Actually, modern shorthand derives in large part from the old Morse networks, where low bandwidth constraints and high information density requirements made abbreviations not just commonplace, but necessary. This link has been noticed and documented.
Michael didn't miss the point at all. The lawyers at the DOJ are in the Executive Branch. They don't make laws, they just enforce them. Ideally, under our system of checks and balances, they shouldn't have any say over making the laws, and kudos to them for understanding this and responding to the interview questions in an appropriately professional manner. I'm glad that we have bureaucrats of their caliber working hard for us.
If you feel righteous indignation over large conglomerates controlling the economy, and if you feel that the situation should be corrected by enacting new laws, write your Congressman, and vote. If laws aren't appropriate, vote with your wallet. If the law is against you and all the businesses are against you, move out of the country, or engage in civil disobediance and expect a visit from our friendly DOJ lawyers *ahem*p2p*cough*.
The large corporations are working within the system to right the wrongs that they see. As Michael pointed out, and much to my happy suprise, the DOJ lawyers represent many small operations. I suggest that we get back in the ball game and start using the system ourselves. I think it would be remarkably appropriate for Prof. Usher to contact the DOJ regarding the notice he received from the RIAA.
Please browse Cornell's excellent overview of civil procedure in the US. Many trials are conducted with a standard of proof which is "preponderance of the evidence", i.e. whichever side shows the best evidence (according to the judge or jury) wins. Federal civil cases, including those involving copyright violations (which are federal offenses), follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Cornell has an excellent online law library, including the Constitution (which defines the scope of copyright) and the United States Code, which is all of the Acts that Congress passes (including the DMCA and the CTEA).
I was not a lawyer last time I checked, so if you need professional advice, hire a professional.
A click-thru EULA is a technological measure used to protect your copyrighted software. It's been held up by the courts, use it to your advantage. Stick in a clause that you explicitly do not have permission to make a copy of Kazaa on your hard drive (by clicking the download link) if you're a member of the RIAA, MPAA, or any federal agency. You are simply refusing to extend permission to copy to select parties, a right you have under the US Constitution. When someone knocks on a student's door for copyright violations, the EULA should get the evidence dismissed. You could even countersue them for a DMCA violation, breaking the terms of your copyright, and EULA contract violation.
Turn it around then. Anyone with a few hundred bucks wanna informationally subpoena the hell out of the RIAA? They've got tons of music, how do I know they didn't steal it from me?
Ideally, the FCC, or UL, or some organization could put a little marking on the back of any electronic device to designate whether or not it is acceptable to use during flight.
Good idea, but not possible due to the fact that different aircraft have different avionics. As a direct result, any given RF emitter will interfere differently with different aircraft.
Another idea would be to turn the entire passenger cabin into a Faraday cage. A quick calculation for the mesh size:
Assume you want to block 900MHz wireless devices. The wavelength emitted is
lambda = c / f = 3e8(m/s) / 9e8(/s) = 0.33(m)
Wrap the passenger areas in a one foot copper mesh, and be done with it.
DMCA is a federal law. So what? Law is words on paper, and people's willingness to act by those words. It goes no further. If Californians don't want to follow the law, they won't, and no amount of the feds crying "follow our laws or we'll make new ones!" will help.
Consider: for the federal ban to come into play, a medical marijuana case would have to be appealed to federal court, and a lower CA court decision overruled. Since medical pot users are only supposed to consume small quantities, this doesn't happen unless a prosecutor is trying to make an example of someone, otherwise it's too expensive. Most local prosecutors don't have the time, money, or inclination to do so, and federal prosecutors are getting the cold shoulder from the CA law enforcement and justice systems.
States do still have rights, even in this age of large, centralized government. It is still possible to fight bad federal laws at a state level.
My brain fart du jour is that it would be great if industries had to pick up the tab for the garbage they create. Lenmark and other competitors in the industry would have to pay a disposal fee that could be distributed to landfills to cover costs.
Where was the big wreck in the Jesse Jordan case? There doesn't have to be one, the point of all this is to scare the hell out of spammers, just as the RIAA is (trying to) scare the hell out of p2p users. Of course, one needs to be careful that the application of digital terrorism is, in fact, righteous...
Wow, this problem brings back memories. I don't know if they still use it, but I had to solve this problem when I was taking theory of computation in college. That this problem would be used in class is not suprising, since Jan van de Snepscheut, mentioned in the note, taught that class up until the prior year and his tragic death.
SCO realizes there is infringing code in Linux, but continue to release their distribution anyway. Perhaps they felt since their code was already infringed upon, why should they be punished in lost sales by pulling their product which was developed unknowingly with stolen code?
Because a company is required by 18 USC 1839 to take "reasonable measures to keep such information secret". As soon as SCO thought there might be trade secret code in Linux, they were obligated to cease distributing the code (and sue IBM, of course) at once, or lose trade secret protection. The other relevant section is 18 USC 1832, which covers theft of trade secrets, and which I imagine is going to be at the heart of SCO's case. Even if SCO win, 1832(b) limits damages to $5 million anyway, which is pocket change for IBM, and not nearly enough to bail out SCO (even with trebled damages). If SCO is looking to this lawsuit to save themselves, they're going to have to go after bigger fish than trade secret misappropriation.
As a Libertarian, I have to oppose this legislation. Before I get booed off the stage, let me explain why. IANAL.
Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility. The Internet, and the SMTP protocol specifically, provides a channel of communication which should not, must not be restricted or regulated (freedom). On the other hand, everyone must refrain from consuming my resources by sending me unsolicited messages (responsibility). Breaches should be treated in the same way as other lapses of responsibility resulting in unfair property disadvantage, so no separate law is needed. One possible solution is to prosecute under trespass to chattels:
TRESPASS TO CHATTELS - Intentional intermeddling with a chattel in possession of another which results in (a) dispossession of the chattel, (b) deprivation of the use of the chattel for a long period of time, (c) impairment of the condition, quality, usefulness of the chattel or (d) harm to the person of the possessor or persons or things in which he has a legally protected interest.
A chattel is just personal property, like my computer. Spammers intentionally meddle with my computer, resulting in its impaired usefulness. It's as if they broke into my house, coming in thru the cable modem, and took a hammer to my hard drive. Each spammer has violated the public trust, and should be fined. No need for additional legislation.
The wisdom in the business is that 30 second clips (this is the magic number for some reason) are perfectly legal to allow people to access without payment.
Actually, the wisdom is that if you only put 30 seconds of music up, the labels won't see it as enough of a threat to their bottom line to come sue you. I hope people don't really think that this form of copyright infringement is somehow legal. Retailers are still making (usually) unauthorized copies of the music. This is somewhat analogous to speeders who only do 5 MPH over the limit: it would be too much of a bother and too little reward for the cop to take you to court, even though you're strictly breaking the law.
Copyright owners shouldnt own the information, they should own the right to profit from it.
No one ever has a right to profit from something they do. Profit is a priviledge of operating in a capitalist system. Don't ever forget that, and don't let any judges or politicians you meet forget it either.
I Am A Student Pilot. I was going to write precisely your post, but it looks like you beat me to it. Let me just add by instructing those who don't know anything about flying about the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR 91.3):
Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
91.3(a) is the reason why "In general, pilots are openly hostile" to the idea of soft walls. Onboard avionics and fly-by-wire software do not make command decisions, nor should they. Pilots take their responsibilities very seriously -- oftentimes your life is in their hands. They are skilled workers in whom the federal government has entrusted final authority as to where they can fly their own aircraft. This software attempts to usurp that authority, and its use in any aircraft would likely require rewriting the FARs. I guarantee any such attempt would result in a bitter feud between pilots and whomever tries to push this system.
Second, as was already pointed out, onboard software can't be expected to know, for example, when a passenger is having a heart-attack and the only airport for miles is in a 'restricted area'. 91.3(b) explicitly gives pilots the right to land at a military base, or near a Presidential TFR, or anywhere else they damn well please in such cases. With the new system: "We didn't crash into any buildings, but Bob died, oh well". I smell lawsuit. What about an emergency override, you ask? The system can't have an override switch anywhere a pilot could get to it, or it's effectively useless (hijacker flips the switch).
Kill this thing, and let the pilots get back to flying their planes.
I'm in favor of globalization too. I earnestly look forward to the day when we in the US finally get what the rest of the developed globe overflows with today: common sense.
France: love ya, baby. Way to stick up for what's right. Keep designing new maid outfits and I'll love ya forever.
A friend of mine, Eli Greenbaum, has been getting Hydrogen from algae for three years now, with no metals involved. He just starves them of O2 and they activate a dormant gene that produces a protein that synthesizes H2. See here for the details.
This may not really be on-topic, but you seemed to have a lot of disdain for anyone who might have a lot of ideas but no resources to carry out those ideas.
I think that was me with the implementation argument. I know I've made it on/. before. The idea I was attempting to get across wasn't that the invention had to be implemented, but that compulsory licensing would ensure the idea did get implemented. The problem with today's system is that squatters license the tech, then sit on it. Compulsory licensing removes that problem. My original point wasn't to squeeze hard work out of an idea man, it was the licensing.
The guys over at GNU are already working on this. The project is called Classpath, it's distributed under a modified GPL so it doesn't contaminate projects it's only linked with, and it's far along already. Most Java 2 classes have been implemented, even though they only claim to be 1.1 compliant.
In a world where senators advocate allowing copyright owners to (without due process) destroy or hack computers in an attempt to halt unlawful distribution of their materials, this seems sane.
Senator Hatch sez: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Seriously, don't be fooled by the standard trick of proposing something outlandish, waiting for the furor to die down, then proposing something slightly less crazy which then 'seems reasonable'.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, modern shorthand derives in large part from the old Morse networks, where low bandwidth constraints and high information density requirements made abbreviations not just commonplace, but necessary. This link has been noticed and documented.
If you feel righteous indignation over large conglomerates controlling the economy, and if you feel that the situation should be corrected by enacting new laws, write your Congressman, and vote. If laws aren't appropriate, vote with your wallet. If the law is against you and all the businesses are against you, move out of the country, or engage in civil disobediance and expect a visit from our friendly DOJ lawyers *ahem*p2p*cough*.
The large corporations are working within the system to right the wrongs that they see. As Michael pointed out, and much to my happy suprise, the DOJ lawyers represent many small operations. I suggest that we get back in the ball game and start using the system ourselves. I think it would be remarkably appropriate for Prof. Usher to contact the DOJ regarding the notice he received from the RIAA.
I was not a lawyer last time I checked, so if you need professional advice, hire a professional.
A click-thru EULA is a technological measure used to protect your copyrighted software. It's been held up by the courts, use it to your advantage. Stick in a clause that you explicitly do not have permission to make a copy of Kazaa on your hard drive (by clicking the download link) if you're a member of the RIAA, MPAA, or any federal agency. You are simply refusing to extend permission to copy to select parties, a right you have under the US Constitution. When someone knocks on a student's door for copyright violations, the EULA should get the evidence dismissed. You could even countersue them for a DMCA violation, breaking the terms of your copyright, and EULA contract violation.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, I'm busy enough as it is.
Turn it around then. Anyone with a few hundred bucks wanna informationally subpoena the hell out of the RIAA? They've got tons of music, how do I know they didn't steal it from me?
Good idea, but not possible due to the fact that different aircraft have different avionics. As a direct result, any given RF emitter will interfere differently with different aircraft.
Another idea would be to turn the entire passenger cabin into a Faraday cage. A quick calculation for the mesh size:
Assume you want to block 900MHz wireless devices. The wavelength emitted is
Wrap the passenger areas in a one foot copper mesh, and be done with it.Consider: for the federal ban to come into play, a medical marijuana case would have to be appealed to federal court, and a lower CA court decision overruled. Since medical pot users are only supposed to consume small quantities, this doesn't happen unless a prosecutor is trying to make an example of someone, otherwise it's too expensive. Most local prosecutors don't have the time, money, or inclination to do so, and federal prosecutors are getting the cold shoulder from the CA law enforcement and justice systems.
States do still have rights, even in this age of large, centralized government. It is still possible to fight bad federal laws at a state level.
So you're in favor of $50-75 ink cartridges?
Astronauts are truck drivers? No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. Dennis Hopper was a truck driver in space. I'd actually want to be an astronaut...
Where was the big wreck in the Jesse Jordan case? There doesn't have to be one, the point of all this is to scare the hell out of spammers, just as the RIAA is (trying to) scare the hell out of p2p users. Of course, one needs to be careful that the application of digital terrorism is, in fact, righteous...
Wow, this problem brings back memories. I don't know if they still use it, but I had to solve this problem when I was taking theory of computation in college. That this problem would be used in class is not suprising, since Jan van de Snepscheut, mentioned in the note, taught that class up until the prior year and his tragic death.
Because a company is required by 18 USC 1839 to take "reasonable measures to keep such information secret". As soon as SCO thought there might be trade secret code in Linux, they were obligated to cease distributing the code (and sue IBM, of course) at once, or lose trade secret protection. The other relevant section is 18 USC 1832, which covers theft of trade secrets, and which I imagine is going to be at the heart of SCO's case. Even if SCO win, 1832(b) limits damages to $5 million anyway, which is pocket change for IBM, and not nearly enough to bail out SCO (even with trebled damages). If SCO is looking to this lawsuit to save themselves, they're going to have to go after bigger fish than trade secret misappropriation.
Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility. The Internet, and the SMTP protocol specifically, provides a channel of communication which should not, must not be restricted or regulated (freedom). On the other hand, everyone must refrain from consuming my resources by sending me unsolicited messages (responsibility). Breaches should be treated in the same way as other lapses of responsibility resulting in unfair property disadvantage, so no separate law is needed. One possible solution is to prosecute under trespass to chattels:
A chattel is just personal property, like my computer. Spammers intentionally meddle with my computer, resulting in its impaired usefulness. It's as if they broke into my house, coming in thru the cable modem, and took a hammer to my hard drive. Each spammer has violated the public trust, and should be fined. No need for additional legislation.Actually, the wisdom is that if you only put 30 seconds of music up, the labels won't see it as enough of a threat to their bottom line to come sue you. I hope people don't really think that this form of copyright infringement is somehow legal. Retailers are still making (usually) unauthorized copies of the music. This is somewhat analogous to speeders who only do 5 MPH over the limit: it would be too much of a bother and too little reward for the cop to take you to court, even though you're strictly breaking the law.
No one ever has a right to profit from something they do. Profit is a priviledge of operating in a capitalist system. Don't ever forget that, and don't let any judges or politicians you meet forget it either.
Estonia per capita GDP: $10,900 (2002 est.)
More information about Estonia (and every other country in the world) here.
Second, as was already pointed out, onboard software can't be expected to know, for example, when a passenger is having a heart-attack and the only airport for miles is in a 'restricted area'. 91.3(b) explicitly gives pilots the right to land at a military base, or near a Presidential TFR, or anywhere else they damn well please in such cases. With the new system: "We didn't crash into any buildings, but Bob died, oh well". I smell lawsuit. What about an emergency override, you ask? The system can't have an override switch anywhere a pilot could get to it, or it's effectively useless (hijacker flips the switch).
Kill this thing, and let the pilots get back to flying their planes.
Right here.
I'm in favor of globalization too. I earnestly look forward to the day when we in the US finally get what the rest of the developed globe overflows with today: common sense.
France: love ya, baby. Way to stick up for what's right. Keep designing new maid outfits and I'll love ya forever.
A friend of mine, Eli Greenbaum, has been getting Hydrogen from algae for three years now, with no metals involved. He just starves them of O2 and they activate a dormant gene that produces a protein that synthesizes H2. See here for the details.
Even better: /then/ stomps on them.
C) IBM waits until SCO puts lots of their own $$$ into legal shenanigans, press releases, and flag-waiving,
I think that was me with the implementation argument. I know I've made it on /. before. The idea I was attempting to get across wasn't that the invention had to be implemented, but that compulsory licensing would ensure the idea did get implemented. The problem with today's system is that squatters license the tech, then sit on it. Compulsory licensing removes that problem. My original point wasn't to squeeze hard work out of an idea man, it was the licensing.
The guys over at GNU are already working on this. The project is called Classpath, it's distributed under a modified GPL so it doesn't contaminate projects it's only linked with, and it's far along already. Most Java 2 classes have been implemented, even though they only claim to be 1.1 compliant.
Senator Hatch sez: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Seriously, don't be fooled by the standard trick of proposing something outlandish, waiting for the furor to die down, then proposing something slightly less crazy which then 'seems reasonable'.