Actually, it would have to be Japanese women. And for the record, I'm neither. But I do know that Japan has a tradition of "if it's behind the property gate, it's invisible, even if it's visible", simply as a matter of being able to live together in close quarters. So a polite Japanese neighbor would ignore the laundry on the line and not take snaps of it.
But I still get the feeling that some Japanese are just as litigious as the worst in the US.
Exactly. Part of the trial system is to prevent rumor and bias from influencing the verdict, so either the sides agree to what is a fact, or the judge rules as to whether evidence can be presented over the objections of one of the sides. For prior knowledge (or bias) held by a juror, that is detected during the jury selection process, and can either be accepted by both sides or excused.
So the juror doesn't have to be clueless, they just have to be fair-minded, and then base their verdict only on evidence presented in court.
Considering that on most computers, Netflix streams videos in-browser, I'm having trouble figuring out what the problem is. I don't have a Netflix client on my Windows machine and I stream videos fine on it. Now admittedly I haven't tried to run Netflix on any of my Linux machines -- they're configured as servers not multimedia boxes. But as far as I can tell, the "Netfix client" is called Firefox, which is definitely open source.
Or are people trying to run Netflix on a Wii that they've hacked to run Linux? Apart from open source, there's this little thing called "market share". If this issue only affects hacked gaming platforms and jail-broken mobile devices, I think Netflix problem is with the limited market, not to mention that the idea of supporting activity that violates the TOS of the platform probably scares the crap out of their lawyers.
So the real reason the WaPo thinks WikiLeaks should be censored and prosecuted is because they aren't getting in on the dirt, not because they think it's inherently evil to leak government secrets.
According to at least one article ( http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/29/level-3-says-comcast.html ) part of the issue is that the traffic flow between L3 and Comcast is unbalanced, with most traffic going from L3 to Comcast. This means that the normal peering relationship where traffic flow is about even in both directions isn't working. Comcast is bearing a burden of excess traffic from L3 without the normal compensation of equivalent traffic flow in the opposite direction.
On the other hand, there are a few other factors that point to ulterior motives on Comcast's part. First, this is traffic being requested by Comcast subscribers. Comcast doesn't retransmit data to other ISPs, except in limited cases. The peering argument mainly applies to exchanges between backbone providers, while ISPs like Comcast are supposed to get their compensation from their subscribers, not from their peering partners. Given the nature of the net, the downstream flow from the backbone to the ISP will almost always be greater than the flow upward.
Second, it's notable that the telcos haven't requested similar fees. This may be due to a different regulatory environment, but while Verizon and AT&T have started to offer TV service, they still don't (to my knowledge, anyway) charge the upstream providers for content sent to their subscribers.
Third, is Comcast charging any other backbone providers for unbalanced traffic? The articles don't say, but it would be a telling point if they do not.
One last point in mitigation is that maybe L3 just signed a bad peering contract with Comcast and now they are on the hook because they didn't practice due diligence during their contract negotiation.
So the bottom line is that it's possible to capture enough energy from the wind to move faster than the wind, but you have to find a way to keep receiving that energy when you exceed windspeed. The mechanism satisfies this by capturing energy based on the ground speed rather than the wind speed.
So here's a question for everyone: could you make it work in a boat? The analogue would be to have the water propel a screw that turns the propellor, which sounds possible, but the efficiency equations might not be workable, especially the greater resistance to motion through the water. Maybe a hydrofoil?
Well, it does have some value in blocking competitors from selling nutritional supplements using her name. But unless Nutrilab is a lot bigger than it appears, they can't afford to sue _everybody_ who mentions her name. It might be worth fighting this simply to reduce a public menace.
Well, DUH, of course Intel will sue. And in a US court, will probably win.
The beauty of this situation is that now it protects Intel's revenue stream while doing absolutely nothing to protect the media people who thought they would benefit from the protection.
Based on the developer blog, he didn't implement ddraw.dll. Just enough calls to get his WC collection working, along with some crazy hacks because he didn't want to do it right. But at least he documents his kludges.
That's what I was thinking. The catch is where the test-taking market and hacking market overlap, whether because of intent to cheat or just not wanting to shell out for two calculators. I suspect that quite a few of these righteous hackers have a website offering hacked calculators for sale to be used on tests.
But if TI had alternative hackable models at similar price points, the legitimate market would have no reason to complain.
SO make a separate, hackable model number that is easily distinguish from the calculators allowed in the tests. Then the hackers can do their thing and TI can make their money off the test takers.
Of course if the objective of most of the hackers is to cheat on the tests, this won't be enough to placate them. But if that's the case, screw it. TI has the high ground then.
If comcast is required to provide basic service as part of the franchise agreement, get the town's lawyers involved. They will be much more motivated to provide a solution if the franchise is at risk.
Needs to involve checking with the school's IT department to see if they block SIP or Skype traffic, and whether that blocking is within campus or just on the boundary with the internet.
It'd be a shame to buy a nice new android phone and then be limited to the phone in your room because the traffic is blocked. (Or - have to tunnel your SIP traffic in violation of the TOS and get suspended from school)
What's weird to me is that the first amendment issue only came up because the same appeals court ruled that the trial court hadn't adequately considered the first amendment implications of the case. On the basis of seemingly contradictory rulings from the same appeals court, it seems like it should go to SCOTUS or at least to an en banc hearing at the appeals court. The good news is that this is a reversal of a summary judgment, so the effect is basically that the plaintiffs cannot use first amendment arguments at trial assuming the case goes in that direction.
The bad news is that I don't see the conflict between the first amendment and copyright. Free speech is designed to protect speech based on subject matter content, not protect speech based on word for word repetition or paraphrase. Conversely copyright restrictions explicitly exclude collections of data (subject matter) and protect the _form_ of the expression/speech from reuse. The overlap is extremely small. I'm surprised the ex post facto clause of the constitution wasn't used, unless there's too much precedent against it.
I was going to say Shakespeare is a bad example because he's in the public domain already. But based on this ruling there isn't really anything preventing congress from extending copyright up to 500 years as long as they are still protected by copyright in the country of origin. The constitution sets limits, but we've already seen how liberally those limits are interpreted by the courts.
On the other hand, since the biggest motivator for copyright extension seems to be Disney's monopoly on the mouse, I doubt copyright would be extended backwards much past 1910 in any case. So Shakespeare is probably safe. The classic Broadway musicals like Showboat and Oklahoma! are another story, though.
eff.org uses a certificate from a CA that I marked as untrusted during the scandal over certificates issued without verification that Eddy Nigg uncovered in 2008 ( https://blog.startcom.org/?p=145 ). He was able to get a certificate for mozilla.com, no questions asked.
So out of the frying pan and into the fire. Is the link in the OP REALLY from eff.org? Or is it the world's most elaborate phish yet?
The lighting...and the focal length on the camera. If you use a macro lens it's porn. If you use a wide angle lens it's erotica. A zoom lens can be either.
As far as security goes, even if you don't buy the idea that Macs might be more secure than Windows 7, it's true that it's easier for the school IT admins to enforce security if they only have to deal with one OS and one platform. If everyone brings in their own HPs, Dells, Lenovos and whatever running different versions of Windows it would be a costly nightmare for the school.
But standardizing on a Dell or an HP platform running Win 7 would be much more cost-effective. Heck if they bought HP, they could probably outsource the IT department as part of the deal. I wonder how much of a kick-back on their networking and servers the school is getting from Apple for forcing the students onto MacBooks.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it would have to be Japanese women. And for the record, I'm neither. But I do know that Japan has a tradition of "if it's behind the property gate, it's invisible, even if it's visible", simply as a matter of being able to live together in close quarters. So a polite Japanese neighbor would ignore the laundry on the line and not take snaps of it.
But I still get the feeling that some Japanese are just as litigious as the worst in the US.
Exactly. Part of the trial system is to prevent rumor and bias from influencing the verdict, so either the sides agree to what is a fact, or the judge rules as to whether evidence can be presented over the objections of one of the sides. For prior knowledge (or bias) held by a juror, that is detected during the jury selection process, and can either be accepted by both sides or excused.
So the juror doesn't have to be clueless, they just have to be fair-minded, and then base their verdict only on evidence presented in court.
Arrgh...forgot about Silverlight...thought I had kept that sh** of my computer. Ignore previous rant.
Considering that on most computers, Netflix streams videos in-browser, I'm having trouble figuring out what the problem is. I don't have a Netflix client on my Windows machine and I stream videos fine on it. Now admittedly I haven't tried to run Netflix on any of my Linux machines -- they're configured as servers not multimedia boxes. But as far as I can tell, the "Netfix client" is called Firefox, which is definitely open source.
Or are people trying to run Netflix on a Wii that they've hacked to run Linux? Apart from open source, there's this little thing called "market share". If this issue only affects hacked gaming platforms and jail-broken mobile devices, I think Netflix problem is with the limited market, not to mention that the idea of supporting activity that violates the TOS of the platform probably scares the crap out of their lawyers.
So the real reason the WaPo thinks WikiLeaks should be censored and prosecuted is because they aren't getting in on the dirt, not because they think it's inherently evil to leak government secrets.
Ben Bradlee must be spinning in his grave.
Great, now you've created a copyright troll industry to go with the patent trolls.
It's a great idea in theory, but the scammers will either get copyright on works they don't really own, or they will tie stuff up in court forever.
Talk to a lawyer. By your theory "Steamboat Willie" would be out of copyright. And it ain't.
According to at least one article ( http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/29/level-3-says-comcast.html ) part of the issue is that the traffic flow between L3 and Comcast is unbalanced, with most traffic going from L3 to Comcast. This means that the normal peering relationship where traffic flow is about even in both directions isn't working. Comcast is bearing a burden of excess traffic from L3 without the normal compensation of equivalent traffic flow in the opposite direction.
On the other hand, there are a few other factors that point to ulterior motives on Comcast's part. First, this is traffic being requested by Comcast subscribers. Comcast doesn't retransmit data to other ISPs, except in limited cases. The peering argument mainly applies to exchanges between backbone providers, while ISPs like Comcast are supposed to get their compensation from their subscribers, not from their peering partners. Given the nature of the net, the downstream flow from the backbone to the ISP will almost always be greater than the flow upward.
Second, it's notable that the telcos haven't requested similar fees. This may be due to a different regulatory environment, but while Verizon and AT&T have started to offer TV service, they still don't (to my knowledge, anyway) charge the upstream providers for content sent to their subscribers.
Third, is Comcast charging any other backbone providers for unbalanced traffic? The articles don't say, but it would be a telling point if they do not.
One last point in mitigation is that maybe L3 just signed a bad peering contract with Comcast and now they are on the hook because they didn't practice due diligence during their contract negotiation.
So the bottom line is that it's possible to capture enough energy from the wind to move faster than the wind, but you have to find a way to keep receiving that energy when you exceed windspeed. The mechanism satisfies this by capturing energy based on the ground speed rather than the wind speed.
So here's a question for everyone: could you make it work in a boat? The analogue would be to have the water propel a screw that turns the propellor, which sounds possible, but the efficiency equations might not be workable, especially the greater resistance to motion through the water. Maybe a hydrofoil?
Well, it does have some value in blocking competitors from selling nutritional supplements using her name. But unless Nutrilab is a lot bigger than it appears, they can't afford to sue _everybody_ who mentions her name. It might be worth fighting this simply to reduce a public menace.
Well, DUH, of course Intel will sue. And in a US court, will probably win.
The beauty of this situation is that now it protects Intel's revenue stream while doing absolutely nothing to protect the media people who thought they would benefit from the protection.
Based on the developer blog, he didn't implement ddraw.dll. Just enough calls to get his WC collection working, along with some crazy hacks because he didn't want to do it right. But at least he documents his kludges.
"Do you realize that this atrocious behavior is going on your PERMANENT RECORD?"
So now the old teachers' threat is real.
That's what I was thinking. The catch is where the test-taking market and hacking market overlap, whether because of intent to cheat or just not wanting to shell out for two calculators. I suspect that quite a few of these righteous hackers have a website offering hacked calculators for sale to be used on tests.
But if TI had alternative hackable models at similar price points, the legitimate market would have no reason to complain.
SO make a separate, hackable model number that is easily distinguish from the calculators allowed in the tests. Then the hackers can do their thing and TI can make their money off the test takers.
Of course if the objective of most of the hackers is to cheat on the tests, this won't be enough to placate them. But if that's the case, screw it. TI has the high ground then.
So put 'em on fat people. Kill two birds with one stone. Fat jiggles more than muscle anyway.
We're frickin' generators dammit!
If the energy is coming from vibration that's mechanical energy, not chemical.
If comcast is required to provide basic service as part of the franchise agreement, get the town's lawyers involved. They will be much more motivated to provide a solution if the franchise is at risk.
"... something which both companies have failed to act upon."
If this was in the US, McAfee and MS would lose their respective trademarks for failure to enforce them. What's the law in the UK like in this area?
Needs to involve checking with the school's IT department to see if they block SIP or Skype traffic, and whether that blocking is within campus or just on the boundary with the internet.
It'd be a shame to buy a nice new android phone and then be limited to the phone in your room because the traffic is blocked. (Or - have to tunnel your SIP traffic in violation of the TOS and get suspended from school)
What's weird to me is that the first amendment issue only came up because the same appeals court ruled that the trial court hadn't adequately considered the first amendment implications of the case. On the basis of seemingly contradictory rulings from the same appeals court, it seems like it should go to SCOTUS or at least to an en banc hearing at the appeals court. The good news is that this is a reversal of a summary judgment, so the effect is basically that the plaintiffs cannot use first amendment arguments at trial assuming the case goes in that direction.
The bad news is that I don't see the conflict between the first amendment and copyright. Free speech is designed to protect speech based on subject matter content, not protect speech based on word for word repetition or paraphrase. Conversely copyright restrictions explicitly exclude collections of data (subject matter) and protect the _form_ of the expression/speech from reuse. The overlap is extremely small. I'm surprised the ex post facto clause of the constitution wasn't used, unless there's too much precedent against it.
The best news: IANAL, so anything can happen.
I was going to say Shakespeare is a bad example because he's in the public domain already. But based on this ruling there isn't really anything preventing congress from extending copyright up to 500 years as long as they are still protected by copyright in the country of origin. The constitution sets limits, but we've already seen how liberally those limits are interpreted by the courts.
On the other hand, since the biggest motivator for copyright extension seems to be Disney's monopoly on the mouse, I doubt copyright would be extended backwards much past 1910 in any case. So Shakespeare is probably safe. The classic Broadway musicals like Showboat and Oklahoma! are another story, though.
eff.org uses a certificate from a CA that I marked as untrusted during the scandal over certificates issued without verification that Eddy Nigg uncovered in 2008 ( https://blog.startcom.org/?p=145 ). He was able to get a certificate for mozilla.com, no questions asked.
So out of the frying pan and into the fire. Is the link in the OP REALLY from eff.org? Or is it the world's most elaborate phish yet?
The lighting...and the focal length on the camera. If you use a macro lens it's porn. If you use a wide angle lens it's erotica. A zoom lens can be either.
As far as security goes, even if you don't buy the idea that Macs might be more secure than Windows 7, it's true that it's easier for the school IT admins to enforce security if they only have to deal with one OS and one platform. If everyone brings in their own HPs, Dells, Lenovos and whatever running different versions of Windows it would be a costly nightmare for the school.
But standardizing on a Dell or an HP platform running Win 7 would be much more cost-effective. Heck if they bought HP, they could probably outsource the IT department as part of the deal. I wonder how much of a kick-back on their networking and servers the school is getting from Apple for forcing the students onto MacBooks.