Thousands upon thousands of people have done it, and continue to do so.
And almost all of them (except in the sunniest of regions) are paying more per watt for the solar power than they would have for grid power. You have to factor in the lifetime of the solar panels. They don't last forever. Anyway, we already saw this week a couple companies who claim they will have solar power that is cost-effective in the next five years. I'll believe it when I see it.
Both sides are really treading on dangerous ground if they want to preserve software patents. It's clear from the justices that they are acutely aware of the debate over whether software should be patentable, and are also aware that they have never held a decision on that issue. I found this interesting.
Representing AT&T, Seth Waxman conceded that source code cannot be patentable; however, he argued, the manifestation of that source code as executable machine code or object code can be, and in this case, is. Justice Breyer was skeptical, however. Can't a machine be copied conceptually without its manifestation being copied?
If AT&T's counsel is really conceding that source code is not patentable, then shouldn't it be easy to get around a software patent by merely changing the machine or object code? For that matter, simply changing what compiler you use will handle the task for you.
Based on all the choice quotes from the justices, it's clear that there could be some serious fodder for dismissal of software patents to be found in the opinions written by the justices. You can almost bet that if this case doesn't decide whether software is patentable, the fallout will ultimately create other situations that bring the question squarely before the Supreme Court. The only hope for the big software companies now is in the fact that the illustrious members of our highest court have traditionally taken great pains to sidestep hot button topics like this by ruling on some less important issue. Nevertheless, you can bet there will be at least one justice who feels the need to write a separate opinion and address the matter of software patents, whether the majority opinion does so or not.
I'm not even sure why someone would want to run VB under Linux.
Maybe because the application is already written and the vendor doesn't want to port it? After all, being able to operate with a single code base is generally a nice incentive to avoid creating ports.
While security at merchants and banks might be half of the problem, the following quote from the article sums up the other half:
It's still such a nightmare to get the problems resolved.
The biggest problem for consumers is not getting back the money they lost. It is repairing their credit record. We have a situation where three credit bureaus are collecting and disseminating private financial data about consumers. There is little or no control for the consumer over what information is given out in a credit check and to whom, and there is little or no control for the consumer about what information hits their credit report and what impact it has. Scour the web, and you'll find plenty of horror stories about consumers who have tried to clear their credit records of erroneous entries. In an identity theft situation, a consumer requires a team of lawyers working overtime to even partially restore their credit record after such an attack. What we need in this country is a complete revamp of the credit system that provides the following:
Consumers have control over what credit information is sent and to whom. Each and every attempt to pull a credit report should be approved by the consumer, and the consumer should be able to say whether or not just the credit score is sent, or whether more details are provided. Consumers could provide up-front authorization for financial entities that they are already doing (or intend to do) business with by providing the credit bureau with pre-authorization.
Once a case of identity theft has been proven, recovery should be simple with no lawyers required. There needs to be a foolproof method for a consumer to prove his or her identity, and then the consumer should be able to get reports of activity from the credit bureaus and involved financial entities. Once this is done, the consumer should be the authoritative source of determining which charges are accurate and which are a result of the identity theft. Obviously, responsibility for defraying these costs should fall on the shoulders of the entity whose breakdown in security was responsible for the theft.
Credit monitoring should be provided by each of the credit bureaus automatically at no additional charge. Any unusual activity should be immediately reported to the consumer.
Disputes in the information contained on the credit report should be handled promptly by credit bureaus, with a several financial penalty for failing to do so.
Disputes between the consumer and creditors that cannot be resolved should immediately be sent to arbitration by an uninvolved third party.
Consumers that are not satisfied with the results of arbitration should still have the option of appealing the decision using the court system.
In the event that a credit bureau is unable to adequately perform the above requirements, their license to operate should be revoked, a copy of all data on consumers should be sent to the each consumer as is appropriate, and all remaining copies (physical or electronic) of any data on consumers should be destroyed.
Financial entities should not be allowed to share data about consumers with each other -- not even with their own subsidiaries.
Financial entities should be required to specify clearly to a consumer what data they will collect and exactly what information will be sent to what credit bureaus and under what conditions it will be sent.
Financial entities caught harassing consumers by damaging their credit record intentionally or by using credit information in "creative" ways to support raising interest rates should have their license temporarily suspended pending the results of an independent investigation. The license should not be reinstated until all employees even remotely involved are removed from their positions. This would include members of the board of directors. Such action would not preclude criminal investigation and charges.
How in the world can intelligence that can't be used in court be very useful? even if you use it to stop a plot you wouldn't be able to hold on to these bad guys according to your own rules. Why can't our governments (the US and UK in this case) that all this crap does is erode there credibility and marginalize the one thing they are sworn to protect above all else.
You are making the mistaken assumption that there was ever any intent to use the intelligence in court so that they can "hold on" to the bad guys. For that to be true, political leaders would have to view themselves as subject to the same laws that govern the citizens. What you OUGHT to be asking yourself is: If the government is willing to make consideration of such a polarizing issue public knowledge, what are they doing in PRIVATE that you DON'T know about?
When she swerves in hit her. follow up with a lawsuit and press charges of reckless driving.
Bad idea. The dashcam will effectively implicate both drivers. It'll be obvious from the video that not only was one car blocking the road, but that the other had sufficient time to stop, and both drivers will be charged with a traffic violation. Probably better to find a friend on the police force to periodically check out the area where she does this, particularly during times when she's likely to be driving down the road. Once caught, I'm sure she won't repeat the action.
A New York Times article [nytimes.com] with more detail suggests they didn't even clear him of that, just of passing off his own work as independent replication.
And strangely enough, the NY Times article seems to ignore the November independent replication of the experiment mentioned in the New Scientist article. It sounds to me like NOBODY has the full story, and therefore both sources of information are rather suspect.
aye... and if the guy had an unprotected wireless router? What then?
Law enforcement looks for people living or working near the unsecured router and that either would have had access to the media prior to airtime, or have established relationships with people that would have had access. If the FBI gets involved, I guarantee they'll at least figure out who the guy is before they lose the laptop with all the details of the case.
If this guy was smart, he'd have uploaded this stuff from an open access point anyway (either an unsecured AP locally, or free public wireless).
Ah, but given the fact that he uploaded episodes of 24 _before_ they aired, the list of suspects is already narrowed significantly. Searching for someone who would have had access to the material prior to the air date and lives near the unsecured AP or free public wireless network will provide a workable list for law enforcement. Unless this turkey is working as an anonymous team member with somebody else (IE, there's no relationship between where the media was acquired and where it was uploaded), he will almost certainly get caught.
Two words: CANE TOADS. History has shown that when it comes to the environment, the best thing man can do is AVOID INTERFERING!! Of course, that includes not causing the problem in the first place....
"...To put this in to perspective, if BayTSP were trying to bust me for doing drugs, it'd be like getting arrested because I was hanging out with some dealers, but they never saw me using, buying, or selling any drugs."
The analogy doesn't sound surprising. Maybe I misunderstand the law, but I believe you CAN be arrested for hanging out with known drug dealers. They can certain search you (probable cause) and can probably make you submit to a drug screening. I just think that if you're actually innocent, they would have to drop the charges. That doesn't keep you from being arrested and fingerprinted, and spending a night or two in jail. It's one of the things I have never been able to get most of the teenagers I know to understand. If you are hanging around with the wrong crowd, it doesn't matter whether you are a participant. Trouble will come your way.
BTW, I think that unlike drug charges, people who lose their ISP *would* have some recourse. The Media Companies are not a law enforcement agency, and therefore *might* be guilty of defamation if they committed libel when telling your ISP that you were doing something illegal. I'm not sure how far you could get with that, though.
But the FAQ doesn't mention whether or not there is still a 24 hour deadline for finishing the movie/program after you start it. That is my single biggest problem with all the download services. There have been many, many times when I got half way through a movie and was too tired to finish it that night, so I had to wait two or three nights until I had time. I will not use ANY of the download services until this restriction is relaxed. How about thirty days? I think that's reasonable.
More like bullying tactics and threats to the studios warning them not to sign up with Apple for it's movie downloading service.
No, I think it's really the caving in. Imagine that you work for one of the studios. You know that DVD-encryption is more or less useless. You have a choice of paying the cost to produce DVDs and ship them to the retailer who will manage to get them to your customers. Or, you can let your customer download them themselves from the retailer's web site and you still get the same revenue from them. Which would you choose?
Wal-Mart is not doing us a service by pricing the downloads the same as the physical DVD. They are actually creating a reason for the studios to avoid iTunes and services like it because they are saying "Look here! You can continue to pillage your customers if you use our service!" I would recommend avoiding Wal-Mart's service until the price comes down significantly. At any rate, the service doesn't work with Firefox, so I won't be using it anytime soon.
Wouldn't it make more sense just to have the computer not respond to voice commands that it, itself, is issuing?
No because that won't stop somebody from using one of those 3D sonic beams to focus sound through a window directly on the microphone of your computer. Nor will it prevent the same "hack" from taking place in an office where you have two computers running.
I honestly can't believe this is for real. But if it is... It's already been stated that you should seek the advice of an attorney. Many attorneys will offer a free initial consultation. You absolutely should NOT go without legal representation, and before you even notify your new employer about the possibility of a lawsuit, you should go talk with the best attorney you can find. Based on the information you gave, I can't imagine that there is any basis for such a suit, and I'm guessing that they are just trying to scare you. However, if you have any witnesses who would testify to the threat that was made, I'm willing to bet you can return the favor with a counter-suit that WILL hold water. And if you do so, make sure that after all is said and done, the boss of the VP who made the threat is notified as to the reason for your counter-suit.
Probably the best thing to do is to program the computer to recognize the speaker by their voice pattern, and only respond to commands from "registered" speakers. Note that this is not the same thing as training a speech recognition system in that you aren't teaching the computer to understand your words. Instead you are teaching the computer to distinguish your voice from others.
Why do I have visions of this turning in to one giant canon?:)
That's if they are lucky. Are there any geologists or geophysicists who could shed some light on why they are trying this? My education (both theoretical and empirical) tells me that if you have something that is generating gases (whether via heat, chemical or otherwise), the gases must escape in some manner. If you plug the hole where they are currently escaping, you will have a buildup of pressure. This will be followed by either a rather violent removal of the plug (cannon) or the formation of a new hole somewhere to relieve the pressure. If the latter happens, the new hole may be formed in an even less convenient spot -- perhaps in the middle of a city. Am I wrong on this?
While it's great they want to promote CFLs, I think this is excessive.
I think a better alternative would be to place high taxes on incandescent bulbs that make them a tad more expensive than CFLs of the same intensity. Don't factor into the price how much longer a CFL will last or the fact that it requires less electricity for the same amount of light. For example, cheap 100 watt soft white bulbs are $.25 (25 cents) at our local grocery store. Home Depot has a 23 watt soft white CFL that puts out the same amount of light for $7.99. Raise the price of the incandescent bulb to $8.00 and see what happens. If people are still stupid enough to buy the incandescent bulb with its shorter lifespan, use the money gained in taxes to pay for something else good for the environment. This way, people who TRULY need incandescent bulbs CAN buy them (at a premium), and will pressure the market to produce the longest-lasting incandescent bulbs possible. Oh, and if the cost of CFLs starts to go up because {greedy_corporation} takes advantage of this, the NY state attorney general can always enjoy some more business.
What's stopping someone (in the government) from writing a new SEED-compatible applet that works on Firefox and/or Opera and on other operating systems? After all, there USED to be a plugin for Netscape.
You guys *really* need some employment legislation over there to get past the point of "Be thankful we deign to let you work for our mighty company, minion.
The US has always been this way, and it encourages companies to take a risk (by increasing headcount for a new product line or something) because they know that they can always get rid of people later if they need to. Take a look at Germany for an alternative (I know because I spend a lot of time there). Because of the rules that make it difficult to terminate an employee, companies just are taking risks and the unemployment rate has been fairly high. It's one of the slowest growing economies in the EU.
Take note, though. I've never worked at a company that didn't give at least two weeks notice (unless you did something criminal). Companies don't want legislation around this either, so they usually err on the side of caution when terminating employees. Most of them also take the time to build an HR file before letting someone go. They make sure they have given the employee every opportunity, so that if there IS a lawsuit, it's over with pretty quickly. Also keep in mind that just because it's not illegal for a company to terminate someone without notice, that doesn't mean that they can't be sued in a civil court. Depending on the circumstances, the jury may end up awarding the plaintiff some money just to punish the evil corporation.
To avoid this, just avoid ad-hoc connections. That will work until the perps start using Infrastructure (Access Point) connections with a bridge to the real one. You can even set up Windows XP so that it won't allow you to make ad-hoc connections.
I think that is where the state of the art comes in, the only possible solution I see is through satellite connection, but with a moving plane I imagine that is going to give some problems.
Couldn't the connection be handled the same way that in-flight phones work?
Actually, an offer by a company is a legally binding contract and if they fire you without cause that is illegal as well.
Careful. That depends on what state you live in and the contract itself. Most modern employment contracts will state that the company can terminate you at any time for any reason. And most states follow "at-will" employment doctrine with exceptions to this varying wildly from state to state. The whole "two weeks notice" thing is only a courtesy, and you can bet such courtesies would be ignored if the employee is playing games with the employer (even if the employer started them).
I didn't take it as a disparagement, but I knew that there were going to be disparaging remarks on their way and I was trying to head them off. That's why I put the little disclaimer at the top. It *is* true that both Canada and the US copy some of the best and worst ideas from each other.
Slashdot Mirror
If AT&T's counsel is really conceding that source code is not patentable, then shouldn't it be easy to get around a software patent by merely changing the machine or object code? For that matter, simply changing what compiler you use will handle the task for you.
Based on all the choice quotes from the justices, it's clear that there could be some serious fodder for dismissal of software patents to be found in the opinions written by the justices. You can almost bet that if this case doesn't decide whether software is patentable, the fallout will ultimately create other situations that bring the question squarely before the Supreme Court. The only hope for the big software companies now is in the fact that the illustrious members of our highest court have traditionally taken great pains to sidestep hot button topics like this by ruling on some less important issue. Nevertheless, you can bet there will be at least one justice who feels the need to write a separate opinion and address the matter of software patents, whether the majority opinion does so or not.
Maybe because the application is already written and the vendor doesn't want to port it? After all, being able to operate with a single code base is generally a nice incentive to avoid creating ports.
The biggest problem for consumers is not getting back the money they lost. It is repairing their credit record. We have a situation where three credit bureaus are collecting and disseminating private financial data about consumers. There is little or no control for the consumer over what information is given out in a credit check and to whom, and there is little or no control for the consumer about what information hits their credit report and what impact it has. Scour the web, and you'll find plenty of horror stories about consumers who have tried to clear their credit records of erroneous entries. In an identity theft situation, a consumer requires a team of lawyers working overtime to even partially restore their credit record after such an attack. What we need in this country is a complete revamp of the credit system that provides the following:
You are making the mistaken assumption that there was ever any intent to use the intelligence in court so that they can "hold on" to the bad guys. For that to be true, political leaders would have to view themselves as subject to the same laws that govern the citizens. What you OUGHT to be asking yourself is: If the government is willing to make consideration of such a polarizing issue public knowledge, what are they doing in PRIVATE that you DON'T know about?
Bad idea. The dashcam will effectively implicate both drivers. It'll be obvious from the video that not only was one car blocking the road, but that the other had sufficient time to stop, and both drivers will be charged with a traffic violation. Probably better to find a friend on the police force to periodically check out the area where she does this, particularly during times when she's likely to be driving down the road. Once caught, I'm sure she won't repeat the action.
And strangely enough, the NY Times article seems to ignore the November independent replication of the experiment mentioned in the New Scientist article. It sounds to me like NOBODY has the full story, and therefore both sources of information are rather suspect.
Law enforcement looks for people living or working near the unsecured router and that either would have had access to the media prior to airtime, or have established relationships with people that would have had access. If the FBI gets involved, I guarantee they'll at least figure out who the guy is before they lose the laptop with all the details of the case.
Two words: CANE TOADS. History has shown that when it comes to the environment, the best thing man can do is AVOID INTERFERING!! Of course, that includes not causing the problem in the first place....
The analogy doesn't sound surprising. Maybe I misunderstand the law, but I believe you CAN be arrested for hanging out with known drug dealers. They can certain search you (probable cause) and can probably make you submit to a drug screening. I just think that if you're actually innocent, they would have to drop the charges. That doesn't keep you from being arrested and fingerprinted, and spending a night or two in jail. It's one of the things I have never been able to get most of the teenagers I know to understand. If you are hanging around with the wrong crowd, it doesn't matter whether you are a participant. Trouble will come your way.
BTW, I think that unlike drug charges, people who lose their ISP *would* have some recourse. The Media Companies are not a law enforcement agency, and therefore *might* be guilty of defamation if they committed libel when telling your ISP that you were doing something illegal. I'm not sure how far you could get with that, though.
Wal-Mart is not doing us a service by pricing the downloads the same as the physical DVD. They are actually creating a reason for the studios to avoid iTunes and services like it because they are saying "Look here! You can continue to pillage your customers if you use our service!" I would recommend avoiding Wal-Mart's service until the price comes down significantly. At any rate, the service doesn't work with Firefox, so I won't be using it anytime soon.
I honestly can't believe this is for real. But if it is... It's already been stated that you should seek the advice of an attorney. Many attorneys will offer a free initial consultation. You absolutely should NOT go without legal representation, and before you even notify your new employer about the possibility of a lawsuit, you should go talk with the best attorney you can find. Based on the information you gave, I can't imagine that there is any basis for such a suit, and I'm guessing that they are just trying to scare you. However, if you have any witnesses who would testify to the threat that was made, I'm willing to bet you can return the favor with a counter-suit that WILL hold water. And if you do so, make sure that after all is said and done, the boss of the VP who made the threat is notified as to the reason for your counter-suit.
Probably the best thing to do is to program the computer to recognize the speaker by their voice pattern, and only respond to commands from "registered" speakers. Note that this is not the same thing as training a speech recognition system in that you aren't teaching the computer to understand your words. Instead you are teaching the computer to distinguish your voice from others.
Take note, though. I've never worked at a company that didn't give at least two weeks notice (unless you did something criminal). Companies don't want legislation around this either, so they usually err on the side of caution when terminating employees. Most of them also take the time to build an HR file before letting someone go. They make sure they have given the employee every opportunity, so that if there IS a lawsuit, it's over with pretty quickly. Also keep in mind that just because it's not illegal for a company to terminate someone without notice, that doesn't mean that they can't be sued in a civil court. Depending on the circumstances, the jury may end up awarding the plaintiff some money just to punish the evil corporation.
To avoid this, just avoid ad-hoc connections. That will work until the perps start using Infrastructure (Access Point) connections with a bridge to the real one. You can even set up Windows XP so that it won't allow you to make ad-hoc connections.