You know a whole lot of those? Hell, you know a lot of mobsters that are still successful? They haevn't caught a break for decades. The Feds really hate those guys. But they didn't need this rule to beat them!
Honestly, they have managed to catch lawyers that were active conspirators before WITHOUT just walking all over privilege. Why are these methods suddenly unavailable?
Total nit, but it's 'Bar,' not 'BAR.' It doesn't stand for anything; it's not an acronym.
Rather the bar is the little dividing wall in a courtroom that seperates the gallery where spectators can sit from the working area where the judge and lawyers are. That they've passed the bar fundementally means that they can pass that bar in the courtroom and participate.
There are also multiple Bar Associations... you're probably thinking of the ABA, which is the most significant nationwide one.
Yeah, but it's also what the Russian emperors were called prior to the revolution over there. It's derived from 'Caesar,' the title favored by the Roman emperors that wrested power from the Republic.
All in all, it is a name loaded with bad connotations, and a really crappy ass choice. It's akin to having a Drug Fuhrer, 'cos it just means 'Father' and denotes authority, right? Well, probably not.
Ah... usually in order to be a lawyer, and be entitled to that privilege, you have to be a REAL lawyer. You can't just call yourself a lawyer, that's illegal. There are licensing requirements in order to practice law, detailed background checks, etc. None of this crap with quotation marks seems applicable.
It's the one that goes between Cleveland Circle, up the hill, up to Comm. Ave. You know, the major street at Cleveland Circle that _isn't_ Beacon.
Bummer about no car. I'd suggest the Sony on Church Street at Harvard Sq. then, but that's a fairly long trip on the T. And like you said, it's not really about movies.
Yup. I just wonder if Pixar recycles their models as a reference to themselves, or just to save time?
For instance the floaty-rock canyon at the beginning of Toy Story 2 was the dry riverbed from Bug's Life, with the rocks accidently put in the wrong place. (but they liked that so they kept it)
Bleh. I used to live on the other side of Cleveland Circle from that theater. It sucked. Go to the big theater in Randolph instead. It's a bit of a drive, but it kicks ass.
(OTOH, there is a decent Chinese place on Chestnut Hill Ave just up the street from Cleveland Circle... used to eat there a lot)
OTOH, if they didn't demand ever more resources, those same programmers could be put to work 1) trimming out the fat of the existing software and significantly increasing its efficiency and 2) working on new things instead of mere rehashes of the old
'sides, if cars were still assembled by hand, they'd need plenty more workers. I'm sure they'd love it. I have no problem with programmers that lose their jobs because they're not really needed. What makes them so special?
Copyright law consists of:
*The copyright clause of the Constitution enabling (but not requiring) Congress to pass copyright laws within certain parameters.
*A body of statute, presently IIRC Title 17 of the US Code
*A body of judicial interpretation of the Constitution and statutory copyright
*A certain amount of -- now, I believe dormant -- very, very limited judicial common law copyright
*Treaties are not, IIRC, law per se. If they were, it would provide the President and 2/3 of the Senate with an end-run around the House, and be able to enter into a treaty with tax provisions, which would be wholly unconstitutional. Rather, I believe that treaties must be "enabled" by Congress passing law which fulfils treaty requirements.
The Fair Use doctrine is a judicially-created interpretation of the Constitution. A version of it was embodied into statute by Congress, as 17 USC 107, but in a pinch the judicially-created Fair Use would control, as it is an interpretation of the Constitution, and the Constitution necessarily trumps Congress.
The DMCA is not really a law that anyone goes and looks up, but is really a set of modifications to (largely, at least) 17 USC. People will consult the real thing, rather than try to poke through what you could think of as "diffs" because it is a lot easier unless you are really trying to track the development of the thing.
So the DMCA doesn't need a Fair Use clause, it is essentially a subset of a larger body of statute that has one, and at any rate, the Congress didn't recognize Fair Use for a century, and it existed ANYWAY.
At any rate, the basic idea you're seeing here is this: The First Amendment was not intended to void the Copyright clause, but rather to coexist harmoniously.
As copyright is a restriction of speech, it is nevertheless allowed, because the First Amendment was not intended to guarantee freedom of copyrighted speech to unauthorized people. But in certain instances, thanks to other language of the copyright clause in conjunction with the First Amendment, may at times override that. (e.g. copyright isn't completely applicable to parody or satire)
And of course Congres could just amend copyright law to say something like "Copyright law doesn't exist anymore" in which case it just wouldn't in the US. (though they'd retain the power to reimpose it)
Or the circuits could come into conflict, which seems likely, given way the DeCSS case in NY (2d Circuit) has been going. But this would tend to induce the Supremes to come in more quickly than they would otherwise.
But if the other circuits were hardasses, this decision would not be a barrier to them.
What? But everyone loves Him! Whether fighting Robot Monsters in the future, or the villanous Rubber Skull, during WW2, no one would call Him a villain. I just can't believe it.
While I do not condone violent protests, I would say that mere elections are insufficient justification for opposition to them. Very many countries hold elections where the results are rigged or meaningless. (e.g. you could vote in the Soviet Union, but there weren't any real options) It is easy for a government to adopt enough of the appearance and rhetoric of a truly democratic government to meet criteria you set if you are only concerned about the external appearance, and not the internal functionality.
A relatively nit-picking argument, to be sure, but one which has been abused in the past, and so deserves mention and consideration.
"The Last Unicorn" by Peter Beagle, and "One for the Morning Glory" by John Barnes. Excellent books. And of course I ate up the Oz books when I was a kid... loved 'em, had a whole shelf of 'em.
1) Copyright enforcement may or may not be possible if the copyright holder has done certain things. This is a _narrow_ exception, but IIRC (IANAL) there have been applications of latches and copyright abuse theories to certain copyright holders who, for example, led someone to believe that they were allowed to infringe with license, in order to make them a target for a lawsuit.
2) Copyrights do not exclusively protect the interests of the creator. They also protect the interests of society and the interests of the public domain. Congress too has great latitude in deciding who can and cannot copy a work in question. (e.g. by simply denying copyright to code, as was done until the 70's) There was a nice appellate decision recently that reinforced this point.
I agree though, it's stupid for Sony to do this. They should've ignored it, or perhaps even granted him (or all Aibo owners, or everyone) a limited license.
You can challenge the constitutionality of a law before ANY court. However, in some courts, that's not all that relevant (e.g. divorce court) and of course the federal Supreme Court is the top dog.
But you're right of course, in that generally (not always) courts do not issue advisory opinions. There must first be a case.
I would prefer no ratings at all. A description perhaps, rather like you see on the backs of books, but not a rating. I'm happy to live in a country where "Tropic of Cancer" can be found on a low-lying shelf.
Ratings that are purely informational are alright, but too much power is amassed by the ratings body for my tastes, and these things have a way of becoming censorious. (e.g. many movie theater chains AND leasors will not permit unrated or NC17 movies to be shown, regardless of the opinions of the theater management or the movie-going public)
Looking at the history of movie ratings, comic ratings, etc. I don't see that any good could come of this no matter who implements it.
Sigh. You know... I think that perhaps you were describing yourself here.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Basically the original poster is pointing out that Congress explicitly has no power to restrict the freedom of speech, et al, and yet persists in trying to pass legislation which restricts the freedom of speech. I.e. That they do something when they are told not to, in no uncertain terms.
He's framing this within a modified version of the phrase "What part of no don't you understand?" (but could've also used the anti-rape slogan, "No means no" to build upon)
But mostly since I don't care to believe that anyone could screw up something they should've learned in their Civics class so badly by accident, that you're a troll.
The scroll sucks for all purposes slightly in that it does not appear as though a user can feel it operating. The clicks would probably not need to be reintroduced with an electronic clicker were this so.
More importantly, however, the scroll is used for both volume control and scrolling through lists. This is bad, because it may not be evident to a user which mode it is in, and he may have a need to, say, adjust the volume while selecting songs. Apple knows perfectly well that there needs to be a damn good reason for modal UI... this isn't one of them.
Wheels are great for volume control (as I have always maintained -- I hate digital volume control) and great for selection, but if I had to split them up, I'd have a different, Palm-like double teardrop button for scrolling.
Re: Apple's internal departments, I never said that it was an OEMed product. Indeed, I don't think that something like this could have come from anywhere else....
No, it's a closed system like an iPod. I'll be surprised if it's capable of acting like a general purpose computer, or if Apple ever releases the specs for it to do so. Far more cost, space and power efficient to specialize. I bet you could count all the chips involved on the fingers of one hand, and none would be a modern general purpose CPU.*
Re: languages, I checked over the tech specs and there was no mention of expandability. They _do_ claim that codecs are expandable, but I am curious as to by whom they are? Third parties is the way to go -- Apple's not going to be willing or able to support everything out there. (I still have a decent collection of MODs, XMs, S3Ms, etc.)
I'd like to know the precise source for your information, since it contradicts what's on the main Apple pages for the iPod. Do you have URLs?
*Of course Gameboys ran on a Z80 variant for _ages_ so a lot can be done with an ancient CPU. But this is likely no ARM.
First off, let's have no attacks on my Apple credentials. I've used Apples and Macs since the 80's, I've worked in repair, and as a reseller, I've owned plenty of Macs (and just picked up some vintage parts for my collection the other day) and generally find MacOS to be the best of the OSes presently available, though that's not to say that it's the greatest thing ever. I think I'm not particularly assailable on that front, thank you.
Anyway, I think that you have not read the current ID3 spec. ID3v2.4.0 is about as damn-near infinitely extensible as you could wish for. I was involved in a project to IMPLEMENT the damn thing in its entirety (and since Ogg support was slated for inclusion, we would have tackled it as well) and let me tell you, it's no picnic.
Nevertheless, we, a very small shop, were making progress, up until the meltdown, when our project was canceled and I left work.
Do all present implementations of ID3 suck? You bet. I heartily agree with you. In fact, I said as much in the portion of my post that you _quoted_! However, this does not mean that it must always necessarily suck. I don't think that mine would. If Apple had a strong HI Group anymore, I don't think that theirs would.
But I'd start by reading the spec. The whole, many, many, many page long spec. Then bitch at various companies that are in positions to deliver (I won't mention mine publicly) and convince them to, or develop something yourself.
Re: codecs, it says in the specs that additional codecs can be put into firmware. I never said that they couldn't! I think that's almost a great feature. It could only be improved by allowing very rarely used codecs (e.g. MOD) to be stored on the disk, and loaded into RAM and used when a song that needed them was brought up. This guards against the firmware being totally filled up.
However, third party expansion for codecs is not mentioned. And nothing is mentioned about languages -- in the absence of anything to go on, it is safer to assume a lack of expandability, though if someone can demonstrate otherwise, I'll gladly conceed that point. Particularly since Apple is not to be trusted with full control. They've screwed this kind of thing up in the past.
Re: tactile feedback, we'll see. Given that it needs an electronic clicker, I'd be surprised if it had tactile feedback as well... normally they're provided through the same mechanical part. (kind of like putting baseball cards in the spokes of a bike wheel)
No, they're using the wheel for both volume and scroll selecting. Meaning that if you needed to change the volume while choosing a song, or otherwise mucking with the settings, you're just SOL.
I think Apple has done a bang-up job on UI... in the past. But they've been stagnating for years, and plenty of people are unhappy with OS X -- as the constant stream of half-baked UI changes can attest to. Perhaps if they'd read their own book once in a while, these things wouldn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
My mistake. Clearly I only know a little German, and he's not here. ;)
You know a whole lot of those? Hell, you know a lot of mobsters that are still successful? They haevn't caught a break for decades. The Feds really hate those guys. But they didn't need this rule to beat them!
Honestly, they have managed to catch lawyers that were active conspirators before WITHOUT just walking all over privilege. Why are these methods suddenly unavailable?
Total nit, but it's 'Bar,' not 'BAR.' It doesn't stand for anything; it's not an acronym.
Rather the bar is the little dividing wall in a courtroom that seperates the gallery where spectators can sit from the working area where the judge and lawyers are. That they've passed the bar fundementally means that they can pass that bar in the courtroom and participate.
There are also multiple Bar Associations... you're probably thinking of the ABA, which is the most significant nationwide one.
Yeah, but it's also what the Russian emperors were called prior to the revolution over there. It's derived from 'Caesar,' the title favored by the Roman emperors that wrested power from the Republic.
All in all, it is a name loaded with bad connotations, and a really crappy ass choice. It's akin to having a Drug Fuhrer, 'cos it just means 'Father' and denotes authority, right? Well, probably not.
Ah... usually in order to be a lawyer, and be entitled to that privilege, you have to be a REAL lawyer. You can't just call yourself a lawyer, that's illegal. There are licensing requirements in order to practice law, detailed background checks, etc. None of this crap with quotation marks seems applicable.
It's the one that goes between Cleveland Circle, up the hill, up to Comm. Ave. You know, the major street at Cleveland Circle that _isn't_ Beacon.
Bummer about no car. I'd suggest the Sony on Church Street at Harvard Sq. then, but that's a fairly long trip on the T. And like you said, it's not really about movies.
Yup. I just wonder if Pixar recycles their models as a reference to themselves, or just to save time?
For instance the floaty-rock canyon at the beginning of Toy Story 2 was the dry riverbed from Bug's Life, with the rocks accidently put in the wrong place. (but they liked that so they kept it)
Bleh. I used to live on the other side of Cleveland Circle from that theater. It sucked. Go to the big theater in Randolph instead. It's a bit of a drive, but it kicks ass.
(OTOH, there is a decent Chinese place on Chestnut Hill Ave just up the street from Cleveland Circle... used to eat there a lot)
And what happens when you're not?
OTOH, if they didn't demand ever more resources, those same programmers could be put to work 1) trimming out the fat of the existing software and significantly increasing its efficiency and 2) working on new things instead of mere rehashes of the old
'sides, if cars were still assembled by hand, they'd need plenty more workers. I'm sure they'd love it. I have no problem with programmers that lose their jobs because they're not really needed. What makes them so special?
Copyright law consists of:
*The copyright clause of the Constitution enabling (but not requiring) Congress to pass copyright laws within certain parameters.
*A body of statute, presently IIRC Title 17 of the US Code
*A body of judicial interpretation of the Constitution and statutory copyright
*A certain amount of -- now, I believe dormant -- very, very limited judicial common law copyright
*Treaties are not, IIRC, law per se. If they were, it would provide the President and 2/3 of the Senate with an end-run around the House, and be able to enter into a treaty with tax provisions, which would be wholly unconstitutional. Rather, I believe that treaties must be "enabled" by Congress passing law which fulfils treaty requirements.
The Fair Use doctrine is a judicially-created interpretation of the Constitution. A version of it was embodied into statute by Congress, as 17 USC 107, but in a pinch the judicially-created Fair Use would control, as it is an interpretation of the Constitution, and the Constitution necessarily trumps Congress.
The DMCA is not really a law that anyone goes and looks up, but is really a set of modifications to (largely, at least) 17 USC. People will consult the real thing, rather than try to poke through what you could think of as "diffs" because it is a lot easier unless you are really trying to track the development of the thing.
So the DMCA doesn't need a Fair Use clause, it is essentially a subset of a larger body of statute that has one, and at any rate, the Congress didn't recognize Fair Use for a century, and it existed ANYWAY.
At any rate, the basic idea you're seeing here is this: The First Amendment was not intended to void the Copyright clause, but rather to coexist harmoniously.
As copyright is a restriction of speech, it is nevertheless allowed, because the First Amendment was not intended to guarantee freedom of copyrighted speech to unauthorized people. But in certain instances, thanks to other language of the copyright clause in conjunction with the First Amendment, may at times override that. (e.g. copyright isn't completely applicable to parody or satire)
And of course Congres could just amend copyright law to say something like "Copyright law doesn't exist anymore" in which case it just wouldn't in the US. (though they'd retain the power to reimpose it)
IANAL either.
Or the circuits could come into conflict, which seems likely, given way the DeCSS case in NY (2d Circuit) has been going. But this would tend to induce the Supremes to come in more quickly than they would otherwise.
But if the other circuits were hardasses, this decision would not be a barrier to them.
What? But everyone loves Him! Whether fighting Robot Monsters in the future, or the villanous Rubber Skull, during WW2, no one would call Him a villain. I just can't believe it.
While I do not condone violent protests, I would say that mere elections are insufficient justification for opposition to them. Very many countries hold elections where the results are rigged or meaningless. (e.g. you could vote in the Soviet Union, but there weren't any real options) It is easy for a government to adopt enough of the appearance and rhetoric of a truly democratic government to meet criteria you set if you are only concerned about the external appearance, and not the internal functionality.
A relatively nit-picking argument, to be sure, but one which has been abused in the past, and so deserves mention and consideration.
"The Last Unicorn" by Peter Beagle, and "One for the Morning Glory" by John Barnes. Excellent books. And of course I ate up the Oz books when I was a kid... loved 'em, had a whole shelf of 'em.
Are you kidding? Kids love stuff like that -- check out old Brothers Grimm fairy tales. They're not this wussified Disney stuff, lemme tell you.
Well, there are two caveats with your post:
1) Copyright enforcement may or may not be possible if the copyright holder has done certain things. This is a _narrow_ exception, but IIRC (IANAL) there have been applications of latches and copyright abuse theories to certain copyright holders who, for example, led someone to believe that they were allowed to infringe with license, in order to make them a target for a lawsuit.
2) Copyrights do not exclusively protect the interests of the creator. They also protect the interests of society and the interests of the public domain. Congress too has great latitude in deciding who can and cannot copy a work in question. (e.g. by simply denying copyright to code, as was done until the 70's) There was a nice appellate decision recently that reinforced this point.
I agree though, it's stupid for Sony to do this. They should've ignored it, or perhaps even granted him (or all Aibo owners, or everyone) a limited license.
Patents also do not need to be enforced.
You can challenge the constitutionality of a law before ANY court. However, in some courts, that's not all that relevant (e.g. divorce court) and of course the federal Supreme Court is the top dog.
But you're right of course, in that generally (not always) courts do not issue advisory opinions. There must first be a case.
I would prefer no ratings at all. A description perhaps, rather like you see on the backs of books, but not a rating. I'm happy to live in a country where "Tropic of Cancer" can be found on a low-lying shelf.
Ratings that are purely informational are alright, but too much power is amassed by the ratings body for my tastes, and these things have a way of becoming censorious. (e.g. many movie theater chains AND leasors will not permit unrated or NC17 movies to be shown, regardless of the opinions of the theater management or the movie-going public)
Looking at the history of movie ratings, comic ratings, etc. I don't see that any good could come of this no matter who implements it.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Basically the original poster is pointing out that Congress explicitly has no power to restrict the freedom of speech, et al, and yet persists in trying to pass legislation which restricts the freedom of speech. I.e. That they do something when they are told not to, in no uncertain terms.
He's framing this within a modified version of the phrase "What part of no don't you understand?" (but could've also used the anti-rape slogan, "No means no" to build upon)
But mostly since I don't care to believe that anyone could screw up something they should've learned in their Civics class so badly by accident, that you're a troll.
Ah? But I got my hand stamped 'SANE.'
The scroll sucks for all purposes slightly in that it does not appear as though a user can feel it operating. The clicks would probably not need to be reintroduced with an electronic clicker were this so.
More importantly, however, the scroll is used for both volume control and scrolling through lists. This is bad, because it may not be evident to a user which mode it is in, and he may have a need to, say, adjust the volume while selecting songs. Apple knows perfectly well that there needs to be a damn good reason for modal UI... this isn't one of them.
Wheels are great for volume control (as I have always maintained -- I hate digital volume control) and great for selection, but if I had to split them up, I'd have a different, Palm-like double teardrop button for scrolling.
Re: Apple's internal departments, I never said that it was an OEMed product. Indeed, I don't think that something like this could have come from anywhere else....
No, it's a closed system like an iPod. I'll be surprised if it's capable of acting like a general purpose computer, or if Apple ever releases the specs for it to do so. Far more cost, space and power efficient to specialize. I bet you could count all the chips involved on the fingers of one hand, and none would be a modern general purpose CPU.*
Re: languages, I checked over the tech specs and there was no mention of expandability. They _do_ claim that codecs are expandable, but I am curious as to by whom they are? Third parties is the way to go -- Apple's not going to be willing or able to support everything out there. (I still have a decent collection of MODs, XMs, S3Ms, etc.)
I'd like to know the precise source for your information, since it contradicts what's on the main Apple pages for the iPod. Do you have URLs?
*Of course Gameboys ran on a Z80 variant for _ages_ so a lot can be done with an ancient CPU. But this is likely no ARM.
Heh.
First off, let's have no attacks on my Apple credentials. I've used Apples and Macs since the 80's, I've worked in repair, and as a reseller, I've owned plenty of Macs (and just picked up some vintage parts for my collection the other day) and generally find MacOS to be the best of the OSes presently available, though that's not to say that it's the greatest thing ever. I think I'm not particularly assailable on that front, thank you.
Anyway, I think that you have not read the current ID3 spec. ID3v2.4.0 is about as damn-near infinitely extensible as you could wish for. I was involved in a project to IMPLEMENT the damn thing in its entirety (and since Ogg support was slated for inclusion, we would have tackled it as well) and let me tell you, it's no picnic.
Nevertheless, we, a very small shop, were making progress, up until the meltdown, when our project was canceled and I left work.
Do all present implementations of ID3 suck? You bet. I heartily agree with you. In fact, I said as much in the portion of my post that you _quoted_! However, this does not mean that it must always necessarily suck. I don't think that mine would. If Apple had a strong HI Group anymore, I don't think that theirs would.
But I'd start by reading the spec. The whole, many, many, many page long spec. Then bitch at various companies that are in positions to deliver (I won't mention mine publicly) and convince them to, or develop something yourself.
Re: codecs, it says in the specs that additional codecs can be put into firmware. I never said that they couldn't! I think that's almost a great feature. It could only be improved by allowing very rarely used codecs (e.g. MOD) to be stored on the disk, and loaded into RAM and used when a song that needed them was brought up. This guards against the firmware being totally filled up.
However, third party expansion for codecs is not mentioned. And nothing is mentioned about languages -- in the absence of anything to go on, it is safer to assume a lack of expandability, though if someone can demonstrate otherwise, I'll gladly conceed that point. Particularly since Apple is not to be trusted with full control. They've screwed this kind of thing up in the past.
Re: tactile feedback, we'll see. Given that it needs an electronic clicker, I'd be surprised if it had tactile feedback as well... normally they're provided through the same mechanical part. (kind of like putting baseball cards in the spokes of a bike wheel)
No, they're using the wheel for both volume and scroll selecting. Meaning that if you needed to change the volume while choosing a song, or otherwise mucking with the settings, you're just SOL.
I think Apple has done a bang-up job on UI... in the past. But they've been stagnating for years, and plenty of people are unhappy with OS X -- as the constant stream of half-baked UI changes can attest to. Perhaps if they'd read their own book once in a while, these things wouldn't happen.