His point was if you radiate yourself, you wont grow a second head. However your kids might have a second head.
Since these flies are sterile, they wont have kids that can have second heads. Therefore any mutations which the radiation caused in the fly will die out with that fly.
If there is too much DNA damage on a given fly, it will just die, and they will make some more.
Situation : Kid breaks into house, stealing my CDs. Since I don't want the kid to get in trouble, I tell him that I won't call the cops if he just gives me back the CDs, and pays for the window he broke.
Note, I am not saying what this guy is doing SHOULD be illegal, just that it IS under current rules or interpritation of rules. Under this umbrella of illegality, Nintendo's action is perfectly correct, and in fact rather nice.
The law does not allow for this demand. However anyone can make whatever demands they want.
Essentially, they are saying he is in violation of the DMCA. If he stops selling, and gives them his stock, they wont prosecute him, or sue him for civil damages.
If he doesnt give it over (and he doesnt have to) then they will go by the book, and try to nail him for what they say is a violation of the DMCA
If everyone in the word used your phone, that would be correct. My point was that ALL email is persistant, unless explicitly deleted, Contrast to a phone conversation which is transient, unless explicitly recorded.
On the other hand, if you just say at the beginning of every phone conversation, "This is going to be recorded" then you can record whatever you want. Note that all telemarketers now do this. If you dont want to be recorded, hang up. (Or wait until they pick up, and tell them to not record - telemarketers are required to not record if you tell them so)
Monica wasnt the one who got in trouble, linda was. she got in trouble for recording monicas conversations without monicas permission, because the state they were in was a 2 party state.
I started out agreeing with you, however on further reflection :
I believe the two party rules talk about if you are allowed to record a communication or not (As was the case with linda tripp). However, with Email, or IM, a recording is inherent in the process. (Well, ICQ automatically saves history, others may as well)
In this case, no two party permission would be required to record, because it is implicit in the medium. Rather like sending a letter, of course you have a copy.
Then the argument turns to if turning over a legally made recording is okay. I again refer to the snail-mail metaphor. If you mail me something, is it mine to show to whoever I want? (Assuming there isn't an NDA or something around - and in this case, an NDA would be voided, because a contract which prevented diclosure of illegal acts would be void) I believe the answer is yes, once a recording exists from a legal source, any one in possesion of that recording can show it to whoever they want.
Therefore the emails can be turned over wihtout any issues.
Actually that isnt quite true - from the article :
Though federal law only requires the consent of one person before a telephone call or Internet communication can be recorded, Pennsylvania and 11 other states require the consent of all parties.
This is the same thing that suppressed some evidence in the clinton scandal, the tape recordings of monica talking about her affair weren't admissable (and got ugly whats-her-face in trouble)
Its funny, that the image the petition is using as its logo is the Statue of Liberty, which is a United States object. Well, I suppose it came from france.
Devil's Advocate : The companies take a loss on things like promotions and signing bonuses that they hope to recoup in sales. In fact most artists never turn a profit for the labels, and their suckiness has to be taken care of by the profits from the good bands. Therefore you are costing them money, by not allowing them to recoup their investment.
However, this whole setup isnt a bad thing. Once online distribution becomes mainstream (even if it is crappy royalties and whatnot) new artists will set up a union or a competing site or something and take the money back from the labels. Only the currently established artists will get screwed because of their existing contracts.
If the energy is there, why generate heat inside your shoes (making them stinky!) via the compression of the rubber, when you could harness that energy?
Currently a whole bunch of energy is spent absorbing the shock of your foot hitting the ground. That energy would be enough to power most devices, and would actually make walking more comfortable.
You are quite correct. I was responding to my parent's comment about if the judge should follow the opinions presented in the comments. And the answer is no.
However, if the opinions are meant to be a sample, should they not be somewhat representative of the population they are drawn from?
Your logic would be true, if the comments were a random sampling of all the people involved (in this case, all computer professionals, or consumers - in other words, almost every educated adult in the country).
However, since comments were voluntary, and there is a considerable amount of emotion in the arena, the sample is guaranteed not to be random.
It could be that MS tried to form a grassroots campaign (In fact, this did happen)
It could be that Sun and Oracle and Netscape tried to form a grassroots campaign, along with slashdot and the OSS movement (In fact, this did happen)
One side having more people who could write a convincing argument doesnn't have a big effect. You have no idea in what proportions the original 30000 messages were. It could be 30000-46 messages that said "Microsoft should be let off the hook" and 46 messages that went into detail as to other methods.
Further, the popular opinion doesn't (or shouldn't) rule, the actual facts in the case should.
Note, I am not saying that MS is in the right, or that they are in the wrong, just that your argument doesn't work out the way you want it to.
Pragmatically speaking, the sum of all the crap that EVERYONE who has a situation like this is going to go through, is worth the trouble of people fighting it up front.
Of course it wont happen in time for his project. But he needs to make the fight now, while he has people who can back up his position, while it is active, not something that happened in the past.
The point is that the innovation is stimulated by patents. Sony and Panason and Phillips et al are interested in profit. Profit for themselves and their shareholders. They invested time and money in a new product, because of the guarantee the patenet gave them that they would be able to profit from any resultant inventions.
Yes, at this exact moment in time, if you gave away their IP, there would be some increase in innovation (but mostly just people mass producing stuff cheap)
However, the next "big thing" might not get invented, because it isnt in anyones interest to invest the R&D. It is more efficient to wait for someone else to develop it, and then steal the idea.
There are reasons to create other than profit. Very true. However the existance of those other reasons does not invalidate profit as a valid reason. If you want to create, and improve the world for your fellow man, that is fine and good, may you recieve awards, recognition, and passage through the pearly gates. If I choose to go for profit, your altruism does not allow you to trump me and take away my profits.
A) Because the fiber cost several hundred million dollars to lay down. The ownser of the companies that laid the fiber would like to recoup their investment (and eventually make a profit) before they die.
B) Bandwidth is a limited commodity. There are only so many bits that can travel at any given moment. Most of the time we are not at maximum capacity on a large scale, but occasionally it happens (9/11 when everyone in the world was going to cnn every 30 seconds). However locally, or regionally you can get a bottleneck quite often.
Supply is exceeded by demand, so the price goes up until people dont want to pay anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
/ is an escape character in C, like /n for carrige return
& is an escape char in html &
His point was if you radiate yourself, you wont grow a second head. However your kids might have a second head.
Since these flies are sterile, they wont have kids that can have second heads. Therefore any mutations which the radiation caused in the fly will die out with that fly.
If there is too much DNA damage on a given fly, it will just die, and they will make some more.
Situation : Kid breaks into house, stealing my CDs. Since I don't want the kid to get in trouble, I tell him that I won't call the cops if he just gives me back the CDs, and pays for the window he broke.
Note, I am not saying what this guy is doing SHOULD be illegal, just that it IS under current rules or interpritation of rules. Under this umbrella of illegality, Nintendo's action is perfectly correct, and in fact rather nice.
Actually, not. DMCA makes unauthorized stuff illegal. Presumable Nintendo would authorize themselves to have the objects :)
The law does not allow for this demand. However anyone can make whatever demands they want.
Essentially, they are saying he is in violation of the DMCA. If he stops selling, and gives them his stock, they wont prosecute him, or sue him for civil damages.
If he doesnt give it over (and he doesnt have to) then they will go by the book, and try to nail him for what they say is a violation of the DMCA
If everyone in the word used your phone, that would be correct. My point was that ALL email is persistant, unless explicitly deleted, Contrast to a phone conversation which is transient, unless explicitly recorded.
On the other hand, if you just say at the beginning of every phone conversation, "This is going to be recorded" then you can record whatever you want. Note that all telemarketers now do this. If you dont want to be recorded, hang up. (Or wait until they pick up, and tell them to not record - telemarketers are required to not record if you tell them so)
Monica wasnt the one who got in trouble, linda was. she got in trouble for recording monicas conversations without monicas permission, because the state they were in was a 2 party state.
I started out agreeing with you, however on further reflection :
I believe the two party rules talk about if you are allowed to record a communication or not (As was the case with linda tripp). However, with Email, or IM, a recording is inherent in the process. (Well, ICQ automatically saves history, others may as well)
In this case, no two party permission would be required to record, because it is implicit in the medium. Rather like sending a letter, of course you have a copy.
Then the argument turns to if turning over a legally made recording is okay. I again refer to the snail-mail metaphor. If you mail me something, is it mine to show to whoever I want? (Assuming there isn't an NDA or something around - and in this case, an NDA would be voided, because a contract which prevented diclosure of illegal acts would be void) I believe the answer is yes, once a recording exists from a legal source, any one in possesion of that recording can show it to whoever they want.
Therefore the emails can be turned over wihtout any issues.
Actually I think the duh was saying "Of course email and IM are just like a phone conversation, howc ould anyone think differently?"
Actually that isnt quite true - from the article : Though federal law only requires the consent of one person before a telephone call or Internet communication can be recorded, Pennsylvania and 11 other states require the consent of all parties.
This is the same thing that suppressed some evidence in the clinton scandal, the tape recordings of monica talking about her affair weren't admissable (and got ugly whats-her-face in trouble)
Its funny, that the image the petition is using as its logo is the Statue of Liberty, which is a United States object. Well, I suppose it came from france.
Not true, to stop you quit leaning forward, and that makes the wheels spin backwards to stop you. no brakes.
promotional copies are copies that are sent to radio stations to check out. If the item is on sale at a store, that doesn't count as promotional
The word is moot. A point on which argument can take place, but the results of the argument don't really matter.
:)
As opposed to mute, unable to speak, or muffled
Devil's Advocate :
The companies take a loss on things like promotions and signing bonuses that they hope to recoup in sales. In fact most artists never turn a profit for the labels, and their suckiness has to be taken care of by the profits from the good bands. Therefore you are costing them money, by not allowing them to recoup their investment.
However, this whole setup isnt a bad thing. Once online distribution becomes mainstream (even if it is crappy royalties and whatnot) new artists will set up a union or a competing site or something and take the money back from the labels. Only the currently established artists will get screwed because of their existing contracts.
We leave the labels to pave the way!
If the energy is there, why generate heat inside your shoes (making them stinky!) via the compression of the rubber, when you could harness that energy?
Currently a whole bunch of energy is spent absorbing the shock of your foot hitting the ground. That energy would be enough to power most devices, and would actually make walking more comfortable.
You are quite correct. I was responding to my parent's comment about if the judge should follow the opinions presented in the comments. And the answer is no.
However, if the opinions are meant to be a sample, should they not be somewhat representative of the population they are drawn from?
Your logic would be true, if the comments were a random sampling of all the people involved (in this case, all computer professionals, or consumers - in other words, almost every educated adult in the country).
However, since comments were voluntary, and there is a considerable amount of emotion in the arena, the sample is guaranteed not to be random.
It could be that MS tried to form a grassroots campaign (In fact, this did happen)
It could be that Sun and Oracle and Netscape tried to form a grassroots campaign, along with slashdot and the OSS movement (In fact, this did happen)
One side having more people who could write a convincing argument doesnn't have a big effect. You have no idea in what proportions the original 30000 messages were. It could be 30000-46 messages that said "Microsoft should be let off the hook" and 46 messages that went into detail as to other methods.
Further, the popular opinion doesn't (or shouldn't) rule, the actual facts in the case should.
Note, I am not saying that MS is in the right, or that they are in the wrong, just that your argument doesn't work out the way you want it to.
Pragmatically speaking, the sum of all the crap that EVERYONE who has a situation like this is going to go through, is worth the trouble of people fighting it up front.
Of course it wont happen in time for his project. But he needs to make the fight now, while he has people who can back up his position, while it is active, not something that happened in the past.
The point is not that he could get around it, the point is he shouldnt have to, because he bought the friggen cable to begin with.
I can make hamburgers real easy. Should that make me less annoyed when they make it illegal for me to buy one at McDonalds?
The point is that the innovation is stimulated by patents. Sony and Panason and Phillips et al are interested in profit. Profit for themselves and their shareholders. They invested time and money in a new product, because of the guarantee the patenet gave them that they would be able to profit from any resultant inventions.
Yes, at this exact moment in time, if you gave away their IP, there would be some increase in innovation (but mostly just people mass producing stuff cheap)
However, the next "big thing" might not get invented, because it isnt in anyones interest to invest the R&D. It is more efficient to wait for someone else to develop it, and then steal the idea.
There are reasons to create other than profit. Very true. However the existance of those other reasons does not invalidate profit as a valid reason. If you want to create, and improve the world for your fellow man, that is fine and good, may you recieve awards, recognition, and passage through the pearly gates. If I choose to go for profit, your altruism does not allow you to trump me and take away my profits.
A single users bandwidth, of course, they wouldnt miss that. Your whole town leaching? That will get noticed :)
I could probably steal a penny from your house every day too. Does that make it okay?
Why is bandwidth expensive :
A) Because the fiber cost several hundred million dollars to lay down. The ownser of the companies that laid the fiber would like to recoup their investment (and eventually make a profit) before they die.
B) Bandwidth is a limited commodity. There are only so many bits that can travel at any given moment. Most of the time we are not at maximum capacity on a large scale, but occasionally it happens (9/11 when everyone in the world was going to cnn every 30 seconds). However locally, or regionally you can get a bottleneck quite often.
Supply is exceeded by demand, so the price goes up until people dont want to pay anymore.