but this is a mobile, non-documented technology, so the information gathered would be hearsay, not enough to be evidence and not enough for a real warrant. Nice to follow somebody around so they don't run away, but crap as proof if you're trying to gather evidence of a crime unless you can catch them in the act a little more quickly.
exactly, how is this information traceable? A cell phone company bills thousands of people, the information is verifiable to use in court because lots of people and companies touch the data. While these devices can find you if they're looking for you, there's no way to use them in court, no third party verification. It would be good if they were trying to follow you or to catch you, for somebody to do physical surveillance, but as far as proving you were at a location, like with company info, it's just a somebody's word they saw a number blip.
The DMCA requires specific instances to be identified, not just "a bunch of my stuff". This is very legally sound. It's common knowledge that you have to be specific. This is specifically why music and movie houses have a problem with YouTube.. because they have to specify each URL or item or Google won't take down and their lawyers can't keep up when the same thing is posted again next week.
except that under academic rules you are require do do your own work, not develop other's ideas. Therefore any assignment you do should legally fulfill proper assignment of copyright to YOU unless they try to take it away. Therefore you are not sharing any IP from anybody else, only resources, which you are paying steep tuition for. That doesn't really grant them enough of a claim to the IP of what you did. I don't think College fits the consideration requirements wages, benefits, vacation time, etc. that an employer does... hell even trade associations like JDEC can't seem to make a binding contract on their members (the whole RAMBUS fiasco)
I think that "everybody does it" doesn't make it legally enforceable.. but they've got enough money behind them to keep a fair judgment from being made.
I'd agree, they will call that plagiarism. Even though the work is your own, it's not original for the specific assignment. I know that's how they view work when you re-take classes or take classes that repeat assignments.. they want you to do original work and not "clean up" a paper you wrote for another class.
most schools claim ALL IP... every home work assignment, every term paper, every drawing, lab result, etc. I think in reality they do that to cover their own butts... so that if a professor reuses it, or submits it for research they can't be sued... but if that was the case they'd write the agreement like Flickr where it's non-exclusive and they clearly want the product exclusive to them.
last I checked those were tax exempt DONATIONS... to charity, not investments. If schools are accepting funding for student work, then first, I expect to be paid for my work, and second, I'd expect the university to pay income tax like a business and for those tax deductions to be taken away from business contributors.
They are paying for me to learn stuff... If I happen to learn something new and novel nobody else has learned then that should be mine.
except that my schools have always REQUIRED people to do their own original work. Therefore the work should remain mine. I believe the schools opinion is that they are "directing" the work, so the work you do is "work for hire" and assigned to them. They are directing the work you do.. you wouldn't have done it without their input as an assignment. Frankly, it's a corporate-style power grab to prevent students from benefiting when corporations "donate" large amounts of money to "help" students. In the case of many of the IP agreements in place with industry, perhaps the tax exemptions should be taken away from large schools and corporate donations as the rules do not benefits students anymore.
now sharks can have better table manners and cut their food into polite pieces. I always snip at my kids for not cutting their meat during dinner.
Of course even if they do achieve this will we know... after all, in the movies the sharks with frickin lasers (SWFL) always eat the engineers and scientists first.
wrong. The "forcing" companies to make loans was only a few companies that were caught gaming the books. The feds choose to have them "help the poor" rather than levy appropriate fines. That said, they should have been harsh and shut down the FMs when they cooked the books years ago in spite of the harm because their cheating is what brought down the system. Mercy is what cause the banking crisis not regulations.
A standard "poor" FHA loan allows 7-9.5% interest when going rate for mortgages was 5.5%. Trouble was that they started "betting against" the sub par loans.. then they started loaning people with "good" credit vastly over extended sums to put them into loans rated for "poor" people (hence the zero down, interest only loans... hint "poor" don't get those... ever) Until they saturated that market. Realize they "bet against" those same people multiple times over (5-20 times the value of the amount borrowed!) They structured these "bets" like insurance, but just enough different to require zero regulation... until the market was saturated then when a small number couldn't pay the thing crashed.
In short, they took a punishment for not playing by the rules, pretended to do a "good thing", then continued to invent new ways to bend the rules on a massive scale while setting normal people up to fail.
how about test it on underwater divers... they signed up and it's safe for whales. We could try supreme court justices (with out air tanks though that might skew results)
What kind of device potentially damages animals in a 50 mile radius? Really think about that, this would be equivalent to allowing sonic booms at 1000 feet altitude near cities... and to heck with the broken glass and ear drums. The army has nothing that invasive, the air force has nukes or days of carpet bombing and supersonic aircraft, but they pick the same spots to train where there is minimal wildlife to harm and reuse it over and over.
I'm sure this is just a case of "boys with toys" making things bigger and louder because they can and pulling rank when asked to tone it down.
no, to the whales this is like a F22 breaking the sound barrier 1000 foot above your house. [http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sonar.asp] The sonar the Navy uses is extremely high powered and can cause hurt, just like a sonic boom of a jet smashing windows over land. If those were decibels in air 140 is illegal in public as it causes physical pain and permanent hearing loss, 235 db in air causes your ears to bleed... if they were doing this on the street (loud enough to be legally ban 100 miles away!) they'd be told to stop too. In open ocean there is room for animals to run away, on the shallow coast those animals can't go to deeper water to escape.
This is one of those cases where lazy engineers added "more power" until they're vastly overstepping what's reasonable, and the bosses damn anybody that asks for reason or to pay attention to what's going on around you. The navy is at sea, so they only have to follow rules of "civility" with their toys at port.... after all, they're just animals.
define artificially high. That seems to be a misunderstanding that the US legal system makes against semiconductor companies quite a bit lately. I don't think the courts are quite up to speed on the market situation. It's not that these guys raised prices, it's that they stopped them from falling, typically by organizing production stopage, and switch to new more profitable models, then the whole cycle begins again. In semiconductor manufacturing you always run your factory at full speed, that means at some time of year you have way too much product and customers start waiting you out. That's why products are really expensive, then they make small production changes to make them cheaper, then they get dirt cheap... then back to expensive. If they continue to produce parts, they will wipe out one of the factories... at billions of dollars lost. The US courts also block shipments when foreign governments float loans to manufacturers so their country doesn't lose 2 Billion dollars of fab at a time. That's why helping out auto makers is such a big deal now.
They do it to save their companies from going bankrupt, not to make more profit. The "race to the bottom" has real problems and this is it. Increase people buying or stop making.. but stopping making only works when a group of players takes a holiday at the same time.
actually their customers are Apple, and other product makers that paid a few bucks too much per panel and missed sales, not "consumers". So the public really doesn't see any of it as they paid the manufacturer and retailer of the product they bought a market price for the device.
why was that sale not bid out to other software vendors after you wrote up the specs for the system? That's the problem. You did not choose a lower priced tool, but a common and expensive one. Nobody will know because the total amount of money paid to Microsoft will never be revealed for anybody to contest.
the REAL issue is what was sold. How many copies, for what terms? What upgrade and support rights?
When the public buys a road they specify how many miles, material, warranty, and when to complete the task.. then offer those terms for public bid. Where is the detailed public bid for Microsoft's contract with enough info to make a value determined by the market.. say from CDW prices.
last I checked Microsoft is a near monopoly with upwards of 85% of the desktop market. (note they tried to keep Google from getting that amount in search with Yahoo) How is discussing contract terms that represent 85% of the market not competitive. Unless Microsoft is using large contracts sold cheaply to sway other people that can't choose, network effects.
In houses or cars bidding is sealed during sales, but you legally have to post the sale value when you register the property. Then you can see what a similar property sold for at one time from just viewing the property.
What people REALLY want is to see the terms of the deal. The overall cost can be figured out, but what did Microsoft sell? How many copies? what support? Upgrades? what is the license? When the state buys a bridge or automobile those are spelled out explicitly, and publicly bid on with no side deals allowed. That allows anybody to bid on even ground. In software's case we can't even know what the terms are. I'd be like granting a road contract but not disclosing terms of warranty or number of miles and materials to be used... and would never be allowed. But software gets away with having secret terms.
Companies want a fair shot. Current software contracts are like specifying that I want Caterpillar brand equipment to build my road... not how much road or warranty or when it will be done. People want to see honest sealed-bid deals that specify business functions to cover (email, accounting, security) and how many users/machines to be licensed. Then stick to the winner of the bid!!! It's not fair that Microsoft gets to see another company win a contract like in Germany, then come in and make "donations" to cover part of the cost so they can remove items from the contract.
we should dispose of our widgets each day when we are done enjoying them into recycle bins. Then go to work for credits in the factories recycling yesterday's "junk" into new cool items. Then nobody loses!!!
next up.. those "helpful" people that send me emails to help them with money problems will add a "click thru" then the virus and spambots will be perfectly legal?
I think the test should be to install the retail version of every game EA currently sells (DRM and all) on all of EA's development PCs and storage servers. If any are rendered broken then EA is screwing with people's stuff. and they get to spend a few millions cleaning up the mess!
I know I used GameDrive years ago until the DRM schemes basically made it unusable by hijacking any and every disc service. And they supposedly had permission from the publishers that the saves were coded to only your PC. I've had to re-flash disc burners several times because DRM killed them with nothing but standard Nero installed.
the bargaining power is that they are offering the demo for FREE-no payment as advertisement to borrow your time and entice you to purchase their product (that is what they get out of the deal), so putting secret piracy measures in place for something expected to be free(as in cost) is an unreasonable intrusion.
It's unreasonable to thing that a freely given demo is going to hijack other parts of my computer, even after I uninstall it.
there's also an expectation of reasonableness to any contract. If a product is free, and in this case the free trial was a different program than the actual one, then why is invasive copy protection needed? This copy protection doesn't prevent piracy (the downloadable file is the same for everybody), it doesn't affect reverse-engineering or hacking the program... it only exists to monitor the computer's usage, which is entirely unreasonable for a FREE, advertising download.
how about we define "lunchtime" as the middle of the solar day?
In Michigan Solar time +1 hour doesn't work either because Sunrise and Sunset shift two hours between winter and summer in addition to the length of the day. Having a time change take up only one of those hours playing with the clock.
Slashdot Mirror
but this is a mobile, non-documented technology, so the information gathered would be hearsay, not enough to be evidence and not enough for a real warrant. Nice to follow somebody around so they don't run away, but crap as proof if you're trying to gather evidence of a crime unless you can catch them in the act a little more quickly.
exactly, how is this information traceable? A cell phone company bills thousands of people, the information is verifiable to use in court because lots of people and companies touch the data. While these devices can find you if they're looking for you, there's no way to use them in court, no third party verification. It would be good if they were trying to follow you or to catch you, for somebody to do physical surveillance, but as far as proving you were at a location, like with company info, it's just a somebody's word they saw a number blip.
The DMCA requires specific instances to be identified, not just "a bunch of my stuff". This is very legally sound. It's common knowledge that you have to be specific. This is specifically why music and movie houses have a problem with YouTube.. because they have to specify each URL or item or Google won't take down and their lawyers can't keep up when the same thing is posted again next week.
except that under academic rules you are require do do your own work, not develop other's ideas. Therefore any assignment you do should legally fulfill proper assignment of copyright to YOU unless they try to take it away. Therefore you are not sharing any IP from anybody else, only resources, which you are paying steep tuition for. That doesn't really grant them enough of a claim to the IP of what you did. I don't think College fits the consideration requirements wages, benefits, vacation time, etc. that an employer does... hell even trade associations like JDEC can't seem to make a binding contract on their members (the whole RAMBUS fiasco)
I think that "everybody does it" doesn't make it legally enforceable.. but they've got enough money behind them to keep a fair judgment from being made.
I'd agree, they will call that plagiarism. Even though the work is your own, it's not original for the specific assignment. I know that's how they view work when you re-take classes or take classes that repeat assignments.. they want you to do original work and not "clean up" a paper you wrote for another class.
most schools claim ALL IP... every home work assignment, every term paper, every drawing, lab result, etc. I think in reality they do that to cover their own butts... so that if a professor reuses it, or submits it for research they can't be sued... but if that was the case they'd write the agreement like Flickr where it's non-exclusive and they clearly want the product exclusive to them.
last I checked those were tax exempt DONATIONS... to charity, not investments. If schools are accepting funding for student work, then first, I expect to be paid for my work, and second, I'd expect the university to pay income tax like a business and for those tax deductions to be taken away from business contributors.
They are paying for me to learn stuff... If I happen to learn something new and novel nobody else has learned then that should be mine.
yet schools can't manage to own the text books that professors write using student intern time.... Hummmm.
except that my schools have always REQUIRED people to do their own original work. Therefore the work should remain mine. I believe the schools opinion is that they are "directing" the work, so the work you do is "work for hire" and assigned to them. They are directing the work you do.. you wouldn't have done it without their input as an assignment. Frankly, it's a corporate-style power grab to prevent students from benefiting when corporations "donate" large amounts of money to "help" students. In the case of many of the IP agreements in place with industry, perhaps the tax exemptions should be taken away from large schools and corporate donations as the rules do not benefits students anymore.
now sharks can have better table manners and cut their food into polite pieces. I always snip at my kids for not cutting their meat during dinner.
Of course even if they do achieve this will we know... after all, in the movies the sharks with frickin lasers (SWFL) always eat the engineers and scientists first.
wrong. The "forcing" companies to make loans was only a few companies that were caught gaming the books. The feds choose to have them "help the poor" rather than levy appropriate fines. That said, they should have been harsh and shut down the FMs when they cooked the books years ago in spite of the harm because their cheating is what brought down the system. Mercy is what cause the banking crisis not regulations.
A standard "poor" FHA loan allows 7-9.5% interest when going rate for mortgages was 5.5%. Trouble was that they started "betting against" the sub par loans.. then they started loaning people with "good" credit vastly over extended sums to put them into loans rated for "poor" people (hence the zero down, interest only loans... hint "poor" don't get those... ever) Until they saturated that market. Realize they "bet against" those same people multiple times over (5-20 times the value of the amount borrowed!) They structured these "bets" like insurance, but just enough different to require zero regulation... until the market was saturated then when a small number couldn't pay the thing crashed.
In short, they took a punishment for not playing by the rules, pretended to do a "good thing", then continued to invent new ways to bend the rules on a massive scale while setting normal people up to fail.
how about test it on underwater divers... they signed up and it's safe for whales. We could try supreme court justices (with out air tanks though that might skew results)
What kind of device potentially damages animals in a 50 mile radius? Really think about that, this would be equivalent to allowing sonic booms at 1000 feet altitude near cities... and to heck with the broken glass and ear drums. The army has nothing that invasive, the air force has nukes or days of carpet bombing and supersonic aircraft, but they pick the same spots to train where there is minimal wildlife to harm and reuse it over and over.
I'm sure this is just a case of "boys with toys" making things bigger and louder because they can and pulling rank when asked to tone it down.
no, to the whales this is like a F22 breaking the sound barrier 1000 foot above your house. [http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sonar.asp] The sonar the Navy uses is extremely high powered and can cause hurt, just like a sonic boom of a jet smashing windows over land. If those were decibels in air 140 is illegal in public as it causes physical pain and permanent hearing loss, 235 db in air causes your ears to bleed... if they were doing this on the street (loud enough to be legally ban 100 miles away!) they'd be told to stop too. In open ocean there is room for animals to run away, on the shallow coast those animals can't go to deeper water to escape.
This is one of those cases where lazy engineers added "more power" until they're vastly overstepping what's reasonable, and the bosses damn anybody that asks for reason or to pay attention to what's going on around you. The navy is at sea, so they only have to follow rules of "civility" with their toys at port.... after all, they're just animals.
define artificially high. That seems to be a misunderstanding that the US legal system makes against semiconductor companies quite a bit lately. I don't think the courts are quite up to speed on the market situation. It's not that these guys raised prices, it's that they stopped them from falling, typically by organizing production stopage, and switch to new more profitable models, then the whole cycle begins again. In semiconductor manufacturing you always run your factory at full speed, that means at some time of year you have way too much product and customers start waiting you out. That's why products are really expensive, then they make small production changes to make them cheaper, then they get dirt cheap... then back to expensive. If they continue to produce parts, they will wipe out one of the factories... at billions of dollars lost. The US courts also block shipments when foreign governments float loans to manufacturers so their country doesn't lose 2 Billion dollars of fab at a time. That's why helping out auto makers is such a big deal now.
They do it to save their companies from going bankrupt, not to make more profit. The "race to the bottom" has real problems and this is it. Increase people buying or stop making.. but stopping making only works when a group of players takes a holiday at the same time.
actually their customers are Apple, and other product makers that paid a few bucks too much per panel and missed sales, not "consumers". So the public really doesn't see any of it as they paid the manufacturer and retailer of the product they bought a market price for the device.
why was that sale not bid out to other software vendors after you wrote up the specs for the system? That's the problem. You did not choose a lower priced tool, but a common and expensive one. Nobody will know because the total amount of money paid to Microsoft will never be revealed for anybody to contest.
the REAL issue is what was sold. How many copies, for what terms? What upgrade and support rights?
When the public buys a road they specify how many miles, material, warranty, and when to complete the task.. then offer those terms for public bid. Where is the detailed public bid for Microsoft's contract with enough info to make a value determined by the market.. say from CDW prices.
last I checked Microsoft is a near monopoly with upwards of 85% of the desktop market. (note they tried to keep Google from getting that amount in search with Yahoo) How is discussing contract terms that represent 85% of the market not competitive. Unless Microsoft is using large contracts sold cheaply to sway other people that can't choose, network effects.
In houses or cars bidding is sealed during sales, but you legally have to post the sale value when you register the property. Then you can see what a similar property sold for at one time from just viewing the property.
What people REALLY want is to see the terms of the deal. The overall cost can be figured out, but what did Microsoft sell? How many copies? what support? Upgrades? what is the license? When the state buys a bridge or automobile those are spelled out explicitly, and publicly bid on with no side deals allowed. That allows anybody to bid on even ground. In software's case we can't even know what the terms are. I'd be like granting a road contract but not disclosing terms of warranty or number of miles and materials to be used... and would never be allowed. But software gets away with having secret terms.
Companies want a fair shot. Current software contracts are like specifying that I want Caterpillar brand equipment to build my road... not how much road or warranty or when it will be done. People want to see honest sealed-bid deals that specify business functions to cover (email, accounting, security) and how many users/machines to be licensed. Then stick to the winner of the bid!!! It's not fair that Microsoft gets to see another company win a contract like in Germany, then come in and make "donations" to cover part of the cost so they can remove items from the contract.
we should dispose of our widgets each day when we are done enjoying them into recycle bins. Then go to work for credits in the factories recycling yesterday's "junk" into new cool items. Then nobody loses!!!
next up.. those "helpful" people that send me emails to help them with money problems will add a "click thru" then the virus and spambots will be perfectly legal?
I think the test should be to install the retail version of every game EA currently sells (DRM and all) on all of EA's development PCs and storage servers. If any are rendered broken then EA is screwing with people's stuff. and they get to spend a few millions cleaning up the mess!
I know I used GameDrive years ago until the DRM schemes basically made it unusable by hijacking any and every disc service. And they supposedly had permission from the publishers that the saves were coded to only your PC. I've had to re-flash disc burners several times because DRM killed them with nothing but standard Nero installed.
the bargaining power is that they are offering the demo for FREE-no payment as advertisement to borrow your time and entice you to purchase their product (that is what they get out of the deal), so putting secret piracy measures in place for something expected to be free(as in cost) is an unreasonable intrusion.
It's unreasonable to thing that a freely given demo is going to hijack other parts of my computer, even after I uninstall it.
there's also an expectation of reasonableness to any contract. If a product is free, and in this case the free trial was a different program than the actual one, then why is invasive copy protection needed? This copy protection doesn't prevent piracy (the downloadable file is the same for everybody), it doesn't affect reverse-engineering or hacking the program... it only exists to monitor the computer's usage, which is entirely unreasonable for a FREE, advertising download.
how about we define "lunchtime" as the middle of the solar day?
In Michigan Solar time +1 hour doesn't work either because Sunrise and Sunset shift two hours between winter and summer in addition to the length of the day. Having a time change take up only one of those hours playing with the clock.