I've had my cruise control accelerate beyond its setting several times. Even had the logic module replaced twice to no effect.
I'll have braked to slow down for other traffic, then passed that traffic, and hit Resume. The car accelerates to the previously set cruising speed as normal, but then suddenly decides it has to go floor it to reach another, higher speed.
Tapping the brake pedal once has always disengaged it, and the one time when I had enough clear straight road to allow it to run (the technician that worked on it wanted the data), it would go up to 95 MPH, slow to 90, then back to 95, repeating. Probably a limitation in the vehicle that prevents it from going faster.
Unfortunately I have been unable to reproduce the behavior on demand, and I always wonder if it is going to go crazy again the next time I hit the Resume button. I'm thinking it must be some combination of the cruise controls used to adjust the cruising speed pressed long before the triggering event that primes the event.
The only way I'd accept a black box in my car would be to diagnose this problem and get it fixed, and then I'd have the black box removed.
Mine is a Honda Civic with aftermarket cruise control (not a standard option).
This has happened to me several times with the after-market cruise control added to my Honda Civic (no other mods or "go-faster" decals). It doesn't always happen, and only when I hit Resume to go back to my cruising speed (interstate, 75 MPH). The car will calmly accelerate to that speed, and then floor itself, only letting up at around 95 MPH when it alternates between coasting and flooring (only once did I have enough clear, straight road to see how high it would go).
I've had the logic module of the CC replaced twice. So I'm assuming that there's a bug in the module that hasn't been detected and fixed.
Thankfully I have always been able to get it to disengage by tapping the brake, and I haven't had occasion to use it for the past year. Unfortunately I've never been able to reproduce the behavior for a technician, so the problem is still there, waiting to be triggered again.
The telemarketing industry forfeited this line of defense when they started cracking past the TeleZapper[tm].
That only potentially gets you a chance to sue them for usurping your affirmative choice of privacy, not a presupposition that all telephone subscribers prefer privacy over telemarketers' commercial speech. It still doesn't get you your Do Call List.
Though both enumerated in the First Amendment (among others), the intrinsic natures of speech and press afford them different protections.
Before the net, freedom of the press could only be exercised by those who could afford one (property law), but most everyone had the capability of speech, which is not tied to property. (It isn't even intellectual property and afforded copyright unless recorded in a fixed medium.)
I fail to see the fundamental distinction between "you can't use my phone to distribute your message without my express consent" and "you can't use my printing press to distribute your message without my express consent".
A printing press is not generally accessible to the public, on private property, and its use consumes paper, ink, power, and wear on expensive equipment.
A telephone is on a generally publically accessible network (has no access controls over whom can cause it to ring) and its use does not consume paper, ink, you aren't charged for its power consumption, and is practically disposable equipment. It also has common-carrier status.
A facsimile (fax) machine already has its legislation against junk faxes.
What FTC should have done is to have a DO CALL LIST, in which telemarketer can only contact those on the list, and must delete every info for the client who are not in the list.
No, because that would not have passed constitutional muster. It would be seen as restricting speech to people who have not explicitly declared that they did not want it. It would not be people asserting their privacy rights over speech, it would be them waiving it and restricting speech in absentia of the waiver.
And phone calls are more traceable than e-mails, especially for telemarketers who need banks of callers who can't all be using disposable pre-paid cellular phones, unlike spammers who can be a single individual getting new access and zombified systems whenever he wants. (And with zombified systems, he can even comply with his ISP's e-mail volume restrictions because it is the zombies that amplify the volume for him.)
Because of the illegal actions employed by spammers, spamming needs to be made illegal outright. That's simply not going to happen for telemarketing; its lobby has too much legitimacy.
The founding fathers realized that people can't be given too much power
I think you meant, "people must not be given too much power", because people certainly can be given too much power and so there need be preventions against them acquiring too much.
Most likely sites that have alt attribute text of "img0573957.gif" or "1x1 transparent GIF" are generated by so-called wysiwyg web page layout software. There are programs that will happily introduce unnecessary columns in tables 1 pixel wide just because the designer didn't care enough to line up his images properly.
Some websites can achieve great bandwidth savings with the simplest of changes. I put together a revision of one site that reduced markup weight by 75% and image weight even more by the introduction of a single client-side image map in place of a bunch of linked images positioned by tables. It also made it far more accessible.
The original software used to create that site was NetObjects Fusion (poss. 4.0). I always thought that that product name should have been "NetObjects to Fusion".
>>> It will likely be overturned on the grounds >>> that the original recording was illegal.
>> Illegal how?
> Probably unauthorized copying of a copyrighted > work
But how can it be copyrighted if the law granting that copyright is unconstitutional? Something else must also have asserted a constitutional copyright over the performance.
Barring that, until a new law is passed and applied retroactively (as they do), live performances are public domain and bootleg copies either are as well or are copyright by the bootlegger. Made retroactive, that will be revoked, but you can't be prosecuted ex post facto for bootlegging recordings between the time when the old law was determined unconstitutional and a new, constitutional law was enacted. (Though I would wait for a ruling by the SCOTUS, unless I sought to preserve protection, whereupon I'd push through a new law ASAP.)
Of course, you'll have to be certain that the performers aren't recording the concert themselves for publication. Though they do have some copyright protection for unpublished works as well, it isn't as durable.
> True, so live performances are covered > regardless of whether they're considered > published or unpublished works.
I understood they'd still have to be fixed in a medium to enjoy protection. If there's no opportunity for playback, there'd be unlimited time accorded to the copyright protection, and since that would be unconstitutional, there'd be no copyright protection.
Need it be said IANAL?
IMO any copyright holder that would allow the work itself to expire before the copyright does should face penalties. Even if it means they have to preserve all their works made in kindergarten and be buried under a mass of macaroni pictures unless they forego all protection for those works. I.e. if you can't or won't preserve works for the public domain's enjoyment later, you must give up your copyright now thus releasing your burden to preserve, either by reassigning the copyright to someone with the means and desire to preserve the work or relinqishing copyright over the work in perpetuity.
What if my hobby is television? Or rather, the sampling and editing of video for my own personal use and experimentation? I don't have a decent camera nor the creative vision to record compelling original content, but there's this big fountain of content being pushed at me (much more cheaply than purchasing a huge library of content on DVD). I like to sample it and remix it. I even derive enjoyment from mere video restoration.
I'm just starting to experiment with ways to convert standard definition video into high definition that are at least interesting to me. Next I'll want start working with HD source material.
So defeating the broadcast flag is of interest to me as it's looking to eliminate my hobby! I like my hobby and I don't want to have it taken away and have the ability to create derivative works for one's own enjoyment be restricted to only the media corporations.
"We'll be focused on what vectors are used, just like in assessing West Nile, to spread computer viruses and ultimately try to develop defenses to prevent them from spreading.'"
So they're going to be spraying the net for butterflies?
For a limited time, if the framers' limitation on copyright is to be honored. It is not his forever, but he is seeking to make it so by ensuring that the VHS versions will become unwatchable before his limited monopoly on his work expires (if ever).
I wonder if psychologically he can even acknowledge that his original versions are on laserdisc and thus the original work may well survive him and his heirs' copyright.
(At least with an open source project you can fork the tree.)
in the orig han walked around a CGI jabba but if taking to be real it would seem han is walking straight THROUGH jabba the huts tail!
What are you talking about? Did they even have CGI in 1977? It was all models and latex and puppets!
The scene wasn't even in the original version, and Jabba was portrayed as a human. No tail at all, and left on the cutting room floor.
You're remembering TV specials about the restoration of Star Wars and the creation of the CGI Jabba and mistakenly ascribing it to the original version.
This is one of the problems with these revised versions: people don't remember the original accurately anymore. Enough repetition of "Han shoots first!" and people forget that originally only Han shot!
That's ok... we'll just wait until 70 years after he dies and remake the original three the WE want it to be.
I think your timeline is overly optimistic.
And if they ever do let copyright expire, there will probably be a Public Domain Integrity Act to prevent anyone from readapting PD works as Disney's last post-mortem gasp to protect his works.
Replace the DVD drive with a small hard drive or big flash memory and have the DVD drive as a peripheral device used to load the game from the DVD to the drive. Then disconnect the DVD drive and take your player on the road. Perhaps even allow multiple games to be preloaded in this manner.
Though they'll probably feel compelled to do some physical DRMming, such as locking down the peripheral drive so that it can't be used again until the game is unloaded from the unit it was loaded and hardware which self-destructs if tampered with. If you ever need it unlocked due to a failure, you'd have to send in the whole system for software license and tamper auditing.
Yes, from the original Wells, you have the radio play (and its regional adaptions), the musical version (and its remixes), a stage play, a movie, additional books and short stories, two TV series, an arcade game, at least two computer games, at least one board game, several comic book adaptions, and possibly a new animated series.
Then there are movies with similar plot and resolution, and countless references (Buckaroo Banzai), homages, some direct like Pinky & The Brain's "Battle for the Plant" and more obscure like Krang in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles being similar to Wells' Martians.
And don't forget how the radio play provided a case study for mass panic, setting world policy on how and if to release information that might produce panic, and ways to disrupt populaces by promulgating similar hoaxes for military purposes.
Not so much a retread but that the story is such a classic that it can be told so many times, and a telling that follows the original so closely has never been done on film before.
Slashdot Mirror
It may come with music on it in Canada to get around levies attached to blank media. There was a followup story, but I haven't heard anything new since then.
Is the settlement agreement binding in Canada?
So do we now know how many electron holes it takes to power the Albert Hall?
I've had my cruise control accelerate beyond its setting several times. Even had the logic module replaced twice to no effect.
I'll have braked to slow down for other traffic, then passed that traffic, and hit Resume. The car accelerates to the previously set cruising speed as normal, but then suddenly decides it has to go floor it to reach another, higher speed.
Tapping the brake pedal once has always disengaged it, and the one time when I had enough clear straight road to allow it to run (the technician that worked on it wanted the data), it would go up to 95 MPH, slow to 90, then back to 95, repeating. Probably a limitation in the vehicle that prevents it from going faster.
Unfortunately I have been unable to reproduce the behavior on demand, and I always wonder if it is going to go crazy again the next time I hit the Resume button. I'm thinking it must be some combination of the cruise controls used to adjust the cruising speed pressed long before the triggering event that primes the event.
The only way I'd accept a black box in my car would be to diagnose this problem and get it fixed, and then I'd have the black box removed.
Mine is a Honda Civic with aftermarket cruise control (not a standard option).
This has happened to me several times with the after-market cruise control added to my Honda Civic (no other mods or "go-faster" decals). It doesn't always happen, and only when I hit Resume to go back to my cruising speed (interstate, 75 MPH). The car will calmly accelerate to that speed, and then floor itself, only letting up at around 95 MPH when it alternates between coasting and flooring (only once did I have enough clear, straight road to see how high it would go).
I've had the logic module of the CC replaced twice. So I'm assuming that there's a bug in the module that hasn't been detected and fixed.
Thankfully I have always been able to get it to disengage by tapping the brake, and I haven't had occasion to use it for the past year. Unfortunately I've never been able to reproduce the behavior for a technician, so the problem is still there, waiting to be triggered again.
the FCC is becoming moot.
Is that "moot" as in "arguable or open to debate", "of no significance or relevance", or "a ring for gauging wooden pins"?
"Can you hear me now? What do you mean you can't tell me that?"
The telemarketing industry forfeited this line of defense when they started cracking past the TeleZapper[tm].
That only potentially gets you a chance to sue them for usurping your affirmative choice of privacy, not a presupposition that all telephone subscribers prefer privacy over telemarketers' commercial speech. It still doesn't get you your Do Call List.
Though both enumerated in the First Amendment (among others), the intrinsic natures of speech and press afford them different protections.
Before the net, freedom of the press could only be exercised by those who could afford one (property law), but most everyone had the capability of speech, which is not tied to property. (It isn't even intellectual property and afforded copyright unless recorded in a fixed medium.)
I fail to see the fundamental distinction between "you can't use my phone to distribute your message without my express consent" and "you can't use my printing press to distribute your message without my express consent".
A printing press is not generally accessible to the public, on private property, and its use consumes paper, ink, power, and wear on expensive equipment.
A telephone is on a generally publically accessible network (has no access controls over whom can cause it to ring) and its use does not consume paper, ink, you aren't charged for its power consumption, and is practically disposable equipment. It also has common-carrier status.
A facsimile (fax) machine already has its legislation against junk faxes.
What FTC should have done is to have a DO CALL LIST, in which telemarketer can only contact those on the list, and must delete every info for the client who are not in the list.
No, because that would not have passed constitutional muster. It would be seen as restricting speech to people who have not explicitly declared that they did not want it. It would not be people asserting their privacy rights over speech, it would be them waiving it and restricting speech in absentia of the waiver.
And phone calls are more traceable than e-mails, especially for telemarketers who need banks of callers who can't all be using disposable pre-paid cellular phones, unlike spammers who can be a single individual getting new access and zombified systems whenever he wants. (And with zombified systems, he can even comply with his ISP's e-mail volume restrictions because it is the zombies that amplify the volume for him.)
Because of the illegal actions employed by spammers, spamming needs to be made illegal outright. That's simply not going to happen for telemarketing; its lobby has too much legitimacy.
The founding fathers realized that people can't be given too much power
I think you meant, "people must not be given too much power", because people certainly can be given too much power and so there need be preventions against them acquiring too much.
Most likely sites that have alt attribute text of "img0573957.gif" or "1x1 transparent GIF" are generated by so-called wysiwyg web page layout software. There are programs that will happily introduce unnecessary columns in tables 1 pixel wide just because the designer didn't care enough to line up his images properly.
Some websites can achieve great bandwidth savings with the simplest of changes. I put together a revision of one site that reduced markup weight by 75% and image weight even more by the introduction of a single client-side image map in place of a bunch of linked images positioned by tables. It also made it far more accessible.
The original software used to create that site was NetObjects Fusion (poss. 4.0). I always thought that that product name should have been "NetObjects to Fusion".
>>> It will likely be overturned on the grounds
>>> that the original recording was illegal.
>> Illegal how?
> Probably unauthorized copying of a copyrighted
> work
But how can it be copyrighted if the law granting that copyright is unconstitutional? Something else must also have asserted a constitutional copyright over the performance.
Barring that, until a new law is passed and applied retroactively (as they do), live performances are public domain and bootleg copies either are as well or are copyright by the bootlegger. Made retroactive, that will be revoked, but you can't be prosecuted ex post facto for bootlegging recordings between the time when the old law was determined unconstitutional and a new, constitutional law was enacted. (Though I would wait for a ruling by the SCOTUS, unless I sought to preserve protection, whereupon I'd push through a new law ASAP.)
Of course, you'll have to be certain that the performers aren't recording the concert themselves for publication. Though they do have some copyright protection for unpublished works as well, it isn't as durable.
> True, so live performances are covered
> regardless of whether they're considered
> published or unpublished works.
I understood they'd still have to be fixed in a medium to enjoy protection. If there's no opportunity for playback, there'd be unlimited time accorded to the copyright protection, and since that would be unconstitutional, there'd be no copyright protection.
Need it be said IANAL?
IMO any copyright holder that would allow the work itself to expire before the copyright does should face penalties. Even if it means they have to preserve all their works made in kindergarten and be buried under a mass of macaroni pictures unless they forego all protection for those works. I.e. if you can't or won't preserve works for the public domain's enjoyment later, you must give up your copyright now thus releasing your burden to preserve, either by reassigning the copyright to someone with the means and desire to preserve the work or relinqishing copyright over the work in perpetuity.
If you don't have a hobby, get one.
What if my hobby is television? Or rather, the sampling and editing of video for my own personal use and experimentation? I don't have a decent camera nor the creative vision to record compelling original content, but there's this big fountain of content being pushed at me (much more cheaply than purchasing a huge library of content on DVD). I like to sample it and remix it. I even derive enjoyment from mere video restoration.
I'm just starting to experiment with ways to convert standard definition video into high definition that are at least interesting to me. Next I'll want start working with HD source material.
So defeating the broadcast flag is of interest to me as it's looking to eliminate my hobby! I like my hobby and I don't want to have it taken away and have the ability to create derivative works for one's own enjoyment be restricted to only the media corporations.
it's his freaking movie, not yours
Only for the "limited" time granted by copyright. All works must fall out of their creator's hands and into the public domain. Even Lucas'.
Planning to deny the public domain of published works should result in forfeiture of copyright over those works.
"We'll be focused on what vectors are used, just like in assessing West Nile, to spread computer viruses and ultimately try to develop defenses to prevent them from spreading.'"
So they're going to be spraying the net for butterflies?
I thought this up long ago when address munging was in its infancy on Usenet. I referred to it as hiring a secretary.
They'd better not be applying for a patent.
"John Parker, take this Mambo code. Just, just install there, that's good. It a free CMS."
"Good. What is a CMS?"
His work, not yours.
For a limited time, if the framers' limitation on copyright is to be honored. It is not his forever, but he is seeking to make it so by ensuring that the VHS versions will become unwatchable before his limited monopoly on his work expires (if ever).
I wonder if psychologically he can even acknowledge that his original versions are on laserdisc and thus the original work may well survive him and his heirs' copyright.
(At least with an open source project you can fork the tree.)
in the orig han walked around a CGI jabba but if taking to be real it would seem han is walking straight THROUGH jabba the huts tail!
What are you talking about? Did they even have CGI in 1977? It was all models and latex and puppets!
The scene wasn't even in the original version, and Jabba was portrayed as a human. No tail at all, and left on the cutting room floor.
You're remembering TV specials about the restoration of Star Wars and the creation of the CGI Jabba and mistakenly ascribing it to the original version.
This is one of the problems with these revised versions: people don't remember the original accurately anymore. Enough repetition of "Han shoots first!" and people forget that originally only Han shot!
That's ok... we'll just wait until 70 years after he dies and remake the original three the WE want it to be.
I think your timeline is overly optimistic.
And if they ever do let copyright expire, there will probably be a Public Domain Integrity Act to prevent anyone from readapting PD works as Disney's last post-mortem gasp to protect his works.
Replace the DVD drive with a small hard drive or big flash memory and have the DVD drive as a peripheral device used to load the game from the DVD to the drive. Then disconnect the DVD drive and take your player on the road. Perhaps even allow multiple games to be preloaded in this manner.
Though they'll probably feel compelled to do some physical DRMming, such as locking down the peripheral drive so that it can't be used again until the game is unloaded from the unit it was loaded and hardware which self-destructs if tampered with. If you ever need it unlocked due to a failure, you'd have to send in the whole system for software license and tamper auditing.
If it's impossible to intercept without disrupting the transmission...
so then its security is inversely proportional to how many times the recipient blindly hits Reload?
(Consider that it might be difficult to tell the difference between an unsuccessful transmission-reception and an interception.)
Yes, from the original Wells, you have the radio play (and its regional adaptions), the musical version (and its remixes), a stage play, a movie, additional books and short stories, two TV series, an arcade game, at least two computer games, at least one board game, several comic book adaptions, and possibly a new animated series.
Then there are movies with similar plot and resolution, and countless references (Buckaroo Banzai), homages, some direct like Pinky & The Brain's "Battle for the Plant" and more obscure like Krang in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles being similar to Wells' Martians.
And don't forget how the radio play provided a case study for mass panic, setting world policy on how and if to release information that might produce panic, and ways to disrupt populaces by promulgating similar hoaxes for military purposes.
Not so much a retread but that the story is such a classic that it can be told so many times, and a telling that follows the original so closely has never been done on film before.
"No machine is secure if the physical box is in the hands of the hacker/criminal."
True, but one would hope a system would be secure enough that breaching one system doesn't expose them all.
It's the difference between having to brute force a key from every system and brute forcing a key from one and writing a kiddie script to do the rest.
Although, you have to wonder how a killer like Greedo could miss at three feet away.
Maybe he's had Stormtrooper training.