is worded to match that agreement, especially relating to internet sharing, however, the law was written not targeting the "service providers" and "users" as the agreement was originally signed and the American's adopted it as the DMCA, it actually appears to only target the people who are hosting/running the services. Which is following the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling about P2P file sharing being legal, as long as your not advertising, or benefiting through the copyright infringement financially.
Which seems to be why they added this part:
(2.4) In determining whether a person has infringed copyright under subsection (2.3), the court may consider
(a) whether the person expressly or implicitly marketed or promoted the service as one that could be used to enable acts of copyright infringement;
(b) whether the person had knowledge that the service was used to enable a significant number of acts of copyright infringement;
(c) whether the service has significant uses other than to enable acts of copyright infringement;
(d) the person’s ability, as part of providing the service, to limit acts of copyright infringement, and any action taken by the person to do so;
(e) any benefits the person received as a result of enabling the acts of copyright infringement; and
(f) the economic viability of the provision of the service if it were not used to enable acts of copyright infringement.
It is all about whether your providing a "service" to aid in copyright infridgement. Not actually the users. MegaUpload = No good, Torrents/Gnutella shared among peoples personal computers = okay still.
IBM sells CPU's that have DRAM onboard for quite a while, IBM developed it, patented it, and sells it as "eDRAM" aka "embeddedDRAM".
I guess IBM's POWER7 processor family powering such things like, Sony's PlayStation 2, Sony's PlayStation Portable, Nintendo's GameCube, Nintendo's Wii, and Microsoft's Xbox 360. All have eDRAM.
Maybe news articles should be checked to see if they are really news or not before posting?
Qatar is number one at 53.5 tons per person, followed by Trinidad and Tobago at 37.3 tons oddly enough.
Going down the list you find Australia to be the number one developed polluter per person at 18.9 tons, giving it 11th place. Immediately afterwords at 12th place is the US at 17.5 tons per person. We Canadians are 15th with 16.4 tons per person, and going down you find Russia at 12.1 tons per person or 23rd.
Germany is 37th with 9.6 tons per person, Greece is 41st with 8.8 tons, The UK is 43 with 8.5 tons. And France who can forget them at 6.1 tons, they are 65th.
For the drum roll, China is number 78th at a mere 5.3 tons per person.
All per the US Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)
But 1971 is such a good year to pick, after a decade of China not only stopping any real industrialization, but instead falling apart in its manufacturing and technological base, while at the same time it was the start of the EPA and the Clean Air Act in the US. It helps skew the numbers the right direction for a politically motivated article.
/sarcasm
China in 1971 might as well have been the Democratic Republic of Congo technology and manufacturing wise, actually I think the Congo today outperforms what all of China did then!
Aircraft aren't loaded out with full weapons - no one would have gotten anywhere near a battle group with Aegis destroyers and F14s hauling 4 Phoenix, 2 Sparrow, and 2 Sidewinders.
Are you listening to yourself? The F14 has been out of service for a while, since July 2006 in fact.
The irony is, the only country in the world to still operate the F14 is the Iranians.
Slashdot Mirror
This was done in California using students from Berkeley, a small subset of all of North America (considering a Canadian was one of the authors).
Additionally, they asked respondents their "social economic" level, they didn't go to the IRS and verify anything. People tend to lie about their income, its a well known fact, so all you have is a bunch of people who you know are lairs cause of the testing they did word that they are in the income bracket they specified. Something tells me this isn't a "valid" way to build a research report by going on the word of the people you already know are lairs.
Their method for telling if someone is rich or poor in their driver study? By the car they drove, cause apparently people don't take out loans for ridiculous amounts of money even though they should otherwise be unable to ever afford the car in question. No, instead this experiment on the drivers gauged how much someone was willing to spend on a car to show off, and typically, in any age or income bracket, the one who buys something to use as a status symbol is a prick. We already knew that.
In addition, their so called "studies" was done using students who "pretended" to be rich or pretended to be "poor", therefor were playing the role of a rich person they had in their mind. In other words they were playing on their stereotype that they feel rich people would steal, while the poor are "honest" people.
Another one of their great studies used non-managers and were told to pretend to be managers, again your using people to play a role and they are going to be stereotypical of what they perceive managers to be. Which again invalidates their results.
This can barely be called a experiment. It was flawed from the start. This isn't tech related, this isn't science related, and its not even a study that matters if someone was willing to bother reading their testing methods. Wired wrote up a good article on this load of crap.
And people keep telling me IBM isn't innovative and cutting edge anymore. [/Sarcasm]
No mod points, so commenting, if anyone saw the debate yesterday you'd have realized how right Nerdfest is.
This is what the scientific process pretty much requires. The ability to duplicate the experiment using equipment/people who were not there the first time.
I believe what he was saying is a figure of speech. As most other types of science today can be done at multiple locations even if the price tag is a lot higher then a mere $20. While anything out of CERN cannot be independently verified so it doesn't matter if their project costs $20 billion dollars, or $1, if it cannot be done in controlled conditions somewhere else it fails the ability to have a peer evaluation with independent testing procedures.
Morals are subjective, not objective. Humanities morals and ethics have changed over time and they'll continue to change same as our laws. I do not see your point?
Making noise (which the R/C copter would do) while a hunt is going on has been time and time again shown to be impeding the hunt in US States and in Canadian Provinces. Additionally, till 500 feet where it becomes "air traffic", going over ones land low to the ground aircraft or not is trespassing as a few other posters have mentioned.
If you in the next farm over, and your making too much noise during hunting season so that it travels onto the property of those legally hunting, and the hunters complain, you can and will be charged with impeding the hunt.
Instead of worrying about FRAND, how about we drop Stallman and his ridiculous GPL and work with something that is more free to people instead of one makes archaic poison pill?
While I do not necessarily condone pigeon shooting (biodegradable clays are easier to clean up, you simply don't), legally harassing any form of hunting is illegal in all US states. Including South Carolina.
50-1-137. Impeding or obstructing hunting, trapping, fishing, or harvesting of marine species unlawful; penalty.
It is unlawful for a person willfully to impede or obstruct another person from lawfully hunting, trapping, fishing, or harvesting marine species. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished as provided by Section 50-1-130. In addition to the criminal penalty, any person convicted must have his privilege to hunt, trap, fish, or harvest marine species recreationally or commercially revoked for one year.
SECTION 50-1-130. General penalties. [SC ST SEC 50-1-130]
Unless a different penalty is specified, any person who violates a provision of this title is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not less than ten days nor more than thirty days.
They could go to small claims or similar and try to extract his 300$ in damages, but at the same time, they can also be facing a 30 day jail sentence for harassment. If the hunters press charges.
Vocational training, even if not directly related to the students chosen field is not only suggested by the Chinese Labor law, its nearly required to be done by universities. During the Mao era, sending students off to farms to work the fields was considered a "good" educational experience for the students, now that China has viable factories to handle the students, they are sent there.
Article 66 The State, through various means, take various measures to expand vocational training undertakings, the development of professional skills of laborers, improve the quality of workers and enhance their employment capability and work ability.
Article 67 The people's government at all levels should develop vocational training into the socio-economic development planning, and various forms of vocational training to encourage and support qualified enterprises, institutional organizations, social organizations and individuals.
Article 68 The employing units shall establish a vocational training system, the extraction and use of funds for vocational training in accordance with state regulations, according to its practical, planned way and laborers with professional training.
Fact #1 - Foxconn currently employs 1.3 MILLION people. It employed 920,000 people in 2010 when the suicides happened.
Fact #2 - The number of suicides (and attempted suicides) in a year that sparked "outrage" is 18.
Fact #3 - The suicide rate in the United States is 11.8 per 100,000 people.
Fact #4 - The suicide rate in the Peoples Republic of China is sitting at 22.2 per 100,000 people.
Fact #5 - Basic math skills, show that Foxconn enjoys a suicide rate of 2 per 100,000 people.
Don't you think that the suicide rate would be higher then the rest of China if things were actually that bad? After all its a tenth of the rest of China, and its nearly 6 times under the American suicide rate.
Fact is, currently in China, based on what I'm getting from Chinese media, and the wife's family, jobs are in a shorter supply then people who are leaving rural areas to go to work in these factories. Companies like Foxconn are well known, and people fight over the jobs.
The internships are paying at least minimum wage, as the article suggests. Foxconn on top of the salary of its employees includes free accommodations and food, which makes Foxconn a very attractive place to work as many of the employees work there simply to afford to send their income back "home" where their parents live in impoverished conditions. China is labelled a "developing" country for a reason.
Overtime in China is restricted to no more then 36 hours a month, and no more then 3 hours on any one day, overtime must be paid out at 1.5 times. Over time on weekends is automatically double time, and over time on holidays is triple time. Salaried workers like here, where you could work a 60 hour a week without any additional compensation is outright illegal.
Yes workers do start work at say 8am, and end at 8pm in China, giving them a 12 hour day, however, like is the custom in many countries (including Europe) lunch breaks in China typically involve at least 2 hours, and 4 hour lunch breaks are common. There working hours before reaching over time is however limited to 40 like most of the world. Which is similar to here, you work from 9am to 5:30pm, with a half hour unpaid lunch in many jobs or you simply get docked the half hour's pay between 9 to 5.
As for this "living minimum wage" its not a issue with Foxconn its a issue with everyone in China, which is why the Chinese have been increasing it between 15-30% per year for the last few years. The Chinese standards of living are increasing, costs are increasing due to the industrialization, and while it might not be ideal, their minimum wages have been increasing at a greater rate then any developed nation. Complaining about that, is like complaining that the 7.25$ that is minimum wage in NY is the company that employs you fault that it costs 3 times that to live in NYC. It happens everywhere
Colour of right is pleading ignorance of the law or situation, or having the belief that something else should protect you. Getting charged for theft cause you borrowed a buddies car without specifying when you'd bring it back, and he filed a stolen vehicle report cause you didn't bring it back in a hour, and brought it back 4 hours later can be a situation where colour of right applies. A computer hacker paid by a employer or company as a contractor to hack into the data bases of their own company to test for vulnerabilities, that is later charged can plead colour of right, because he had permission to do it and therefor shouldn't be charged under the law.
I would love to see you or anyone else get permission for hacking DRM from the Publisher/studio in question so that you may plead colour of right for breaking the DRM on a disk.
The Copyright Act in no way, shape or form excuses anyone from the Criminal Code of Canada. With regards to DRM or anything else period. Actually for that matter, the CC takes precedence legally when multiple legal matters might "conflict" under the Canadian legal system.
Before you call someone a "liar", and a "shill", please read and understand that Canadian law for hacking is very broad, and its contained in my reply to JonySuede. Breaking any kind of digital protection or password system is currently illegal, whether or not you like that fact. Just like it is in most of the world.
When you fraudulently obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service, its illegal in Canada. That includes DRM schemes and any other number of ways to secure data. Breaking DRM protection on a CD/DVD is legally equivalent to breaking the encryption used to secure data on a CD filled with confidential information. There is ZERO distinction in the law between the two.
342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,
(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system,
(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system, or
(d) uses, possesses, traffics in or permits another person to have access to a computer password that would enable a person to commit an offence under paragraph (a), (b) or (c)
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Also
(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or alters data;
(b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access thereto.
This is the part of the Criminal Code used to prosecute any kind of "hacking" related offense. And without permission to break the DRM on a DVD, its still legal to do such.
Back ups are legal, however, breaking DRM on the CD/DVD to do it is not, yes its a Catch-22 but its still the law at the moment.
I am going to assume your American, cause our legal process is done differently.
Provisions being added are quite rare unless there is bickering amongst the parties, with things being removed, and others added as a compromise at times. With the current Conservative majority, there is no need to compromise, which means the law was tabled, and will be passed as is, since this is what the Conservative party is looking for. Additionally, lobbying like is done in the United States is illegal.
The Conservative party has always felt that the restrictions posed by American Lawmakers and the international agreements that Canada signed under the Liberal government were too restrictive, which is why they sided with the Supreme Court when they deemed Peer to Peer file sharing is legal as mentioned in my first post. This change in law is nothing but adding more specifics outlining that its illegal, but as I previously said, its already illegal to do the same things, its just listed now under computer law and copyright law, but it was already there.
These articles on C-11 are just fear mongering, without any real facts to back up the fear building its attempting to do. No thanks in part to people who don't know the Canadian political system, our laws, and people who are trying to find any excuse to blame the current Conservative government, when in reality, all of our international agreements for copyright laws and piracy were signed by the Liberal Party of Canada.
Yes that you are.
but simultaneously effectively revokes all of those exemptions if or whenever the work in question has any form of digital lock..
Breaking any type of "digital" lock on something, whether copyrighted or not, without the owners permission under Canadian law is illegal.
Adding it directly onto the copyright law changes nothing, other then well nothing. Considering the users of P2P sharing who are at the moment legal to do so, are not all parties to the lock breaking, only one person is, and regardless of the copyright law, they are still in violation of computer laws by bypassing any sort of digital lock. So at best (or worst depending on your view) this might mean that the more serious hacking laws will have a second copyright infringement charge added to their list of offenses.
Please, C-11 does nothing of the sort.
C-11 is really just renaming some things in the original copyright acts, doesn't change the fact you must go to court to prove your case before having someone's website pulled, charged or anything.
It adds a bunch of non-specifics about the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT in the law), that we signed and never actually changed our copyrights to agree with. Its you know only been 10 years since the Liberals signed it and had not done anything about it Federally.
Also, most of the law, is worded to match that agreement, especially relating to internet sharing, however, the law was written not targeting the "service providers" and "users" as the agreement was originally signed and the American's adopted it as the DMCA, it actually appears to only target the people who are hosting/running the services. Which is following the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling about P2P file sharing being legal, as long as your not advertising, or benefiting through the copyright infringement financially.
Which seems to be why they added this part:
(2.4) In determining whether a person has infringed copyright under subsection (2.3), the court may consider
(a) whether the person expressly or implicitly marketed or promoted the service as one that could be used to enable acts of copyright infringement;
(b) whether the person had knowledge that the service was used to enable a significant number of acts of copyright infringement;
(c) whether the service has significant uses other than to enable acts of copyright infringement;
(d) the person’s ability, as part of providing the service, to limit acts of copyright infringement, and any action taken by the person to do so;
(e) any benefits the person received as a result of enabling the acts of copyright infringement; and
(f) the economic viability of the provision of the service if it were not used to enable acts of copyright infringement.
It is all about whether your providing a "service" to aid in copyright infridgement. Not actually the users. MegaUpload = No good, Torrents/Gnutella shared among peoples personal computers = okay still.
Your right, my mistake, however IBM did put in DRAM onto the Xbox as AC says.
IBM sells CPU's that have DRAM onboard for quite a while, IBM developed it, patented it, and sells it as "eDRAM" aka "embeddedDRAM".
I guess IBM's POWER7 processor family powering such things like, Sony's PlayStation 2, Sony's PlayStation Portable, Nintendo's GameCube, Nintendo's Wii, and Microsoft's Xbox 360. All have eDRAM.
Maybe news articles should be checked to see if they are really news or not before posting?
Per person you say?
Qatar is number one at 53.5 tons per person, followed by Trinidad and Tobago at 37.3 tons oddly enough.
Going down the list you find Australia to be the number one developed polluter per person at 18.9 tons, giving it 11th place. Immediately afterwords at 12th place is the US at 17.5 tons per person. We Canadians are 15th with 16.4 tons per person, and going down you find Russia at 12.1 tons per person or 23rd.
Germany is 37th with 9.6 tons per person, Greece is 41st with 8.8 tons, The UK is 43 with 8.5 tons. And France who can forget them at 6.1 tons, they are 65th.
For the drum roll, China is number 78th at a mere 5.3 tons per person.
All per the US Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)
But 1971 is such a good year to pick, after a decade of China not only stopping any real industrialization, but instead falling apart in its manufacturing and technological base, while at the same time it was the start of the EPA and the Clean Air Act in the US. It helps skew the numbers the right direction for a politically motivated article.
/sarcasm
China in 1971 might as well have been the Democratic Republic of Congo technology and manufacturing wise, actually I think the Congo today outperforms what all of China did then!
Aircraft aren't loaded out with full weapons - no one would have gotten anywhere near a battle group with Aegis destroyers and F14s hauling 4 Phoenix, 2 Sparrow, and 2 Sidewinders.
Are you listening to yourself? The F14 has been out of service for a while, since July 2006 in fact.
The irony is, the only country in the world to still operate the F14 is the Iranians.
China has not been communist since Mao died. Only the Western world still believes otherwise.
Yes because slavery and lack of rights didn't exist under the "peaceful" way of life when the Dalai Lama was in charged of Tibet./sarcasm
Since you asked, nevermind the fact it was actually printed in newspapers here in Canada back in 1981 when it happened.
Is the US Navy Overrated?, 2005
Professor Roger Thompson,
Professor of Military Studies, Knightsbridge University,