"Rejecting" a notice isn't an option under DMCA. The company hosting the content doesn't isn't the judge, and exercises no discretion. If they get a notice for a particular URL, and don't receive a counter-notice from the other side, they must take it down in a timely fashion.
They can only "reject" it if it's notice a DMCA notice, because it doesn't contain the information required by DMCA, such as the URL and the statement of agency.
Prior to Content Id, representatives of rightsholders would run automated software to scan new videos on YouTube, identify likely infringement, and automatically send a notice. Whoever uploaded the video could then file a counter-notice. This is the DMCA process.
With Content Id, automated software to scan new videos on YouTube, identify likely infringement, and automatically send a notice. Whoever uploaded the video can file a counter-notice. It's exactly the same as the DMCA process (as actually implemented*) , except that all of the notices are in the exact same format since YouTube generates them, and Youtube can ensure that the software which does the matching does a reasonably good job of matching videos to copyright protected samples. It's the same process, just implemented in such a way that it's more efficient for YouTube.
If DMCA were amended to penalize improper notices, Content Id could (and almost certainly would) be updated to match.
* When DMCA was being debated and public comment was being accepted, approximately nobody predicted that a huge mass of claims would be filed by automated software, so that's not what DMCA was intended to be. That is in fact what happened under DMCA though, and Content Id simply standardised the matching algorithm and the formatting of complaints to be used for content on YouTube.
** I know some of the first people who were involved with trying to create and use software to handle the thousands of infringements of their unique content. They did so with the best of intentions, and it made sense at the time. Then it got out of hand when large media companies send hundreds of thousands of notices without making sure that their systems for doing so worked extremely well first. Not all programmers are great, and some not-great programmers authored some not-great DMCA systems, for customers who found out that there's no real penalty for sending a bad DMCA notice.
After receiving thousands of false, incomplete, and otherwise invalid claims from one company, Comcast starting ignoring them. The court ruled Comcast was therefore liable for the claims they ignored. Under current law, the ruling against Comcast was more or less correct (it was borderline, arguable, under current law).
So while "three strikes and you're out " may be a sensible policy, YouTube can't really do that under current law. The DMCA REALLY needs an amendment that strongly discourages improper notices. Something along the lines of "three strikes and you're out" would greatly reduce the number of wrongful claims, which is actually the one big problem with the DMCA. Congress has to do that, though, not Youtube.
If that were fixed, and people were educated about counter-claims under DMCA, it would actually be a pretty good law. The DMCA system works pretty well in cases where the complainant isn't being reckless about filing improper claims.
> Tell me why the 9th and 10th amendments did not invalidate the all writs act when they were enacted.
The 10th amendment says that powers NOT given to the feds are reserved to the states and the people. It doesn't remove powers that ARE Constitutionally granted to the federal government. Article 3 of the Constitution vest "the judicial power" in the courts and enumerates their jurisdiction. The All Writs Act specifically limits itself to the jurisdiction of the court - the same limit applied by article 3.
> Orenstein found that the All Writs Act does not apply in instances where Congress had the opportunity but failed to create [a law]
That's what the judge said. He gets that from "interpreting" these words in the Act: agreeable to the usages and principles of law
That's always been interpreted to come in where Congress HAS made a law disallowing a particular type of order, under whatever conditions. Orenstein ruled that Congress NOT passing a law allowing the decryption is equivalent to this passing a law disallowing it, for this purpose. This is questionable precedent because by the exact same logic, if Congress could have passed a law explicitly allowing you to encrypt your data but decided they didn't need to, that's equivalent to them making a law disallowing encryption. His aim is noble, but the logic gymnastics he uses to get there are questionable.
In other words, Congress "had the opportunity but failed to create" a law allowing encryption. Therefore.. NOTHING. The fact that Congress did NOT do something has no effect. To ascribe to Congress the intent to do the opposite of everything they haven't done is silly.
Right, but that requires someone to have been charged, yes? It's about procedure, more than anything else, in my head. (Due process.) As I've said, the procedure's lacking in that nobody has been charged.... As I've said, nobody has been arraigned
The surviving conspirator, Enrique Marquez, HAS been charged. Apparently he bought the guns used in the attack and otherwise assisted in this attack and previously planned attacks.
The authority the FBI points to is the All Writs Act, passed in 1789. It's a law which probably should be repealed, but hasn't been. It says the following:
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.
By the text of the law, a court may render any order which is EITHER necessary OR appropriate in aid of a case under their jurisdiction, provided it is consistent with other law. To be clear, I'm not saying that SHOULD be the law; I don't like it, but that IS the text of the law, and it has been for 227 years.
Subsequent court decisions have held that when Congress passes a law providing more detail about a certain type of order, the more specific law controls. This is how they interpret the phrase "agreeable to the usages and principles of law". In other words, courts can issue any order they want, under the All Writs Act, unless there is some other law saying otherwise. So the legal question is, "is there some other act of Congress which overrides in this case?"
So by law, the question comes back to you (and Apple): "by what law is the authority granted by the All Writs Acts removed?"
Apple points out that Congress did make a law requiring telecommunications manufacturers and carriers to allow for phone taps, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, but chose not to address decryption of past communications in that particular law. They made other laws in this general area, but none (other than the All Writs Act) that would allow for this type of order. Recently, Congress debated making a law that would require decryption. Congress didn't end up passing any law. The FBI says "because there is no law to the contrary, the All Writs Act applies". Apple says "because Congress chose not to make a law requiring decryption, that's the same as Congress making a law forbidding an order to decrypt, and the All Writs Act should not apply".
As much as I'd prefer Apple to win, their argument that Congress NOT passing a law is the same as Congress passing the opposite law is a bit silly. The fact that Congress didn't pass a law making cardboard legal is NOT the same as Congress passing a law making cardboard illegal.
The All Writs Act should be repealed, but it hasn't been. Courts have "interpreted" in such a way to trim it down to Constitutional scope. It FEELS like this use of it SHOULD be unconstitutional, but how so? The Constitution basically says the police have to get a warrant before they can search the phone. They did get the warrant.
Is this a taking of Apple's property (resources) without due process? We're watching the due process, so I don't see any specific clause of the Constitution which forbids it. In my analysis, the All Writs Act, though a bad law, is law and does give the court the authority.
>may not apply legal terms or technological measures that LEGALLY restrict
> Is converting a digital CAD file into a Physical Object... No, it doesn't create a LEGAL restriction as DRM would (because of anti-circumvention laws).
> Also, is a Print a derivative work of the original design plans... I think this might be new legal ground
Yes, it's a derivative work with the exact same relationship as sheet music has to the performance of the same, or a script for a play has to the performance thereof. The printer performs the actions scripted in the CAD file. No, nothing new here.
> unless there is an aesthetic element deemed to have purely artistic value
Which is most of them. However, that may not matter. If the object is purely functional, you're allowed to create your own copy, without permission - BUT that doesn't mean you can use their copyrighted cad file to do so. If the CAD file is protectable under copyright, the license applies to the file. It was decided many years ago that downloading a file is copying it, for copyright law. Therefore, one could argue that the the download is lawful only if the recipient agrees to the license, which requires attribution, non-commercial use in some cases, etc. So if the object produced is purely functional, you could draw up your own CAD file, or use a 3D scanner to make a CAD file for an identical object. Their CAD file may still be protectable under copyright.
Lastly, the creator only asks for attribution and a link to the license. It's not that hard. to take their work and not comply with those two conditions means JustPrint is being a total dick - even if it were technically legal, which it's not.
I'm with you on the double taxation, and for many small businesses some of the money is even triple-taxed, after this owner spends WAY too much time dealing with way too much paperwork for many different kinds of taxes.
This part doesn't make sense to me, though:
> would silo off portions of it's operation that cost money, incorporate separately, then charge the original company exactly $1 over costs for services each year. Because that business made $1 instead of taking a multi-year loss it would not trigger any kind of review or audit
Suppose by before splitting, company A has $100 in revenue, and $80 in expenses, with the expenses attributable to division B. The company has $20 profit/ income, so they pay income tax on $20.
Suppose you split off department B into company B. Company A still has $100 in sales and pays $80 to company B, so they still have a profit of $20 on which they pay income tax. Company B has no profit and thus pays no income tax. The income tax is the same either way.
Moreoever, with one company, they franchise tax and sales tax on the $100 in sales. By splitting, company A pays sales and franchise taxes on their $100 of sales AND company B has $80 of sales (to company A), which company B would then have to pay franchise and sales tax on. Splitting the company means they would pay MORE taxes, because they've created more taxable transactions.
If you want the newest ffmpeg and on any Linux, you can easily do what I did last night. The ffmpeg page has copy/paste instructions for downloading and compiling the newest ffmpeg with the newest versions of the libraries/ codecs it uses. Those instructions set PREFIX to something other than/usr or/usr/local so it doesn't step on anything installed on the system. It was really simple. I was using a very old version of Fedora, but didn't have any problems of missing dependencies because the dependencies are included in the instructions.
One of the libraries takes a long time to compile, so I let that run while I and did other things. If you copy/paste exactly, you end up with the new ffmpeg in $HOME/bin/ . You can of course change that, or move it after it has compiled.
A minute ago it was "you can't use Apogee on Linux, and professional use only use Apogee etc". Now it's "that Apogee gear is crap, now that I know Linux supports it just fine". I guess only the Scottish Apogee model is any good, eh?
Everybody is mistaken sometimes. Knowledgeable people get that way by by -learning- when they are presented with new information. Ignorant people refuse to learn anything, instead moving the goalposts and playing no true Scotsman when new information is presented.
Take a close look at the owner's manual for your DAW. You just might be surprised and find a FOSS disclosure in there.
I should have been more specific. Yes, Jack can use a portion of ALSA, and it replaces other portions.
Specifically, the ALSA hardware drivers provide three interfaces to each card. Jack uses the low-level interface of the hardware drivers provided by alsa. It replaces the default alsa mixer, etc.
Let's put it this way - for best results mixing audio on Linux, plan on either doing some setup work or running a media-specific distro. Default ALSA and PortAudio has latency and generally isn't designed for serious mixing. The real-time system is significantly better, for serious use.
> Let me know when I can use an Apogee or Apollo or Avid interface with a Linux box.
Some Apogee products are USB audio compliant, so they are plug-and-play and always have been. Other Apogee products started getting Linux support five years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Some professional "hardware" runs on embedded real-time Linux - all that DAW functionality isn't done by tubes anymore, there's an OS inside that workstation. And that OS is not Windows.
You will want to download a real time kernel and use Jack, not Alsa, for professional audio work.
I typically spend about $125 to get a phone similar to what cost $600 a year prior, and I spend $25/month with Boost mobile.
Right now, I'm in the car, waiting 10 minutes while my wife runs into the store. Normally when I have to wait a few minutes, I spend the time studying on my phone. While I'm driving I listen to lectures I downloaded to my phone. Between listening while driving amd reading or writing while waiting, I get about an hour of school done per day, using time that would otherwise be wasted.
Their place, yes, literally. They work in very specific geographical places. Where they work well, they should be used, and they are. We're not going to see much growth in either, because of the physics involved.
> will not be too long before the equipment becomes so damn cheap it will be a no-brainer to have it included by default in every new house built.
MdSOLAR and friends have been saying that for at least 50 years. If that happens some day, great. Until then, we need to work with the actual facts as they are today.
If you measure short enough intervals, capacity factor can be as low as -5% or as high as 90%+, for one-minute intervals.
If you measure by the week or month and don't cherry-pick specific areas at specific times to try to convince yourself that you're pre-conceived political position was correct, it's pretty consistently between 20%-30% for wind, 80%-90% for nuclear.
It really irks me how much energy has been politicized. We know how to have reliable, affordable, fairly clean energy ; and we've known this for 50 years. Yet we've been doing it mostly wrong for 50 years because Al Gore et al can score a few more votes by playing a false dichotomy.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare wind vs nuclear because they are used for different purposes, in a 3-way mix, but...
> How does average nuclear production compare to its maximum capacity?
Nuclear ranges between 80%-90%, wind is 20-30%.
The benefit of wind is that it allows you to turn down your natural gas plants whenever the wind happens to be favorable.
Nuclear can't be quickly and easily throttled up and down. That's it's one actual weakness - it's reliable, etc. (There was a purely political weakness , but environmentalists are now undoing the damage they did back in 1960s, admitting it was a mistake).
So what you do, if you want clean, reliable power (rather than purely political points) is you have nuclear and hydro for the minimum load, because they are steady. You have wind and MAYBE solar to get what you can, whenever nature wants to allow it, and natural gas to make the difference. You throttle the natural gas plants up and down to meet the difference between current demand and current supply from wind + nuclear/ hydro.
Hydro is nice, in very specific locations, most of which are already in use. So it's an important source of power, but can't be increased much.
It was "gross negligence' that slipped my mind. Law refers to slight, ordinary,gross, reckless negligence, with different standard applying in different situations. If you leave your phone on the table at a restaurant, they only owe you "slight care" in getting it returned to you, so they become liable only if they are reckless. On the other hand, if you HIRE a security guard to protect your stuff, or someone borrows it from you, a higher standard of care is required.
Justice Rugg described the difference between negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness as someone being âoea fool, a damn fool, and a God-damned fool".:)
You make a good point. I work in IT security and I see a lot of sloppy stuff, mostly people just don't know any better. I can certainly understand why some people would like to see high amounts of damages awarded in law suits, to encourage companies to be more careful in the future.
However, you're absolutely right that encourages companies to just keep quiet, try to hide the breach. Financial damages from law suits plus damage to their reputation can certainly mean executives would rather keep any breaches secret. It's a problem.
One potential solution, or partial solution, would be similar to some other laws already on the books in other areas. A law could specify that IF the company has their systems audited and gets an appropriate security certification, AND they timely report the incident, AND they follow the specified procedures to notify and assist affected customers, then they are presumed prima facia to be not-negligent and therefore not liable, though a plaintiff suing could still prevail if they proved that the defendant was reckless or highly negligent . (I forgot the legal term for "highly negligent "). That would encourage companies to get audited and secured ahead of time, and encourage them to report any breach in order to avoid liability , while not excusing reckless behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
That should read:
They can only "reject" it if it is not an actual DMCA notice, because it doesn't contain the information required by DMCA.
"Rejecting" a notice isn't an option under DMCA. The company hosting the content doesn't isn't the judge, and exercises no discretion. If they get a notice for a particular URL, and don't receive a counter-notice from the other side, they must take it down in a timely fashion.
They can only "reject" it if it's notice a DMCA notice, because it doesn't contain the information required by DMCA, such as the URL and the statement of agency.
Prior to Content Id, representatives of rightsholders would run automated software to scan new videos on YouTube, identify likely infringement, and automatically send a notice. Whoever uploaded the video could then file a counter-notice. This is the DMCA process.
With Content Id, automated software to scan new videos on YouTube, identify likely infringement, and automatically send a notice. Whoever uploaded the video can file a counter-notice. It's exactly the same as the DMCA process (as actually implemented*) , except that all of the notices are in the exact same format since YouTube generates them, and Youtube can ensure that the software which does the matching does a reasonably good job of matching videos to copyright protected samples. It's the same process, just implemented in such a way that it's more efficient for YouTube.
If DMCA were amended to penalize improper notices, Content Id could (and almost certainly would) be updated to match.
* When DMCA was being debated and public comment was being accepted, approximately nobody predicted that a huge mass of claims would be filed by automated software, so that's not what DMCA was intended to be. That is in fact what happened under DMCA though, and Content Id simply standardised the matching algorithm and the formatting of complaints to be used for content on YouTube.
** I know some of the first people who were involved with trying to create and use software to handle the thousands of infringements of their unique content. They did so with the best of intentions, and it made sense at the time. Then it got out of hand when large media companies send hundreds of thousands of notices without making sure that their systems for doing so worked extremely well first. Not all programmers are great, and some not-great programmers authored some not-great DMCA systems, for customers who found out that there's no real penalty for sending a bad DMCA notice.
After receiving thousands of false, incomplete, and otherwise invalid claims from one company, Comcast starting ignoring them. The court ruled Comcast was therefore liable for the claims they ignored. Under current law, the ruling against Comcast was more or less correct (it was borderline, arguable, under current law).
So while "three strikes and you're out " may be a sensible policy, YouTube can't really do that under current law. The DMCA REALLY needs an amendment that strongly discourages improper notices. Something along the lines of "three strikes and you're out" would greatly reduce the number of wrongful claims, which is actually the one big problem with the DMCA. Congress has to do that, though, not Youtube.
If that were fixed, and people were educated about counter-claims under DMCA, it would actually be a pretty good law. The DMCA system works pretty well in cases where the complainant isn't being reckless about filing improper claims.
> Tell me why the 9th and 10th amendments did not invalidate the all writs act when they were enacted.
The 10th amendment says that powers NOT given to the feds are reserved to the states and the people. It doesn't remove powers that ARE Constitutionally granted to the federal government. Article 3 of the Constitution vest "the judicial power" in the courts and enumerates their jurisdiction. The All Writs Act specifically limits itself to the jurisdiction of the court - the same limit applied by article 3.
As you pointed out, the All Writs Act is as old as the Constitution, and written by many of the same people.
You then seem to say that BECAUSE it's old, it should be ignored. By your logic, the Constitution, since it is also old, should be ignored.
The All Writs Act should be repealed because it's a BAD law, not because it's an OLD law.
The All Writs Act and Bernie Sanders are both old and deserving of contempt, but they aren't deserving of contempt BECAUSE they are old.
> Orenstein found that the All Writs Act does not apply in instances where Congress had the opportunity but failed to create [a law]
That's what the judge said. He gets that from "interpreting" these words in the Act:
agreeable to the usages and principles of law
That's always been interpreted to come in where Congress HAS made a law disallowing a particular type of order, under whatever conditions. Orenstein ruled that Congress NOT passing a law allowing the decryption is equivalent to this passing a law disallowing it, for this purpose. This is questionable precedent because by the exact same logic, if Congress could have passed a law explicitly allowing you to encrypt your data but decided they didn't need to, that's equivalent to them making a law disallowing encryption. His aim is noble, but the logic gymnastics he uses to get there are questionable.
In other words, Congress "had the opportunity but failed to create" a law allowing encryption. Therefore .. NOTHING. The fact that Congress did NOT do something has no effect. To ascribe to Congress the intent to do the opposite of everything they haven't done is silly.
Right, but that requires someone to have been charged, yes? It's about procedure, more than anything else, in my head. (Due process.) As I've said, the procedure's lacking in that nobody has been charged. ... As I've said, nobody has been arraigned
The surviving conspirator, Enrique Marquez, HAS been charged. Apparently he bought the guns used in the attack and otherwise assisted in this attack and previously planned attacks.
The authority the FBI points to is the All Writs Act, passed in 1789. It's a law which probably should be repealed, but hasn't been. It says the following:
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.
By the text of the law, a court may render any order which is EITHER necessary OR appropriate in aid of a case under their jurisdiction, provided it is consistent with other law. To be clear, I'm not saying that SHOULD be the law; I don't like it, but that IS the text of the law, and it has been for 227 years.
Subsequent court decisions have held that when Congress passes a law providing more detail about a certain type of order, the more specific law controls. This is how they interpret the phrase "agreeable to the usages and principles of law". In other words, courts can issue any order they want, under the All Writs Act, unless there is some other law saying otherwise. So the legal question is, "is there some other act of Congress which overrides in this case?"
So by law, the question comes back to you (and Apple): "by what law is the authority granted by the All Writs Acts removed?"
Apple points out that Congress did make a law requiring telecommunications manufacturers and carriers to allow for phone taps, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, but chose not to address decryption of past communications in that particular law. They made other laws in this general area, but none (other than the All Writs Act) that would allow for this type of order. Recently, Congress debated making a law that would require decryption. Congress didn't end up passing any law. The FBI says "because there is no law to the contrary, the All Writs Act applies". Apple says "because Congress chose not to make a law requiring decryption, that's the same as Congress making a law forbidding an order to decrypt, and the All Writs Act should not apply".
As much as I'd prefer Apple to win, their argument that Congress NOT passing a law is the same as Congress passing the opposite law is a bit silly. The fact that Congress didn't pass a law making cardboard legal is NOT the same as Congress passing a law making cardboard illegal.
The All Writs Act should be repealed, but it hasn't been. Courts have "interpreted" in such a way to trim it down to Constitutional scope. It FEELS like this use of it SHOULD be unconstitutional, but how so? The Constitution basically says the police have to get a warrant before they can search the phone. They did get the warrant.
Is this a taking of Apple's property (resources) without due process? We're watching the due process, so I don't see any specific clause of the Constitution which forbids it. In my analysis, the All Writs Act, though a bad law, is law and does give the court the authority.
>may not apply legal terms or technological measures that LEGALLY restrict
> Is converting a digital CAD file into a Physical Object ...
No, it doesn't create a LEGAL restriction as DRM would (because of anti-circumvention laws).
> Also, is a Print a derivative work of the original design plans ... I think this might be new legal ground
Yes, it's a derivative work with the exact same relationship as sheet music has to the performance of the same, or a script for a play has to the performance thereof. The printer performs the actions scripted in the CAD file. No, nothing new here.
> unless there is an aesthetic element deemed to have purely artistic value
Which is most of them. However, that may not matter. If the object is purely functional, you're allowed to create your own copy, without permission - BUT that doesn't mean you can use their copyrighted cad file to do so. If the CAD file is protectable under copyright, the license applies to the file. It was decided many years ago that downloading a file is copying it, for copyright law. Therefore, one could argue that the the download is lawful only if the recipient agrees to the license, which requires attribution, non-commercial use in some cases, etc. So if the object produced is purely functional, you could draw up your own CAD file, or use a 3D scanner to make a CAD file for an identical object. Their CAD file may still be protectable under copyright.
Lastly, the creator only asks for attribution and a link to the license. It's not that hard. to take their work and not comply with those two conditions means JustPrint is being a total dick - even if it were technically legal, which it's not.
The link points to a very short description of the license, and even that short description includes the following requirement:
"Attribution â" You must give appropriate credit,
"provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes
were made."
They didn't do those things. Here's the actual license:
http://creativecommons.org/lic...
I'm with you on the double taxation, and for many small businesses some of the money is even triple-taxed, after this owner spends WAY too much time dealing with way too much paperwork for many different kinds of taxes.
This part doesn't make sense to me, though:
> would silo off portions of it's operation that cost money, incorporate separately, then charge the original company exactly $1 over costs for services each year. Because that business made $1 instead of taking a multi-year loss it would not trigger any kind of review or audit
Suppose by before splitting, company A has $100 in revenue, and $80 in expenses, with the expenses attributable to division B. The company has $20 profit/ income, so they pay income tax on $20.
Suppose you split off department B into company B.
Company A still has $100 in sales and pays $80 to company B, so they still have a profit of $20 on which they pay income tax. Company B has no profit and thus pays no income tax. The income tax is the same either way.
Moreoever, with one company, they franchise tax and sales tax on the $100 in sales. By splitting, company A pays sales and franchise taxes on their $100 of sales AND company B has $80 of sales (to company A), which company B would then have to pay franchise and sales tax on. Splitting the company means they would pay MORE taxes, because they've created more taxable transactions.
You could try it out
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/H...
If you want the newest ffmpeg and on any Linux, you can easily do what I did last night. The ffmpeg page has copy/paste instructions for downloading and compiling the newest ffmpeg with the newest versions of the libraries/ codecs it uses. Those instructions set PREFIX to something other than /usr or /usr/local so it doesn't step on anything installed on the system. It was really simple. I was using a very old version of Fedora, but didn't have any problems of missing dependencies because the dependencies are included in the instructions.
One of the libraries takes a long time to compile, so I let that run while I and did other things. If you copy/paste exactly, you end up with the new ffmpeg in $HOME/bin/ . You can of course change that, or move it after it has compiled.
Victim types BOA.com into their browser. They see the BOA page, and if they bother to look they'll see the secure icon.
If they bother to look back at the address bar again, they'll see bankofamerica.net, BOAonline.com, or BOAbank.com.
Most people won't notice a problem. If some people notice, so what? The bad guy doesn't have to steal from EVERYBODY, just from SOMEBODY.
You don't know jack. The above is almost surely documented in the jack wiki, if you'd like to find it out it works, rather than arguing .
A minute ago it was "you can't use Apogee on Linux, and professional use only use Apogee etc". Now it's "that Apogee gear is crap, now that I know Linux supports it just fine". I guess only the Scottish Apogee model is any good, eh?
Everybody is mistaken sometimes. Knowledgeable people get that way by by -learning- when they are presented with new information. Ignorant people refuse to learn anything, instead moving the goalposts and playing no true Scotsman when new information is presented.
Take a close look at the owner's manual for your DAW. You just might be surprised and find a FOSS disclosure in there.
I should have been more specific. Yes, Jack can use a portion of ALSA, and it replaces other portions.
Specifically, the ALSA hardware drivers provide three interfaces to each card. Jack uses the low-level interface of the hardware drivers provided by alsa. It replaces the default alsa mixer, etc.
Let's put it this way - for best results mixing audio on Linux, plan on either doing some setup work or running a media-specific distro. Default ALSA and PortAudio has latency and generally isn't designed for serious mixing. The real-time system is significantly better, for serious use.
> Let me know when I can use an Apogee or Apollo or Avid interface with a Linux box.
Some Apogee products are USB audio compliant, so they are plug-and-play and always have been. Other Apogee products started getting Linux support five years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Apollo? Sure thing:
https://thecrocoduckspond.word...
Some professional "hardware" runs on embedded real-time Linux - all that DAW functionality isn't done by tubes anymore, there's an OS inside that workstation. And that OS is not Windows.
You will want to download a real time kernel and use Jack, not Alsa, for professional audio work.
I typically spend about $125 to get a phone similar to what cost $600 a year prior, and I spend $25/month with Boost mobile.
Right now, I'm in the car, waiting 10 minutes while my wife runs into the store. Normally when I have to wait a few minutes, I spend the time studying on my phone. While I'm driving I listen to lectures I downloaded to my phone. Between listening while driving amd reading or writing while waiting, I get about an hour of school done per day, using time that would otherwise be wasted.
> hydro geothermal etc have their place too
Their place, yes, literally. They work in very specific geographical places. Where they work well, they should be used, and they are. We're not going to see much growth in either, because of the physics involved.
> will not
be too long before the equipment becomes so damn cheap it will be a no-brainer to
have it included by default in every new house built.
MdSOLAR and friends have been saying that for at least 50 years. If that happens some day, great. Until then, we need to work with the actual facts as they are today.
> There have been recent intervals
If you measure short enough intervals, capacity factor can be as low as -5% or as high as 90%+, for one-minute intervals.
If you measure by the week or month and don't cherry-pick specific areas at specific times to try to convince yourself that you're pre-conceived political position was correct, it's pretty consistently between 20%-30% for wind, 80%-90% for nuclear.
It really irks me how much energy has been politicized. We know how to have reliable, affordable, fairly clean energy ; and we've known this for 50 years. Yet we've been doing it mostly wrong for 50 years because Al Gore et al can score a few more votes by playing a false dichotomy.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare wind vs nuclear because they are used for different purposes, in a 3-way mix, but ...
> How does average nuclear production compare to its maximum capacity?
Nuclear ranges between 80%-90%, wind is 20-30%.
The benefit of wind is that it allows you to turn down your natural gas plants whenever the wind happens to be favorable.
Nuclear can't be quickly and easily throttled up and down. That's it's one actual weakness - it's reliable, etc. (There was a purely political weakness , but environmentalists are now undoing the damage they did back in 1960s, admitting it was a mistake).
So what you do, if you want clean, reliable power (rather than purely political points) is you have nuclear and hydro for the minimum load, because they are steady. You have wind and MAYBE solar to get what you can, whenever nature wants to allow it, and natural gas to make the difference. You throttle the natural gas plants up and down to meet the difference between current demand and current supply from wind + nuclear/ hydro.
Hydro is nice, in very specific locations, most of which are already in use. So it's an important source of power, but can't be increased much.
It was "gross negligence' that slipped my mind. Law refers to slight, ordinary,gross, reckless negligence, with different standard applying in different situations. If you leave your phone on the table at a restaurant, they only owe you "slight care" in getting it returned to you, so they become liable only if they are reckless. On the other hand, if you HIRE a security guard to protect your stuff, or someone borrows it from you, a higher standard of care is required.
Justice Rugg described the difference between negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness as someone being âoea fool, a damn fool, and a God-damned fool". :)
You make a good point. I work in IT security and I see a lot of sloppy stuff, mostly people just don't know any better. I can certainly understand why some people would like to see high amounts of damages awarded in law suits, to encourage companies to be more careful in the future.
However, you're absolutely right that encourages companies to just keep quiet, try to hide the breach. Financial damages from law suits plus damage to their reputation can certainly mean executives would rather keep any breaches secret. It's a problem.
One potential solution, or partial solution, would be similar to some other laws already on the books in other areas. A law could specify that IF the company has their systems audited and gets an appropriate security certification, AND they timely report the incident, AND they follow the specified procedures to notify and assist affected customers, then they are presumed prima facia to be not-negligent and therefore not liable, though a plaintiff suing could still prevail if they proved that the defendant was reckless or highly negligent . (I forgot the legal term for "highly negligent "). That would encourage companies to get audited and secured ahead of time, and encourage them to report any breach in order to avoid liability , while not excusing reckless behavior.