You're posting to Slashdot about a problem with a date? And you think you're gonna get screwed? I'm not sure if this is redundant or wishful thinking.:)
No, really there is speed and velocity, neither of which are meaningless. Speed is how fast something is moving. Velocity is speed with a directional attribute.
From the "Declaration of Dr. Doug Jacobson, Ph.D., CFCE", points 5-7 really contain the "meat" of his arguments. However, they seem to be more supportive of your side than the RIAA's.
5. He is basically stating that the computer is setup to use DHCP connections based on what he found and did not find in the system registry. He is correct, this can easily be determined. However, the conclusions he attempts to make from this information do not follow logic. He states that a wireless router was not used. OK, so how did he determine a wired router was not used? The settings that allowed him to determine erroneously that a "public Internet Protocol ('IP') address" was definitely used would be identical if the computer were plugged into a firewall or router directly if said device was setup to host DHCP connections. He can in no way conclude from the information on Ms. Lindor's hard drive coupled with the ISP's (Verizon's) IP assignment log that "This is DEFINITELY the computer" with that IP at that point in time. If Ms. Lindor's computer was plugged directly into a wireless access point, then it would be the access point that had that IP, and any neighbor could have hijacked the connection and instead been the one infringing the copyright. Was this a dial up account? If that is the case, then anybody could have accessed the login information in any number of ways and hacked into her account. Phone company records would then need to be used to prove that a call was made from her phone to the ISP's # at that point in time. The main problem with his entire point is that he has made all of his conclusions based off of information on Ms. Lindor's hard drive, and not from network analysis.
6. But wait, he is now saying that every point he made under #5 above is moot. He is stating that this isn't the computer that was used to infringe copyright. Is he trying to imply that Ms. Lindor is trying to hide the infringement by handing over a fake hard drive or that no, he was wrong all along, and Ms. Lindor is free to go?
7. Gustave Lindor lived in NYC during the time period in question. So, lots of people lived in NYC during the time period, and any one of them could be the person the RIAA is looking for. If they search Mr. Raymond's computers and don't find anything are they going to then search Ms. Lindor's neighbors? At what point does the court say, "No, this is too much, you can't harass this woman anymore for remedy to an action you factually know and believe someone else performed"?
They might be able to prove that somebody used Ms. Lindor's account to infringe copyright, but they have proven it wasn't done with her computer. It is therefore likely that it wasn't her that performed the infringement. Would they not then have to prove she knowingly contributed to the infringement to hold her responsible? It seems to me that this case should be dismissed (their own expert has stated that Ms. Lindor isn't the one that infringed copyright), and if they want to pursue a case against Mr. Raymond, they need to start over with him as the defendant (but then again, IANAL, I'm a systems engineer).
I am only aware of the facts in this case that have been made public, but look forward to your client winning this case. I don't feel this way because I think the RIAA is made up of a bunch of twerps (well I do think that, but that's not the point), but because I don't think she is the one that did this and I would be ticked off if the RIAA came to me w/ this crap because I haven't ever illegally copied music either.
OK, I know you're a troll, and I was making a joke you are incapable of understanding, but I'll respond anyway.
Their tracking of mood in no way means the subjects weren't already infected with something or that they didn't have some other more chronic problem that hadn't been diagnosed yet.
I haven't played Ryzom. However, he benefit is that the game will be able to be changed into another game by anyone who is creative enough to do so. These people can still charge you to connect to their server to play a particular game, but they don't have to spend the money necessary to develop the engine itself nor the particular character objects within the game. This would mean a lower cost of entry and potentially a lower play cost as less expenses will need to be recouped before income goes toward profit.
The only problem with this theory is that ice floats. It keeps reflecting energy until it is melted past a certain thickness. A little colder and the thickness comes back and so does the reflection. It doesn't stop reflecting all at once. Once enough ice melts, the warm tropic waters will no longer flow toward the poles due to decreased salinity in the ocean (Warm tropical salt water is less dense, and cold polar salt water is more dense. The more dense water drops filling in the void that the warm waters moving toward the poles leaves behind. Cold fresh water will be lighter than the warm salt water, and will remain near the surface at the poles. The cold salt water is more dense than both and will remain near the ocean floor at the poles. This will in effect stop the cyclical action that warms the poles). Without the warm tropical waters melting the polar ice, the polar ice caps will reform and the reflection will begin again.
Yes, we are a few degrees warmer now than we were 200 years ago. However, the 500 years between 1300 and 1800 was the coldest in the past 12000 years (by several degrees), so to compare our temp to that temp doesn't say a lot. (Note that during The Little Ice Age people were freaking out because it was getting too cold, and ice was going to cover the planet if they didn't do something.)
Don't get me wrong, I think we should stop polluting, should plant more trees and chop fewer down, and try to develop cleaner more efficient forms of energy. But I am tired of the "the earth is going to burn up", "NO, the earth is going to freeze", "NO, we are all going to drown" debate.
And all this "information" attempting to scare us into certain political decisions is really taking away from the real political tragedy; that our "representatives" have no clue and are really only representing their bank accounts.
1) Amazon does not "distribute" it either. They merely provide me the ability to distribute it. I am the one taking the action. They are not.
2) It is technically impossible for them to prevent it. (None of your recommendations would ban THAT particular user w/o alienating other potentially valid readers of your book.) Freedom of speech and press gives them the right.
3) I wasn't sure from your post if this was an example you gave or the actual offensive post. I totally agree with you that it is libelous. (Unless of course you do send spam and have an IQ of 30:) )
The main reason government entities patent technology is not so they can then profit from them, but rather to give credit to the people that worked to develop that technology. Since civil servants and military personnel are not allowed to profit from inventions they create while working for the government, the patent must be owned by the organization they work for (in this case the US Navy). This prevents the civil servants/military personnel from profiting off the technology, but gives them the credit, something they can use for promotion or future job searches. To some degree this also applies to government contractors.
And the fact that the eyes were always on pay week, and the flowers were always on the weeks when you didn't get paid, couldn't possibly have had an effect.
There is no reason to assume the minutes over wifi aren't going to be free (or at least cheaper). Remember, the most expensive part of a cell service is putting towers everywhere, (and in some places, towers aren't even allowed). If they can route your conversation to wifi, then they have more room on the tower to handle someone else's call. Multiply this a bunch, and you now are able to serve many more people with the current infrastructure. Thus, their expenses remain relatively the same, but their income/profits go up. Also, if they can switch you over to wifi in a remote location (where you spend a large amount of time), you are more likely to buy their service if you currently are unable to reach a tower from that location, but have wifi available. In both of these scenarios their profits go up due to increased user base. I don't see this taking off (and if it doesn't, the cell companies will lose a lot of potential revenue IMHO) if it isn't given away for free.
As far as bittorrent (or any other large bandwidth hog) that is up to the access point to handle. Most AP's give a good amount of distribution to who gets what amount of the total bandwidth.
I was thinking of this with a twist. He could make it a signup service (you could even add your host's ip w/ a web page). Then the firewall rules wouldn't be very expensive. Then, everyone w/ a valid request gets the right time, and everyone else gets set to some random time in the early 1980's.
As of right now, you won't need to authenticate the music in 200 years, cause the copyright will have FINALLY run out. (Of course, I'm sure that will be extended by then, so I guess I am probably wrong.)
I think it would be easier to just max out the amount per hour the loser would pay at something like $100 ($100 was just an arbitrary number, I don't know what would work or how much lawyers typically charge/hour). Then, if either side wants to buy a team of $1000/hr lawyers, fine, they can do that. But they will only be reimbursed at $100/hr.
It isn't the tuner inside the TV that is needed, it is the tuner inside the TiVo. The TiVo units for DirecTV have two tuners in them (and two connections to the satalite dish). I'm guessing the comcast recorder is similar (or it splits a single cable connection in two or three for each tuner). If you are recording two shows, and watching a third live show, it is splitting it in three (unless you are bypassing the PVR to watch the third show), if you are recording two shows and watching a show you already recorded, then it is only spliting it in two. In any event, the actual PVR is what needs the tuner in it. Your VCR won't help your TiVo except to offload shows to vhs. Your TiVo can only record the number of show that it can tune in. My DirecTV TiVo will only record two at a time (and I can watch something I already recorded). Hope this helps.
Well, they could have continued w/ the Roman numeral theme and had XM instead of X1000, but I'm pretty sure that is trade marked.
That is probably why naming schemes suck, the marketing department has to come up with a name no other company has ever used in order to get it through the legal department.
When I said that most of that was thrown out as being wrong, I was not referring to the Law or the Prophets, but rather the basic religous philosophy. The Old Testament's main focus is punnishing evildoers. In the New Testament, this punishment philosophy is replaced with one of forgiveness, understanding, and tolerance. That is all that I meant.
I have several tests that can be applied to documentation to evealuate whether it is reasonable to pay any attention to what they say. These include: Internal consistency, external consistency, and preservation of the text over time.
I don't mean to rude or anything, but the Bible is neither internally nor externally consistent except to believers. You seem to be fairly well versed in the Bible, so I don't think I need to point out the internal inconsistencies. They are very well documented.
But, just from a simple scientific basis, the Bible is not externally consistent. I have read several books on creationist theory, but in my opinion, it is not a true science in that it looks for information to prove a theory rather than basing a theory on collected information. I cannot imagine that it wins over any scientists that are not already believers. Scientifically speaking, creationism just doesn't hold water (in my opinion).
As far as preservation of the text over time, I do not see how this is relavent. The book could simply be given to man at the point in time the flying spaghetti monster decided we were ready. This might have been 10000 years ago, today or 10,000 years in the future. If the contents of the book are true, they are true, despite when it was written.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, it will take a couple of days to build tomorrow's more solid today, making it yesterday's more solid day-before-yesterday.
Just a single rusty 6" spike sticking straight out from the steering wheel.
I think this would only result in a bunch of people driving from the passenger seat (most likely while reading a newspaper).
You're posting to Slashdot about a problem with a date? And you think you're gonna get screwed? I'm not sure if this is redundant or wishful thinking. :)
No, really there is speed and velocity, neither of which are meaningless. Speed is how fast something is moving. Velocity is speed with a directional attribute.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity
From the "Declaration of Dr. Doug Jacobson, Ph.D., CFCE", points 5-7 really contain the "meat" of his arguments. However, they seem to be more supportive of your side than the RIAA's.
5. He is basically stating that the computer is setup to use DHCP connections based on what he found and did not find in the system registry. He is correct, this can easily be determined. However, the conclusions he attempts to make from this information do not follow logic. He states that a wireless router was not used. OK, so how did he determine a wired router was not used? The settings that allowed him to determine erroneously that a "public Internet Protocol ('IP') address" was definitely used would be identical if the computer were plugged into a firewall or router directly if said device was setup to host DHCP connections. He can in no way conclude from the information on Ms. Lindor's hard drive coupled with the ISP's (Verizon's) IP assignment log that "This is DEFINITELY the computer" with that IP at that point in time. If Ms. Lindor's computer was plugged directly into a wireless access point, then it would be the access point that had that IP, and any neighbor could have hijacked the connection and instead been the one infringing the copyright. Was this a dial up account? If that is the case, then anybody could have accessed the login information in any number of ways and hacked into her account. Phone company records would then need to be used to prove that a call was made from her phone to the ISP's # at that point in time. The main problem with his entire point is that he has made all of his conclusions based off of information on Ms. Lindor's hard drive, and not from network analysis.
6. But wait, he is now saying that every point he made under #5 above is moot. He is stating that this isn't the computer that was used to infringe copyright. Is he trying to imply that Ms. Lindor is trying to hide the infringement by handing over a fake hard drive or that no, he was wrong all along, and Ms. Lindor is free to go?
7. Gustave Lindor lived in NYC during the time period in question. So, lots of people lived in NYC during the time period, and any one of them could be the person the RIAA is looking for. If they search Mr. Raymond's computers and don't find anything are they going to then search Ms. Lindor's neighbors? At what point does the court say, "No, this is too much, you can't harass this woman anymore for remedy to an action you factually know and believe someone else performed"?
They might be able to prove that somebody used Ms. Lindor's account to infringe copyright, but they have proven it wasn't done with her computer. It is therefore likely that it wasn't her that performed the infringement. Would they not then have to prove she knowingly contributed to the infringement to hold her responsible? It seems to me that this case should be dismissed (their own expert has stated that Ms. Lindor isn't the one that infringed copyright), and if they want to pursue a case against Mr. Raymond, they need to start over with him as the defendant (but then again, IANAL, I'm a systems engineer).
I am only aware of the facts in this case that have been made public, but look forward to your client winning this case. I don't feel this way because I think the RIAA is made up of a bunch of twerps (well I do think that, but that's not the point), but because I don't think she is the one that did this and I would be ticked off if the RIAA came to me w/ this crap because I haven't ever illegally copied music either.
OK, I know you're a troll, and I was making a joke you are incapable of understanding, but I'll respond anyway.
Their tracking of mood in no way means the subjects weren't already infected with something or that they didn't have some other more chronic problem that hadn't been diagnosed yet.
Researchers determine that people that don't have colds are in better moods than people who do.
I haven't played Ryzom. However, he benefit is that the game will be able to be changed into another game by anyone who is creative enough to do so. These people can still charge you to connect to their server to play a particular game, but they don't have to spend the money necessary to develop the engine itself nor the particular character objects within the game. This would mean a lower cost of entry and potentially a lower play cost as less expenses will need to be recouped before income goes toward profit.
It wasn't a typo, the poster has no concept of the English language. He meant to say, "a 12 percent drop" not "a drop of 12 percent".
.88 = 1.00 - .12
4.4/5 =
A drop of 12 percent would mean we now have -7 percent of something which isn't possible.
The only problem with this theory is that ice floats. It keeps reflecting energy until it is melted past a certain thickness. A little colder and the thickness comes back and so does the reflection. It doesn't stop reflecting all at once. Once enough ice melts, the warm tropic waters will no longer flow toward the poles due to decreased salinity in the ocean (Warm tropical salt water is less dense, and cold polar salt water is more dense. The more dense water drops filling in the void that the warm waters moving toward the poles leaves behind. Cold fresh water will be lighter than the warm salt water, and will remain near the surface at the poles. The cold salt water is more dense than both and will remain near the ocean floor at the poles. This will in effect stop the cyclical action that warms the poles). Without the warm tropical waters melting the polar ice, the polar ice caps will reform and the reflection will begin again.
Yes, we are a few degrees warmer now than we were 200 years ago. However, the 500 years between 1300 and 1800 was the coldest in the past 12000 years (by several degrees), so to compare our temp to that temp doesn't say a lot. (Note that during The Little Ice Age people were freaking out because it was getting too cold, and ice was going to cover the planet if they didn't do something.)
Don't get me wrong, I think we should stop polluting, should plant more trees and chop fewer down, and try to develop cleaner more efficient forms of energy. But I am tired of the "the earth is going to burn up", "NO, the earth is going to freeze", "NO, we are all going to drown" debate.
And all this "information" attempting to scare us into certain political decisions is really taking away from the real political tragedy; that our "representatives" have no clue and are really only representing their bank accounts.
while crossing my fingers that they had removed all the bugs in it first
Come on, that's just extra protein!!!
1) Amazon does not "distribute" it either. They merely provide me the ability to distribute it. I am the one taking the action. They are not.
:) )
2) It is technically impossible for them to prevent it. (None of your recommendations would ban THAT particular user w/o alienating other potentially valid readers of your book.) Freedom of speech and press gives them the right.
3) I wasn't sure from your post if this was an example you gave or the actual offensive post. I totally agree with you that it is libelous. (Unless of course you do send spam and have an IQ of 30
So, make 10 different corporations, and work for all 10.
Fights like a schizophrenic 3 year old.
What better way to harness the power of global kids?
With a team of monsters doing slapstick of course.
The main reason government entities patent technology is not so they can then profit from them, but rather to give credit to the people that worked to develop that technology. Since civil servants and military personnel are not allowed to profit from inventions they create while working for the government, the patent must be owned by the organization they work for (in this case the US Navy). This prevents the civil servants/military personnel from profiting off the technology, but gives them the credit, something they can use for promotion or future job searches. To some degree this also applies to government contractors.
And the fact that the eyes were always on pay week, and the flowers were always on the weeks when you didn't get paid, couldn't possibly have had an effect.
There is no reason to assume the minutes over wifi aren't going to be free (or at least cheaper). Remember, the most expensive part of a cell service is putting towers everywhere, (and in some places, towers aren't even allowed). If they can route your conversation to wifi, then they have more room on the tower to handle someone else's call. Multiply this a bunch, and you now are able to serve many more people with the current infrastructure. Thus, their expenses remain relatively the same, but their income/profits go up. Also, if they can switch you over to wifi in a remote location (where you spend a large amount of time), you are more likely to buy their service if you currently are unable to reach a tower from that location, but have wifi available. In both of these scenarios their profits go up due to increased user base. I don't see this taking off (and if it doesn't, the cell companies will lose a lot of potential revenue IMHO) if it isn't given away for free.
As far as bittorrent (or any other large bandwidth hog) that is up to the access point to handle. Most AP's give a good amount of distribution to who gets what amount of the total bandwidth.
I was thinking of this with a twist. He could make it a signup service (you could even add your host's ip w/ a web page). Then the firewall rules wouldn't be very expensive. Then, everyone w/ a valid request gets the right time, and everyone else gets set to some random time in the early 1980's.
As of right now, you won't need to authenticate the music in 200 years, cause the copyright will have FINALLY run out. (Of course, I'm sure that will be extended by then, so I guess I am probably wrong.)
I think it would be easier to just max out the amount per hour the loser would pay at something like $100 ($100 was just an arbitrary number, I don't know what would work or how much lawyers typically charge/hour). Then, if either side wants to buy a team of $1000/hr lawyers, fine, they can do that. But they will only be reimbursed at $100/hr.
No, Kreeeeepyman is the superhero who's costume he is currently working on.
It isn't the tuner inside the TV that is needed, it is the tuner inside the TiVo. The TiVo units for DirecTV have two tuners in them (and two connections to the satalite dish). I'm guessing the comcast recorder is similar (or it splits a single cable connection in two or three for each tuner). If you are recording two shows, and watching a third live show, it is splitting it in three (unless you are bypassing the PVR to watch the third show), if you are recording two shows and watching a show you already recorded, then it is only spliting it in two. In any event, the actual PVR is what needs the tuner in it. Your VCR won't help your TiVo except to offload shows to vhs. Your TiVo can only record the number of show that it can tune in. My DirecTV TiVo will only record two at a time (and I can watch something I already recorded). Hope this helps.
Forrest
Well, they could have continued w/ the Roman numeral theme and had XM instead of X1000, but I'm pretty sure that is trade marked.
That is probably why naming schemes suck, the marketing department has to come up with a name no other company has ever used in order to get it through the legal department.
When I said that most of that was thrown out as being wrong, I was not referring to the Law or the Prophets, but rather the basic religous philosophy. The Old Testament's main focus is punnishing evildoers. In the New Testament, this punishment philosophy is replaced with one of forgiveness, understanding, and tolerance. That is all that I meant.
I have several tests that can be applied to documentation to evealuate whether it is reasonable to pay any attention to what they say. These include: Internal consistency, external consistency, and preservation of the text over time.
I don't mean to rude or anything, but the Bible is neither internally nor externally consistent except to believers. You seem to be fairly well versed in the Bible, so I don't think I need to point out the internal inconsistencies. They are very well documented.
But, just from a simple scientific basis, the Bible is not externally consistent. I have read several books on creationist theory, but in my opinion, it is not a true science in that it looks for information to prove a theory rather than basing a theory on collected information. I cannot imagine that it wins over any scientists that are not already believers. Scientifically speaking, creationism just doesn't hold water (in my opinion).
As far as preservation of the text over time, I do not see how this is relavent. The book could simply be given to man at the point in time the flying spaghetti monster decided we were ready. This might have been 10000 years ago, today or 10,000 years in the future. If the contents of the book are true, they are true, despite when it was written.