"While the US media has ignored it there have been lines at blood banks across Canada, and every Canadian city has offered to help however they can (and they are actually offering for real. Toronto prepared 15 EMS teams with ambulances and all of the equipment ready to go on NY's request, and our hospitals and air ambulances prepared to take any overflow that might exist)."
IMHO, its not fair to criticize the US media for "ignoring" this - there are more important things to cover right now. Beleive me, *ANY* assistance is appreciated, including this.
Ummm, has the NSA admitted that? I think they try to record all *foreign* cell phone traffic. Unreasonable search and seizure applies only within our own territory.
"They call for the removal of equal treatment under the law."
I mean no disrespect, but I did not think that the concept of equal protection was supposed to apply to foreign citizens (or, perhaps, foreign states) initiating crimes outside our borders. Dealing with such entities is clearly within the realm of our foreign policy and not our justice system. While its nice to have the ideal that we'd like to apply the concepts of our internal justice system to our foreign policy, neither the constitution nor any law we have mandates it.
None the less, let's apply a simple concept of our justice system known as self-defence -- If I reasonably believe that someone is about to harm me (or others) with deadly force, I may use deadly force against them to prevent them from harming me.
Lets suppose, today, that the US launched a "retaliatory" strike at Bin Laden or Afghanistan without any evidence linking him to yesterday's events. Suppose some months from now that evidence arrises that clearly implicates some other entity in yesterday's attacks. Would we have committed some massive injustice? NO. Don't we reasonably beleive that if allowed to, Bin Laden will attempt to kill more of our citizens in extremily violent ways? Couldn't we say the same about many other foreign individuals / groups and even states?
The concept of self defense applies here and IMHO would cover pretty much any action we took. But, again, even if self defense didn't 'legally' apply, it doesn't have to because there is no law that says we must conduct foreign policy in a 'just' manner. If we don't, does that lower us to the same level as these terrorists? Perhaps, but who here would have truly been against a PRE-EMPTIVE strike against whomever did this if it would have prevented what occured yesterday?
The mistake we are all making is thinking in terms of retaliation for a specific past act, when we ought to be thinking in terms of pre-emption of future acts (after all, nothing can now undo what occurred yesterday). It simply comes down to "We will not tolerate those who have done us harm" vs. "We will not tolerate those who would do us harm".
It sounds less like a 'bug' in the software than a software design flaw. I watched the Marines briefing on CSPAN - what they said was basically this:
1. The Osprey has three hydraulic systems that control properller pitch. Any one should be able to provide adequate control in case the other two fail.
2. The three systems are not completely independent - in some places they share lines with one of the other systems.
3. In the report - they found that the ruptured line cauesd a complete failure in one of the systems - a second system was compromised but an isolation valve cut it off so that it would not leak - but the isolation valve activation meant that this particular hydraulic system was no longer providing power to control prop pitch in one of the engines. So, one of the props pitch controls is getting powered by two systems, the other only by one.
4. When the pilot pressed the reset button, the computer attempted to change prop pitch - the software did not account for the fact that the isolation valve caused more power to change the pitch of the props in one of the engines than in the other - so the props changed pitch at uneven rates - this is very bad since one prop is now generating more thrust than the other - this asymetrical thrust caused unwanted yawing of the aircraft - whatever the computer did to correct this unwanted yawing didn't help - but this also probably included changing the pitch of the props some more which likely compounded the problem.
Its amazing that even on an intellegent forum such as/. ignorance and raw stupidity such as that evidenced by the above post exists. "Anonymous Coward" indeed.
Well, I most certainly agree that in some cases, song titles are too short to merit copyright protection - after all, someone should not be able to copyright a single word from the English language.
On the other hand, some song titles are rather unique phrases or original combinations of words, and perhaps should be extended copyright protection - "You know where you went wrong", "Bizarre Love Triangle", "I Trance You", "Leafhound" are all examples of song titles that might qualify to varying degrees.
Napster's agreement with CDDB is a true irony. Here we have the RIAA saying that they want to listen to the consumer, develop digital music services etc. Meanwhile, a service that people clearly want (the ability to see disc/song titles when they pop in a CD) and which has been around for years has no competition at all from RIAA.
Now, we see the value of CDDB for the filtering that the RIAA wants Napster to do, and the RIAA has been scrambling around trying to compile lists of song titles (probably 90% of the effort in creating a CDDB type service of their own) when IMHO they should have already had such a list in a CDDB like service for at least a couple of years - in fact, I'd be willing to bet that the RIAA, even as they devote time and energy to compiling their lists are failing to take advantage of their own efforts by compiling these lists into a CDDB type app.
In fairness, I suppose, if the RIAA had such a service and CD Rippers used it to populate ID3 tags and name MP3 files, it'd probably be an even bigger irony, but still...
I also have to ask - aren't many if not all song/album titles (and not just the songs themselves) copyrighted? Could Gracenote / CDDB be the next target for the RIAA scheist...er, lawyers that is? After all, if they sue CDDB out of existence, they set a precedent that they are the only ones who can build such an application as the copyright holders of the song titles- next thing they'll be charging companies / software authors that write CD playing software for computers for the right to use their database. Heck, its not at all inconceivable that such a service could be integrated into normal CD playing stereo components (and stereo component manufacturers charged accordingly) - how hard is it to put a two port ethernet hub into a CD player that would allow even the average Joe to connect their CD player and computer to their cable modem / DSL service for the purpose of retrieving song titles (and, heaven forbid, allowing the RIAA to spy on your listening habits)?
Slashdot Mirror
"While the US media has ignored it there have been lines at blood banks across Canada, and every Canadian city has offered to help however they can (and they are actually offering for real. Toronto prepared 15 EMS teams with ambulances and all of the equipment ready to go on NY's request, and our hospitals and air ambulances prepared to take any overflow that might exist)."
IMHO, its not fair to criticize the US media for "ignoring" this - there are more important things to cover right now. Beleive me, *ANY* assistance is appreciated, including this.
Ummm, has the NSA admitted that? I think they try to record all *foreign* cell phone traffic. Unreasonable search and seizure applies only within our own territory.
"They call for the removal of equal treatment under the law."
I mean no disrespect, but I did not think that the concept of equal protection was supposed to apply to foreign citizens (or, perhaps, foreign states) initiating crimes outside our borders. Dealing with such entities is clearly within the realm of our foreign policy and not our justice system. While its nice to have the ideal that we'd like to apply the concepts of our internal justice system to our foreign policy, neither the constitution nor any law we have mandates it.
None the less, let's apply a simple concept of our justice system known as self-defence -- If I reasonably believe that someone is about to harm me (or others) with deadly force, I may use deadly force against them to prevent them from harming me.
Lets suppose, today, that the US launched a "retaliatory" strike at Bin Laden or Afghanistan without any evidence linking him to yesterday's events. Suppose some months from now that evidence arrises that clearly implicates some other entity in yesterday's attacks. Would we have committed some massive injustice? NO. Don't we reasonably beleive that if allowed to, Bin Laden will attempt to kill more of our citizens in extremily violent ways? Couldn't we say the same about many other foreign individuals / groups and even states?
The concept of self defense applies here and IMHO would cover pretty much any action we took. But, again, even if self defense didn't 'legally' apply, it doesn't have to because there is no law that says we must conduct foreign policy in a 'just' manner. If we don't, does that lower us to the same level as these terrorists? Perhaps, but who here would have truly been against a PRE-EMPTIVE strike against whomever did this if it would have prevented what occured yesterday?
The mistake we are all making is thinking in terms of retaliation for a specific past act, when we ought to be thinking in terms of pre-emption of future acts (after all, nothing can now undo what occurred yesterday). It simply comes down to "We will not tolerate those who have done us harm" vs. "We will not tolerate those who would do us harm".
1. The Osprey has three hydraulic systems that control properller pitch. Any one should be able to provide adequate control in case the other two fail.
2. The three systems are not completely independent - in some places they share lines with one of the other systems.
3. In the report - they found that the ruptured line cauesd a complete failure in one of the systems - a second system was compromised but an isolation valve cut it off so that it would not leak - but the isolation valve activation meant that this particular hydraulic system was no longer providing power to control prop pitch in one of the engines. So, one of the props pitch controls is getting powered by two systems, the other only by one.
4. When the pilot pressed the reset button, the computer attempted to change prop pitch - the software did not account for the fact that the isolation valve caused more power to change the pitch of the props in one of the engines than in the other - so the props changed pitch at uneven rates - this is very bad since one prop is now generating more thrust than the other - this asymetrical thrust caused unwanted yawing of the aircraft - whatever the computer did to correct this unwanted yawing didn't help - but this also probably included changing the pitch of the props some more which likely compounded the problem.
Its amazing that even on an intellegent forum such as /. ignorance and raw stupidity such as that evidenced by the above post exists. "Anonymous Coward" indeed.
On the other hand, some song titles are rather unique phrases or original combinations of words, and perhaps should be extended copyright protection - "You know where you went wrong", "Bizarre Love Triangle", "I Trance You", "Leafhound" are all examples of song titles that might qualify to varying degrees.
Now, we see the value of CDDB for the filtering that the RIAA wants Napster to do, and the RIAA has been scrambling around trying to compile lists of song titles (probably 90% of the effort in creating a CDDB type service of their own) when IMHO they should have already had such a list in a CDDB like service for at least a couple of years - in fact, I'd be willing to bet that the RIAA, even as they devote time and energy to compiling their lists are failing to take advantage of their own efforts by compiling these lists into a CDDB type app.
In fairness, I suppose, if the RIAA had such a service and CD Rippers used it to populate ID3 tags and name MP3 files, it'd probably be an even bigger irony, but still...
I also have to ask - aren't many if not all song/album titles (and not just the songs themselves) copyrighted? Could Gracenote / CDDB be the next target for the RIAA scheist...er, lawyers that is? After all, if they sue CDDB out of existence, they set a precedent that they are the only ones who can build such an application as the copyright holders of the song titles- next thing they'll be charging companies / software authors that write CD playing software for computers for the right to use their database. Heck, its not at all inconceivable that such a service could be integrated into normal CD playing stereo components (and stereo component manufacturers charged accordingly) - how hard is it to put a two port ethernet hub into a CD player that would allow even the average Joe to connect their CD player and computer to their cable modem / DSL service for the purpose of retrieving song titles (and, heaven forbid, allowing the RIAA to spy on your listening habits)?