Seriously, it seems that you have fought the good fight. Your managers ahve supported you, you have been at this for a long time, without effect. You now have a choice: accept that it probably won't change and that you can live with it, or leave.
This was a no brainer. The airline industry is a private corporation, not a federally run operation. (Yes, they are regulated by the FAA, a governmental agency).
You are missing the point. Yes, the airlines are generally free to deny boarding to people -- but in this case, the airlines were acting as agents of the government. The government (through the TSA) had ordered the airlines to follow certain secret procedures. Thus, it was the government that was denying him boarding.
Try to set up an airline that does not require id for boarding and see how long it is before you are shut down!
1. There is no mention that the movie was encypted in any fashion. It's possible, but I suspect unlikely.
2. The lawyer who is quoted states that the MPAA may have a justification that the MPAA was making a copy that they could use in evidence (presumably in a lawsuit against the director/author).
So, it might come down to what the MPAA actually did with those copies.
The article mentions that the email exchanges don't fully support the director's assertion that the MPAA agreed not to copy the movie, but this would seem to be irrelevent -- I would have thought that unless the "evidence" justification is valid, the MPAA would have to show that the director affirmatively gave his consent. The final question might then be if the submission process involves a consent to copy.
And here lies the central problem with the anti-GM crowd. The FUD they (and you in this story) spread is that GM means inserting "fishiness" in our plants.
Strawman. I wrote no such thing.
I discussed taking a gene from a fish and inserting it into a plant. Such is possible with GM. I understand that we are talking about a gene that gives a certain characteristic (such as making a glow-in the-dark onion -- as was demonstrated in the Royal Institution's Christmas lectures last December).
You could argue that this is merely an acceleration of natural processes, but I think it would be hard to conceive that such a gene transfer would happen naturally in the life of this planet.
It is possible that some genetic engineering is merely what could be achieved over long periods by selection and other traditional methods, but to claim that this is all GM involves is clearly a falsehood -- and a falsehood that the pro-GM crowd would like to persist.
Personally, I don't know who is right. I don't see a fundamental problem with GM, except that we may not know the full consequences. Once a "foreign" gene is in a domesticated plant (ie. a gene that would not normally be found in similar plants), those genes may be transferred into wild plants, with unknown results.
NTP would get a lot more sympathy here if they were more willing to deal with RIM. Right now it looks like they want to force RIM out of business, take their ball and go home. What was NTP's last demand? something like 3x the GDP of Canada, the RIM CEO's firsborn son and a pony, wasn't it?
I think you should direct your anger at the judge, not NTP. From at least one article:
Last year, attempts to resolve the case fell apart when Spencer [the judge handling the case] disapproved a settlement in which RIM would have paid $450 million to NTP.
I think RIM has a case given that their servers are ex-USA
Think about that for a moment. Lets say that I have a US patent on a physical widget. Should someone be able to set up shop in China, make the widgets there and then export them into the USA, without a license from me?
Company has to have more than just a suspicion to get a court order.
Maybe, but not much more. Look at SCO vs. IBM. It's pretty clear that you don't have to have actual evidence in order to get a court order for discovery.
USA court orders are not enforceble in canada.
It's difficult (but not impossible) to offer a service in the US without some kind of US presence. Also, subpoenas can be served on third parties, such as ISPs, telecom companies, etc.. My guess is that if you claim to be immune from a court order, and refuse discovery, you will quickly find that the court will issue an injunction banning the import of your devices, software, or maybe even packets.
Encript all traffic. Then the DCMA and DRM laws kick in and it is illegal for anyone to attempt to read the communications. IE - even the ATTEMPT to read is illegal.
Then you can do what you want - route the packets through Canadian Servers - or Nigerian - or whereever you like. Keep the servers secure and under constant guard.
End of issue.
Unfortunately not:
Company initiates lawusit under the belief that you may be violating their patents.
Company issues discovery requests to you.
If you refuse to disclose, company gets court order.
DMCA now irrelevent. Encryption now no protection when told to hand over the goods by court.
Whatever happened to old-fashioned selecting crops? If you plant enough of them and grow them for a few years, you'll be able to get seeds that are suited for your area, if I'm not mistaken. Is it just the shortcut factor that makes the GM appealing in this case?
This seems to be a common mis-conception, especially in the USA. GM allows genes from completely different organisms (including from animals and fish) to be inserted into the plant.
This is substantially different to cross-polination/natural selection, since the range of genes that can be added using natural methods is limited to essentially similar plants. Ever see a fish mating with a wheat plant?
the point I was making was that google is not refusing to hand over the goods to the government based on a moral stance, but on a purely intellectual property based stance.
Or,.... Since moral arguments won't hold up in court, they have found IP related arguments that may sway a court to support their moral stance.
but anecdotally there does seem to be a certain amount of paranoia in corporate environments beyond what is called for.
Two words: Sarbanes-Oxley.
SOX has been used to justify huge IT spending on security. Whether the justification is valid I don't know, but all the things like 2-factor authentication, etc. will usually be justified by their instigators as a SOX requirement.
I suggest that you read the article to which you linked, bucasue it clearly says that DSL providers supply a "Telecommunications Service" and are therefore common carriers. Cable providers are not. Also, the article mentions that the FCC initiated a process to change the status of DSL providers.
From the article:
How is DSL regulated?
DSL--the technology that allows high-speed Internet access over copper phone lines--is classified as a telecommunications service.
Does BellSouth peer directly with all these content providers? If not, then each packet has to go throght multiple networks, incurring multiple charges on the way.
I guess Akamai will benefit the most, since the way for a content provider to minimise all the charges is to ensure that the number of networks their packets cross on their way to a customer is minimised.
I suggest (to the parent poster) that you read both the posts in this thread and the Wiki article you linked to. The OP clearly stated that he felt that all calls could be tapped without a warrant, while the Wiki article refers very clearly to international calls.
In my experience, Symantec's support can do one thing: ask "do you have a firewall?"
I dropped Symantec last year when their "tech support" gave no useful explanation of why my installation could not authorise itself. Why such a tool needs to be authorised in this manner is another question that affects the decision to go with an alternative.
Last year, I sat on a flight next to a commercial pilot (he flew for American Eagle) -- he knowingly left his cellphone turned on throughout the entire flight (including takeoff and landing) . So I guess at least some flight crew are not too bothered about cellphones.
"Additionally, DJs do not need to pay the liscence if they are playing from CD or vinyl."
That's because there is a surcharge on blank media to cover this, should they be playing from a copied CD.
I don't think the UK has a media surcharge. I think the author's point is that they should be playing from an original CD or vinyl. However, I would question if this is sufficient, since I did not think copyright law allowed public performance without an extra license.
No, Win2K has no MS-supplied firewall. AFAIK, you can't even install the MS (XP) firewall on W2K.
So, you mean that the "TCP Filtering" that is available from the "Advanced" tab of the TCP/IP properties does not allow you to configure a firewall? Perhaps you might want to read M$ KB article Q309798
It has nothing to do with merit, but it has to do with what kind of outstanding questions are involved with the case.
The American civil law system divides the questions that come up during a litigation into two categories: fact and law. Judges are responsible for deciding questions of law. Juries are responsible for deciding questions of fact.
Judges can also decide that no reasonable jury could come to a particular decision on a fact, and hence judges can decide cases on the basis of fact without it going to a jury.
They have to be able to convince the lawyers that they will be paid.
At the moment SCO is paying. However, soon, SCO will not have to pay their lawyers any more, although the lawyers will be committed to finishing the cases (and appeals, if any). The question is: when the lawyers are no longer receiving additional cash for their services, how good will their services be?
If IBM wanted to get the case dismissed they probably could... but they want it to go to trial for a couple of reasons.
I don't think so.
IBM submitted a number of motions for partial summary judgement and the judge either denied them or refused to consider them until after completion of discovery.
If IBM could not get a partial judgement, it's rather unlikely that IBM could make the entire case go away, short of paying off SCO.
My own exprience is with a colleague's laptop. It was running XP-Pro and initially had 256MB. Some of the memory was assigned to the graphics (I don't really how much).
The processor was a Celeron D -- a reasonably fast and modern processor. Yet, it took a couple of minutes just to boot.
Later, we added 512MB (so the total was 768MB) and it flew! It booted in seconds: the first time, after it had booted, both I and my colleague were waiting for it to do something: we could not believe it had finished booting!
So, while your system may run with 128MB, I suspect you don't realise how much faster it could be with more memory.
it doesnt really matter what timeframe it takes for the car to generate the power as it would simply work out to be less joules over more time or more joules over less time and end up with an average of 10kW per car.
You have this completely back to front. What is important is how much energy (joules) are transferred to the device by each car.
The time during which this happens is not so important.
I assume that the 10kW is only for a short time (it's far to high to be a sustainted average over a long time period), so we are back to 10kW for a short time while the car passws over. The exact length of that time is important since we want to calculate a long term power figure. Imagine 10kW for a nano-second: would that be useful?
Slashdot Mirror
and leave!
Seriously, it seems that you have fought the good fight. Your managers ahve supported you, you have been at this for a long time, without effect. You now have a choice: accept that it probably won't change and that you can live with it, or leave.
Try to set up an airline that does not require id for boarding and see how long it is before you are shut down!
1. There is no mention that the movie was encypted in any fashion. It's possible, but I suspect unlikely.
2. The lawyer who is quoted states that the MPAA may have a justification that the MPAA was making a copy that they could use in evidence (presumably in a lawsuit against the director/author).
So, it might come down to what the MPAA actually did with those copies.
The article mentions that the email exchanges don't fully support the director's assertion that the MPAA agreed not to copy the movie, but this would seem to be irrelevent -- I would have thought that unless the "evidence" justification is valid, the MPAA would have to show that the director affirmatively gave his consent. The final question might then be if the submission process involves a consent to copy.
I discussed taking a gene from a fish and inserting it into a plant. Such is possible with GM. I understand that we are talking about a gene that gives a certain characteristic (such as making a glow-in the-dark onion -- as was demonstrated in the Royal Institution's Christmas lectures last December).
You could argue that this is merely an acceleration of natural processes, but I think it would be hard to conceive that such a gene transfer would happen naturally in the life of this planet.
It is possible that some genetic engineering is merely what could be achieved over long periods by selection and other traditional methods, but to claim that this is all GM involves is clearly a falsehood -- and a falsehood that the pro-GM crowd would like to persist.
Personally, I don't know who is right. I don't see a fundamental problem with GM, except that we may not know the full consequences. Once a "foreign" gene is in a domesticated plant (ie. a gene that would not normally be found in similar plants), those genes may be transferred into wild plants, with unknown results.
Why should a service be any different?
Company initiates lawusit under the belief that you may be violating their patents.
Company issues discovery requests to you.
If you refuse to disclose, company gets court order.
DMCA now irrelevent. Encryption now no protection when told to hand over the goods by court.
This is substantially different to cross-polination/natural selection, since the range of genes that can be added using natural methods is limited to essentially similar plants. Ever see a fish mating with a wheat plant?
SOX has been used to justify huge IT spending on security. Whether the justification is valid I don't know, but all the things like 2-factor authentication, etc. will usually be justified by their instigators as a SOX requirement.
From the article:
I guess Akamai will benefit the most, since the way for a content provider to minimise all the charges is to ensure that the number of networks their packets cross on their way to a customer is minimised.
I suggest (to the parent poster) that you read both the posts in this thread and the Wiki article you linked to. The OP clearly stated that he felt that all calls could be tapped without a warrant, while the Wiki article refers very clearly to international calls.
I dropped Symantec last year when their "tech support" gave no useful explanation of why my installation could not authorise itself. Why such a tool needs to be authorised in this manner is another question that affects the decision to go with an alternative.
Last year, I sat on a flight next to a commercial pilot (he flew for American Eagle) -- he knowingly left his cellphone turned on throughout the entire flight (including takeoff and landing) . So I guess at least some flight crew are not too bothered about cellphones.
Doesn't Win2K have a firewall? What was lacking was a GUI that normal users could use. So, yes, progress, but not really very much.
At the moment SCO is paying. However, soon, SCO will not have to pay their lawyers any more, although the lawyers will be committed to finishing the cases (and appeals, if any). The question is: when the lawyers are no longer receiving additional cash for their services, how good will their services be?
I don't think so.
IBM submitted a number of motions for partial summary judgement and the judge either denied them or refused to consider them until after completion of discovery.
If IBM could not get a partial judgement, it's rather unlikely that IBM could make the entire case go away, short of paying off SCO.
My own exprience is with a colleague's laptop. It was running XP-Pro and initially had 256MB. Some of the memory was assigned to the graphics (I don't really how much).
The processor was a Celeron D -- a reasonably fast and modern processor. Yet, it took a couple of minutes just to boot.
Later, we added 512MB (so the total was 768MB) and it flew! It booted in seconds: the first time, after it had booted, both I and my colleague were waiting for it to do something: we could not believe it had finished booting!
So, while your system may run with 128MB, I suspect you don't realise how much faster it could be with more memory.
The time during which this happens is not so important.
I assume that the 10kW is only for a short time (it's far to high to be a sustainted average over a long time period), so we are back to 10kW for a short time while the car passws over. The exact length of that time is important since we want to calculate a long term power figure. Imagine 10kW for a nano-second: would that be useful?