Where Clint Eastwood is an assassin out to kill a mountain climber. He doesn't know which one to kill. So everyone dies in an accident on the north face (except for Clint). This is my guess as to why MS chose the name "Eiger."
It is becoming increasingly common for legislators try to get any bill passed, no matter the constitutionality of it.
Between the defense of marriage act earlier today and this, I am just so disgusted with the whole lot of them.
With the betamax decision, it was ruled that it is ok to make personal copies of tv shows. It is logical that the same could be said of recorders of CDs to MP3s or (preferably) OGG or FLAC.
So now Hatch comes up with a bill that would do nothing but tie up the courts (after causing pause to innovators) until it is ruled unconstitutional and we are back where we started.
Then Hatch comes up with practically the same bill all over again, and the process continues ad infinitum (sigh)
Las Vegas recently hosted the American Association of Airport Executives and briefed the group on the RFID baggage system, mentioning agreements with some casinos to work with the airports in handling baggage. Note I am an airport planner in real life, but not affiliated with Las Vegas airport.
IOW, if you have to check out of the hotel at 11 a.m. but have a 9 p.m. flight, that's a long time to hold onto your luggage. The hotel takes care of it, getting it to the airport, so you don't see it until the baggage carousel at your final destination.
Eventually (my opinion, not necessarily the airport), it will work both ways, where you check in the baggage at the beginning of your "airport experience" and don't see the baggage again until you reach your hotel. This is especially great if you have a business meeting first before checking in. It could all be tied into the ordering of tickets online (pick airline, hotel, rental car, etc). Checking on luggage status is as easy as using the internet (much like you can track packages).
The technology exists to more easily "unburden" the air traveler and make their travel more pleasurable (and a profit to be made for this extra service).
Those that are worried about privacy should note that RFID tags will only show the location of the last scan, not the contents. Are your worried about the privacy of the package you ordered from Amazon.com, or do you like the fact that you know it was scanned locally at 6 this morning and no worries?
Would be to have a new company come along and actually produce something new rather than recycle old and existing ideas.
Great idea. And I think this goes to Cringely's idea of a supertanker turning.
MS has lots of available cash and (allegedly) tremendous R&D. However, they are all MS employees operating under a common assumption. They know only one way of doing (and programming) things. Look at their file system that needs to be defragged on a regular basis, while the Mac and Unix file systems didn't need defragging 20 years ago.
Why? Because MS will not throw away code for something better. Their file system has problems, so rather then replace the inefficient file system, they created a defrag program and declared the problem solved. Their tendency to put everything into the OS creates problems where an upgrade to one (former application) creates problems for other applications dependent upon the mix of cludged APIs as well as the OS.
All this slows down the programming culture to look for the cheapest solution or quick fix, rather than spending the time and money to do it right.
Linux programmers work for a myriad of companies, are hobbyists, exist among different corporate and government cultures allowing new ideas to go into linux, and quickly. Of course MS will have to take concepts from linux to improve windows, and Linux programmers will take concepts (not code) from Windows to improve Linux. That's a win win situation. But Linux programmers also have the advantage of not being part of a monoculture, even though they are writing for one OS. This is a Win/Lose situation for Linux and MS respectively.
The linux "ship" is already much faster and more nimble against the MS "supertanker" as the MS XP2E is canceled and Longhorne is being stripped to meet the 2006 date. If MS wins, it won't be because of programming, it will be the result of business practices. And what does Linux lose, nothing,it just doesn't gain market dominance. Oh well, that hasn't stopped the maturation of Linux.
(Just the opinion of a non programmer, but Linux user)
The other thing to think about is the declining dollar, which increases overseas costs to american countries.
Using the Euro for example which increased by 19% in 2003, that means the USA would pay 19% more for European goods (unless they did something like lower their prices) than they would for the same goods one year before.
The tire itself would not be part of the wheel (motor) assembly.
I imagine that in order to protect the motor, there would be a (pre-inflated) replacement tire assembly that would attach to the motor (wheel), in essence, a wheel that slips over the wheel. much like the lid of a jar slips on the outside of the jar.
There are several Maglev corridors in the planning stages. One (IIRC) is from Baltimore to DC, another one in Pennsylvania and several in California.
Where MagLev would be most efficient is as a supplement to airlines on short-hop (less than one hour) where there are aviation capacity issues. These issues could include airspace (such as in the Northeast, or the Los Angeles to San Francisco corridor) or urban airport capacity, where many billions would have to be spent for a limited capacity increase.
An interesting plan is to address ground access constraints, such as in the Los Angeles area, where it could take you as much as three hours to make the 60 mile trip to LAX or to the urban core where most of the (well paying) jobs tend to congregate. The line would link commercial airports in the LA area and act as commuter hubs to relieve freeway congestion.
In the California area where I live, there is a plan for high speed rail lines (which may or may not be maglev) going from the LA Metropolitan area to Las Vegas, a high speed rail line (not maglev) going from LA to San Francisco, and the intra-regional LA Maglev line I mentioned previously.
The key problem with transit (and expensive systems like rail transit) is that it must be overtly subsidized. No transit system in the US makes a profit. Much of the plans for Maglev were laid out when the stock market was up in the late '90s and now that the economy is fairly tight, there is less willingness to spend tax dollars on the system.
Just digressing a bit to clarify.
At the time Digital Research alleged that not only was the error message intentionally included, when people called the MS Help lines, they were told "We don't support Digital Research, only MS (or words to that effect)."
Digital Research was also specifically excluded from the Windows beta testing (so they couldn't fix the "error")
There was also the allegation that MS DOS was fused with Windows 95 in order to completely break DR DOS. Remember the claims that you don't need DOS with Win95?
How is this relevant. Already MS requires IE to update windows. Potentially they will next require passport in order to update windows (or MS Office) and the only way to get passport to work will be through MSN which will only work with (the latest version of) windows.
IMO MS should be forced to divest itself from MSN. No company (other than a monopolist) could survice losses in MSN year after year after year. No other company can truly compete against that business model. MS doesn't have to make a profit with MSN. They just have to make sure that no potential competitors can profit either.
SEC will stay mum on any investigation until it's concluded. (NOTE: IANAL nor do I work for the SEC)
Because the actions of the SEC could have an effect on the value of a company, the SEC will not comment on any ongoing or planned investigation. The company can say anything they want. In fact, IIRC Microsoft noted several times that it was being investigated a couple of years back.
Once they have finished, the SEC will announce the results of any investigation, which is the first time any member of the public normally hears about it.
First off, I am not a lawyer:
There are several problems with 321's case. Namely is that fair use clause does not specifically state individuals can make backups of copyrighted material (except software). Could the case be made that a Movie DVD technically software, much like a program on a CD?
From the Cornell law website and the U.S. Code (Title 17):
Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors
-------
Section 108 appears to allow copying, but only by libraries:
Sec. 108. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
(a)
Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if -
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are
(i) open to the public, or
(ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.
(b) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives of the type described by clause (2) of subsection (a), if -
(1) the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.
(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if -
(1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.
I was about to tell a friend of mine about this great artist, then I realized the name was trademarked and I couldn't repeat it without getting in trouble with the MPA. The album title was copyrighted so I couldn't use that either.
Another artist lost in oblivion, like so many teardrops in the rain.
Of course this is the way it is. One business, seeing how they can be harmed by another business, indirectly protect the common good by protecting themselves. I think it was stated much better as part of the game theory in "A Beautiful Mind."
Slashdot Mirror
So we can rule out MS malevolence as the reason 3rd party software would not work. Can we rule out MS incompetence?
Where Clint Eastwood is an assassin out to kill a mountain climber. He doesn't know which one to kill. So everyone dies in an accident on the north face (except for Clint). This is my guess as to why MS chose the name "Eiger."
It is becoming increasingly common for legislators try to get any bill passed, no matter the constitutionality of it.
Between the defense of marriage act earlier today and this, I am just so disgusted with the whole lot of them.
With the betamax decision, it was ruled that it is ok to make personal copies of tv shows. It is logical that the same could be said of recorders of CDs to MP3s or (preferably) OGG or FLAC.
So now Hatch comes up with a bill that would do nothing but tie up the courts (after causing pause to innovators) until it is ruled unconstitutional and we are back where we started.
Then Hatch comes up with practically the same bill all over again, and the process continues ad infinitum (sigh)
London has it, Monaco has it. The question you have to ask, is "Are you entitled to privacy in the middle of a public street?"
Las Vegas recently hosted the American Association of Airport Executives and briefed the group on the RFID baggage system, mentioning agreements with some casinos to work with the airports in handling baggage. Note I am an airport planner in real life, but not affiliated with Las Vegas airport. IOW, if you have to check out of the hotel at 11 a.m. but have a 9 p.m. flight, that's a long time to hold onto your luggage. The hotel takes care of it, getting it to the airport, so you don't see it until the baggage carousel at your final destination. Eventually (my opinion, not necessarily the airport), it will work both ways, where you check in the baggage at the beginning of your "airport experience" and don't see the baggage again until you reach your hotel. This is especially great if you have a business meeting first before checking in. It could all be tied into the ordering of tickets online (pick airline, hotel, rental car, etc). Checking on luggage status is as easy as using the internet (much like you can track packages). The technology exists to more easily "unburden" the air traveler and make their travel more pleasurable (and a profit to be made for this extra service). Those that are worried about privacy should note that RFID tags will only show the location of the last scan, not the contents. Are your worried about the privacy of the package you ordered from Amazon.com, or do you like the fact that you know it was scanned locally at 6 this morning and no worries?
The resonant frequency of the earth is something like one hour, 22 minutes and 19 seconds if you can find a tuning fork large enough.
You can still make a backup.
However, if you use any decryption tools designed to bypass the copyright, it is illegal.
Notice the Catch 22?
Would be to have a new company come along and actually produce something new rather than recycle old and existing ideas.
Great idea. And I think this goes to Cringely's idea of a supertanker turning.
MS has lots of available cash and (allegedly) tremendous R&D. However, they are all MS employees operating under a common assumption. They know only one way of doing (and programming) things. Look at their file system that needs to be defragged on a regular basis, while the Mac and Unix file systems didn't need defragging 20 years ago.
Why? Because MS will not throw away code for something better. Their file system has problems, so rather then replace the inefficient file system, they created a defrag program and declared the problem solved. Their tendency to put everything into the OS creates problems where an upgrade to one (former application) creates problems for other applications dependent upon the mix of cludged APIs as well as the OS.
All this slows down the programming culture to look for the cheapest solution or quick fix, rather than spending the time and money to do it right.
Linux programmers work for a myriad of companies, are hobbyists, exist among different corporate and government cultures allowing new ideas to go into linux, and quickly. Of course MS will have to take concepts from linux to improve windows, and Linux programmers will take concepts (not code) from Windows to improve Linux. That's a win win situation. But Linux programmers also have the advantage of not being part of a monoculture, even though they are writing for one OS. This is a Win/Lose situation for Linux and MS respectively.
The linux "ship" is already much faster and more nimble against the MS "supertanker" as the MS XP2E is canceled and Longhorne is being stripped to meet the 2006 date. If MS wins, it won't be because of programming, it will be the result of business practices. And what does Linux lose, nothing,it just doesn't gain market dominance. Oh well, that hasn't stopped the maturation of Linux.
(Just the opinion of a non programmer, but Linux user)
The other thing to think about is the declining dollar, which increases overseas costs to american countries.
Using the Euro for example which increased by 19% in 2003, that means the USA would pay 19% more for European goods (unless they did something like lower their prices) than they would for the same goods one year before.
The tire itself would not be part of the wheel (motor) assembly. I imagine that in order to protect the motor, there would be a (pre-inflated) replacement tire assembly that would attach to the motor (wheel), in essence, a wheel that slips over the wheel. much like the lid of a jar slips on the outside of the jar.
There are several Maglev corridors in the planning stages. One (IIRC) is from Baltimore to DC, another one in Pennsylvania and several in California.
Where MagLev would be most efficient is as a supplement to airlines on short-hop (less than one hour) where there are aviation capacity issues. These issues could include airspace (such as in the Northeast, or the Los Angeles to San Francisco corridor) or urban airport capacity, where many billions would have to be spent for a limited capacity increase.
An interesting plan is to address ground access constraints, such as in the Los Angeles area, where it could take you as much as three hours to make the 60 mile trip to LAX or to the urban core where most of the (well paying) jobs tend to congregate. The line would link commercial airports in the LA area and act as commuter hubs to relieve freeway congestion.
In the California area where I live, there is a plan for high speed rail lines (which may or may not be maglev) going from the LA Metropolitan area to Las Vegas, a high speed rail line (not maglev) going from LA to San Francisco, and the intra-regional LA Maglev line I mentioned previously.
The key problem with transit (and expensive systems like rail transit) is that it must be overtly subsidized. No transit system in the US makes a profit. Much of the plans for Maglev were laid out when the stock market was up in the late '90s and now that the economy is fairly tight, there is less willingness to spend tax dollars on the system.
Just digressing a bit to clarify. At the time Digital Research alleged that not only was the error message intentionally included, when people called the MS Help lines, they were told "We don't support Digital Research, only MS (or words to that effect)." Digital Research was also specifically excluded from the Windows beta testing (so they couldn't fix the "error") There was also the allegation that MS DOS was fused with Windows 95 in order to completely break DR DOS. Remember the claims that you don't need DOS with Win95? How is this relevant. Already MS requires IE to update windows. Potentially they will next require passport in order to update windows (or MS Office) and the only way to get passport to work will be through MSN which will only work with (the latest version of) windows. IMO MS should be forced to divest itself from MSN. No company (other than a monopolist) could survice losses in MSN year after year after year. No other company can truly compete against that business model. MS doesn't have to make a profit with MSN. They just have to make sure that no potential competitors can profit either.
SEC will stay mum on any investigation until it's concluded. (NOTE: IANAL nor do I work for the SEC)
Because the actions of the SEC could have an effect on the value of a company, the SEC will not comment on any ongoing or planned investigation. The company can say anything they want. In fact, IIRC Microsoft noted several times that it was being investigated a couple of years back.
Once they have finished, the SEC will announce the results of any investigation, which is the first time any member of the public normally hears about it.
I realize this may be alien to some, but have you thought that Chris just might be a girl?
It is legal for libraries to do this.
According to the US Code, libraries are allowed to make back-ups for archival purposes
First off, I am not a lawyer: There are several problems with 321's case. Namely is that fair use clause does not specifically state individuals can make backups of copyrighted material (except software). Could the case be made that a Movie DVD technically software, much like a program on a CD? From the Cornell law website and the U.S. Code (Title 17): Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors ------- Section 108 appears to allow copying, but only by libraries: Sec. 108. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if - (1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage; (2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and (3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section. (b) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives of the type described by clause (2) of subsection (a), if - (1) the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives; and (2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives. (c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if - (1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and (2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.
I was about to tell a friend of mine about this great artist, then I realized the name was trademarked and I couldn't repeat it without getting in trouble with the MPA. The album title was copyrighted so I couldn't use that either. Another artist lost in oblivion, like so many teardrops in the rain.
Of course this is the way it is.
One business, seeing how they can be harmed by another business, indirectly protect the common good by protecting themselves. I think it was stated much better as part of the game theory in "A Beautiful Mind."