1) Apparently, your lack of foresight by not having created user accounts with limited rights is at the root (not the only one) of your problem. Your only recourse at this late stage in the game is to comply with the hoster's request and give them the password.
2) Once they have looked through the logs, and put your server back up you can go in and change your root password, after sweeping your system for: backdoors, trojans, rootkits, etc.
3) Then you need to add accounts, specifically for them to use, and to comply with what is most certainly a term of your contract.
4) You need to learn to play nice with others. In other words, when you request support, be willing to provide the information that the people, you want support from, need to do their job!
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's irrelevant. You can't be bound to terms of a contract which are illegal. If your provider cracked your root password and logged into your server, they have committed the crime of illegal trespassing upon a computer system whether it's in the contract or not.
Wrong.
Sorry, but you're the one that is wrong. Your analogy sucks and is wrong. Here's an equivalent analogy, if you contract with someone, that they can have any $5 bill you leave on your dinner table inside your house, it is still illegal for them to break into your house to get it.
You cannot write a contract that permits illegal activity. knowingly writing a contract to allow criminal activity is prima facie proof of criminal conspiracy to commit said crime.
That said, he could have a contract that allows them to have access to his computer, in which case his refusal to give them access is in violation of the terms of the contract, and they may be able to disconnect him for that. They however are not allowed to commit misdemeanors and/or felonies, aka rooting a server, to get access to what is allowed them via the contract. Now if his contract says they are allowed to root his server, I'd be very surprised, but it still wouldn't hold up in a court. Really onerous terms in a contract are not enforceable, or legal. If the service provider is really doing this, I can assure you it is illegal for them to do so. If the contract says they can, then the employees doing it are at risk of prison as are the lawyers/persons who wrote the contract, and the management who are allowing it to happen.
I'd like to know what evidence the poster has that his server has been rooted. Furthermore, if his server is so easily rooted, I'd request that he stop using the internet, and remove all his machines at once. We don't need any more people contributing to the botnets. If you can't maintain your systems so they can't be rooted at the drop of a hat, then you have no business having servers on the internet.
My advice to this guy is:
1) learn how to properly maintain your system,
2) switch to a new hoster,
3) provided he has suitable proof of their unauthorized access, find the applicable law and prosecute.
What you really want is something that absorbs the energy of the motion. You want something that collapses slowly, while arresting as much momentum as possible, and then also have a non-deflating portion as a final cushion. An airbag is not going to do this, at least not an airbag in the common understanding. Now an airbag that slowly deflates as you impact it would meet some of this requirement. I think NASA's honeycomb airbag, probably, is something like this. What I'm describing is used by Hollywood stuntmen to break falls.
Ah, but how many of those Windows 7 sales were new PCs that got wiped and Linux installed in place? Also, we know how prejudiced Net Apps numbers are.
I suspect Net Apps numbers. I don't see any Macs defecting to Windows. Why should they? I also don't see Macs trading for Linux. Macs are used primarily by artists, and Mac faithful. I think perhaps they are playing with their numbers. I'd like to see the raw numbers and their methodology.
Not to mention who knows how well/bad they are weighting the numbers. Odd, too, that they changed their methodology two years ago. Why? Do the weights really reflect the internet populations of the other countries? Are the visitors from other countries to the websites they track typical users of those countries? In my experience, with interactions with non-US users outside of the tech areas, is that the number of Linux desktops is a tad higher than what Net Apps reports. According to my experience excluding geeks and IT association is somewhere between 5% and 10% of users are Linux users. But, my numbers are anecdotal at best, and I have a fair number of non-US contacts. We also don't know what those 40,000 sites, they monitor, are? Do they include any windows support sites? Do they include any sites likely to be used by Linux users?
Furthermore, maybe the Linux numbers are lower because Linux users tend to hit different sites more and the ones they are tracking less? Lastly, is the methodology robust enough to say that Mac users really fell 0.14% or 0.0014 fractional? Is their methodology really accurate to FOUR decimal places!? Wow! That must be the best damn population estimation algorithm EVER! They ought to patent that sucker! Just kidding. Sure there are math techniques to get 4 place accuracy, but you're making an statistical approximation of an estimated population based on an estimated random distribution! And that is going to be accurate to four decimal places! Wow. Just WOW!
Care to point out which areas of law you think I'm wrong about...
Sure. It's Case law. The law as defined by actual court decisions in cases where this type of situation has arisen.
Like I said you're partly right, the actual contract is the clue. The more vague the contract, the more supportive it is that you have retained the right. If you weren't hired to make lesson plans and you haven't signed an agreement that says your work is work for hire, then you retain your rights. But IANAL, so my opinion is illegal to give. I agree though, that it never hurts to ask someone, if you aren't sure. Or even if you are.
Yes, you see, states and local governments aren't bound by the Federal copyright law about Federal works belonging to the people. So, yes, states and local governments works can be copyrighted and are not by default public domain. States can and do copyright things. However, they are also bound by the other part of the copyright law, namely that facts aren't copyrightable. So, many of the things states produce and copyright can be put into your own words and distributed freely by you.
So, when did they repeal the Constitutional right to peaceable assembly? Because, apparently, you seem to think that right no longer exists.
Now the guy might be guilty of reckless endangerment. But the crowd looked pretty peaceful to me. Certainly more peaceful than the crowd we'll see all across America on Friday. Now if what this guy did is illegal then what every major store across America has planned is certainly far worse, and we should go and arrest all of the executives of WalMart on down to Best Buy, right now (for the actions they've done in the past that is)!
While I agree what he did, was bad, I don't see how he can be arrested for not doing their job for him. Nor do I see any reason why anyone should be forced to pay for having police or security as a gathering. Or why anyone should be forced to buy insurance in order to exercise the right of peaceful assembly. If something bad happens and it can be shown the organizers were negligent, then by all mean sue them or jail them if it results in harm to people.
Insurance companies have got a racket going now, in my opinion an extortion racket, backed up by laws. I can't believe, I'm defending a record exec, even if what he did was reckless.
Of course, now reading TFA, it seems he actually did comply with the police. So it should be interesting what happens. Of course, he'll be protected by his company's billions of dollars, so He'll have some fairly decent lawyering behind him.
I am concerned that teachers should be using their "on the clock" prep periods to create lesson plans (that's what teachers I know do, or claim to do). Or, if it's part of the contractual obligation of their jobs to produce these plans (even if they end up doing it "at home"), and that's part of what they're already getting paid for, it doesn't seem right that they should be then able to sell them to other teachers/school-districts.
You are right, if they are contractually obligated to come up with lesson plans. But if it is not part of what they are expected to produce their creative works belong to them. Within the broader aspect of copyright and contract law.
And are they starting with resources that their districts already bought? And are they using paid-for class time to test and refine these plans?
And who is actually paying for them? Is the money paid the personal money of the teachers or are they charging their school districts the cost of the materials? It wouldn't be right if my school district is buying lesson plans and then the teachers are tweaking them and then turning around and selling them.
That would be a violation of copyright law, as derivative works belong to the original work's copyright owner. So , even if the school buys lesson plans, and the teachers tweak them, they still wouldn't belong to the schools.
Of course, if the schools buy the lesson plans and the teachers tweak those plans sufficiently, then they are no longer derivative works and since the school buys the plans, the teachers obviously are not paid to come up with lesson plans, and so once a teacher has changed a copyrighted work sufficiently it would obviously then become the copyrighted work of the teacher. If teacher is given a lesson plan, from his employer, to use and it puts 80% of his class to sleep and he alters it sufficiently so that it keeps 80% of his class awake, then he should be able to copyright that. although some would say it is something to patent.
I think it boils down to the idea that if the teachers are already being paid to make lesson plans, then those plan are "work for hire" and they should not be able to sell them and profit yet again.
True enough, but neither the/. article nor the NYT article makes clear whether the teachers are being paid to make lesson plans. apparently in the one case investigated by a school, the school found that the teacher (a coach), was within his rights to sell it. So, I'd say this is "Much Ado About Nothing", and yet another slow news day for the NYT, and I'll gladly sell you a lesson plan or cheat sheet for that Shakespeare play if you'd like (depending on whether you are a teacher or a student).
Sorry, but you're wrong. the teachers are hired to teach, they are not hired necessarily to make lesson plans. They are not hired to make lesson plans and unless it is spelled out in their contracts that they are expected to write their own lesson plans it is not part of their job. Under your scenario, if a teacher bought and used a lesson plan, and only changed a few things here and there the copyright would go to the district. Which of course, is a violation of the section of the copyright law about derivative works belonging to the original author (in this case the copyright owner of the original lesson plan the teacher in question modified).
Of course you're partly right, as copyright law is anything but cut and dry. You're also, partly wrong on the software bit. It's fairly established by court precedent, that coders, who create software in the off hours that are "unrelated" to the work they do for the company belongs by default to the author and not the company. Which is why it is so critical to read contracts before accepting a job. Contracts can change the status quo and defaults. And of course so can courts, which is why it is never a good idea to develop anything on your own in the field in which you work without first getting a release from your employer.
The reason why, at the college level, teacher's work are by default not considered works-for-hire, is because, they too are hired as teachers and not drafters of lesson plans. There are cases and contracts that alter this default. Again, it's best to get this spelled out in your contract so it is cut-and-dry. Which is also, never foolproof, as courts can and have thrown out contracts whole cloth and re-written them as they see fit. So, again nothing is really ever cut and dry if it deals with copyright or contracts even. At least in the USA.
No, he's partly right. There are canned commercial lesson plans that SOME school districts buy. But in many, if not all, cases, there are state mandated curricula, that are also sometimes developed and sold by private enterprises. A curriculum that details every element that must be taught. From this a qualified teacher can develop a lesson plan, and there are private companies who get these curricula and make lesson plans that many local schools district purchase, and the teachers can use, or develop their own. Or are compelled to pay for themselves as part of the terms of their employment (so I hear, I can neither confirm nor deny that claim so use with salt).
There are definitely districts that will can your sorry a** if you deviate from the curriculum, or, if they mandate it, the lesson plan. But this is not true of every, or probably even "most", public schools. I'd like to see the gp's facts to back up his ridiculous claim.
The parent poster apparently hasn't explored the American grade school world, and I don't blame him, it's a sick, twisted, world and in my opinion, in general mind you, teachers are Heros, sacrificing making more money, and other more profitable prospects, for a greater good. Being a partial homeschooler, to augment my child's incredibly lacking American education, based on the weak public education system, and the not as weak private schools available, I've spent considerable time researching this. I can show you the ridiculously insane curricula requirements established by the state of Missouri, on what needs to be taught. More importantly I can show the many things that should be taught that aren't part of the curricula.I could also, show you the curricula for Sweden schools, or you can download it yourself for free. It is detailed enough to build excellent lesson plans from, which would incontrovertibly exceed anything taught in the US system. Unfortunately, for some, learning or knowing Swedish is a pre-requisite.
Oh, yes American teachers are so greedy. We pay them more than any of they're European counterparts ... oh, well , no I guess not.
So, since they are public employees they shouldn't be able to make any side income, because their minds belong to us?
Or should, seriously underpaid teachers in public grade schools, enjoy the same rights and privileges that public college professors enjoy, the right to sell their unique way of teaching? After all some college professors do write books that are used to teach the classes they teach. In fact I think the saying is "publish or perish". I've have my share of professors who used books they wrote to teach the classes I took from them.
I think this is a case of sour grapes. While, I'd love to get all those really great lesson plans for free, since I do some homeschooling of my child, I certainly don't expect it as my right to get it for free. If you want free lesson plans then write your open and release them under the GPL and/or Creative Commons licenses. although there are plenty of free lesson plans out there for anyone interested in looking.
How, the parent reply got rated insightful is beyond me. Interesting maybe, but not insightful, but then this is/.
Given that Windows has more lines of code than just about any other software in existence
Why is that?
Does an OS really need to be so complicated? ReactOS, for example, provides a significant proportion of the functionality of Windows in a fraction of the size.
Surely fewer lines of code mean a smaller attack surface for exploits and vulnerabilities.
given that Linus thinks Linux has gotten bloated, is indicative that it is a natural decay that is incumbent to modern desktop OSes. Not that it is necessary, but due to the scope and size of modern Desktop Oses, it is a natural side-effect, that once aware of can be combatted in OSes that are run by dedicated volunteers, but unlikely in any commercial OSes. I agree that given the development environment Windows holds up well. It's just the wrong development environment.
Long live FOSS, the right development environment.
Maybe you should read this article, and then follow the link from the reply I replied to. Then you should go to a map and calculate or have Google Maps or Mapquest maps calculate the distance. Which would only be an approximation. According to Google Maps the distance between the only two points mentioned in any of the articles is around 1700 ft and not 2040 ft. So, instead of being an anonymous coward and calling people names, maybe you should use the brain that you have, regardless of how limited it may be, and do the math and research necessary to come to an actual intelligent (or as intelligent as you can be) response. I don't know where this 2040 ft came from, but it's an awfully convenient number that makes it impossible for the driver to have gone the distance in under the speed limit, being a mere 60 feet over the distance what an ave speed of 45mph would produce. Not to mention the fact that an ave speed of 46 mph over 2040 ft can't account for a speed of 62 inside of that distance and time constraint (accelerating to 60 mph takes at least 617 ft, meaning the ave speed for the rest of the trip had to be 42mph yielding a total maximum ave speed of (85.1ft/sec)*x + (61.6ft/sec)*(2040-x) = 67.5ft/sec Where x is >= 617.
Furthermore, since the power curve of a gasoline engine, isn't linear neither is acceleration, and then there is the effect of drag and friction, which also affect the linearity of the acceleration curve.
On another take, to obtain an average speed of 46 mph over that distance he would have had to speed up to 62 and then drop down to about 30mph for a significant stretch of that theoretical 2040 ft. Something unlikely, but possible and would have likely earned him a second ticket for reckless driving.
In conlusion, there simply isn't enough data to know for certain if he was speeding, although that is the highest probability. What was the actual distance 1730ft, 2040 ft, 2080 ft, 1980 ft? How can we know for certain? How long did it take him to get from Point A, the stop light, to Point B, the radar stop, to Point C the second GPS point. Which came first Point B or Point C?
we know the police officer says he tagged him at 400 feet past a certain point, but did he measure that distance or is it an approximation? Was it maybe 300 ft? Or 500ft? Or 450ft? Was it the police officer's position or the approximate position of a car traveling 90ft/sec. Did the teen cover that distance in precisely 30 seconds, the light changing at precisely the same time as the first GPS point? Or did he cover that distance in 20 seconds? The real questions here are what are the timestamps for the radar gun, and the four GPS points on both sides of that, and what are the rue distances of all the points in question and how are they arranged?
PS the ave speed for covering 2040ft in 20 sec is 69mph, which we can dismiss, because the very truthful and above suspicion parents say they didn't get an email that he went over 70mph.
Average speed is easily calculated, based on the statement from this article:
"It recorded Malone sitting at a stoplight at Frates Road and 30 seconds later going 45 mph 2,040 feet farther down the road,"
That would be 2040 ft / 30 sec === 0.386 mi / 0.0833 hr = 46.4 MPH
Except the article doesn't provide that distance of 2040 feet. So, where are you getting that number from? Not to mention it also doesn't say where he was when the second ping came in. I agree, though, not enough precise data to make a decision on,
According to Google maps the distance is 1712 ft. Not that I trust that distance.
So d=rt or r = d/t gives us (1712/5280)/((30/3/600) or an average speed of 38 mph.
That still doesn't tell us whether he speed up to 69 mph and then decelerated to 45 mph, or what. We still lack one vital piece of data, how fast can he accelerate to 60? So let's take one of the internet figures 7.2 sec, and a 1/4 mile in 15.4 sec, reaching 90 mph, and a braking distance of 120. So He could have accelerated to 90 mph and come to a complete stop in a distance of 1440 ft. So, it's definitely plausible he was speeding.
So let's assume he sped up to 60 as fast as he could. That leaves us with a guess of the distance covered, we know it takes another 8.3 seconds to reach 90mph. So let's be generous and say it was 617 ft ((7.2/15.4)*1320).
That means he would then have to travel another 1712-617 = 1095 ft in 22.8 seconds and be doing 45 at the end of that.
Now his average speed up to this point would be (617/5280)/(7.2/3600) = 58 mph
So (58*7.2 + 22.8r)/30 = 38 or r = 31 mph.
So our little speeder had to speed up to 62 and then immediately brake to below 30, stay there for a while, and then speed up again to 45. I will leave the actual algebraic equations and distances as a problem for someone else. Well if, this is true someone needs to take this boy off the roads. But Occam's razor states that, in this case, the likely answer is he wasn't speeding. I find the court's finding implausible at best.
Lastly, this is all speculation as we don't know if it was precisely 30 seconds later, or how long it was after that the car was shot with radar, or really any details in sufficient quantity to follow the Judge's reasoning.
Sorry, misinformation. This is not a legitimate cite. Go read the actual laws. None of those states allow fullblood first cousin marriages that would produce off-spring. I've seen this site also, but they don't show you the actual laws. That site is mere hearsay.
Well, if we must have damn computers counting the votes, I have a better solution than your, impossibly complex system.
A simple, verifiable, electronic vote machine (patent pending):
Parts list:
1) self contained vote machine,
2) Paper tape roller (think cash register standard size),
3) Receipt viewing window in machine, that can only be viewed by pressing both hands down on buttons on opposite ends of the machine. This keeps people from taking photos of their vote.
4) Near end of roll detector, which causes vote machine to lock up until a new roll is added.
Usage:
Voter votes verifies vote on paper and presses accept or reject. If neither button is pushed before the voter opens the curtain and leaves the booth, the vote is rejected. If a vote is rejected, the vote is blacked out and a hole is punched through the barcode generated along the side of the vote. The barcode simply holds a number with a timestamp, and indicates a new vote.
Once, the accept button is pressed, the receipt is scrolled past and the vote registered. The accept button and reject buttons are reachable from the view buttons, so both the view buttons can be held while pressing the accept/reject button. This way you can see the vote erased or accepted, and be confident of your vote. Or at least as confident as any paper vote will ever be.
Of course none of this will ever be able to replace the human cheating effect. People will always find ways to commit vote fraud. If you think there is no vote fraud in the US, well, then you are in serious need of medication for your delusions.
Counting can even be done by machine using the actual visible names (or titles in the case of propositions and such) chosen on the paper tapes.
You, need to read the laws on those states that allow marrying cousins. You're leaving out a lot of detail. Like no first-first cousin marriages and in the closer affinity ones, some require sterility in one or both partners. I know of no state that allows first cousin marriages where it is possible for there to be off-spring. Please cite for any state you think does.
As far as second and third degree cousins, you're right, much less chance of serious gene pool damage, but not non-existent. The bad, genetically speaking, practice of too close affinity breeding is well documented across the mammalian animal kingdom, to which we belong (believe it or not). Should be not believe we are part of the "animal" kingdom, there is also abundant proof in human history of the serious problems of in-breeding.
On same-sex marriage, why is this even an issue? Do the opponents think if they refuse them marriages they will become extinct? Good luck on that one. They used to sterilize homosexuals in England. That didn't work either. People should be free to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone (except themselves, I'm a strong believer in legitimatizing suicide).
On a slightly different note. One man - one woman marriage has only existed since the Pope decreed it to be so back around oh 1400 or so. It was to keep the priests from having too many wives, also, it was the first intrusion of the "State" into what had always been a private civil matter between people. There was no state involved in the sanctifying of marriage before that.
Furthermore, the government really didn't get involved (except in that one case involving the Pope) in marriage matters until around the 19th century (1793 in France).
Marriages were private civil contracts for millennium upon millennium, and neither the Church nor the government really should have any say or control in the matter. It belongs rightly as a personal right along with the right to choose or not choose a religion, or to speak freely.
If a virus mutates every year (and in influenza's case every 6 months), what good is a lifetime vaccine for a virus that will never occur again in your lifetime. While, I don't doubt, that the "vaccine" is good for life, it becomes a matter of a solution looking for a problem. So, I stick by my original point. That being that we haven't really got a vaccine for the flu, because it keeps mutating on us, and we keep playing catch up.Now when they come up with a way to predict how it mutates or finds a way to otherwise neutralize it, then they'll have a vaccine. But where's the money in that? If they actually cured the flu and the common cold many drug companies and drugs would become moot. Could have a major impact on the economy.
Conspiracy? Oh probably, there must be conspiracies everywhere you look. But, I prefer to ignore all that and examine what shreds of truth are given and what shreds of data can be analyzed. ,
Magic bullets? You mean like the smallpox vaccine?
So what you're saying is that because when we started making computer hardware it was slow, and as we learned how to make it smaller and smaller it made it possible to make cheap FFT hardware, and because of this the first people who made it, once the technology was advanced enough to make it cheaply, should get a patent for it?
I disagree.
As, I think patents should not be awarded for things we know "how" to do, but don't yet have the technology to "make" them cheaply (unless someone comes up with a new and novel way of making it). Patents should be for things that no one has foreseen, like typewriters, and integrated circuits, and positronic brains.
While, I applaud your desire to discredit the freaks who abuse science, you must be aware that flu "vaccines" aren't as thoroughly tested as ANY other drug that is stamped with approval. Due to the fact these "vaccines" are only good for six months, otherwise you wouldn't have to get vaccines every year, and you'd have rates higher than 40-60% efficacy (CDCs numbers, not mine, but you have to read between the lines to get this number). H1N1 is likely to have an 80% efficacy (CDC again) for this year, but you'll need another one next year.
This is not like the polio vaccine where you get one and you're good for life. Or even like tetanus where you get one and 2 boosters and you're good for 10 years or so. No, what the flu vaccine does is give you a live or dead virus, and since it's a foreign body in your system it triggers an immune response, which hopefully your body will recognize later if someone infects you with it. Now of course if you get the live version, you're actually going to come down with the flu, but a milder case than you'd get in the wild. I'm sorry,but when I got the polio vaccine I didn't come down with a mild case of polio. When I got a Tetanus shot I didn't come down with a mild case of Lockjaw. When I got the Rubella vaccine, I didn't come down with a mild case of the German Measles, although, I understand that some do. However, I don't get a Rubella vaccine every year.
I'm all for getting vaccines that save lives, but call me skeptical on the "Flu vaccines", I've seen no proof of them working, the only person who I know, for certain, who has ever gotten a flu vaccine got the flu that same year. Sure this is not scientific, but CDCs own writings don't help me to conclude they work any better than a placebo. I welcome a double blind study done by a University with no ties to the AMA, Doctors, or Pharmacies. Let me know when you find one of them. If we could find anyone with no axe to grind or sponsor to please, I'd welcome that test. Barring that fantasy, I'd accept any double blind study done by a reputable school.
Your dating is a bit off. Try Charles Frederic Gauss in 1805 for the first documented description of FFTs, just mostly forgotten for 160 years. It didn't become popular widely until 1965. After which it became used all over the place in hardware and software. I studied FFT application in college engineering and programming classes. FFTs have been common knowledge in engineering for 20 years or more. Making it into a hardware chip might have been new, but certainly not novel.
Everyone wanted to put FFTs into chips, since they began making chips and certainly DSPs. I'm fairly sure many video cards implement FFTs and probably 90% of all DSPs. Not sure when CSIRO did this, but it must be longer than any US patent (Thompson implemented a VLSI FFT chip in 1979) would be valid for. The University of Goettingen has Gauss' works on-line you could go there to verify it. But then you'd probably have to learn German and maybe Latin (although, IIRC they translated the Latin stuff). There were others doing FFT algorithm in the span from 1805 to the 1965 popularization you speak of, although you're off by about five years there, too..
I haven't read CSIRO patent so don't know if it was novel or not, but you're wrong about the FFT part in many ways.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Apparently, your lack of foresight by not having created user accounts with limited rights is at the root (not the only one) of your problem. Your only recourse at this late stage in the game is to comply with the hoster's request and give them the password.
2) Once they have looked through the logs, and put your server back up you can go in and change your root password, after sweeping your system for: backdoors, trojans, rootkits, etc.
3) Then you need to add accounts, specifically for them to use, and to comply with what is most certainly a term of your contract.
4) You need to learn to play nice with others. In other words, when you request support, be willing to provide the information that the people, you want support from, need to do their job!
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's irrelevant. You can't be bound to terms of a contract which are illegal. If your provider cracked your root password and logged into your server, they have committed the crime of illegal trespassing upon a computer system whether it's in the contract or not.
Wrong.
Sorry, but you're the one that is wrong. Your analogy sucks and is wrong. Here's an equivalent analogy, if you contract with someone, that they can have any $5 bill you leave on your dinner table inside your house, it is still illegal for them to break into your house to get it.
You cannot write a contract that permits illegal activity. knowingly writing a contract to allow criminal activity is prima facie proof of criminal conspiracy to commit said crime.
That said, he could have a contract that allows them to have access to his computer, in which case his refusal to give them access is in violation of the terms of the contract, and they may be able to disconnect him for that. They however are not allowed to commit misdemeanors and/or felonies, aka rooting a server, to get access to what is allowed them via the contract. Now if his contract says they are allowed to root his server, I'd be very surprised, but it still wouldn't hold up in a court. Really onerous terms in a contract are not enforceable, or legal. If the service provider is really doing this, I can assure you it is illegal for them to do so. If the contract says they can, then the employees doing it are at risk of prison as are the lawyers/persons who wrote the contract, and the management who are allowing it to happen.
I'd like to know what evidence the poster has that his server has been rooted. Furthermore, if his server is so easily rooted, I'd request that he stop using the internet, and remove all his machines at once. We don't need any more people contributing to the botnets. If you can't maintain your systems so they can't be rooted at the drop of a hat, then you have no business having servers on the internet.
My advice to this guy is:
1) learn how to properly maintain your system,
2) switch to a new hoster,
3) provided he has suitable proof of their unauthorized access, find the applicable law and prosecute.
What you really want is something that absorbs the energy of the motion. You want something that collapses slowly, while arresting as much momentum as possible, and then also have a non-deflating portion as a final cushion. An airbag is not going to do this, at least not an airbag in the common understanding. Now an airbag that slowly deflates as you impact it would meet some of this requirement. I think NASA's honeycomb airbag, probably, is something like this. What I'm describing is used by Hollywood stuntmen to break falls.
Ah, but how many of those Windows 7 sales were new PCs that got wiped and Linux installed in place? Also, we know how prejudiced Net Apps numbers are.
I suspect Net Apps numbers. I don't see any Macs defecting to Windows. Why should they? I also don't see Macs trading for Linux. Macs are used primarily by artists, and Mac faithful. I think perhaps they are playing with their numbers. I'd like to see the raw numbers and their methodology.
Not to mention who knows how well/bad they are weighting the numbers. Odd, too, that they changed their methodology two years ago. Why? Do the weights really reflect the internet populations of the other countries? Are the visitors from other countries to the websites they track typical users of those countries? In my experience, with interactions with non-US users outside of the tech areas, is that the number of Linux desktops is a tad higher than what Net Apps reports. According to my experience excluding geeks and IT association is somewhere between 5% and 10% of users are Linux users. But, my numbers are anecdotal at best, and I have a fair number of non-US contacts. We also don't know what those 40,000 sites, they monitor, are? Do they include any windows support sites? Do they include any sites likely to be used by Linux users?
Furthermore, maybe the Linux numbers are lower because Linux users tend to hit different sites more and the ones they are tracking less? Lastly, is the methodology robust enough to say that Mac users really fell 0.14% or 0.0014 fractional? Is their methodology really accurate to FOUR decimal places!? Wow! That must be the best damn population estimation algorithm EVER! They ought to patent that sucker! Just kidding. Sure there are math techniques to get 4 place accuracy, but you're making an statistical approximation of an estimated population based on an estimated random distribution! And that is going to be accurate to four decimal places! Wow. Just WOW!
Care to point out which areas of law you think I'm wrong about ...
Sure. It's Case law. The law as defined by actual court decisions in cases where this type of situation has arisen.
Like I said you're partly right, the actual contract is the clue. The more vague the contract, the more supportive it is that you have retained the right. If you weren't hired to make lesson plans and you haven't signed an agreement that says your work is work for hire, then you retain your rights. But IANAL, so my opinion is illegal to give. I agree though, that it never hurts to ask someone, if you aren't sure. Or even if you are.
Yes, you see, states and local governments aren't bound by the Federal copyright law about Federal works belonging to the people. So, yes, states and local governments works can be copyrighted and are not by default public domain. States can and do copyright things. However, they are also bound by the other part of the copyright law, namely that facts aren't copyrightable. So, many of the things states produce and copyright can be put into your own words and distributed freely by you.
Wow! You must have read a different TFA than I did. None of that was in TFA I read, which is the one linked above.
So, when did they repeal the Constitutional right to peaceable assembly? Because, apparently, you seem to think that right no longer exists.
Now the guy might be guilty of reckless endangerment. But the crowd looked pretty peaceful to me. Certainly more peaceful than the crowd we'll see all across America on Friday. Now if what this guy did is illegal then what every major store across America has planned is certainly far worse, and we should go and arrest all of the executives of WalMart on down to Best Buy, right now (for the actions they've done in the past that is)!
While I agree what he did, was bad, I don't see how he can be arrested for not doing their job for him. Nor do I see any reason why anyone should be forced to pay for having police or security as a gathering. Or why anyone should be forced to buy insurance in order to exercise the right of peaceful assembly. If something bad happens and it can be shown the organizers were negligent, then by all mean sue them or jail them if it results in harm to people.
Insurance companies have got a racket going now, in my opinion an extortion racket, backed up by laws. I can't believe, I'm defending a record exec, even if what he did was reckless.
Of course, now reading TFA, it seems he actually did comply with the police. So it should be interesting what happens. Of course, he'll be protected by his company's billions of dollars, so He'll have some fairly decent lawyering behind him.
I am concerned that teachers should be using their "on the clock" prep periods to create lesson plans (that's what teachers I know do, or claim to do). Or, if it's part of the contractual obligation of their jobs to produce these plans (even if they end up doing it "at home"), and that's part of what they're already getting paid for, it doesn't seem right that they should be then able to sell them to other teachers/school-districts.
You are right, if they are contractually obligated to come up with lesson plans. But if it is not part of what they are expected to produce their creative works belong to them. Within the broader aspect of copyright and contract law.
And are they starting with resources that their districts already bought? And are they using paid-for class time to test and refine these plans?
And who is actually paying for them? Is the money paid the personal money of the teachers or are they charging their school districts the cost of the materials? It wouldn't be right if my school district is buying lesson plans and then the teachers are tweaking them and then turning around and selling them.
That would be a violation of copyright law, as derivative works belong to the original work's copyright owner. So , even if the school buys lesson plans, and the teachers tweak them, they still wouldn't belong to the schools.
Of course, if the schools buy the lesson plans and the teachers tweak those plans sufficiently, then they are no longer derivative works and since the school buys the plans, the teachers obviously are not paid to come up with lesson plans, and so once a teacher has changed a copyrighted work sufficiently it would obviously then become the copyrighted work of the teacher. If teacher is given a lesson plan, from his employer, to use and it puts 80% of his class to sleep and he alters it sufficiently so that it keeps 80% of his class awake, then he should be able to copyright that. although some would say it is something to patent.
I think it boils down to the idea that if the teachers are already being paid to make lesson plans, then those plan are "work for hire" and they should not be able to sell them and profit yet again.
True enough, but neither the /. article nor the NYT article makes clear whether the teachers are being paid to make lesson plans. apparently in the one case investigated by a school, the school found that the teacher (a coach), was within his rights to sell it. So, I'd say this is "Much Ado About Nothing", and yet another slow news day for the NYT, and I'll gladly sell you a lesson plan or cheat sheet for that Shakespeare play if you'd like (depending on whether you are a teacher or a student).
Sorry, but you're wrong. the teachers are hired to teach, they are not hired necessarily to make lesson plans. They are not hired to make lesson plans and unless it is spelled out in their contracts that they are expected to write their own lesson plans it is not part of their job. Under your scenario, if a teacher bought and used a lesson plan, and only changed a few things here and there the copyright would go to the district. Which of course, is a violation of the section of the copyright law about derivative works belonging to the original author (in this case the copyright owner of the original lesson plan the teacher in question modified).
Of course you're partly right, as copyright law is anything but cut and dry. You're also, partly wrong on the software bit. It's fairly established by court precedent, that coders, who create software in the off hours that are "unrelated" to the work they do for the company belongs by default to the author and not the company. Which is why it is so critical to read contracts before accepting a job. Contracts can change the status quo and defaults. And of course so can courts, which is why it is never a good idea to develop anything on your own in the field in which you work without first getting a release from your employer.
The reason why, at the college level, teacher's work are by default not considered works-for-hire, is because, they too are hired as teachers and not drafters of lesson plans. There are cases and contracts that alter this default. Again, it's best to get this spelled out in your contract so it is cut-and-dry. Which is also, never foolproof, as courts can and have thrown out contracts whole cloth and re-written them as they see fit. So, again nothing is really ever cut and dry if it deals with copyright or contracts even. At least in the USA.
No, he's partly right. There are canned commercial lesson plans that SOME school districts buy. But in many, if not all, cases, there are state mandated curricula, that are also sometimes developed and sold by private enterprises. A curriculum that details every element that must be taught. From this a qualified teacher can develop a lesson plan, and there are private companies who get these curricula and make lesson plans that many local schools district purchase, and the teachers can use, or develop their own. Or are compelled to pay for themselves as part of the terms of their employment (so I hear, I can neither confirm nor deny that claim so use with salt).
There are definitely districts that will can your sorry a** if you deviate from the curriculum, or, if they mandate it, the lesson plan. But this is not true of every, or probably even "most", public schools. I'd like to see the gp's facts to back up his ridiculous claim.
The parent poster apparently hasn't explored the American grade school world, and I don't blame him, it's a sick, twisted, world and in my opinion, in general mind you, teachers are Heros, sacrificing making more money, and other more profitable prospects, for a greater good. Being a partial homeschooler, to augment my child's incredibly lacking American education, based on the weak public education system, and the not as weak private schools available, I've spent considerable time researching this. I can show you the ridiculously insane curricula requirements established by the state of Missouri, on what needs to be taught. More importantly I can show the many things that should be taught that aren't part of the curricula.I could also, show you the curricula for Sweden schools, or you can download it yourself for free. It is detailed enough to build excellent lesson plans from, which would incontrovertibly exceed anything taught in the US system. Unfortunately, for some, learning or knowing Swedish is a pre-requisite.
Oh, yes American teachers are so greedy. We pay them more than any of they're European counterparts
... oh, well , no I guess not.
/.
So, since they are public employees they shouldn't be able to make any side income, because their minds belong to us?
Or should, seriously underpaid teachers in public grade schools, enjoy the same rights and privileges that public college professors enjoy, the right to sell their unique way of teaching? After all some college professors do write books that are used to teach the classes they teach. In fact I think the saying is "publish or perish". I've have my share of professors who used books they wrote to teach the classes I took from them.
I think this is a case of sour grapes. While, I'd love to get all those really great lesson plans for free, since I do some homeschooling of my child, I certainly don't expect it as my right to get it for free. If you want free lesson plans then write your open and release them under the GPL and/or Creative Commons licenses. although there are plenty of free lesson plans out there for anyone interested in looking.
How, the parent reply got rated insightful is beyond me. Interesting maybe, but not insightful, but then this is
Given that Windows has more lines of code than just about any other software in existence
Why is that?
Does an OS really need to be so complicated? ReactOS, for example, provides a significant proportion of the functionality of Windows in a fraction of the size.
Surely fewer lines of code mean a smaller attack surface for exploits and vulnerabilities.
given that Linus thinks Linux has gotten bloated, is indicative that it is a natural decay that is incumbent to modern desktop OSes. Not that it is necessary, but due to the scope and size of modern Desktop Oses, it is a natural side-effect, that once aware of can be combatted in OSes that are run by dedicated volunteers, but unlikely in any commercial OSes. I agree that given the development environment Windows holds up well. It's just the wrong development environment.
Long live FOSS, the right development environment.
Maybe you should read this article, and then follow the link from the reply I replied to. Then you should go to a map and calculate or have Google Maps or Mapquest maps calculate the distance. Which would only be an approximation. According to Google Maps the distance between the only two points mentioned in any of the articles is around 1700 ft and not 2040 ft. So, instead of being an anonymous coward and calling people names, maybe you should use the brain that you have, regardless of how limited it may be, and do the math and research necessary to come to an actual intelligent (or as intelligent as you can be) response. I don't know where this 2040 ft came from, but it's an awfully convenient number that makes it impossible for the driver to have gone the distance in under the speed limit, being a mere 60 feet over the distance what an ave speed of 45mph would produce. Not to mention the fact that an ave speed of 46 mph over 2040 ft can't account for a speed of 62 inside of that distance and time constraint (accelerating to 60 mph takes at least 617 ft, meaning the ave speed for the rest of the trip had to be 42mph yielding a total maximum ave speed of (85.1ft/sec)*x + (61.6ft/sec)*(2040-x) = 67.5ft/sec Where x is >= 617.
Furthermore, since the power curve of a gasoline engine, isn't linear neither is acceleration, and then there is the effect of drag and friction, which also affect the linearity of the acceleration curve.
On another take, to obtain an average speed of 46 mph over that distance he would have had to speed up to 62 and then drop down to about 30mph for a significant stretch of that theoretical 2040 ft. Something unlikely, but possible and would have likely earned him a second ticket for reckless driving.
In conlusion, there simply isn't enough data to know for certain if he was speeding, although that is the highest probability. What was the actual distance 1730ft, 2040 ft, 2080 ft, 1980 ft? How can we know for certain? How long did it take him to get from Point A, the stop light, to Point B, the radar stop, to Point C the second GPS point. Which came first Point B or Point C? we know the police officer says he tagged him at 400 feet past a certain point, but did he measure that distance or is it an approximation? Was it maybe 300 ft? Or 500ft? Or 450ft? Was it the police officer's position or the approximate position of a car traveling 90ft/sec. Did the teen cover that distance in precisely 30 seconds, the light changing at precisely the same time as the first GPS point? Or did he cover that distance in 20 seconds? The real questions here are what are the timestamps for the radar gun, and the four GPS points on both sides of that, and what are the rue distances of all the points in question and how are they arranged?
PS the ave speed for covering 2040ft in 20 sec is 69mph, which we can dismiss, because the very truthful and above suspicion parents say they didn't get an email that he went over 70mph.
Average speed is easily calculated, based on the statement from this article:
That would be 2040 ft / 30 sec === 0.386 mi / 0.0833 hr = 46.4 MPH
Except the article doesn't provide that distance of 2040 feet. So, where are you getting that number from? Not to mention it also doesn't say where he was when the second ping came in. I agree, though, not enough precise data to make a decision on,
According to Google maps the distance is 1712 ft. Not that I trust that distance.
So d=rt or r = d/t gives us (1712/5280)/((30/3/600) or an average speed of 38 mph.
That still doesn't tell us whether he speed up to 69 mph and then decelerated to 45 mph, or what. We still lack one vital piece of data, how fast can he accelerate to 60? So let's take one of the internet figures 7.2 sec, and a 1/4 mile in 15.4 sec, reaching 90 mph, and a braking distance of 120. So He could have accelerated to 90 mph and come to a complete stop in a distance of 1440 ft. So, it's definitely plausible he was speeding.
So let's assume he sped up to 60 as fast as he could. That leaves us with a guess of the distance covered, we know it takes another 8.3 seconds to reach 90mph. So let's be generous and say it was 617 ft ((7.2/15.4)*1320).
That means he would then have to travel another 1712-617 = 1095 ft in 22.8 seconds and be doing 45 at the end of that.
Now his average speed up to this point would be (617/5280)/(7.2/3600) = 58 mph
So (58*7.2 + 22.8r)/30 = 38 or r = 31 mph.
So our little speeder had to speed up to 62 and then immediately brake to below 30, stay there for a while, and then speed up again to 45. I will leave the actual algebraic equations and distances as a problem for someone else. Well if, this is true someone needs to take this boy off the roads. But Occam's razor states that, in this case, the likely answer is he wasn't speeding. I find the court's finding implausible at best.
Lastly, this is all speculation as we don't know if it was precisely 30 seconds later, or how long it was after that the car was shot with radar, or really any details in sufficient quantity to follow the Judge's reasoning.
Sorry, I guess I was wrong.
Sorry, misinformation. This is not a legitimate cite. Go read the actual laws. None of those states allow fullblood first cousin marriages that would produce off-spring. I've seen this site also, but they don't show you the actual laws. That site is mere hearsay.
Well, if we must have damn computers counting the votes, I have a better solution than your, impossibly complex system.
A simple, verifiable, electronic vote machine (patent pending):
Parts list:
1) self contained vote machine,
2) Paper tape roller (think cash register standard size),
3) Receipt viewing window in machine, that can only be viewed by pressing both hands down on buttons on opposite ends of the machine. This keeps people from taking photos of their vote.
4) Near end of roll detector, which causes vote machine to lock up until a new roll is added.
Usage:
Voter votes verifies vote on paper and presses accept or reject. If neither button is pushed before the voter opens the curtain and leaves the booth, the vote is rejected. If a vote is rejected, the vote is blacked out and a hole is punched through the barcode generated along the side of the vote. The barcode simply holds a number with a timestamp, and indicates a new vote.
Once, the accept button is pressed, the receipt is scrolled past and the vote registered. The accept button and reject buttons are reachable from the view buttons, so both the view buttons can be held while pressing the accept/reject button. This way you can see the vote erased or accepted, and be confident of your vote. Or at least as confident as any paper vote will ever be.
Of course none of this will ever be able to replace the human cheating effect. People will always find ways to commit vote fraud. If you think there is no vote fraud in the US, well, then you are in serious need of medication for your delusions. Counting can even be done by machine using the actual visible names (or titles in the case of propositions and such) chosen on the paper tapes.
You, need to read the laws on those states that allow marrying cousins. You're leaving out a lot of detail. Like no first-first cousin marriages and in the closer affinity ones, some require sterility in one or both partners. I know of no state that allows first cousin marriages where it is possible for there to be off-spring. Please cite for any state you think does.
As far as second and third degree cousins, you're right, much less chance of serious gene pool damage, but not non-existent. The bad, genetically speaking, practice of too close affinity breeding is well documented across the mammalian animal kingdom, to which we belong (believe it or not). Should be not believe we are part of the "animal" kingdom, there is also abundant proof in human history of the serious problems of in-breeding.
On same-sex marriage, why is this even an issue? Do the opponents think if they refuse them marriages they will become extinct? Good luck on that one. They used to sterilize homosexuals in England. That didn't work either. People should be free to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone (except themselves, I'm a strong believer in legitimatizing suicide).
On a slightly different note. One man - one woman marriage has only existed since the Pope decreed it to be so back around oh 1400 or so. It was to keep the priests from having too many wives, also, it was the first intrusion of the "State" into what had always been a private civil matter between people. There was no state involved in the sanctifying of marriage before that.
Furthermore, the government really didn't get involved (except in that one case involving the Pope) in marriage matters until around the 19th century (1793 in France).
Marriages were private civil contracts for millennium upon millennium, and neither the Church nor the government really should have any say or control in the matter. It belongs rightly as a personal right along with the right to choose or not choose a religion, or to speak freely.
If a virus mutates every year (and in influenza's case every 6 months), what good is a lifetime vaccine for a virus that will never occur again in your lifetime. While, I don't doubt, that the "vaccine" is good for life, it becomes a matter of a solution looking for a problem. So, I stick by my original point. That being that we haven't really got a vaccine for the flu, because it keeps mutating on us, and we keep playing catch up.Now when they come up with a way to predict how it mutates or finds a way to otherwise neutralize it, then they'll have a vaccine. But where's the money in that? If they actually cured the flu and the common cold many drug companies and drugs would become moot. Could have a major impact on the economy.
Conspiracy? Oh probably, there must be conspiracies everywhere you look. But, I prefer to ignore all that and examine what shreds of truth are given and what shreds of data can be analyzed.
,
Magic bullets? You mean like the smallpox vaccine?
So what you're saying is that because when we started making computer hardware it was slow, and as we learned how to make it smaller and smaller it made it possible to make cheap FFT hardware, and because of this the first people who made it, once the technology was advanced enough to make it cheaply, should get a patent for it?
I disagree.
As, I think patents should not be awarded for things we know "how" to do, but don't yet have the technology to "make" them cheaply (unless someone comes up with a new and novel way of making it). Patents should be for things that no one has foreseen, like typewriters, and integrated circuits, and positronic brains.
While, I applaud your desire to discredit the freaks who abuse science, you must be aware that flu "vaccines" aren't as thoroughly tested as ANY other drug that is stamped with approval. Due to the fact these "vaccines" are only good for six months, otherwise you wouldn't have to get vaccines every year, and you'd have rates higher than 40-60% efficacy (CDCs numbers, not mine, but you have to read between the lines to get this number). H1N1 is likely to have an 80% efficacy (CDC again) for this year, but you'll need another one next year.
This is not like the polio vaccine where you get one and you're good for life. Or even like tetanus where you get one and 2 boosters and you're good for 10 years or so. No, what the flu vaccine does is give you a live or dead virus, and since it's a foreign body in your system it triggers an immune response, which hopefully your body will recognize later if someone infects you with it. Now of course if you get the live version, you're actually going to come down with the flu, but a milder case than you'd get in the wild. I'm sorry,but when I got the polio vaccine I didn't come down with a mild case of polio. When I got a Tetanus shot I didn't come down with a mild case of Lockjaw. When I got the Rubella vaccine, I didn't come down with a mild case of the German Measles, although, I understand that some do. However, I don't get a Rubella vaccine every year.
I'm all for getting vaccines that save lives, but call me skeptical on the "Flu vaccines", I've seen no proof of them working, the only person who I know, for certain, who has ever gotten a flu vaccine got the flu that same year. Sure this is not scientific, but CDCs own writings don't help me to conclude they work any better than a placebo. I welcome a double blind study done by a University with no ties to the AMA, Doctors, or Pharmacies. Let me know when you find one of them. If we could find anyone with no axe to grind or sponsor to please, I'd welcome that test. Barring that fantasy, I'd accept any double blind study done by a reputable school.
Your dating is a bit off. Try Charles Frederic Gauss in 1805 for the first documented description of FFTs, just mostly forgotten for 160 years. It didn't become popular widely until 1965. After which it became used all over the place in hardware and software. I studied FFT application in college engineering and programming classes. FFTs have been common knowledge in engineering for 20 years or more. Making it into a hardware chip might have been new, but certainly not novel.
Everyone wanted to put FFTs into chips, since they began making chips and certainly DSPs. I'm fairly sure many video cards implement FFTs and probably 90% of all DSPs. Not sure when CSIRO did this, but it must be longer than any US patent (Thompson implemented a VLSI FFT chip in 1979) would be valid for. The University of Goettingen has Gauss' works on-line you could go there to verify it. But then you'd probably have to learn German and maybe Latin (although, IIRC they translated the Latin stuff). There were others doing FFT algorithm in the span from 1805 to the 1965 popularization you speak of, although you're off by about five years there, too..
I haven't read CSIRO patent so don't know if it was novel or not, but you're wrong about the FFT part in many ways.