I don't think aircraft in-flight have significant extra available electric generator power for more than a few first-class seats. They do suck back ~30W each. Or to get it, they would have to turn off reading/cabin lights.
Hopefully, it wouldn't come down to: "Please unplug your laptops. The captain has just lost all the flight instruments!"
Look, if RAMBUS wants to get any company to sign because it needs the publicity, it can. Just offer good terms. IIRC industry standard royalties are 2%, they wanted more. The companies are smart to sign because they save legal costs, especially if they can get a Most Favored Licencee rate.
But you can bet that those contracts have the standard escape clause: "if patents are found invalid, agreement void and royalties refunded".
There's a truism in the marketing business There's no such thing as bad publicity.
Now I doubt that it's true for Firestone [tires], but it certainly is true for Napster. Now maybe the politicians will stop negative advertising.
You can debate what quadruples means, especially from such a low base. But it's clear the growth rate is unusually high, and the real question is what would it have been in the absence of the suit.
The Napster application is very compelling, but the suit got word out through many channels very quickly, and I suspect attracted more users than it repelled.
Quite so. But it is complaining that limits taxes, and if there were more efficient govt [as there is in a number of places IMHO], there would be less complaining, hence more taxes.
Do you really want efficient government?
Only if you believe they are benevolent. If you believe they are self-absorbed [as I do] or malevolent [as some do], then you want to limit their effectiveness.
I believe that govt expands to the limits of it's incompetence. Since I really don't want more govt, I must limit it's effectiveness, and accept the resulting bureaucratic inefficiency.
Very interesting that you no longer work for the company. The question then becomes why you allow them to occupy any of your attention. Why do anything for them? What are they going to give you?
Are they going to reimburse your legal fees to investigate this? There may be a conflict with your current empolyment contract!
You might well be obligated to sign, but no-one can pressure you to do so without adequate legal advice. It might take you a long time in the library to read up on all this stuff.
Maybe I'm being clueless, but AFAIK the fruits of creative labor are NEVER property. What is property [after a fashion] is the monopoly rights granted by the state to encourage creative endeavours.
Trademarks, Copyright and Patents are de jure monopolies, and can be traded like property. The term IP might apply to these. Still, the debate is one of pejorative terms:
pirate vs monopolist.
Even secrets are not property. A person misappropriating data ought to be charged with trespass or breech-of-contract, not theft.
Lateral heat spreading is a problem. But that's why you use copper heatslugs and/or thicker baseplates. Notice that the copper slug from the P5mmx and Celeron is back on the P4. No more die back.
There's a second problem that creates the central hotspot: uneven airflow from the usual co-axial fans. There's a dead-spot underneath the fan hub, and most of the airflow is into the periphery of the heatsink and out the extruded ends. Fortunately, the geometric area in the center is fairly low.
I might be tempted to blind one end of the heasink off with tape to force more crossflow. But I don't know if the improved flow pattern would make up for the reduced flowrate.
Jim Davidson & Lord Rees-Mogg also publish a monthly newletter, parts of which are available on-line at the Daily Reckoning, although this is mostly investment-oriented.
No problem. The CPU/heatsink gap is Usually 0.002" (50 um) with normal thermal grease (the thin 0.8 W/mK stuff) and smooth but unlapped surfaces. This often goes up to 0.005" (125 um) with thicker hiK thermal grease (2 W/mK) or larger thermal plates.
Am I wrong, or is the RIAA trying to write-out fair use? I had always thought that recording a broadcast off the radio [or TV] for personal, private purposes was considered fair use! Wasn't the Betamax case all about just this?
And now the RIAA is trying to tag FAIR USE with the slur of "Bootleg Recordings". I cry foul.
I agree the MPAA is not exhibiting due care and this could get them into trouble.
One way this could backfire is if they complain about the presence of files/links named deCSS [such as deCSS.tar.gz or deCSS.zip] yet such files contain innocuous contents [The US Constitution].
The MPAA probably base their complaints on filenames, and do not verify contents. Their complaints can then easily be verifed as false then they become liable for damages. IANAL.
Oh really? Please enlighten me! Or are you talking about the Chinese learning various dialects then counting Mandarin as a second language? Ditto for the Indians learning Hindi?
At the risk of offending linguistic purists, I am specifically excluding dialects and unofficial languages. I count learning the offical language of the native country as the first language. Of course, there are large numbers of people who never learn this offical language. But I maintain that English is the most common second language using this definition.
Well, well, isn't this an unexpected story from The Guardian:) The real point is that the Web (&Internet for those who know the difference) uses whatever language it's users want to use. The induhviduals and corps who make websites want to attract a target audience. They will post in whatever language[s] suit this aim.
How are you going to stop them? Language police? Don't laugh, there already is in Quebec, and I wouldn't be surprised if France moved that way. But many commercial websites are multi-lingual already.
The real point is that even if English isn't the first language of the world, it is just about _EVERYONES_ second language.
I am not now, nor have I ever been a Napster user:) I simply have no interest and limited bandwidth.
But I think the RIAA is being incredibly short-sighted. I will buy CDs if I think they have one very good song, or if they have a few good songs. But I cannot find them!
The typical scenario goes like this: I hear a song on the radio, like it and try to catch artist/title ident. Most of the time I only get part. Then I go to a CD seller, and try to find it. These days, they don't know. So I don't buy.
I won't buy a CD because it just might be the one. Been there--done that. Especially not as a gift! I would be better off forgetting my wife's birthday!
What I want is at least some thumbnails. I don't need stereo, I don't need the whole song, and I don't need high quality sound. I just want a clue! In fact, short, mono low-quality sound is better because it takes less bandwidth. Otherwise, I cannot buy.
Now some smart record execs will figure out that promotion is one of the main bottlenecks in their business. Radio airplay is precious. So why not augment that with internet play/MP3 swapping? A really smart exec would open his catalog on his website. Perhaps [s]he might limit the quality to FM level to avoid cannibalizing sales, and to speed downloads.
As for Napster, if taping FM from the air is "fair use", and Napster quality is FM, then it's very hard to argue that Napster isn't fair use.
Journalists are certainly responsible for what they say. That's what "Libel" and "Treason" are all about. But outside of that they enjoy very wide freedom. Even to publish lock-picking books.
deCSS has NO national security issues. NONE.
I don't think 2600 brought up encryption is being anti-fair-use, an nor is it IMHO.
It is fairly clear from his decision that Judge Kaplan saw 2600 as malefactors ["crackers"] who must be punished. Whatever the merits of the case, some judges simply bend law and rule for whom they see as the "good guys". The "bad guys" simply cannot be allowed to win, whatever the law.
This is one reason we have Appeals Courts. Unfortunately, the findings of fact such that Johannsen didn't simply want to play DVDs under Linux are more difficult to overturn, and this will hobble the Appeals level. IANAL.
A good point. Of course, that's perjury and I'm not sure how many cops would. Also, I believe all police lines are logged (date & time of all calls incoming/outgoing) if not NID'd and recorded. And cops do _not_ give out home numbers!
But if the cops were illegally reading email, then they would have to show that they gained nothing from that email. In other words, they would always have to check out anonymous tips:
Defense: Do you always check out anon tips?
Cop: No.
Defense: What made you check out this one?
Cop: I felt it in my bones.
Defense: Have you read his email?
Cop: Yes.
Judge: Case dismissed {?}
Of course, this is getting into a very hazy area, and I don't know what the "tainting" threshold is.
Of course, your second point is entirely valid. Information can always be used in other ways. This is one of the principle threats of police powers.
It isn't discovering evidence that leads to a police state but rather discovering blackmail material. And that's just what an evesdropping dragnet turns up. Just why do you think the heads of the KGB and Stasi were so powerful, and often headed their governments? This thing autocatalyses, and people become informers out of self-protection and to curry favor.
First, most of the FBI agents I've met seem like reasonable guys and I rather doubt they'd break the law. Second, even if they did it wouldn't do them any good -- any evidence obtained in consequence would be inadmissible in court:
DA: So you found Mr Gambino on the docks with a container of cocaine?
Cop: Yes.
Defense: How did you know to look for Mr Gambino on the docks at that place and time?
Cop: We read his email.
Defense: Motion to strike evidence -- Fruit of the Poisoned Vine.
Judge: Granted. Case dismissed.
This is an excellent decision, especially from a Federal Appellate Court. It means the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure is being upheld and applied to technological developments. And it's not being narrowly construed to expand police powers. Too much police power, and you get a police state.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, and this is one vigilant action.
There are those who worry about corporations acquiring too much data, and violating your privacy. This can be troublesome, but not as bad as a government that can compel actions under threat of imprisonment. So long as there aren't monopolies, you can always chose to deal with another corp.
Not peckish at all. If the _complete_ licence were visible under the shrink wrap, then there would be a strong presumption of legality. At least as strong as the disclaimers printed on the back of parking-lot tickets.
But its not going to happen. The marketroids are not going to give up valuable sales-promotion space to keep lawyers happy. It costs too much in sales.
And if the _complete_ licence isn't visible, then those parts weren't agreed to prior to sale.
IANAL, but your logic is unassailable. As a practical matter, UCITA has thankfully only been adopted in one state [MD?VA?}, and it's applicability would depend on the applicable state law.
As a more fundamental matter, even with UCITA shrink wrap contracts may still be invalid. You didn't know and couldn't know the licence before you agreed to the sale, so you never agreed to those terms, hence they are not part of the contract.
Now UCITA tries to get around this by declaring the agreement occured after you opened the shrink wrap because you have the right to return it. Fair enough, but only if returns of opened media are accepted. They are not!
So if you are truly worried about a EULA, or somesuch, go to a discounter such as BestBuy. Be on your best behaviour. Get the package/work and ask if you can open it prior to sale. The store will tell you no. Buy it anyways. Open it, read the EULA and try to immediately return it for cash. They will say no. Show them the return clause. They will still say no. Say thank you.
IANAL, but the EULA is now no longer applicable to you. The company did not honor it's own EULA and cannot maintain the fiction that you agreed to the EULA because they gave you an opportunity to object.
Yes, I did read it but not as a biologist. What she said and you said is _strictly_ correct. That doesn't mean it wasn't emotionally loaded and inflammatory.
I resented the analogy/comparison/modelling of the Internet as a virus/epidemic because it inspires fear in the casual reader. Even if it is scientifically correct. Fearmongering and other loaded writing is hardly scientific. It is crass sensationalism.
I am well aware of the beneficial role of many bacteria, but chose not to cloud the issue. Dyson used "epidemic" and "viruses" which most people justifiably fear. Are there any beneficial virii?
As for the Internet's centralization, yes, losing one of the MAEs or TLD DNS would hurt. But it would hardly be fatal. I've often done without DNS and know my dotted quads. Packets would eventually find their way around a lost MAE, albeit at much reduced bandwidth.
Robust doesn't mean "cannot be harmed". It means "will survive". If I break an arm, I will survive. If an engine breaks a cambelt, it will need a complete rebuild.
I agree diseconomies of scale aren't necessarily present. They are certainly alot softer and harder to prove than the well-known economies of scale.
But diseconomies seem to be very persistant: from Ford's Rouge River plant thru corp.conglomerates and raiders to federalism. I don't think these are simply organizational failures.
I think the limitations are more in human abilities. One person's ability to know and understand activities is limited, by time if nothing else. So their span-of-control is limited. Trust is always imperfect ["The Agency Problem"] so the number of layers is limited.
Improving communications and trust increases the upper bounds, but does not remove them.
The Internet is no more alive than computers are intelligent. Of all people, Ester Dyson ought to know the difference!
The Internet appears alive because it manifests living people interacting with each other. It is an outstanding communications medium but nothing more.
The Internet develops in the direction people [users] want it to go. Where it doesn't, those parts die from low hitcounts. If Ester doesn't like the Internet, perhaps she doesn't like [mistrusts] people ?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think aircraft in-flight have significant extra available electric generator power for more than a few first-class seats. They do suck back ~30W each. Or to get it, they would have to turn off reading/cabin lights.
Hopefully, it wouldn't come down to: "Please unplug your laptops. The captain has just lost all the flight instruments!"
Look, if RAMBUS wants to get any company to sign because it needs the publicity, it can. Just offer good terms. IIRC industry standard royalties are 2%, they wanted more. The companies are smart to sign because they save legal costs, especially if they can get a Most Favored Licencee rate.
But you can bet that those contracts have the standard escape clause: "if patents are found invalid, agreement void and royalties refunded".
There's a truism in the marketing business There's no such thing as bad publicity.
Now I doubt that it's true for Firestone [tires], but it certainly is true for Napster. Now maybe the politicians will stop negative advertising.
You can debate what quadruples means, especially from such a low base. But it's clear the growth rate is unusually high, and the real question is what would it have been in the absence of the suit.
The Napster application is very compelling, but the suit got word out through many channels very quickly, and I suspect attracted more users than it repelled.
Quite so. But it is complaining that limits taxes, and if there were more efficient govt [as there is in a number of places IMHO], there would be less complaining, hence more taxes.
Do you really want efficient government?
Only if you believe they are benevolent. If you believe they are self-absorbed [as I do] or malevolent [as some do], then you want to limit their effectiveness.
I believe that govt expands to the limits of it's incompetence. Since I really don't want more govt, I must limit it's effectiveness, and accept the resulting bureaucratic inefficiency.
Very interesting that you no longer work for the company. The question then becomes why you allow them to occupy any of your attention. Why do anything for them? What are they going to give you?
Are they going to reimburse your legal fees to investigate this? There may be a conflict with your current empolyment contract!
You might well be obligated to sign, but no-one can pressure you to do so without adequate legal advice. It might take you a long time in the library to read up on all this stuff.
Maybe I'm being clueless, but AFAIK the fruits of creative labor are NEVER property. What is property [after a fashion] is the monopoly rights granted by the state to encourage creative endeavours.
Trademarks, Copyright and Patents are de jure monopolies, and can be traded like property. The term IP might apply to these. Still, the debate is one of pejorative terms:
pirate vs monopolist.
Even secrets are not property. A person misappropriating data ought to be charged with trespass or breech-of-contract, not theft.
Lateral heat spreading is a problem. But that's why you use copper heatslugs and/or thicker baseplates. Notice that the copper slug from the P5mmx and Celeron is back on the P4. No more die back.
There's a second problem that creates the central hotspot: uneven airflow from the usual co-axial fans. There's a dead-spot underneath the fan hub, and most of the airflow is into the periphery of the heatsink and out the extruded ends. Fortunately, the geometric area in the center is fairly low.
I might be tempted to blind one end of the heasink off with tape to force more crossflow. But I don't know if the improved flow pattern would make up for the reduced flowrate.
Jim Davidson & Lord Rees-Mogg also publish a monthly newletter, parts of which are available on-line at the Daily Reckoning, although this is mostly investment-oriented.
No problem. The CPU/heatsink gap is Usually 0.002" (50 um) with normal thermal grease (the thin 0.8 W/mK stuff) and smooth but unlapped surfaces. This often goes up to 0.005" (125 um) with thicker hiK thermal grease (2 W/mK) or larger thermal plates.
Am I wrong, or is the RIAA trying to write-out fair use? I had always thought that recording a broadcast off the radio [or TV] for personal, private purposes was considered fair use! Wasn't the Betamax case all about just this?
And now the RIAA is trying to tag FAIR USE with the slur of "Bootleg Recordings". I cry foul.
I agree the MPAA is not exhibiting due care and this could get them into trouble.
One way this could backfire is if they complain about the presence of files/links named deCSS [such as deCSS.tar.gz or deCSS.zip] yet such files contain innocuous contents [The US Constitution].
The MPAA probably base their complaints on filenames, and do not verify contents. Their complaints can then easily be verifed as false then they become liable for damages. IANAL.
Oh really? Please enlighten me! Or are you talking about the Chinese learning various dialects then counting Mandarin as a second language? Ditto for the Indians learning Hindi?
At the risk of offending linguistic purists, I am specifically excluding dialects and unofficial languages. I count learning the offical language of the native country as the first language. Of course, there are large numbers of people who never learn this offical language. But I maintain that English is the most common second language using this definition.
Well, well, isn't this an unexpected story from The Guardian:) The real point is that the Web (&Internet for those who know the difference) uses whatever language it's users want to use. The induhviduals and corps who make websites want to attract a target audience. They will post in whatever language[s] suit this aim.
How are you going to stop them? Language police? Don't laugh, there already is in Quebec, and I wouldn't be surprised if France moved that way. But many commercial websites are multi-lingual already.
The real point is that even if English isn't the first language of the world, it is just about _EVERYONES_ second language.
I am not now, nor have I ever been a Napster user :) I simply have no interest and limited bandwidth.
But I think the RIAA is being incredibly short-sighted. I will buy CDs if I think they have one very good song, or if they have a few good songs. But I cannot find them!
The typical scenario goes like this: I hear a song on the radio, like it and try to catch artist/title ident. Most of the time I only get part. Then I go to a CD seller, and try to find it. These days, they don't know. So I don't buy.
I won't buy a CD because it just might be the one. Been there--done that. Especially not as a gift! I would be better off forgetting my wife's birthday!
What I want is at least some thumbnails. I don't need stereo, I don't need the whole song, and I don't need high quality sound. I just want a clue! In fact, short, mono low-quality sound is better because it takes less bandwidth. Otherwise, I cannot buy.
Now some smart record execs will figure out that promotion is one of the main bottlenecks in their business. Radio airplay is precious. So why not augment that with internet play/MP3 swapping? A really smart exec would open his catalog on his website. Perhaps [s]he might limit the quality to FM level to avoid cannibalizing sales, and to speed downloads.
As for Napster, if taping FM from the air is "fair use", and Napster quality is FM, then it's very hard to argue that Napster isn't fair use.
-- Robert
Journalists are certainly responsible for what they say. That's what "Libel" and "Treason" are all about. But outside of that they enjoy very wide freedom. Even to publish lock-picking books.
deCSS has NO national security issues. NONE.
I don't think 2600 brought up encryption is being anti-fair-use, an nor is it IMHO.
It is fairly clear from his decision that Judge Kaplan saw 2600 as malefactors ["crackers"] who must be punished. Whatever the merits of the case, some judges simply bend law and rule for whom they see as the "good guys". The "bad guys" simply cannot be allowed to win, whatever the law.
This is one reason we have Appeals Courts. Unfortunately, the findings of fact such that Johannsen didn't simply want to play DVDs under Linux are more difficult to overturn, and this will hobble the Appeals level. IANAL.
A good point. Of course, that's perjury and I'm not sure how many cops would. Also, I believe all police lines are logged (date & time of all calls incoming/outgoing) if not NID'd and recorded. And cops do _not_ give out home numbers!
But if the cops were illegally reading email, then they would have to show that they gained nothing from that email. In other words, they would always have to check out anonymous tips:
Defense: Do you always check out anon tips?
Cop: No.
Defense: What made you check out this one?
Cop: I felt it in my bones.
Defense: Have you read his email?
Cop: Yes.
Judge: Case dismissed {?}
Of course, this is getting into a very hazy area, and I don't know what the "tainting" threshold is.
Of course, your second point is entirely valid. Information can always be used in other ways. This is one of the principle threats of police powers.
It isn't discovering evidence that leads to a police state but rather discovering blackmail material. And that's just what an evesdropping dragnet turns up. Just why do you think the heads of the KGB and Stasi were so powerful, and often headed their governments? This thing autocatalyses, and people become informers out of self-protection and to curry favor.
First, most of the FBI agents I've met seem like reasonable guys and I rather doubt they'd break the law. Second, even if they did it wouldn't do them any good -- any evidence obtained in consequence would be inadmissible in court:
DA: So you found Mr Gambino on the docks with a container of cocaine?
Cop: Yes.
Defense: How did you know to look for Mr Gambino on the docks at that place and time?
Cop: We read his email.
Defense: Motion to strike evidence -- Fruit of the Poisoned Vine.
Judge: Granted. Case dismissed.
IANAL.
This is an excellent decision, especially from a Federal Appellate Court. It means the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure is being upheld and applied to technological developments. And it's not being narrowly construed to expand police powers. Too much police power, and you get a police state.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, and this is one vigilant action.
There are those who worry about corporations acquiring too much data, and violating your privacy. This can be troublesome, but not as bad as a government that can compel actions under threat of imprisonment. So long as there aren't monopolies, you can always chose to deal with another corp.
Not peckish at all. If the _complete_ licence were visible under the shrink wrap, then there would be a strong presumption of legality. At least as strong as the disclaimers printed on the back of parking-lot tickets.
But its not going to happen. The marketroids are not going to give up valuable sales-promotion space to keep lawyers happy. It costs too much in sales.
And if the _complete_ licence isn't visible, then those parts weren't agreed to prior to sale.
IANAL, but your logic is unassailable. As a practical matter, UCITA has thankfully only been adopted in one state [MD?VA?}, and it's applicability would depend on the applicable state law.
As a more fundamental matter, even with UCITA shrink wrap contracts may still be invalid. You didn't know and couldn't know the licence before you agreed to the sale, so you never agreed to those terms, hence they are not part of the contract.
Now UCITA tries to get around this by declaring the agreement occured after you opened the shrink wrap because you have the right to return it. Fair enough, but only if returns of opened media are accepted. They are not!
So if you are truly worried about a EULA, or somesuch, go to a discounter such as BestBuy. Be on your best behaviour. Get the package/work and ask if you can open it prior to sale. The store will tell you no. Buy it anyways. Open it, read the EULA and try to immediately return it for cash. They will say no. Show them the return clause. They will still say no. Say thank you.
IANAL, but the EULA is now no longer applicable to you. The company did not honor it's own EULA and cannot maintain the fiction that you agreed to the EULA because they gave you an opportunity to object.
Yes, I did read it but not as a biologist. What she said and you said is _strictly_ correct. That doesn't mean it wasn't emotionally loaded and inflammatory.
I resented the analogy/comparison/modelling of the Internet as a virus/epidemic because it inspires fear in the casual reader. Even if it is scientifically correct. Fearmongering and other loaded writing is hardly scientific. It is crass sensationalism.
I am well aware of the beneficial role of many bacteria, but chose not to cloud the issue. Dyson used "epidemic" and "viruses" which most people justifiably fear. Are there any beneficial virii?
As for the Internet's centralization, yes, losing one of the MAEs or TLD DNS would hurt. But it would hardly be fatal. I've often done without DNS and know my dotted quads. Packets would eventually find their way around a lost MAE, albeit at much reduced bandwidth.
Robust doesn't mean "cannot be harmed". It means "will survive". If I break an arm, I will survive. If an engine breaks a cambelt, it will need a complete rebuild.
I agree diseconomies of scale aren't necessarily present. They are certainly alot softer and harder to prove than the well-known economies of scale.
But diseconomies seem to be very persistant: from Ford's Rouge River plant thru corp.conglomerates and raiders to federalism. I don't think these are simply organizational failures.
I think the limitations are more in human abilities. One person's ability to know and understand activities is limited, by time if nothing else. So their span-of-control is limited. Trust is always imperfect ["The Agency Problem"] so the number of layers is limited.
Improving communications and trust increases the upper bounds, but does not remove them.
The Internet is no more alive than computers are intelligent. Of all people, Ester Dyson ought to know the difference!
The Internet appears alive because it manifests living people interacting with each other. It is an outstanding communications medium but nothing more.
The Internet develops in the direction people [users] want it to go. Where it doesn't, those parts die from low hitcounts. If Ester doesn't like the Internet, perhaps she doesn't like [mistrusts] people ?