Because she's disrupting another student that she is texting to. It's unfair on that other student who would actually get on with the class if not constantly distracted by her phone.
Unless this student has a phone fitted with a special feature known as "turning off". In the "off" state incomming texts are stored by the network until the phone is changed to the "on" state.
"Release to the public domain" is not an inherent aspect of copyright.
Actually it is (or rather was) a major part of copyright law. As evidenced by "copyright libraries" which were intended to hold a copy of every book published.
It's a common part of modern copyright laws nationally and internationally, true.
All copyright laws are "modern" the concept only came into being a few hundred years ago
Copyright law was not meant to do that. This is why reverse engineering is allowed by copyright law and why so many EULAs specifically prohibit it.
It can be more accurate to say that "EULAs claim to forbid it". The likes of an EULA (together with terms and conditions, etc) are subservient to the "law of the land".
The gray area with software in a business situation is the "personal use" part, along with the fact that despite how any of us feel about EULA, we all pretty much understand and accept "licensed per user". So, for software that is intended to be installed on an individual machine and run by a single user, modifying it to place one copy on the network and allowing multiple users to run it is definitely copyright infingement, even though you haven't increased the number of copies. Modifying "single-user" software that doesn't increase the number of simultaneous users would almost certainly be OK under the "personal use" idiom.
It's actually very "gray" given that many businesses are "legal people". As are many software vendors. It could be quite risky for a software supplier to persue this in court as a copyright, rather than a contract, violation. Because it's only the concept of "corporate personhood" which allows companies to be copyright holders...
The System was supposed to be a set of checks and balances against each other, if everyone is elected by the same people they system becomes homogenized and the differences that made it work are no longer there.
It isn't even the same group of people doing the electing you also see the same thing happening with the candidates to. e.g. how many candidates for US President in recent history havn't been either Senators or state Governers?
Now imagine that, only with the engine hitting something almost as big as a city bus. In your calculations, take careful note of the trajectory of the engine as it breaks loose from the wing and brings half the wing with it.:-D
Of more concern would be the trajectory of the rest of the aircraft. Loss of parts of wing tends to result in an aircraft which cannot be controlled. American 191 crashed because of the LEDs on the left wing retracting (together with warning systems being unpowered) not because the number 1 engine was sitting on the runway. El Al 1862 crashed because the leading and trailing edge devices on the right wing could not be deployed. GOL 1907 still had both engines attached to the wing. In all three cases one wing generating more lift than the other resulted in an unflyable aircraft. On the other hand where engines have detached without other damage, which has happened a few times with 732s, the aircraft has landed without further problems.
Yeah, i was thinking some sort of mesh in front of the turbofans, but yeah, that works too.
If that mesh isn't strong enough to itself withstand being hit by something travelling at speed the result is likely to be be bird/foreign object plus mesh going into engine. Which greatly increases the possibility of destroying the engine. Additionally such a screen must not impede airflow and not break due to being subjected to repeated flexing.
There is a tremendous problem getting books in audio format for blind people.
It involves quite a lot of work on the part of a narator/actor to produce the audio. So often audio books are only available for popular books in the case of commercial audio books. Even with the likes of librivox popularity is an issue.
The Kindle breaks that barrier.
Assuming that books are available in a suitable format.
The authors guild are not just greedy they also want to discriminate against blind people.
They are also possibly hurting themselves medium to long term. Since the most likely result these actions will be fewer people wanting to read any kind of books...
They are well on their way to achieving the status of bank executives.
Along with the music and movie industry executives. Indeed it looks like the Authors' Guild are trying to join in with the MPAA and RIAA.
But, AIUI, USA laws permit 3rd parties to make accessible versions of books, either audio or braille, without permission from the book's copyright owner.
Do the laws specifically state "audio or braille"? If not the presumably txt message or l33t would also be possibilities.
You mean like what happens every day in public schools around the country? It seems to me that we are now entering the realm of "IP" that we will soon need to shut down public schools and jailing the teachers for involving minors in a crime.
Presumably to be followed by parents and grandparents who read to children...
To clarify and educate; the Author's Guild is claiming that the Kindle's text-to-speech feature effectively is creating audio "derivative works," whenever it's employed, and copyright law reserves the right to audio derivatives for the author.
Whilst they may be technically correct there is the issue that reading books aloud (like libraries) predates the concept of copyright (by several thousand years). Nor is the "Kindle" the first machine to do this. Text (even printed text) to speech machines have existed for decades.
Corruption is a fairly common attribute of government. Regardless of when and where in human history you look... Power can both corrupt and attract the corrupt/easily corruptable.
What's actually more worrying is when people display such great faith that "their government" is immune to or free of corruption.
For the.01% of the people who would actually read stuff like this, this is fantastic. It's important that the public has access to this, and a shame that no suitable politician has decided to request all the reports and publish the whole lot (is there any reason this is not the case? Contact your representatives!).
The original article states that politicians are only motivated to release information that potentially helps them politically. There is very likely to be information which would be politically dangerous. e.g. information lobby groups do not want know. Anyway what's to say it wasn't a politician who gave the information to Wikileaks?
5. In the '90s, the telecoms received $200B in tax breaks and subsidies from state governments to build, deploy, and maintain true high speed networks. The telecoms took the money, and then didn't build jack shit. Instead, they gave us pitifully slow DSL.
6. A general attitude among US lawmakers that "the free market will sort things out" despite overwhelming evidence that *there is no free market for Internet access*
To have any kind of workable "market" it helps to have some kind of contract enforcement. Otherwise all you end up with are crooks who do little or nothing...
Oh, yeah, we have this Congress which is elected district by district, so EVERY SINGLE BILL has to be a bonanza giveaway with something for everyone.
Don't blame Congress for this, the Constitution we have was designed for an 18th century agrarian society. No matter how carefully it was designed the resulting system cannot possibly be ideal for a modern 21st century post industrial society
The US is hardly unique in having a legislative assembly populated by people elected by voters from specific geographical subgroups of the country's population. It's more likely that something within the US (political) culture or political system is responsible here, something which isn't present in many other contries.
Here are a couple of them. A 5 megawatt wind generator should be able to be erected within a month. Erect 20 a month and you've added 1.2 gigawatts of capacity in 1 year.
Your construction project is also going to have to hardware to link up 240 generators to the grid. Also they probably arn't going to be able to generate their rated power at all times.
The last nuclear power plant that went into operation in the US was the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station, Construction started in 1973 and the first of 2 units was compleated in 1996.
I doubt it actually takes 23 years to construct a nuclear power plant. Also you arn't restricted to windy places to build them and they are capable to producing their rated power more or less 24/7.
You do need to keep ships away from both the turbines and the cables linking them to the power grid. They are also likely to be difficult and dangerous to service in a storm...
There are risks to all methods of energy production. There are plenty of other countries who routinely reprocess their waste already, so that scary bomb-grade material you're scared of is already available.
There are plenty of complete nuclear weapons about, as well as "decommissioned" weapons.
Plutonium works fine in power plants (indeed, most fission plants make a decent proportion of their power off plutonium, because U-238 transitions to Pu-239 during the fission process).
It actually goes U-238 to U-239 to Np-239 to Pu-239 to U-235.
I've got a different idea: separate out the 50,000 year halflife stuff and just ignore it. I mean really - who cares about something that's barely radioactive?
There are a couple of problems. One is that it can still be chemically toxic. The other is that it's decay products can be more radioactive.
I'm also guess here. A decade ago, Los Alamos pioneered Accelerator Transmutation of Waste. There the idea was you bombard high level waste with a particle beam to, ironically, make it even higher level waste. The clever thing was this. The higher the radioactivity the shorter the half life.
It's also rather easier to extract energy from something like this. Indeed you'd need to keep it cool to stop it attempting to turn itself into gas. Thus being ideal to turn water into high pressure steam to drive turbines in the usual way to generate electricity. Whereas something like pure Pu239 is a just above ambient temperature solid.
I'm guessing that this Fission/fussion system is probably playing the same game. Fusion makes for heavier nuclii, which if they are not stable, tend to be even short lived as a general trend.
If you are fusing the products of nuclear fission (including their decay products) then the results are very unlikely to be remotely stable.
I would venture a guess what triggered this was problems in the DTV coupon program. This program offers each household up to two coupons. (in the form of cards, similar to a debit card) Each coupon could be redeemed for US$40 off the price of a digital receiver. Digital receivers are selling for around US$60-65.
Another thing you can expect is that the absolute minimum price of such a unit is that value of the coupon. Which may have kept the price artificially high in the US.
In places without such "assistance" the price of converter boxes doppped once digital TV signals were available to stimulate demand. Another thing which makes DTV boxes cheaper in Europe is that TVs have for a long time had inputs for composite video, even RGB auxillary inputs. With the SCART/Péritel connector being present on just about everything less than 20 years old.
Do all US boxes require an NTSC encoder and a modulator?
That spectrum has a new use which is only getting delayed yet again because of this. Why are they delaying?
Which is likely to cost plenty of people money they can't afford.
Its not like TV is something that you can't live without.
Anyone who really can't can probably scrape enough money together to buy a converter box. No doubt every TV "repairman" has made sure they have plenty to hand for that weekend:)
Slashdot Mirror
Because she's disrupting another student that she is texting to. It's unfair on that other student who would actually get on with the class if not constantly distracted by her phone.
Unless this student has a phone fitted with a special feature known as "turning off". In the "off" state incomming texts are stored by the network until the phone is changed to the "on" state.
"Release to the public domain" is not an inherent aspect of copyright.
Actually it is (or rather was) a major part of copyright law. As evidenced by "copyright libraries" which were intended to hold a copy of every book published.
It's a common part of modern copyright laws nationally and internationally, true.
All copyright laws are "modern" the concept only came into being a few hundred years ago
Copyright law was not meant to do that. This is why reverse engineering is allowed by copyright law and why so many EULAs specifically prohibit it.
It can be more accurate to say that "EULAs claim to forbid it". The likes of an EULA (together with terms and conditions, etc) are subservient to the "law of the land".
The gray area with software in a business situation is the "personal use" part, along with the fact that despite how any of us feel about EULA, we all pretty much understand and accept "licensed per user". So, for software that is intended to be installed on an individual machine and run by a single user, modifying it to place one copy on the network and allowing multiple users to run it is definitely copyright infingement, even though you haven't increased the number of copies. Modifying "single-user" software that doesn't increase the number of simultaneous users would almost certainly be OK under the "personal use" idiom.
It's actually very "gray" given that many businesses are "legal people". As are many software vendors. It could be quite risky for a software supplier to persue this in court as a copyright, rather than a contract, violation. Because it's only the concept of "corporate personhood" which allows companies to be copyright holders...
The System was supposed to be a set of checks and balances against each other, if everyone is elected by the same people they system becomes homogenized and the differences that made it work are no longer there.
It isn't even the same group of people doing the electing you also see the same thing happening with the candidates to. e.g. how many candidates for US President in recent history havn't been either Senators or state Governers?
Now imagine that, only with the engine hitting something almost as big as a city bus. In your calculations, take careful note of the trajectory of the engine as it breaks loose from the wing and brings half the wing with it. :-D
Of more concern would be the trajectory of the rest of the aircraft.
Loss of parts of wing tends to result in an aircraft which cannot be controlled. American 191 crashed because of the LEDs on the left wing retracting (together with warning systems being unpowered) not because the number 1 engine was sitting on the runway. El Al 1862 crashed because the leading and trailing edge devices on the right wing could not be deployed. GOL 1907 still had both engines attached to the wing. In all three cases one wing generating more lift than the other resulted in an unflyable aircraft.
On the other hand where engines have detached without other damage, which has happened a few times with 732s, the aircraft has landed without further problems.
Yeah, i was thinking some sort of mesh in front of the turbofans, but yeah, that works too.
If that mesh isn't strong enough to itself withstand being hit by something travelling at speed the result is likely to be be bird/foreign object plus mesh going into engine. Which greatly increases the possibility of destroying the engine. Additionally such a screen must not impede airflow and not break due to being subjected to repeated flexing.
There is a tremendous problem getting books in audio format for blind people.
It involves quite a lot of work on the part of a narator/actor to produce the audio. So often audio books are only available for popular books in the case of commercial audio books. Even with the likes of librivox popularity is an issue.
The Kindle breaks that barrier.
Assuming that books are available in a suitable format.
The authors guild are not just greedy they also want to discriminate against blind people.
They are also possibly hurting themselves medium to long term. Since the most likely result these actions will be fewer people wanting to read any kind of books...
They are well on their way to achieving the status of bank executives.
Along with the music and movie industry executives. Indeed it looks like the Authors' Guild are trying to join in with the MPAA and RIAA.
But, AIUI, USA laws permit 3rd parties to make accessible versions of books, either audio or braille, without permission from the book's copyright owner.
Do the laws specifically state "audio or braille"? If not the presumably txt message or l33t would also be possibilities.
HDCP for the alphabet - just translate it to cuneiform.
Presumably ASCII is "standard definition" with unicode being "hi def"...
You mean like what happens every day in public schools around the country? It seems to me that we are now entering the realm of "IP" that we will soon need to shut down public schools and jailing the teachers for involving minors in a crime.
Presumably to be followed by parents and grandparents who read to children...
To clarify and educate; the Author's Guild is claiming that the Kindle's text-to-speech feature effectively is creating audio "derivative works," whenever it's employed, and copyright law reserves the right to audio derivatives for the author.
Whilst they may be technically correct there is the issue that reading books aloud (like libraries) predates the concept of copyright (by several thousand years). Nor is the "Kindle" the first machine to do this. Text (even printed text) to speech machines have existed for decades.
The U.S. government is extremely corrupt.
Corruption is a fairly common attribute of government. Regardless of when and where in human history you look... Power can both corrupt and attract the corrupt/easily corruptable. What's actually more worrying is when people display such great faith that "their government" is immune to or free of corruption.
For the .01% of the people who would actually read stuff like this, this is fantastic. It's important that the public has access to this, and a shame that no suitable politician has decided to request all the reports and publish the whole lot (is there any reason this is not the case? Contact your representatives!).
The original article states that politicians are only motivated to release information that potentially helps them politically. There is very likely to be information which would be politically dangerous. e.g. information lobby groups do not want know. Anyway what's to say it wasn't a politician who gave the information to Wikileaks?
5. In the '90s, the telecoms received $200B in tax breaks and subsidies from state governments to build, deploy, and maintain true high speed networks. The telecoms took the money, and then didn't build jack shit. Instead, they gave us pitifully slow DSL.
6. A general attitude among US lawmakers that "the free market will sort things out" despite overwhelming evidence that *there is no free market for Internet access*
To have any kind of workable "market" it helps to have some kind of contract enforcement. Otherwise all you end up with are crooks who do little or nothing...
Oh, yeah, we have this Congress which is elected district by district, so EVERY SINGLE BILL has to be a bonanza giveaway with something for everyone.
Don't blame Congress for this, the Constitution we have was designed for an 18th century agrarian society. No matter how carefully it was designed the resulting system cannot possibly be ideal for a modern 21st century post industrial society
The US is hardly unique in having a legislative assembly populated by people elected by voters from specific geographical subgroups of the country's population. It's more likely that something within the US (political) culture or political system is responsible here, something which isn't present in many other contries.
And as a taxpayer you'd probably want to hang them from the nearest lamppost
How many "fatcats" can the average lamppost take though?
Here are a couple of them. A 5 megawatt wind generator should be able to be erected within a month. Erect 20 a month and you've added 1.2 gigawatts of capacity in 1 year.
Your construction project is also going to have to hardware to link up 240 generators to the grid. Also they probably arn't going to be able to generate their rated power at all times.
The last nuclear power plant that went into operation in the US was the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station, Construction started in 1973 and the first of 2 units was compleated in 1996.
I doubt it actually takes 23 years to construct a nuclear power plant. Also you arn't restricted to windy places to build them and they are capable to producing their rated power more or less 24/7.
Offshore wind farms wouldn't need to be as high
You do need to keep ships away from both the turbines and the cables linking them to the power grid. They are also likely to be difficult and dangerous to service in a storm...
There are risks to all methods of energy production. There are plenty of other countries who routinely reprocess their waste already, so that scary bomb-grade material you're scared of is already available.
There are plenty of complete nuclear weapons about, as well as "decommissioned" weapons.
Plutonium works fine in power plants (indeed, most fission plants make a decent proportion of their power off plutonium, because U-238 transitions to Pu-239 during the fission process).
It actually goes U-238 to U-239 to Np-239 to Pu-239 to U-235.
I've got a different idea: separate out the 50,000 year halflife stuff and just ignore it. I mean really - who cares about something that's barely radioactive?
There are a couple of problems. One is that it can still be chemically toxic. The other is that it's decay products can be more radioactive.
I'm also guess here. A decade ago, Los Alamos pioneered Accelerator Transmutation of Waste. There the idea was you bombard high level waste with a particle beam to, ironically, make it even higher level waste. The clever thing was this. The higher the radioactivity the shorter the half life.
It's also rather easier to extract energy from something like this. Indeed you'd need to keep it cool to stop it attempting to turn itself into gas. Thus being ideal to turn water into high pressure steam to drive turbines in the usual way to generate electricity. Whereas something like pure Pu239 is a just above ambient temperature solid.
I'm guessing that this Fission/fussion system is probably playing the same game. Fusion makes for heavier nuclii, which if they are not stable, tend to be even short lived as a general trend.
If you are fusing the products of nuclear fission (including their decay products) then the results are very unlikely to be remotely stable.
I would venture a guess what triggered this was problems in the DTV coupon program.
This program offers each household up to two coupons. (in the form of cards, similar to a debit card) Each coupon could be redeemed for US$40 off the price of a digital receiver. Digital receivers are selling for around US$60-65.
Another thing you can expect is that the absolute minimum price of such a unit is that value of the coupon. Which may have kept the price artificially high in the US. In places without such "assistance" the price of converter boxes doppped once digital TV signals were available to stimulate demand. Another thing which makes DTV boxes cheaper in Europe is that TVs have for a long time had inputs for composite video, even RGB auxillary inputs. With the SCART/Péritel connector being present on just about everything less than 20 years old. Do all US boxes require an NTSC encoder and a modulator?
That spectrum has a new use which is only getting delayed yet again because of this. Why are they delaying?
:)
Which is likely to cost plenty of people money they can't afford.
Its not like TV is something that you can't live without.
Anyone who really can't can probably scrape enough money together to buy a converter box. No doubt every TV "repairman" has made sure they have plenty to hand for that weekend