>...that leave the impression that the cause of every move in the stock > market is fully understood.
It is. A stock goes up when the most recent trade was at a higher price than the previous one. It goes down when the most recent trade was for a lower price than the previous one.
> Will the notoriously liberal Berkeley campus see this as a service or an > invasion of privacy?
It's only invasion of privacy if it's done by an evil "corporation" or other capitalist running dog. Everything a liberal organization does is for your own good and only a right-wing wacko would ever suspect one of failing to diligently and effectively safeguarding his privacy (especially when said organization is part of the state of California: you know they have only your best interests at heart and know better than you what you need).
> Look, just give it up already. Everything you do is being tracked, by > somebody, anybody that's interested.. You can't hide anything from your > service provider...
I rather doubt that my ISP or anyone else knows my private GPG key.
> By Governments, I read this as all Government that use the product.
No. All governments that pay the (no doubt substantial) fees to "join the program". And that's the upside: this makes finding "vulnerabilities" a revenue center.
> You may make yourself unemployable by posting things you shouldn't in > public because despite Facebook's atrocious privacy policy they can only > work with data you give them.
I mostly agree. There's nothing wrong with using Facespace or any other free, ad-supported service as long as you understand that anything you put there might become public (or be lost in a crash or be deleted when the service is discontinued). As to their privacy policy, well, hell. They have no contract with you (nor you with them): just some vague non-binding promises. What do you expect for free? Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't rely on it.
> Is there? Can the old accelerators be transformed from science labs into > industrial tools?
They might be convertable to synchrotron radiation generators to produce intense beams of monochromatic X-rays but I doubt that the conversion would be cost-effective.
>...you don't own the copyrighted material, you are licensed to use the > material. You do own the physical media...
Under USA copyright law the physical media _is_ the copy. As "viewing" is not one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner doing so is not copyright infringement.
>...yes, when you buy a DVD or CD or record you own it, but no in that the > material on that media (say movie) is a license to view it personally and > for non-commercial use...
No license is required to view a copy that you own.
>...in fact, technically you aren't supposed to share it with anyone...
You can allow anyone to view it as long as the group is not large enough to constitute a public exhibition.
>...1976 Fair Use law...
The 1976 act codified fair use among many other things, but I've never before heard it referred to as the "Fair Use law".
> If you sell the physical media, you usually transfer the license to the > new owner...
No. You merely transfer ownership of the copy (which is the physical object). This does not impinge on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner and so copyright is not involved. The new owner owns the copy free and clear and can do anything with it that does not impinge upon the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. See "First Sale Doctrine".
> Fair Use is also why you can transfer the media to any other media - the > material itself is the license and the law says you can back it up any way > you see fit.
You confound Audio Home Recording Act rights with fair use.
> The kicker is that under the DMCA, DVD movies are encrypted media and > decrypting the media to even make a backup copy is a felony...
Wrong. Criminal penalties only apply if the circumvention was done for profit.
>...so the DMCA itself violates Fair Use law, which says you can transfer > copyrighted material it to any other medium to avoid obsolescence, and why > I think the DMCA is illegal and should be thrown out.
> And 'copies for viewing' that are sold are essentially just licensed > permission to watch the movie.
Horse shit. Under USA copyright law a copy is a physical object. When you buy a DVD you own it. As long as you make no copies (other than those specifically authorized to the owners of copies under USA copyright law) you are not infringing the copyright and can dispose of that object as you, the owner, see fit. If the publisher believes that he has some sort of a contract with you in which you agreed to refrain from doing certain things he must sue you in civil court for breach of contract.
> So the correct analogy to a car would be if you stole the car and > prevented the owner from collecting the revenue from renting it to somebody else.
There is no correct car theft analogy. Copyright infringement is not theft. This is settled law in the USA.
a) As an opponent of restrictive copyright (but not an opponent of copyright) it would be hypocritical.
b) Through their dog-in-the-manger behavior (DRM, opposition to fair use,
"FBI warnings") the publishers have made the idea of paying them money
repellent and convinced me that they don't really want my business.
> I would think even a conventional explosive placed some distance to the > drill hole about a mile or so down into the rock might be enough to shift > the rock and seal it off with little risk of making things worse.
Drilling that hole would probably take as long as drilling the relief well.
> Or do you think BP's shareholders would be contempt with standing around > and doing nothing while millions are wiped off the company's value?
Why, yes of course: everyone knows that the sole purpose of a "corporation" is to do as much evil as possible. Business men only make money in order to have it available to spend on evil (and, of course, because making money is evil in and of itself).
Slashdot Mirror
> my definition of real journalism is that "Something seems to stink @ X";
> the rest is all propaganda
If you don't realize that the muckraking stories are sometimes propaganda as well you are very naive.
> Including the words "Taylor Momsen" in your headline guarantees thousands
> of hits for your website.
As the only Web site I manage has no ads, why would I want them?
> ...that leave the impression that the cause of every move in the stock
> market is fully understood.
It is. A stock goes up when the most recent trade was at a higher price than the previous one. It goes down when the most recent trade was for a lower price than the previous one.
... who Taylor Momsen is. And even better, I lack any desire to find out.
> Will the notoriously liberal Berkeley campus see this as a service or an
> invasion of privacy?
It's only invasion of privacy if it's done by an evil "corporation" or other capitalist running dog. Everything a liberal organization does is for your own good and only a right-wing wacko would ever suspect one of failing to diligently and effectively safeguarding his privacy (especially when said organization is part of the state of California: you know they have only your best interests at heart and know better than you what you need).
> Look, just give it up already. Everything you do is being tracked, by
> somebody, anybody that's interested.. You can't hide anything from your
> service provider...
I rather doubt that my ISP or anyone else knows my private GPG key.
Alt.binaries is not Usenet. Usenet is text. Alt.binaries is crap.
> By Governments, I read this as all Government that use the product.
No. All governments that pay the (no doubt substantial) fees to "join the program". And that's the upside: this makes finding "vulnerabilities" a revenue center.
> There's a stream the bad guys would dearly love to tap into.
RTFA. They already said they are sending it to governments.
> You may make yourself unemployable by posting things you shouldn't in
> public because despite Facebook's atrocious privacy policy they can only
> work with data you give them.
I mostly agree. There's nothing wrong with using Facespace or any other free, ad-supported service as long as you understand that anything you put there might become public (or be lost in a crash or be deleted when the service is discontinued). As to their privacy policy, well, hell. They have no contract with you (nor you with them): just some vague non-binding promises. What do you expect for free? Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't rely on it.
> Hmmm....black hole in the middle of the Bible belt...
You know, you really ought to visit the Midwest some time. But that might damage your prejudices, so I guess you'd better not.
> yes, the great Stephen has said it, therefore it MUST be true!
No, logic has said it, therefore it MUST be true!
> Out of curiosity, why would you take that away from it? Couldn't it also
> mean that perpetual motion is only impossible within a confined space?
No. The conservation laws are more fundamental than that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem.
> Is there? Can the old accelerators be transformed from science labs into
> industrial tools?
They might be convertable to synchrotron radiation generators to produce intense beams of monochromatic X-rays but I doubt that the conversion would be cost-effective.
> Probably not what you'd call hard science fiction...
It's certainly what I call hard science fiction.
> ...but definitely one of the best "what if" books I've ever read.
Everything Vinge has written is excellent.
> ...you don't own the copyrighted material, you are licensed to use the
> material. You do own the physical media...
Under USA copyright law the physical media _is_ the copy. As "viewing" is not one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner doing so is not copyright infringement.
> ...yes, when you buy a DVD or CD or record you own it, but no in that the
> material on that media (say movie) is a license to view it personally and
> for non-commercial use...
No license is required to view a copy that you own.
> ...in fact, technically you aren't supposed to share it with anyone...
You can allow anyone to view it as long as the group is not large enough to constitute a public exhibition.
> ...1976 Fair Use law...
The 1976 act codified fair use among many other things, but I've never before heard it referred to as the "Fair Use law".
> If you sell the physical media, you usually transfer the license to the
> new owner...
No. You merely transfer ownership of the copy (which is the physical object). This does not impinge on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner and so copyright is not involved. The new owner owns the copy free and clear and can do anything with it that does not impinge upon the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. See "First Sale Doctrine".
> Fair Use is also why you can transfer the media to any other media - the
> material itself is the license and the law says you can back it up any way
> you see fit.
You confound Audio Home Recording Act rights with fair use.
> The kicker is that under the DMCA, DVD movies are encrypted media and
> decrypting the media to even make a backup copy is a felony...
Wrong. Criminal penalties only apply if the circumvention was done for profit.
> ...so the DMCA itself violates Fair Use law, which says you can transfer
> copyrighted material it to any other medium to avoid obsolescence, and why
> I think the DMCA is illegal and should be thrown out.
The DMCA amended pre-existing law.
See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00001203----000-.html
> And 'copies for viewing' that are sold are essentially just licensed
> permission to watch the movie.
Horse shit. Under USA copyright law a copy is a physical object. When you buy a DVD you own it. As long as you make no copies (other than those specifically authorized to the owners of copies under USA copyright law) you are not infringing the copyright and can dispose of that object as you, the owner, see fit. If the publisher believes that he has some sort of a contract with you in which you agreed to refrain from doing certain things he must sue you in civil court for breach of contract.
> So the correct analogy to a car would be if you stole the car and
> prevented the owner from collecting the revenue from renting it to somebody else.
There is no correct car theft analogy. Copyright infringement is not theft. This is settled law in the USA.
a) As an opponent of restrictive copyright (but not an opponent of copyright) it would be hypocritical.
b) Through their dog-in-the-manger behavior (DRM, opposition to fair use, "FBI warnings") the publishers have made the idea of paying them money repellent and convinced me that they don't really want my business.
c) They have nothing I want.
> Well first, where do you find monkeys who use cell phones...
The high schools are full of them.
> The article you cite describes how photosynthesis relies on quantum physics
> in general...
In other words, chemistry.
> Fishing and tourism might suffer for a while, but that's not a big deal.
It isn't the world-ending catastrophe the greens are hoping for, but it's still a pretty serious mess.
> I would think even a conventional explosive placed some distance to the
> drill hole about a mile or so down into the rock might be enough to shift
> the rock and seal it off with little risk of making things worse.
Drilling that hole would probably take as long as drilling the relief well.
> Or do you think BP's shareholders would be contempt with standing around
> and doing nothing while millions are wiped off the company's value?
Why, yes of course: everyone knows that the sole purpose of a "corporation" is to do as much evil as possible. Business men only make money in order to have it available to spend on evil (and, of course, because making money is evil in and of itself).
There are 1/2 Megawatt hydraulic systems. The main limitation on their use is efficiency.
Not necessary is subs as they all use electric drive anyway.