Amendment 2 says that copyrights are excluded, "except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."
SCO is hoping to use this vague wording to override the clear wording of the original contract. They're claiming that the conditional clause has been met and that all the copyrights should be transferred. Novell is going to argue that SCO doesn't need the copyright to exercise their rights "with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies".
What does it mean to "own" a technology? Does that not include the right to keep others from using it without entering agreements and paying to do so? Is that not EXACTLY what the copyright is, when it comes to cloning the code itself or making modified versions of it?
It's easy to see how SCO executives could read that line as giving them the copyrights necessary to support their suits. It's also easy to see how they could read the addition of that wording to the contract by the amendment to be EXACTLY clarifying this issue in their favor.
If you'd just paid Novell a few million to get them to sign such a contract "selling you the Unix business", or taken a high corporate office in a company that had done so, wouldn't YOU think that's what it meant?
Think about it: There's no reason for the words to be there unless they transfer SOME copyrights and trademarks. The only thing that's vuage is WHICH ones they transfer. If SCO is in a suit claiming it owns "UNIX technology" and somebody else is improperly using it without permission or payment, doesn't it imply that the copyrights to whatever parts they're claiming infringement on are "required for SCO to exercise its rights" by winning the suit?
IMHO somebody at Novell slipped up if they signed that amendment believing it didn't transfer copyrights - at least those necessary to support their suits - to SCO. (If they honestly believed that, a lot may depend on which side proposed the wording.)
Also IMHO, just to be safe, the maintainers of linux - and other open software - should be prepared for the courts to accept SCO's arguments on the copyright ownership issue and should stay squeaky-clean by avoiding inclusion of any code that was in UNIX prior to 9/19/1995 (or even 10/18/1966) or derived from such code, unless they can trace it to something that was clearly incorporated into UNIX from some other source or released publically some other way (such as the BSD settlement).
Novell contracted with SCO to manage the UNIX licensing, but did not transfer the ownership of the Copyrights.
The part of the agreement that said Novell kept the copyrights and other IP said something to the effect that the IP rights were not transferred EXCEPT as necessary for SCO/Caldera/whatever to enforce their rights under the contract. (The actual text was posted on (or linked from) groklaw a while back but I can't find it just now. If anybody knows a URL for it, or has the paragraph in question, please followup with it.)
As I read it, SCO counted on that exception to give them the Unix copyrights, or enough of them to back their anti-linux suits. Novell thought they still owned the copyrights, and said so. So now SCO is suing Novell for failing to perform on their contract by transfering enough copyrights to support their suits.
It's easy to see how the SCO execs could think they're in the right - especially back when they started. Now they have a tiger by the tail. At this point they HAVE to continue trying to enforce their interpretation, because the company (and their careers) will collapse if they give up. They'll be better off even if they lose.
Gah. Missed the "preview" button. B-(... on the rount from the handheld "phone" make that "on the route".
On the other hand, there are executives betting a lot of moneyt that there ARE people who will want this... It wouldn't take many people... to make Mr Executive a bundle, would it?
Especially since many of these executives are bell heads who have been having their lunch eaten by VoIP and cellphone services - and need a new product to avoid bankruptcy.
Maybe they're just frantically grabbing at flotsam as their ship sinks. Or maybe they've found their lifeboat. (Or a way to eat somebody ELSE's lunch - say, that of the media conglomerates.)
Why would I listen to the radio on my phone? Because I want to listen to a particular station and can't get it any other way.
I have done this a lot, since 1967 or so:
- The campus carrier current station had a bundle of leased lines available to feed the audio to students that had moved out of the dorms. They were leased by frat houses, individual student fans or groups of them, and station engineers that were no longer in dorms but neeced to monitor the station. (I lucked out and didn't have to pay for mine, since another ex-engineer was living next door and let me string a wire to tap his.)
- Sometimes a station I can't get with a program I want to hear has station moitor audio feeding "music on hold" - and I'll call in and be put on hold to hear the program.
- I've used the internet to listen to feeds from stations far away similarly. Sometimes a syndicated program is so politically incorrect that nobody in the area will carry it - but it's streaming on stations in other parts of the country. Sometimes I'm in a place (like inside an office building) where the signal won't reach. Why use a multi-grand desktop to listen? Because it's there, and alternatives aren't.
And of course I'll use my cellphone for this - in preference to a landline phone, leased line, or DSL bandwidth - if I'm moving, or if it's a toll call. (My cell plan has all-you-can-eat free nights and weekends.)
Why would I want to watch a video on my phone?
Why would I want to watch a movie or a video on my laptop? Because it's more convenient when on-the-go than watching it on my TV. Why would I want to do it on my (cell)phone? Because it's more convenient than my laptop - by an order of magnitude.
Why would I want to put a telephone application on my expensive desktop or laptop computer?
A) Because I have the expensive desktop or laptop computer for other reasons, whether I use it for a phone or not, and the online phone service is cheaper than a standalone phone subscription.
B) Because I can't get some functionality any other way - at least for a reasonable price.
(Example: Full-function PBX, with hundreds of extensions fed from a handfull of trunklines, and other "value added" features like follow-me, call forwarding, conference calling, three-way/consult calling, menu systems, etc. Rent it from the local Bell for a bundle, buy it and a service contract from another vendor for a smaller bundle, or install an open-source application and a cheap phone-interface card in a commodity desktop. Guess which I'd chose for my next startup in garage-shop phase...)
But all of this begs the underlying issue:
This is the start of the long-touted "convergence" - when all communication:
- two-way audio (voice phone calls and two-way radio)
- two-way audio/video (videoconferencing)
- N-way audio and audio/video (conference calls)
- Broadcast audio
- Broadcast audio/video
- Remote computer access.
- Computer/computer communication and a bunch of others, both wired and wireless, converge into a single unified network. As this proceeds the terminals for humans (short of implants) are converging into just three major forms:
- A fixed-location device (the convergence of the desktop computer, settop network box, video/audio recorder, TV, and HIFI into a "media center").
- The laptop (a large-format portable).
- The handheld (a small-format portable).
One way to get to the full-function handheld is to add voice to a computer-only handheld/tablet (i.e. the Blackberry). The other is to add functionality to a cellphone. Adding entertainment broadcast (TV, Radio), narrowcast (XM-like subscriptions), and unicast (video/audio on-demand) functionality is a logical early step on the rount from the handheld "phone". It may be saleable as a "bundled unit" until replaced by so
Wow, I didn't realize any of the Feds still cared about Commies any more.
The Maoists caused a LOT of trouble in the '60s and '70s - as did other anti-government factions.
The number of terrorist actions - bombings, riots, sabotage - in that era dwarfed anything on the domestic front in the current "war on terror" - with the exception of the single large hit on New York.
The "little red book" weilding mobs were very photogenic and very effective at taking over other groups. While it's not entirely clear how many (if any) of the bomings and the like they actually committed, they got credit for much of them.
There's definitely a major major threat that college students reading Mao's Red Book are going to go out and start peasant revolutions [...]
A thing to remember about communist revolutionaries in the US (and most developed countries): Regardless of the rhetoric they're not farmers, or city kids who go out an organize farmers. They're primarily children of the affluent, with time on their hands and elitism in their minds. The memes of revolution are attractive to them, and they think they know what's good for "the workers" and that the workers are "unenlightened" (and - though unsaid - unintelligent) victims of "false consciousness".
So they don't waste time actually trying to organize "the pesants". Instead they go out and commit the violence all by themselves.
Fortunately they tend to blow themselves up, too, which limits their effectiveness.
Meanwhile, it does not surprise me in the slightest that the Department of Internal Security would consider the Little Red Book to be a little red spore. Each book would appear to them as a live-but-encysted instance of the violence-generating ideology that blew up schools and research institutions in the mid-century and killed tens of millions in China. A spore that's just waiting to sprout in the heads of another generation of college kids with money in their pockets and time on their hands.
Which is not to excuse them. But just to understand them. They're charged with stopping this stuff from getting far enough along to be blowing up buildings. Don't be surprised if they decide that keeping it from getting started at all is a safer and more effective way to do that than to wait until the latest clone of the Weather Underground is planting a bomb.
While putting the output of the steam system onto the crankshaft makes for an easy upgrade, you can do better.
The crank is the wrong place to put it. Unlike otto and diesel cycles engines (which have no low-end torque and die if you stall them), steam engines have LOTS of low-end torque.
So a better use for it might be to couple the turbine to a modified tranny, giving it its own path to the wheels and its own set of gear ratios. Then it can provide an efficient assist for accelleration from stop, as well as recover the waste heat.
The gain might not be worth it. (Certainly not now, since it would make the efficiency upgrade more expensive and that upgrade is a VERY productive thing.) But it's something to examine for the next major redesign of the power train.
You can't take heat from the catalytic converter because that heat is required to catalyze the gasses.
But you CAN take the heat out of the gas coming OUT of the catalytic converter. (Good place to do it, too, since there's a tad more heat than before the gas went in, and cooling the input would keep the cat from doing its job.)
Paying more for premium bits is something that will have to happen some day (economically speaking). If you don't like the price you switch IPs. If you don't want to stream HTDV because it uses to many bits then buy the DVD.
But don't be surprised if there are ISP plans that include some amount of high-quality bits in the flat rate - like enough for one, or a handfull, of voice / streaming audio channels. And maybe even an inbound video link or several, from particular servers (or the company's own or an affiliate's.)
Like your flat-rate "anytime minutes" on your cellphone plan, it makes sense for the company to include enough for a phone or two rather than counting all the minutes.
Similarly, it can double as a cable/satellite TV replacement by providing an IP pipe for one or a small number of set-top boxes playing MPEG streams selected by you - from multicast groups (for "broadcast" programming) or personalized unicast (for "video on demand".) Your settop box tells the router what channel you're watching, so they only have to send you the packets you want, and they travel on their own pipes from their own servers - both sized for the load - so there's no revenue divvying with the other network players.
(With only the selected channels coming at you, fiber to the curb and ADSL2+ down the copper to the house has adequate bandwidth to replace cable.)
No single company has the money to invest or support a seperate Internet over the long run. There are too many ISPs and backbone providers competing in the open market.
You misunderstand the issue.
This is not about creating a separate internet. This is about giving some packets priority over others in a single transport - and the regulated transport operator being able to assign their OWN packets to the higher priority - and to include others' packets for an extra fee, when contracted to do so.
No "second network" creation at all. Just first-class and coach-class packets. (Actually: Packets with confirmed reservations and packets "flying standby" or in "overbooked seating".)
This sounds unfair. But actually, it's an economic necessity to enable a technical necessity.
Normally, IP packets get best effort service. They're forwarded if there's bandwidth for them. But when there's a traffic jam packets are randomly picked to be dropped.
This works FINE when there's lots more transport available than packets to use it. And for things like file transfers and terminal sessions it's still OK when things get tight: The TCP layer sits on top of IP, detecting the lost packets, retrying them, and throttling back until traffic flows smoothly through the traffic jam. Your data gets through - but slowed down to fairly "share the road".
But for real-time things like real-time voice and video, retry takes too long, causing stops-and-starts, stuttering, echos, and a host of quality issues. (Even the delay necessary to insert slop to handle the hole-filling is a horrible problem in two-way communication.) Yet not retrying makes holes in the stream that have to be filled in by guess - and losing information when too many packets are dropped.
IP had hooks to let you flag packets for special handling when needed. (They're the Type of Service (ToS) bits - intended to indicate what aspects of scheduling are important to the packets, intended to be mapped into Quality of Service (QoS) - how the scheduling decisions are made.)
But protocol stacks have already cheated. (Notably Microsoft, which released an IP stack that improved its own performance by lying about the traffic's requirements - giving its packets priority over others that were more truthful.) With many cheaters deployed the ISPs and backbones just don't honor the ToS bits, or rewrite them at their own edges - to their own specs - when they do. (Thus, now that Microsoft wants to get into VoIP they find their past behavior hosed themselves. B-) And everybody else. B-( ) But even if ToS were honored and used honorably, there are no guarantees. So too many calls through a network node and they'd all deteriorate.
Telcos write service contracts that guarantee performance levels for their phone calls - or for customers (like radio and television networks) that require reliable transport. High probability of establishing a connection (for dynamic things like phone calls), still higher performance guarantees once one is established. If they want to turn the call into packets and ship it over a shared IP backbone while still meeting the guarantees, the VoIP / stream packets themselves must have guarantees higher than "best effort". In particular they require virtual certainty of delivery and tight control of transit time variations. That means they must have higher priority than the competing packets that are doing less time-critical stuff (such as file transfer). Fortunately, VoIP streams are low and essentially constant bandwidth, so they can just reserve a tiny fraction of the bandwidth for them. (Video streams are 'way bigger - but not as transient. So you can design in bandwidth for them.)
But if some packets are given priority over others, they have higher claim on system resources. They can bump other traffic. So it's appropriate to charge them extra for the privilege. (It's the same case as flying with a confirmed reservation vs. standby.) The bandwidth on the network l
It also has a third FFT length intermediate between the two available for DVB-T.
The long one (8K) has less doppler immunity and is bad for moving vehicles. The short one (2K) has great doppler resistance but burns the same bandwidth (and thus more in proportion to payload) in terminal repeats between symbols and thus is less bandwidth (and burst-mode receiver power) efficient. DVB-H adds a third, middle-sized option (4K) that splits the difference, resulting in a better tradeoff for handhelds.
Downside: If you pick 4K you can't share the transmitter with DVB-T channels.
The problem with DVB-H, at least in the UK, is that there is no radio frequency left for the signals. The only spare band that might come up is from the analogue TV switch off but thats not for another five years.
DVB-H can share transmitters/multiplexers with DVB-T (the corresponding standard for non-portable digital TV sets) (though it's not as efficient and flexible as dedicated cells).
IPv4 has some design limitations. IPv6 will address many of those problems, and the networks (and countries) that use that system will have competitive advantage.
IPv6 has some problems, too.
A big one is that some of the fast hacks for routing table lookups don't scale to the bigger addresses. So (absent a breakthrough in hacks) you have to do more brute force work (or switch to slower hacks). Which means you need to throw more instructions at each packet. Which means you need more processing power in the networking boxes - the core routers, edge routers, and BRAS boxes.
You need more than just a software upgrade if you still want to do everything ELSE that you're doing to the packets. You need more processing power per unit of bandwidth. More processors and faster clocks in the packet processor chips. More and faster memory. More of a balancing act if you have to distribute a stream across multiple processors - and greater likelyhood you'll have to do that. And so on.
That's just to stay even, in ADDITION to any multiplier for providing additional services.
So what you're asking the ISPs to do is replace the old routers with newer, faster, more power-hungry devices - when the old ones were doing just fine. There's no value proposition for them to do so until, for some other reason than "being nice", they HAVE to do it. It's a competitive market with tight margins. First guy to break from the pack incurs a big expense and gets squeezed out if his competition can continue with IPv4 and undercut him.
It gets done in Japan and some other countries because they're setting up for lots of mobile devices, and expect to need lots of address space to handle them (and simplify handing them off between base stations). They DON'T expect to be able to get enough IPv4 addresses to handle it after a year or two, so there's no point in deploying IPv4-only boxes just to tear them out before they really get rolling.
In the US - expect IPv6 to be deployed first as a network internal thing for particular carriers catering to mobile users (cellphone, IPTV, and the like) as they work their way through "the convergence". At some point there will be a tipping, where some killer app needs IPv6 support exposed to the users, and carriers providing it will start eating the lunch (and customer base) of those that don't. Then it becomes "change or die" for the rest.
With rights come responsibilities. They are intrinsically linked and inseparable. The problems come when people believe there is, or should be, no relationship between them.
Very close, but no cigar.
Responsibilities come with ACTIONS (including incactions) and the CHOICES to commit them.
They come with what you DID with your ABILITIES, regardless of whether you had the abilities due to the exercise of some recognized right, or whether the action you performed was one you had a recognized right to perform.
It's a nit - but an important one. The formulation "With rights come responsibilities." helps fuel movements to pass laws abrogating rights.
The problem is that many people believe that actions - including speech - shouldn't have consequences.
Freedom of speech, by necessity, includes freedom after speech. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity.
Let's see what happens with that claim if applied to other rights:
"Freedom of religion, by necessity, includes freedom after sacrificing a captured non-believer. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
"Freedom of the press, by necessity, includes freedom after deliberatiely publishing libelous stories that destroy a victim's livelyhood, family, and personal relations. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
"The right to keep and bear arms, by necessity, includes freedom after fatally shooting unamred victims in the back. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
"Freedom of association, by necessity, includes freedom after creating a criminal gang and leading in an ongoing pattern of criminal activity, including murders, robberies, and extortion. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
And so on.
Sorry, the only true part of your claim is that: "In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
Freedom of speech says the government can't make a law blocking you from speeking. It does not mean it can't make it a crime to deliberately or negligently cause harm others using false claims (that you KNOW to be false) as the instrument.
If, instead, the relevant Wiki article had included concrete evidence that Bush and Blair lied to the world for the purpose of controlling the world Mango market, or a leaked internal memo showing the Diebold CEO deliberately made defective machines that gave extra votes to Libertarians - Would we still consider it an "abuse" of free speech, or exactly the reason we need free speech?
IANAL, but as I understand it:
- Truth is an absolute defense against claims of libel.
- The standard to prove libel is higher for "public persons", such as celebrities (who voluntarily chose to make their living from their noteriety) or politicians, than for ordinary citizens. (In particular (if I have this right), negligence is no longer an issue and the plantif must show malace and/or deliberate falsehood.)
- The standards are essentially insurmountable when discussing elected officials or political issues. (Thus pundits, and political opponents, can take cheap shots, repeat outrageous and provable lies for years, or accuse their opponents of their own (but not their opponents) sins, in complete immunity. The effectively only need to answer to the "court of public opinion", not to a court of law.)
Yes, with free speech comes a certain degree of responsibility... On the part of the AUDIENCE. Charlatans and outright liers will always exist, and would even if we didn't have a 1st amendment in the US. Anyone who accepts a single Wiki entry as "proof" of ANYTHING deserves the ridicule they get when more skeptical readers point out the real facts.
The same can be said of the news media, commercial encyclopedias, printed books, scholarly journals, and every human being whose opinions and stories you pay attention to. Different institutions and different individuals deserve different levels of trust. Even the SAME individual or institution deserves different levels of trust on different subjects (or even at different times in their lifetime or history).
If you have a medical question, do you trust your doctor, your lawyer, the head of your IT department, or your auto mechanic when their opinions diverge? If you have a question regarding risk-benefit ratio of gun ownership, do you trust articles in a medical or a criminology journal when THEY diverge? And so on.
But that in no way absoves the author or speaker of THEIR responsibility - especially when they deliberatly construct and publish falsehoods that harm some particular victim.
Being unable to tell the difference between being a member of a Movement, and the playful fiddling with something from its toolkit, is an oddly American myopia.
We have a saying: "By their works shall you know them."
It doesn't make a difference if you're a card-carrying Trot, PL, CP, a pretender, or someone just "playfully fiddling with someting from [their] toolkit". Disrupting an organizational meeting of people trying to deal with a danagerous political problem is a step down the path to tyranny. Advocating making the tyrrany worse is another. They get you equally far regardless of your affiliation or "playfulness" when you take them.
And when people are lining up on the barricades, in courtrooms, or up against a wall, it's only your past actions, not your affiliations, that will influence your location. No one will be interested in WHY you did things, just in WHAT you did.
Congratulations. You've just given us a graphic demonstration of why Trotskites suck.
Promote more of the very thing you hate in order to make the people hurt enough to drive them into revolt? Look at what happened with your own example, prohibition.
The temperance movement got a ban on liquor - a recreational drug with significant downsides. Net effect was to make it more popular and fund the development of organized crime, the BATF, and self-defense bans in the US.
After a decade of horrendous body counts and far larger counts of people injured by adulterated product and gang violence, public pressure finally got the law repealed. But the dead were still dead, the crippled were still crippled, and organized crime is still with us - along with the out of control bureaucracies, which were converted to drug (starting with marijuana) and firearms law enforcement rather than disbanded.
The harm continues, and escalates, to this day, with urban drug gangs and violence, RICOing of drug users' assets, and such debacles as Waco and Ruby Ridge.
All this over the freedom to have a little drink when you party.
Yet you advocate repeating this DELIBERATELY as your solution to restrictions on information technology? A decade of war - or more, since that technology is the main tool of resistance?
Then there's the other thing such groups do: Disrupt any tyranny-resistance organization that isn't doing things THEIR way, in order to take it over if it can be, destroy it if not. Here we have the first meeting of such an organization, and (as is usual for first meetings) it has a lot of disorganization and a heavy sprinkling of well-meaning flakes among the activists. These things generally get sorted out quickly, if proceedings aren't disrupted. So what do you do? When they don't instantly do things your way, you disrupt them.
Congratulations. Maybe you killed it. Maybe you just made it less responsive to popular input. But you certainly aren't getting the problem solved.
Unless the problem is Trotskyites - and other, similar, communist/socialist factions.
That problem you're putting right in people's faces, so they can see what you are.
Back in the '60s we had a saying: "Trots are a case of the slow runs." Thanks for showing us it's true in the naughties as well.
Please note that "TriCore" is a brand name (of Infineon, formerly Siemens Microelectronics).
It is an instruction set architecture (and a set of CPU cores that implement it). It is "Tri" core because it:
1) is a RISC architecture (for high crunch in low footprint) which 2) has instructions and data paths to do DSP work efficiently and 3) has the interrupt / task switching mechanisms to do real-time controller work efficiently, as well.
this gives ASIC designers a core that handles all three major sorts of embedded processing well in one package.
I suggest we stick to "triple core" (as most of the posters so far have) to avoid confusion between a chip with three cores and this branded single core that does three jobs well.
How many people in the study were killed off by high blood pressure before they had the chance to develop cancer?
Good question!
It seems that any industry can produce a study which says their product is healthy/benificial in some way. But they never tell you the adverse health effects. I would not be supprised if the tobacco industry would run a news story saying smoking decreased colon cancer by.0001% in the population. Too bad it would kill 100X as many from lung cancer.
Another problem with such studies is that people who are sick (or sickly) tend to change their eating behavior. Someone with early liver problems may avoid caffiene because it makes them feel bad (or because the doctor says to avoid it and they pay attention). Or they may drink less of it because the failing liver isn't breaking it down as fast, so they don't need as much.
People with liver problems avoiding caffeine will also cause a correlation.
This was a confounding factor that had to be taken into account when the first studies showed low-level alcohol consumption being associated with a lowered heart attack risk. Eventually they did find that there was some actual benefit from (very) moderate drinking (like one glass of wine with each meal). (I'm not sure if they ever did determine how much, if any, of it was from the alcohol and how much was from the red pigment in wine and grape juice, which is a strong antioxidant.)
You're closer to the subject so I assume you're right.
Do you know if you can get statutory damages for things infringed before the registration or only after? (I presume you can't register just to boost the recovery, but it IS a law...)
Let Guido remind you of the nomination criteria: a story has to be pinched from an original blog source, either verbatim or in essence, and no credit / payment given to the original source. This qualifies as plagiarism.
It also qualifies as copyright violation. This is PRECICELY what copyright is for.
Under the Berne convention and laws implementing it, such postings are born copyrighted, notice or no. Verbatim lifting of the entire text, or the bulk of it, is not fair use.
And while a net posting is intended to be read, it's intended to be read on the original site and in its original context. Posting may imply consent for the copying necessary for viewing, network cacheing, linking, and probably indexing and archiving. But it doesn't imply permission to copy it into a commercial (or even non-commercial) news medium without either payment or credit.
When the intent is just to get the news out and such copying would thus be welcomed, the author can explicitly waive his rights or grant additional permissions under stated terms by a footnote license or declaration. (Indeed, such grants are common - Public Domain, open document, quote-with-credit, etc.) In the absense of such a grant, copyright applies full force.
Such an author may receive only small or intangible benefit from his posting in its original place. Such benefits might be reputation, increased public influence, or in increase in traffic to a web site driving advertising revenue or advancing some other purpose of the site. But that doesn't mean copying his material does little damage. If the item is newsworthy and sufficiently well-formed for publication, it is as potentially saleable to news outlets as similar output from a person who makes his living as a reporter. This revenue is denied the author if the publisher simply copies the text without payment - or a reporter passes it off as his own work, receiving his paycheck while the author gets nothing.
Under copyright it is the author's right to demand whatever payment he wants and refuse permission unless agreement is reached. And if a publisher copies his work without permission, it is his right to sue for the damages - including the price he might have reasonably negotiated - and for a statutory minimum if he can't prove a higher amount is due.
Lots of people have been taking this very seriously, well media studies students are taking this seriously.
I should hope the publishers are taking this seriously, too. They're the ones with their necks on the legal block. Every winner of this award (and every nominee) is a potential loser of a big lawsuit. And if the first one isn't open-and-shut, once it's one the rest will be.
The irony, of course, is that it's the same media corporations that make such a screech about "piracy" of their entertainment content that operate the publications where this infringement is taking place. If they don't want to be hoist on their own petard they need to do some serious housecleaning among their own operations.
= = = = =
And before the peanut gallery opens up with some snide comments claiming hypocracy on the part of slashdot posters, let me point out a few things:
1) I'm not stating a personal opinion about what's RIGHT in the above. I'm just pointing out my understanding of the CURRENT LAW. (Note: IANAL.)
2) The posters on this forum, and the members of movements commonly associated with it, are individuals with varying opinions. And there are multiple groups with differing consensus opinions hanging out here as well. Different posters with different opinions do not make the forum hypocritical.
3) "Intellectual Property" (government limitations on ideas, their expression, and their use) is not a unified all-or-nothing issue. There are a host of component parts. (Examples: Copyright versus patent. Length of protection. Extent of protection (what constitutes "fair use"). What is covered (software, "look-and-feel", public performance, N-note-
The Geneva Convention applies to prisoners of war who were fighting in uniform, identifying themselves properly, are under orders of an identifiable authority that can negotiate an end to hostilities, attack military targets while avoiding indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations. (And there are a number of other qualifications.)
It does NOT apply to those who attack in disguise - unmarked as military or marked as some OTHER faction, indiscriminately kill up unarmed civilians, or do a number of other things that are outside the bounds of "civilized warfare".
It does this deliberately, to create an incentive for those engaged in war to do so in a conventional manner rather than via terrorism.
This is not an excuse for torture or indefinite incommunicado incarceration. But complaining that (alleged) terrorist internees are not being treated according to the convention merely shows that the complainer does not understand the convention.
(2) Arm yourself under the protections of the 2nd amendments. We're allowed guns [...] also to protect ourselves from domestic threats (meaning from within our borders.) If and when our government has become so corrupt that reform through the ballot boxes is impossible, then it is time to turn to the ammo boxes.
The fallacy of this argument is obvious when you look at the enormous political clout the NRA weilds. Politicians are terrified of them. Why? Not because the members are armed with pistols, deer rifles, AR-15s and the occasional.50-caliber sniper rifle. Because their actually show up and vote based on issues that matter to them instead of sound-bites and advertisements.
The argument is, IMHO, not falicious. But it is incomplete.
Most crimes stopped by a victim with a gun are stopped because the victim showed himself to be armed, not because he actually fired it. The latter is extremely rare.
Similarly, guns in the hands of the populace aren't just useful against budding tyrannies when things degenerate into a shooting war. They also serve as a deterrent to keep them from getting that far. (Much as nuclear bombs and the doctrine of "Mutual Assured Destruction" apparently held off WW III through the rise and fall of the Soviet Union.)
When a disarmed population, politicians bent on subjugating it can get directly to business. With an armed population they must first disarm it, or risk a bloody and costly war that, even if they win, would leave them with a much less valuable conquest (and may make them open to conquest from outside while they are at war internally). They also risk death from assasination or "collateral damage" in such conflicts, and loss of their position and/or power base as a result of either the conflict itself or the electorate's perception that they precipitated it.
Thus politicians have a strong incentive to achieve their goals by persuation rather than conquest - and to scale them back to what can be achieved without flouting the law badly enough to precipitate a civil war.
(There is a story that, during the Vietnam unrest and its rhetoric of revolution, Nixon actually commissioned the Rand Corporation to do a study on what would happen if elections were suspended. And that Rand reported the armed segment of the population would take that as an indication that the government WAS out of control, would precipitate the very revolution the war protestors constantly talked about, and that they were strong enough that the government would lose.)
Regardless of whether the above story is true, there are a lot of people who take abrogation of the 2nd Amendment as the litmus test. These people tend to be heavily armed - often sufficiently that one household could arm everyone else on their block - and a great number of them are current- or ex-military people who take their oath to the constitution with deadly seriousness.
Thus moves to disarm a populace must be done over decades of incrementalism rather than quickly. (In the US the government disarmament of its population has roots in the aftermath of the Civil War. But it didn't really get its direction straight until 1934 or start gaining major momentum until 1968).
One thing people fail to understand is the sheer SIZE of the US. There are COUNTIES here larger than most European COUNTRIES - with extremely sparse populations. The US spans a CONTINENT.
(It's hard to understand this when looking at maps, because maps are rescaled so the region of interest fits on a page. Thus you have things like the Japaese auto execs who couldn't get a flight into Detroit Metro for their meeting, looked at a map, saw how "close" Ohare was, got a flight there, rented a car, and drove ALL DAY trying to make their meeting. Look at a globe. Or pay attention to the scale and make sketches - or use graphic tools to resize - to a common scale.)
Government price-gouging will only reduce gasoline consumption - very slightly - by drivig people out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
Amendment 2 says that copyrights are excluded, "except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."
SCO is hoping to use this vague wording to override the clear wording of the original contract. They're claiming that the conditional clause has been met and that all the copyrights should be transferred. Novell is going to argue that SCO doesn't need the copyright to exercise their rights "with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies".
What does it mean to "own" a technology? Does that not include the right to keep others from using it without entering agreements and paying to do so? Is that not EXACTLY what the copyright is, when it comes to cloning the code itself or making modified versions of it?
It's easy to see how SCO executives could read that line as giving them the copyrights necessary to support their suits. It's also easy to see how they could read the addition of that wording to the contract by the amendment to be EXACTLY clarifying this issue in their favor.
If you'd just paid Novell a few million to get them to sign such a contract "selling you the Unix business", or taken a high corporate office in a company that had done so, wouldn't YOU think that's what it meant?
Think about it: There's no reason for the words to be there unless they transfer SOME copyrights and trademarks. The only thing that's vuage is WHICH ones they transfer. If SCO is in a suit claiming it owns "UNIX technology" and somebody else is improperly using it without permission or payment, doesn't it imply that the copyrights to whatever parts they're claiming infringement on are "required for SCO to exercise its rights" by winning the suit?
IMHO somebody at Novell slipped up if they signed that amendment believing it didn't transfer copyrights - at least those necessary to support their suits - to SCO. (If they honestly believed that, a lot may depend on which side proposed the wording.)
Also IMHO, just to be safe, the maintainers of linux - and other open software - should be prepared for the courts to accept SCO's arguments on the copyright ownership issue and should stay squeaky-clean by avoiding inclusion of any code that was in UNIX prior to 9/19/1995 (or even 10/18/1966) or derived from such code, unless they can trace it to something that was clearly incorporated into UNIX from some other source or released publically some other way (such as the BSD settlement).
Novell contracted with SCO to manage the UNIX licensing, but did not transfer the ownership of the Copyrights.
The part of the agreement that said Novell kept the copyrights and other IP said something to the effect that the IP rights were not transferred EXCEPT as necessary for SCO/Caldera/whatever to enforce their rights under the contract. (The actual text was posted on (or linked from) groklaw a while back but I can't find it just now. If anybody knows a URL for it, or has the paragraph in question, please followup with it.)
As I read it, SCO counted on that exception to give them the Unix copyrights, or enough of them to back their anti-linux suits. Novell thought they still owned the copyrights, and said so. So now SCO is suing Novell for failing to perform on their contract by transfering enough copyrights to support their suits.
It's easy to see how the SCO execs could think they're in the right - especially back when they started. Now they have a tiger by the tail. At this point they HAVE to continue trying to enforce their interpretation, because the company (and their careers) will collapse if they give up. They'll be better off even if they lose.
Gah. Missed the "preview" button. B-( ... on the rount from the handheld "phone" make that "on the route".
... It wouldn't take many people ... to make Mr Executive a bundle, would it?
On the other hand, there are executives betting a lot of moneyt that there ARE people who will want this
Especially since many of these executives are bell heads who have been having their lunch eaten by VoIP and cellphone services - and need a new product to avoid bankruptcy.
Maybe they're just frantically grabbing at flotsam as their ship sinks. Or maybe they've found their lifeboat. (Or a way to eat somebody ELSE's lunch - say, that of the media conglomerates.)
why-would-i-listen-to-the-radio-on-my-phone
Why would I listen to the radio on my phone? Because I want to listen to a particular station and can't get it any other way.
I have done this a lot, since 1967 or so:
- The campus carrier current station had a bundle of leased lines available to feed the audio to students that had moved out of the dorms. They were leased by frat houses, individual student fans or groups of them, and station engineers that were no longer in dorms but neeced to monitor the station. (I lucked out and didn't have to pay for mine, since another ex-engineer was living next door and let me string a wire to tap his.)
- Sometimes a station I can't get with a program I want to hear has station moitor audio feeding "music on hold" - and I'll call in and be put on hold to hear the program.
- I've used the internet to listen to feeds from stations far away similarly. Sometimes a syndicated program is so politically incorrect that nobody in the area will carry it - but it's streaming on stations in other parts of the country. Sometimes I'm in a place (like inside an office building) where the signal won't reach. Why use a multi-grand desktop to listen? Because it's there, and alternatives aren't.
And of course I'll use my cellphone for this - in preference to a landline phone, leased line, or DSL bandwidth - if I'm moving, or if it's a toll call. (My cell plan has all-you-can-eat free nights and weekends.)
Why would I want to watch a video on my phone?
Why would I want to watch a movie or a video on my laptop? Because it's more convenient when on-the-go than watching it on my TV. Why would I want to do it on my (cell)phone? Because it's more convenient than my laptop - by an order of magnitude.
Why would I want to put a telephone application on my expensive desktop or laptop computer?
A) Because I have the expensive desktop or laptop computer for other reasons, whether I use it for a phone or not, and the online phone service is cheaper than a standalone phone subscription.
B) Because I can't get some functionality any other way - at least for a reasonable price.
(Example: Full-function PBX, with hundreds of extensions fed from a handfull of trunklines, and other "value added" features like follow-me, call forwarding, conference calling, three-way/consult calling, menu systems, etc. Rent it from the local Bell for a bundle, buy it and a service contract from another vendor for a smaller bundle, or install an open-source application and a cheap phone-interface card in a commodity desktop. Guess which I'd chose for my next startup in garage-shop phase...)
But all of this begs the underlying issue:
This is the start of the long-touted "convergence" - when all communication:
- two-way audio (voice phone calls and two-way radio)
- two-way audio/video (videoconferencing)
- N-way audio and audio/video (conference calls)
- Broadcast audio
- Broadcast audio/video
- Remote computer access.
- Computer/computer communication
and a bunch of others, both wired and wireless, converge into a single unified network. As this proceeds the terminals for humans (short of implants) are converging into just three major forms:
- A fixed-location device (the convergence of the desktop computer, settop network box, video/audio recorder, TV, and HIFI into a "media center").
- The laptop (a large-format portable).
- The handheld (a small-format portable).
One way to get to the full-function handheld is to add voice to a computer-only handheld/tablet (i.e. the Blackberry). The other is to add functionality to a cellphone. Adding entertainment broadcast (TV, Radio), narrowcast (XM-like subscriptions), and unicast (video/audio on-demand) functionality is a logical early step on the rount from the handheld "phone". It may be saleable as a "bundled unit" until replaced by so
Wow, I didn't realize any of the Feds still cared about Commies any more.
The Maoists caused a LOT of trouble in the '60s and '70s - as did other anti-government factions.
The number of terrorist actions - bombings, riots, sabotage - in that era dwarfed anything on the domestic front in the current "war on terror" - with the exception of the single large hit on New York.
The "little red book" weilding mobs were very photogenic and very effective at taking over other groups. While it's not entirely clear how many (if any) of the bomings and the like they actually committed, they got credit for much of them.
There's definitely a major major threat that college students reading Mao's Red Book are going to go out and start peasant revolutions [...]
A thing to remember about communist revolutionaries in the US (and most developed countries): Regardless of the rhetoric they're not farmers, or city kids who go out an organize farmers. They're primarily children of the affluent, with time on their hands and elitism in their minds. The memes of revolution are attractive to them, and they think they know what's good for "the workers" and that the workers are "unenlightened" (and - though unsaid - unintelligent) victims of "false consciousness".
So they don't waste time actually trying to organize "the pesants". Instead they go out and commit the violence all by themselves.
Fortunately they tend to blow themselves up, too, which limits their effectiveness.
Meanwhile, it does not surprise me in the slightest that the Department of Internal Security would consider the Little Red Book to be a little red spore. Each book would appear to them as a live-but-encysted instance of the violence-generating ideology that blew up schools and research institutions in the mid-century and killed tens of millions in China. A spore that's just waiting to sprout in the heads of another generation of college kids with money in their pockets and time on their hands.
Which is not to excuse them. But just to understand them. They're charged with stopping this stuff from getting far enough along to be blowing up buildings. Don't be surprised if they decide that keeping it from getting started at all is a safer and more effective way to do that than to wait until the latest clone of the Weather Underground is planting a bomb.
While putting the output of the steam system onto the crankshaft makes for an easy upgrade, you can do better.
The crank is the wrong place to put it. Unlike otto and diesel cycles engines (which have no low-end torque and die if you stall them), steam engines have LOTS of low-end torque.
So a better use for it might be to couple the turbine to a modified tranny, giving it its own path to the wheels and its own set of gear ratios. Then it can provide an efficient assist for accelleration from stop, as well as recover the waste heat.
The gain might not be worth it. (Certainly not now, since it would make the efficiency upgrade more expensive and that upgrade is a VERY productive thing.) But it's something to examine for the next major redesign of the power train.
You can't take heat from the catalytic converter because that heat is required to catalyze the gasses.
But you CAN take the heat out of the gas coming OUT of the catalytic converter. (Good place to do it, too, since there's a tad more heat than before the gas went in, and cooling the input would keep the cat from doing its job.)
Paying more for premium bits is something that will have to happen some day (economically speaking). If you don't like the price you switch IPs. If you don't want to stream HTDV because it uses to many bits then buy the DVD.
But don't be surprised if there are ISP plans that include some amount of high-quality bits in the flat rate - like enough for one, or a handfull, of voice / streaming audio channels. And maybe even an inbound video link or several, from particular servers (or the company's own or an affiliate's.)
Like your flat-rate "anytime minutes" on your cellphone plan, it makes sense for the company to include enough for a phone or two rather than counting all the minutes.
Similarly, it can double as a cable/satellite TV replacement by providing an IP pipe for one or a small number of set-top boxes playing MPEG streams selected by you - from multicast groups (for "broadcast" programming) or personalized unicast (for "video on demand".) Your settop box tells the router what channel you're watching, so they only have to send you the packets you want, and they travel on their own pipes from their own servers - both sized for the load - so there's no revenue divvying with the other network players.
(With only the selected channels coming at you, fiber to the curb and ADSL2+ down the copper to the house has adequate bandwidth to replace cable.)
No single company has the money to invest or support a seperate Internet over the long run. There are too many ISPs and backbone providers competing in the open market.
You misunderstand the issue.
This is not about creating a separate internet. This is about giving some packets priority over others in a single transport - and the regulated transport operator being able to assign their OWN packets to the higher priority - and to include others' packets for an extra fee, when contracted to do so.
No "second network" creation at all. Just first-class and coach-class packets. (Actually: Packets with confirmed reservations and packets "flying standby" or in "overbooked seating".)
This sounds unfair. But actually, it's an economic necessity to enable a technical necessity.
Normally, IP packets get best effort service. They're forwarded if there's bandwidth for them. But when there's a traffic jam packets are randomly picked to be dropped.
This works FINE when there's lots more transport available than packets to use it. And for things like file transfers and terminal sessions it's still OK when things get tight: The TCP layer sits on top of IP, detecting the lost packets, retrying them, and throttling back until traffic flows smoothly through the traffic jam. Your data gets through - but slowed down to fairly "share the road".
But for real-time things like real-time voice and video, retry takes too long, causing stops-and-starts, stuttering, echos, and a host of quality issues. (Even the delay necessary to insert slop to handle the hole-filling is a horrible problem in two-way communication.) Yet not retrying makes holes in the stream that have to be filled in by guess - and losing information when too many packets are dropped.
IP had hooks to let you flag packets for special handling when needed. (They're the Type of Service (ToS) bits - intended to indicate what aspects of scheduling are important to the packets, intended to be mapped into Quality of Service (QoS) - how the scheduling decisions are made.)
But protocol stacks have already cheated. (Notably Microsoft, which released an IP stack that improved its own performance by lying about the traffic's requirements - giving its packets priority over others that were more truthful.) With many cheaters deployed the ISPs and backbones just don't honor the ToS bits, or rewrite them at their own edges - to their own specs - when they do. (Thus, now that Microsoft wants to get into VoIP they find their past behavior hosed themselves. B-) And everybody else. B-( ) But even if ToS were honored and used honorably, there are no guarantees. So too many calls through a network node and they'd all deteriorate.
Telcos write service contracts that guarantee performance levels for their phone calls - or for customers (like radio and television networks) that require reliable transport. High probability of establishing a connection (for dynamic things like phone calls), still higher performance guarantees once one is established. If they want to turn the call into packets and ship it over a shared IP backbone while still meeting the guarantees, the VoIP / stream packets themselves must have guarantees higher than "best effort". In particular they require virtual certainty of delivery and tight control of transit time variations. That means they must have higher priority than the competing packets that are doing less time-critical stuff (such as file transfer). Fortunately, VoIP streams are low and essentially constant bandwidth, so they can just reserve a tiny fraction of the bandwidth for them. (Video streams are 'way bigger - but not as transient. So you can design in bandwidth for them.)
But if some packets are given priority over others, they have higher claim on system resources. They can bump other traffic. So it's appropriate to charge them extra for the privilege. (It's the same case as flying with a confirmed reservation vs. standby.) The bandwidth on the network l
It also has a third FFT length intermediate between the two available for DVB-T.
The long one (8K) has less doppler immunity and is bad for moving vehicles. The short one (2K) has great doppler resistance but burns the same bandwidth (and thus more in proportion to payload) in terminal repeats between symbols and thus is less bandwidth (and burst-mode receiver power) efficient. DVB-H adds a third, middle-sized option (4K) that splits the difference, resulting in a better tradeoff for handhelds.
Downside: If you pick 4K you can't share the transmitter with DVB-T channels.
The problem with DVB-H, at least in the UK, is that there is no radio frequency left for the signals. The only spare band that might come up is from the analogue TV switch off but thats not for another five years.
DVB-H can share transmitters/multiplexers with DVB-T (the corresponding standard for non-portable digital TV sets) (though it's not as efficient and flexible as dedicated cells).
IPv4 has some design limitations. IPv6 will address many of those problems, and the networks (and countries) that use that system will have competitive advantage.
IPv6 has some problems, too.
A big one is that some of the fast hacks for routing table lookups don't scale to the bigger addresses. So (absent a breakthrough in hacks) you have to do more brute force work (or switch to slower hacks). Which means you need to throw more instructions at each packet. Which means you need more processing power in the networking boxes - the core routers, edge routers, and BRAS boxes.
You need more than just a software upgrade if you still want to do everything ELSE that you're doing to the packets. You need more processing power per unit of bandwidth. More processors and faster clocks in the packet processor chips. More and faster memory. More of a balancing act if you have to distribute a stream across multiple processors - and greater likelyhood you'll have to do that. And so on.
That's just to stay even, in ADDITION to any multiplier for providing additional services.
So what you're asking the ISPs to do is replace the old routers with newer, faster, more power-hungry devices - when the old ones were doing just fine. There's no value proposition for them to do so until, for some other reason than "being nice", they HAVE to do it. It's a competitive market with tight margins. First guy to break from the pack incurs a big expense and gets squeezed out if his competition can continue with IPv4 and undercut him.
It gets done in Japan and some other countries because they're setting up for lots of mobile devices, and expect to need lots of address space to handle them (and simplify handing them off between base stations). They DON'T expect to be able to get enough IPv4 addresses to handle it after a year or two, so there's no point in deploying IPv4-only boxes just to tear them out before they really get rolling.
In the US - expect IPv6 to be deployed first as a network internal thing for particular carriers catering to mobile users (cellphone, IPTV, and the like) as they work their way through "the convergence". At some point there will be a tipping, where some killer app needs IPv6 support exposed to the users, and carriers providing it will start eating the lunch (and customer base) of those that don't. Then it becomes "change or die" for the rest.
With rights come responsibilities. They are intrinsically linked and inseparable. The problems come when people believe there is, or should be, no relationship between them.
Very close, but no cigar.
Responsibilities come with ACTIONS (including incactions) and the CHOICES to commit them.
They come with what you DID with your ABILITIES, regardless of whether you had the abilities due to the exercise of some recognized right, or whether the action you performed was one you had a recognized right to perform.
It's a nit - but an important one. The formulation "With rights come responsibilities." helps fuel movements to pass laws abrogating rights.
The problem is that many people believe that actions - including speech - shouldn't have consequences.
Freedom of speech, by necessity, includes freedom after speech. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity.
Let's see what happens with that claim if applied to other rights:
"Freedom of religion, by necessity, includes freedom after sacrificing a captured non-believer. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
"Freedom of the press, by necessity, includes freedom after deliberatiely publishing libelous stories that destroy a victim's livelyhood, family, and personal relations. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
"The right to keep and bear arms, by necessity, includes freedom after fatally shooting unamred victims in the back. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
"Freedom of association, by necessity, includes freedom after creating a criminal gang and leading in an ongoing pattern of criminal activity, including murders, robberies, and extortion. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
And so on.
Sorry, the only true part of your claim is that: "In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
Freedom of speech says the government can't make a law blocking you from speeking. It does not mean it can't make it a crime to deliberately or negligently cause harm others using false claims (that you KNOW to be false) as the instrument.
If, instead, the relevant Wiki article had included concrete evidence that Bush and Blair lied to the world for the purpose of controlling the world Mango market, or a leaked internal memo showing the Diebold CEO deliberately made defective machines that gave extra votes to Libertarians - Would we still consider it an "abuse" of free speech, or exactly the reason we need free speech?
IANAL, but as I understand it:
- Truth is an absolute defense against claims of libel.
- The standard to prove libel is higher for "public persons", such as celebrities (who voluntarily chose to make their living from their noteriety) or politicians, than for ordinary citizens. (In particular (if I have this right), negligence is no longer an issue and the plantif must show malace and/or deliberate falsehood.)
- The standards are essentially insurmountable when discussing elected officials or political issues. (Thus pundits, and political opponents, can take cheap shots, repeat outrageous and provable lies for years, or accuse their opponents of their own (but not their opponents) sins, in complete immunity. The effectively only need to answer to the "court of public opinion", not to a court of law.)
Yes, with free speech comes a certain degree of responsibility... On the part of the AUDIENCE. Charlatans and outright liers will always exist, and would even if we didn't have a 1st amendment in the US. Anyone who accepts a single Wiki entry as "proof" of ANYTHING deserves the ridicule they get when more skeptical readers point out the real facts.
The same can be said of the news media, commercial encyclopedias, printed books, scholarly journals, and every human being whose opinions and stories you pay attention to. Different institutions and different individuals deserve different levels of trust. Even the SAME individual or institution deserves different levels of trust on different subjects (or even at different times in their lifetime or history).
If you have a medical question, do you trust your doctor, your lawyer, the head of your IT department, or your auto mechanic when their opinions diverge? If you have a question regarding risk-benefit ratio of gun ownership, do you trust articles in a medical or a criminology journal when THEY diverge? And so on.
But that in no way absoves the author or speaker of THEIR responsibility - especially when they deliberatly construct and publish falsehoods that harm some particular victim.
Being unable to tell the difference between being a member of a Movement, and the playful fiddling with something from its toolkit, is an oddly American myopia.
We have a saying: "By their works shall you know them."
It doesn't make a difference if you're a card-carrying Trot, PL, CP, a pretender, or someone just "playfully fiddling with someting from [their] toolkit". Disrupting an organizational meeting of people trying to deal with a danagerous political problem is a step down the path to tyranny. Advocating making the tyrrany worse is another. They get you equally far regardless of your affiliation or "playfulness" when you take them.
And when people are lining up on the barricades, in courtrooms, or up against a wall, it's only your past actions, not your affiliations, that will influence your location. No one will be interested in WHY you did things, just in WHAT you did.
This is NOT a game.
Congratulations. You've just given us a graphic demonstration of why Trotskites suck.
Promote more of the very thing you hate in order to make the people hurt enough to drive them into revolt? Look at what happened with your own example, prohibition.
The temperance movement got a ban on liquor - a recreational drug with significant downsides. Net effect was to make it more popular and fund the development of organized crime, the BATF, and self-defense bans in the US.
After a decade of horrendous body counts and far larger counts of people injured by adulterated product and gang violence, public pressure finally got the law repealed. But the dead were still dead, the crippled were still crippled, and organized crime is still with us - along with the out of control bureaucracies, which were converted to drug (starting with marijuana) and firearms law enforcement rather than disbanded.
The harm continues, and escalates, to this day, with urban drug gangs and violence, RICOing of drug users' assets, and such debacles as Waco and Ruby Ridge.
All this over the freedom to have a little drink when you party.
Yet you advocate repeating this DELIBERATELY as your solution to restrictions on information technology? A decade of war - or more, since that technology is the main tool of resistance?
Then there's the other thing such groups do: Disrupt any tyranny-resistance organization that isn't doing things THEIR way, in order to take it over if it can be, destroy it if not. Here we have the first meeting of such an organization, and (as is usual for first meetings) it has a lot of disorganization and a heavy sprinkling of well-meaning flakes among the activists. These things generally get sorted out quickly, if proceedings aren't disrupted. So what do you do? When they don't instantly do things your way, you disrupt them.
Congratulations. Maybe you killed it. Maybe you just made it less responsive to popular input. But you certainly aren't getting the problem solved.
Unless the problem is Trotskyites - and other, similar, communist/socialist factions.
That problem you're putting right in people's faces, so they can see what you are.
Back in the '60s we had a saying: "Trots are a case of the slow runs." Thanks for showing us it's true in the naughties as well.
Please note that "TriCore" is a brand name (of Infineon, formerly Siemens Microelectronics).
It is an instruction set architecture (and a set of CPU cores that implement it). It is "Tri" core because it:
1) is a RISC architecture (for high crunch in low footprint) which
2) has instructions and data paths to do DSP work efficiently and
3) has the interrupt / task switching mechanisms to do real-time controller work efficiently, as well.
this gives ASIC designers a core that handles all three major sorts of embedded processing well in one package.
I suggest we stick to "triple core" (as most of the posters so far have) to avoid confusion between a chip with three cores and this branded single core that does three jobs well.
How many people in the study were killed off by high blood pressure before they had the chance to develop cancer?
.0001% in the population. Too bad it would kill 100X as many from lung cancer.
Good question!
It seems that any industry can produce a study which says their product is healthy/benificial in some way. But they never tell you the adverse health effects. I would not be supprised if the tobacco industry would run a news story saying smoking decreased colon cancer by
Another problem with such studies is that people who are sick (or sickly) tend to change their eating behavior. Someone with early liver problems may avoid caffiene because it makes them feel bad (or because the doctor says to avoid it and they pay attention). Or they may drink less of it because the failing liver isn't breaking it down as fast, so they don't need as much.
People with liver problems avoiding caffeine will also cause a correlation.
This was a confounding factor that had to be taken into account when the first studies showed low-level alcohol consumption being associated with a lowered heart attack risk. Eventually they did find that there was some actual benefit from (very) moderate drinking (like one glass of wine with each meal). (I'm not sure if they ever did determine how much, if any, of it was from the alcohol and how much was from the red pigment in wine and grape juice, which is a strong antioxidant.)
You're closer to the subject so I assume you're right.
Do you know if you can get statutory damages for things infringed before the registration or only after? (I presume you can't register just to boost the recovery, but it IS a law...)
I've noticed latele that my spelling goes more phonetic (FONETIC! B-) ) when I'm in a hurry.
Age symptom perhaps? Or one of the effects that leads to spelling and gramatic regularization?
Let Guido remind you of the nomination criteria: a story has to be pinched from an original blog source, either verbatim or in essence, and no credit / payment given to the original source. This qualifies as plagiarism.
It also qualifies as copyright violation. This is PRECICELY what copyright is for.
Under the Berne convention and laws implementing it, such postings are born copyrighted, notice or no. Verbatim lifting of the entire text, or the bulk of it, is not fair use.
And while a net posting is intended to be read, it's intended to be read on the original site and in its original context. Posting may imply consent for the copying necessary for viewing, network cacheing, linking, and probably indexing and archiving. But it doesn't imply permission to copy it into a commercial (or even non-commercial) news medium without either payment or credit.
When the intent is just to get the news out and such copying would thus be welcomed, the author can explicitly waive his rights or grant additional permissions under stated terms by a footnote license or declaration. (Indeed, such grants are common - Public Domain, open document, quote-with-credit, etc.) In the absense of such a grant, copyright applies full force.
Such an author may receive only small or intangible benefit from his posting in its original place. Such benefits might be reputation, increased public influence, or in increase in traffic to a web site driving advertising revenue or advancing some other purpose of the site. But that doesn't mean copying his material does little damage. If the item is newsworthy and sufficiently well-formed for publication, it is as potentially saleable to news outlets as similar output from a person who makes his living as a reporter. This revenue is denied the author if the publisher simply copies the text without payment - or a reporter passes it off as his own work, receiving his paycheck while the author gets nothing.
Under copyright it is the author's right to demand whatever payment he wants and refuse permission unless agreement is reached. And if a publisher copies his work without permission, it is his right to sue for the damages - including the price he might have reasonably negotiated - and for a statutory minimum if he can't prove a higher amount is due.
Lots of people have been taking this very seriously, well media studies students are taking this seriously.
I should hope the publishers are taking this seriously, too. They're the ones with their necks on the legal block. Every winner of this award (and every nominee) is a potential loser of a big lawsuit. And if the first one isn't open-and-shut, once it's one the rest will be.
The irony, of course, is that it's the same media corporations that make such a screech about "piracy" of their entertainment content that operate the publications where this infringement is taking place. If they don't want to be hoist on their own petard they need to do some serious housecleaning among their own operations.
= = = = =
And before the peanut gallery opens up with some snide comments claiming hypocracy on the part of slashdot posters, let me point out a few things:
1) I'm not stating a personal opinion about what's RIGHT in the above. I'm just pointing out my understanding of the CURRENT LAW. (Note: IANAL.)
2) The posters on this forum, and the members of movements commonly associated with it, are individuals with varying opinions. And there are multiple groups with differing consensus opinions hanging out here as well. Different posters with different opinions do not make the forum hypocritical.
3) "Intellectual Property" (government limitations on ideas, their expression, and their use) is not a unified all-or-nothing issue. There are a host of component parts. (Examples: Copyright versus patent. Length of protection. Extent of protection (what constitutes "fair use"). What is covered (software, "look-and-feel", public performance, N-note-
The Geneva Convention applies to prisoners of war who were fighting in uniform, identifying themselves properly, are under orders of an identifiable authority that can negotiate an end to hostilities, attack military targets while avoiding indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations. (And there are a number of other qualifications.)
It does NOT apply to those who attack in disguise - unmarked as military or marked as some OTHER faction, indiscriminately kill up unarmed civilians, or do a number of other things that are outside the bounds of "civilized warfare".
It does this deliberately, to create an incentive for those engaged in war to do so in a conventional manner rather than via terrorism.
This is not an excuse for torture or indefinite incommunicado incarceration. But complaining that (alleged) terrorist internees are not being treated according to the convention merely shows that the complainer does not understand the convention.
(2) Arm yourself under the protections of the 2nd amendments. We're allowed guns [...] also to protect ourselves from domestic threats (meaning from within our borders.) If and when our government has become so corrupt that reform through the ballot boxes is impossible, then it is time to turn to the ammo boxes.
.50-caliber sniper rifle. Because their actually show up and vote based on issues that matter to them instead of sound-bites and advertisements.
The fallacy of this argument is obvious when you look at the enormous political clout the NRA weilds. Politicians are terrified of them. Why? Not because the members are armed with pistols, deer rifles, AR-15s and the occasional
The argument is, IMHO, not falicious. But it is incomplete.
Most crimes stopped by a victim with a gun are stopped because the victim showed himself to be armed, not because he actually fired it. The latter is extremely rare.
Similarly, guns in the hands of the populace aren't just useful against budding tyrannies when things degenerate into a shooting war. They also serve as a deterrent to keep them from getting that far. (Much as nuclear bombs and the doctrine of "Mutual Assured Destruction" apparently held off WW III through the rise and fall of the Soviet Union.)
When a disarmed population, politicians bent on subjugating it can get directly to business. With an armed population they must first disarm it, or risk a bloody and costly war that, even if they win, would leave them with a much less valuable conquest (and may make them open to conquest from outside while they are at war internally). They also risk death from assasination or "collateral damage" in such conflicts, and loss of their position and/or power base as a result of either the conflict itself or the electorate's perception that they precipitated it.
Thus politicians have a strong incentive to achieve their goals by persuation rather than conquest - and to scale them back to what can be achieved without flouting the law badly enough to precipitate a civil war.
(There is a story that, during the Vietnam unrest and its rhetoric of revolution, Nixon actually commissioned the Rand Corporation to do a study on what would happen if elections were suspended. And that Rand reported the armed segment of the population would take that as an indication that the government WAS out of control, would precipitate the very revolution the war protestors constantly talked about, and that they were strong enough that the government would lose.)
Regardless of whether the above story is true, there are a lot of people who take abrogation of the 2nd Amendment as the litmus test. These people tend to be heavily armed - often sufficiently that one household could arm everyone else on their block - and a great number of them are current- or ex-military people who take their oath to the constitution with deadly seriousness.
Thus moves to disarm a populace must be done over decades of incrementalism rather than quickly. (In the US the government disarmament of its population has roots in the aftermath of the Civil War. But it didn't really get its direction straight until 1934 or start gaining major momentum until 1968).
One thing people fail to understand is the sheer SIZE of the US. There are COUNTIES here larger than most European COUNTRIES - with extremely sparse populations. The US spans a CONTINENT.
(It's hard to understand this when looking at maps, because maps are rescaled so the region of interest fits on a page. Thus you have things like the Japaese auto execs who couldn't get a flight into Detroit Metro for their meeting, looked at a map, saw how "close" Ohare was, got a flight there, rented a car, and drove ALL DAY trying to make their meeting. Look at a globe. Or pay attention to the scale and make sketches - or use graphic tools to resize - to a common scale.)
Government price-gouging will only reduce gasoline consumption - very slightly - by drivig people out of business.
Pellet stoves even WITHOUT catalytic converters are very clean.