All these hoops they are jumping through, connecting to a sever to punch through the NATed router yadda yadda yadda would be unnecessary with IPv6 and a lot more secure with some trivial hardware encryption. The phone app could directly connect to the device without a middleman that can fail or be compromised.
The manufacturer is an idiot, market a device that functions by connecting to the internet through the WiFi in the customer's house from the garage, what could go wrong, just everything. The disgruntled customer probably has a detached garage that's sheathed with metal foil backed fiberboard, then a steel garage door and doesn't even know the WiFi drops out when the garage door is closed.
The publisher doesn't control the data, the author does; they data may even have originated from a third party. A publisher might hold copyright on a presentation of the data, such as data plotted as a graph, but not the data used to make the plot.
Actually we gave Mexico $74 Million US to go toward building a wall on their southern border. Mexico has a very big problem with illegal immigration, just like the US.
in short creative works that are copyrighted, data is a collection of fact that is not copyrightable.
Your comment on Slashdot is a Datum in a collection of data called a database on Slashdot's servers, and it is copyrightable.
Also, yes, journals and scientific databases contain data, and their publishers restrict access and require licensing of usage.
No my comment , in short creative works that are copyrighted, data is a collection of fact that is not copyrightable., is a creative work and copyrighted, ASN00037003,19500101,PRCP,0,,,a, USC00242347,19500101,PRCP,53,,,0,1830 USC00242347,19500101,SNOW,51,,,0, USC00242347,19500101,SNWD,178,,,0, USC00300379,19500101,PRCP,8,,,0,0800 USC00300379,19500101,SNOW,5,,,0, USC00217184,19500101,PRCP,0,,,0, USC00443690,19500101,TMAX,139,,,0, USC00443690,19500101,TMIN,-17,,,0, USC00443690,19500101,TOBS,111,,,0, is not.
While journals and scientific databases contain data, and their publishers may attempt to restrict access and require licensing of usage for usage; it doesn't mean the restrictions are legally defensible.
Hopefully if you went to Fukushima, 24 hours after the Fukushima disaster, you took some water samples, you tested some of the water, sent a sample to an independent lab for testing to you know verify your testing, so you don't publish something stupid based a a miss-calibrated instrument and embarrass yourself and your sponsoring institution publicly. Maybe take some pictures of the algae, possibly culture some of the algae for future study, you know things real Scientists typically do.
Maybe this is an incentive for scientists to stop publishing in journals that want to keep their data secret that fundamentally makes science more open.
Dude that's not data, that is summary of data, analysis fo data, representation of data presentation of data, in short creative works that are copyrighted, data is a collection of fact that is not copyrightable.
Sounds like a bill based on an understanding of science from people who've never worked in a scientific field. All research affected by HIPAA would be banned by this bill. Which is the majority of medical research. All research involving external sources of proprietary data - which no researchers like using, but sometimes you have no choice - would also be banned.
Research cover by HIPAA would involve "personally identifiable data", most of the "personally identifiable data" is easily anonymized . Most Patients and subject sign release agreement without even reading them that allows data sharing, and the Verifying Researcher would simply sign a business agreement.
Worrying about HIPPA in an EPA finding should happen very very rarely, you would expect those concerns at the FDA much more often.
Independently verified, doesn't mean the EPA has to do it, it means a Scientist that is independent from the original researcher has to do it before the EPA can make a finding that potentially costs Billions of dollars to the country.
So show us the data, the raw unadjusted, non-quality controlled, un-infilled, non-normalized data. Then tell us why you made the adjustments you made to get your data-product. Now reproduce your data product using the algorithms you've documented to reproduce from the original data.
After that you can demonstrate whether or not the climate is changing in a manner that is unique and unprecedented and we can move on to causation.
How exactly do you "independently reproduce" the data on a one-time event ? Most of this data is private medical data gathered under extremely specific situation after specific one-time events - to determine whether or not those events did harm and should be prevented in future.
There is no way to reproduce most of this data without flagrantly violating scientific and medical ethics anyway. "Patient had X level of lead in his blood, and showed symptoms Y and Z" is valid scientific data. But it's not reproducible because PUTTING X level of lead in somebody else's blood is a fucking crime against humanity !
Why prey tell would you think it is appropriate for the Federal EPA to base a ruling one a "one-time event", wouldn't regulating a "one-time event" after the event be an oxymoron?
Your example is also bogus, it is perfectly expectable to take the researcher's data base and analyse it from a basis of; "What is the mean and standard deviation of blood lead levels for people displaying Sx Y, Z and (Y+Z)" and later follow it with, "of people with a blood lead level of X, how many display SX Y, Z and (Y+Z)?" If you have the raw data, it's much easier to integrate additional studies into the database on an apples to apples and oranges to oranges basis to yield more robust results.
They won't just let the EPA publish that data because some guy in Washington has weird conspiracies on what scientists do, because that data has to be licensed.... they are commercially forbidden from compliance on pain of retribution by the legal system
That is absolutely false, the only reason something needs to be licensed is because it is either trademarked, patented or copyrighted. Trademark would not be applicable; patents offer legal protection but require public disclosure so that someone "Skilled in the trade" can reproduce soi it can't be that. That leaves copyright, but copyright only covers creative works and exclude facts, and data by it's very nature is a collections of facts. Which brings us to the question, What The Fuck are you talking about?
Because "math" translates as "hard", "discrete mathematics" translates as "incomprehensible" (i.e. super-hard) and "coding" translates as "being smart" and "making money with magic and chat apps/games".
Are you kidding, soon half the coders in silicon valley working 100 hour weeks are going to be making less per hour than a burger flipper now that minimum wage is going to $15.00/hr!
Slashdot Mirror
All these hoops they are jumping through, connecting to a sever to punch through the NATed router yadda yadda yadda would be unnecessary with IPv6 and a lot more secure with some trivial hardware encryption. The phone app could directly connect to the device without a middleman that can fail or be compromised.
Did the guy agree that his device can be disabled at any time and the server side service is not a given?
If the manufacturer goes broke and can't pay his cloud bill, everybody will be cut-off on the server side.
The manufacturer is an idiot, market a device that functions by connecting to the internet through the WiFi in the customer's house from the garage, what could go wrong, just everything. The disgruntled customer probably has a detached garage that's sheathed with metal foil backed fiberboard, then a steel garage door and doesn't even know the WiFi drops out when the garage door is closed.
It would be interesting to know about any impact to low birth weights around the coal-fired generators, not the shuttered nuclear facility.
That's what they did.
So fish aren't animals?
Now think what would happen if even a fraction of money put into the renewables drive went into fusion research...
We'd have Fusion in 30 years, just like they said when the Fission reactors in the study were shut down 30 years ago.
They had to, if the SJW realised they were saying nuclear is good, their funding for any future studies would have been cut.
The publisher doesn't control the data, the author does; they data may even have originated from a third party. A publisher might hold copyright on a presentation of the data, such as data plotted as a graph, but not the data used to make the plot.
"The purpose of the Office of the President is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." Douglas Addams
The "nice" thing about this is that you can't actually sue the US government for this sort of stuff because of Sovereign Immunity[tm]
You can if they allow you to, the USG is amazingly permissive about such suits.
I'd have gone with sock-monkey rather than chimpanzee.
Actually we gave Mexico $74 Million US to go toward building a wall on their southern border. Mexico has a very big problem with illegal immigration, just like the US.
That particular ecological disaster was unleashed by the EPA, who took actions that were advised against by engineers on site.
in short creative works that are copyrighted, data is a collection of fact that is not copyrightable.
Your comment on Slashdot is a Datum in a collection of data called a database on Slashdot's servers, and it is copyrightable.
Also, yes, journals and scientific databases contain data, and their publishers restrict access and require licensing of usage.
No my comment , in short creative works that are copyrighted, data is a collection of fact that is not copyrightable., is a creative work and copyrighted,
ASN00037003,19500101,PRCP,0,,,a,
USC00242347,19500101,PRCP,53,,,0,1830
USC00242347,19500101,SNOW,51,,,0,
USC00242347,19500101,SNWD,178,,,0,
USC00300379,19500101,PRCP,8,,,0,0800
USC00300379,19500101,SNOW,5,,,0,
USC00217184,19500101,PRCP,0,,,0,
USC00443690,19500101,TMAX,139,,,0,
USC00443690,19500101,TMIN,-17,,,0,
USC00443690,19500101,TOBS,111,,,0,
is not.
While journals and scientific databases contain data, and their publishers may attempt to restrict access and require licensing of usage for usage; it doesn't mean the restrictions are legally defensible.
Yes it is, is a closed simple system where all other things are equal, but we are talking about Climate where all things are never equal.
Prisoners from North Korean prisons, claim rats eat the eyeballs first, maybe we should verify that.
Hopefully if you went to Fukushima, 24 hours after the Fukushima disaster, you took some water samples, you tested some of the water, sent a sample to an independent lab for testing to you know verify your testing, so you don't publish something stupid based a a miss-calibrated instrument and embarrass yourself and your sponsoring institution publicly. Maybe take some pictures of the algae, possibly culture some of the algae for future study, you know things real Scientists typically do.
Thank God we don't have to worry about the Cuyahoga river burning or 2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill now that the EPA is protecting us!
Maybe this is an incentive for scientists to stop publishing in journals that want to keep their data secret
that fundamentally makes science more open.
Dude that's not data, that is
summary of data,
analysis fo data,
representation of data
presentation of data,
in short creative works that are copyrighted, data is a collection of fact that is not copyrightable.
Research cover by HIPAA would involve "personally identifiable data", most of the "personally identifiable data" is easily anonymized . Most Patients and subject sign release agreement without even reading them that allows data sharing, and the Verifying Researcher would simply sign a business agreement.
Worrying about HIPPA in an EPA finding should happen very very rarely, you would expect those concerns at the FDA much more often.
Independently verified, doesn't mean the EPA has to do it, it means a Scientist that is independent from the original researcher has to do it before the EPA can make a finding that potentially costs Billions of dollars to the country.
CO2 is causing climate change.
So show us the data, the raw unadjusted, non-quality controlled, un-infilled, non-normalized data.
Then tell us why you made the adjustments you made to get your data-product.
Now reproduce your data product using the algorithms you've documented to reproduce from the original data.
After that you can demonstrate whether or not the climate is changing in a manner that is unique and unprecedented and we can move on to causation.
How exactly do you "independently reproduce" the data on a one-time event ? Most of this data is private medical data gathered under extremely specific situation after specific one-time events - to determine whether or not those events did harm and should be prevented in future.
There is no way to reproduce most of this data without flagrantly violating scientific and medical ethics anyway. "Patient had X level of lead in his blood, and showed symptoms Y and Z" is valid scientific data. But it's not reproducible because PUTTING X level of lead in somebody else's blood is a fucking crime against humanity !
Why prey tell would you think it is appropriate for the Federal EPA to base a ruling one a "one-time event", wouldn't regulating a "one-time event" after the event be an oxymoron?
Your example is also bogus, it is perfectly expectable to take the researcher's data base and analyse it from a basis of;
"What is the mean and standard deviation of blood lead levels for people displaying Sx Y, Z and (Y+Z)"
and later follow it with,
"of people with a blood lead level of X, how many display SX Y, Z and (Y+Z)?"
If you have the raw data, it's much easier to integrate additional studies into the database on an apples to apples and oranges to oranges basis to yield more robust results.
They won't just let the EPA publish that data because some guy in Washington has weird conspiracies on what scientists do, because that data has to be licensed. ... they are commercially forbidden from compliance on pain of retribution by the legal system
That is absolutely false, the only reason something needs to be licensed is because it is either trademarked, patented or copyrighted. Trademark would not be applicable; patents offer legal protection but require public disclosure so that someone "Skilled in the trade" can reproduce soi it can't be that.
That leaves copyright, but copyright only covers creative works and exclude facts, and data by it's very nature is a collections of facts.
Which brings us to the question, What The Fuck are you talking about?
Because "math" translates as "hard", "discrete mathematics" translates as "incomprehensible" (i.e. super-hard) and "coding" translates as "being smart" and "making money with magic and chat apps/games".
Are you kidding, soon half the coders in silicon valley working 100 hour weeks are going to be making less per hour than a burger flipper now that minimum wage is going to $15.00/hr!