Wireless communication FUD has been debunked. Completely.
Neonicotinoid chemicals on the other hand are a new field of study that has been tested by simply removing the source of these chemicals from the bee hives. It was creeping in not from the fields, but from the Beekeepers themselves. That too was greed, this time on the part of the beekeepers.
So were the scientists at the chemical companies right or were the 3 million people who signed a petition right? Did an emotional outcry of ignorance just stop the use of something harmless? Guess we'll know in a couple of years... maybe.
Good question. The consequence of delay in allowing the use of Neonicotinoid chemicals in this case is minimal. It seems the prudent thing to do.
There is good science behind this ban. A Harvard study showed that these Neonicotinoids leak through the production chain of corn syrup, which beekeepers are using to winter their colonies. As soon as that news was out, many, if not most US beekeepers immediately switched back to Cane Sugar syrup, or leaving more Honey in the hives for the bees instead of selling it off. The trend to feed bees corn syrup is not something that had been going on for all that long - since the 70s. But the addition of Neonicotinoid chemicals is fairly new.
The pesticides are not actually used on or near crops normally pollinated by bees. It was found to be creeping in through the corn syrup. These pesticides are not harmful to humans (as far as we know) so the regulations governing their presence in industrial corn syrup were simply too lax. It remains to be seen if they can be refined out of corn syrup.
Having those blackberry vines around would soon mean you would have no passable street s left. They would cut your children to ribbons on the way to school.
I think you would want an evergreen species anyway, not something that drops its leaves in the dark months.
Why would efficiency be a concern? Plant seeds, get a plant that stores energy of the sun to light up the paths at night. Where is the efficiency issue? How could manufacturing a battery and solar cell possibly compete with growing a self replicating plant.
There may be a ecological concerns, but efficiency isn't even an issue.
Too simple and obvious - takes away the mystique of being a great interviewer. Also you've got to know your stuff to use the technique.
Nail hit squarely on head here.....
Many companies try to centralize hiring into HR departments who pretend they can evaluate any other field. These guys are easily bluffed and bafflegabbed and overly impressed with silly pieces of paper and training certificates.
Even when the HR department refers someone for a departmental interview, it is commonly done by some middle management type, rather than the actual programming team the recruit would have to work with.
Both HR and Manager types tend to think of people as interchangeable parts.
Wrong. Its still precedent. Every where. Until another circuit rules differently it is still essentially the law of the land.
Different rulings in different circuits are a rarity in US jurisprudence, and they are virtually never are allowed to stand. They are strictly temporal anomalies.
By refusing to review the case, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled that that the lower court's decision stands, and it is perfectly legal to record police.
Actually, you are quite wrong. The ebooks also read on my computer. The iTunes music also plays on my android devices. (I told you that, but you chose to ignore it).
Spies in this context means someone who hangs out in a chat room watching for people posting links to their illegally uploaded content. So, yes you can feel free to do that. Knock yourself out.
But try not to obsess over a casual word choice by a journalist who's mother tongue is not English.
Yup, lots of my ebooks have drm, and i virtually never turn on the wifi on my Nook readers. Still have some old iTunes music I purchased years ago that I play on my android.
This resulted in the prosecutor ordering a police investigation into the changes that had been made.
“Police then proceeded by comparing the ‘work copy’ that the IFPI investigator produced with the material that police and the defending counsels had received. Police found out that the material had differences in over 10 files,” Hietanen reveals.
How does a lawyer tampering with his copy also cast doubt on the Police copy that was obtained before the lawyer even had a copy?
Chain of evidence rule.
Please quote that rule, from Finland law.
Police had the logs. They gave lawyers a copy. Lawyers changed their copy for court presentation. Police compare logs and find the differences. At no time were the police logs out of police custody.
So just what part of the chain of evidence was broken? The Police copy is still pristine.
4 Defendants previously found guilty are still guilty. 2 Defendants previously acquitted are still acquitted.
Nothing has changed.
Police had untouched copies and that is how the differences were found. No evidence was manufactured, only some non-related material was deleted to protect their source. This is a procedural error at worst (failure to notify). Lawyers get a tongue lashing and nothing more.
Read the Story. The police had other copies and were able to compare the files verify that the only changes made were to hide the identity of their informant.
I predict that unless it is proven that they fabricated evidence, the person on trial will still get convicted, and the MPAA will get nothing more than a verbal slap on the wrist.
Deletion of exculpatory evidence is one thing, but deletion to hide a source is simply redaction, which governments do daily. They will laugh it off as a minor oversight.
It doesn't work that way. Take for instance the "terrorist" in the UK a few years ago that got run down and shot in the back of the head repeatedly. Mysteriously all of the cameras (that the uk is known for) in the area were "not working" that day.
Are you really going to pin your hopes and dreams on the idea that someone in your local government is going to be as honest when its your life on the line?
Boston Marathon.
Not only was every fixed security cam in range scoured for images, but private images were also solicited, and soon high res shots appeared via public submission of random grab shots.
At the first sign of something odd going on, in any American city, you will see every second bystander whip out a cell phone and start shooting pictures. Its everywhere. Even fender benders are photographed by uninvolved bystanders.
The cat is out of the bag, the Supreme Court has spoken, and nobody is putting down their cameras any time soon in the US.
That's not to say that all police reports are immediately to be trusted, simply that there is no place the police can hide either.
There aren't really Numerous Business Models, unfortunately. There are really only two, sales or rentals. (Performance is a form of rental as far as the arts are concerned). Both require some form of copy control.
As for it being in everyone's interest to allow a variety of agreement.....
Public employment of artists, who's works are then immediately public domain seems to be the only un-tried avenue. (It works in engineering, roads, buildings, and other infrastructure, but hasn't been tried in the arts that I am aware of.). It would be interesting for a government to try hiring a few authors for a two to five year stint, to crank out public domain books. Would it actually produce books better than some that are freely available on Smashwords and other sites? Or could Governments (arts councils) simply purchase with public funds the rights to works of art and literature and turn them over for free public consumption and copying?
That's one business model that would be worth exploring.
No DRM means no income for the artist. No income for the artist, no new art.
So there was no "new" art prior to the invention of artificial copyright?
None that you could afford to own.
Hiring a monastery full of monks to hand-copy books, or finding an artist sufficiently talented to make you your very own copy of the Mona Lisa pretty much prevented coping in any practical form or volume, therefore, as far as the man in the street was concerned, the only new art were traveling minstrel shows, theater, and storytelling. The patron that hired the artist was not about to let you copy it.
Once the printing press reduced the cost of books, artificial copyright evolved almost immediately into written law, although it had existed far longer than that.
Only with the advent of cheap printing did the written word take off in large volume. That was around the 1400's. Prior to that books were few and far between, mostly religious works, and wood block printed artwork dominated popular art. Nobody but the rich could afford their own artists. Playwrights and mistrals made money from performance, and were loath to print their works.
But some form of copyright has been around for much much longer than the printing press, dating back to ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish law. The first instance of a national copyright law appeared in 1710, a scant 300 years after common availability of moveable type in europe. However even this law was simply a nationalization of long standing local and regional laws.
So the arts have pretty much always enjoyed some form of copyright, either physical, or legal. The argument that the arts existed to any great degree prior to any form of copyright is simply factually wrong.
DRM, by and large has less to do with duration, and is more about unauthorized duplication.
(There are exceptions of course, on-line movie rentals often come with an expiration, but one could argue that is the nature of a "Rental" as opposed to a purchase.)
Purchases of ebooks, music, movies, games etc that are packaged with DRM, by and large do not expire like your air conditioner.
DRM does not wear out. Machinery wears out, and even machinery designed with exceedingly long life times becomes obsolete and too expensive to operate as technological progress yields far cheaper solutions. This explains why your AC wears out, and is not designed to last forever. The efficiency and power savings of newer designs probably justify replacement well before old AC units wear out.
You could argue that DRM forces replacement of the book, music, or what-ever, due to the eventual failure of the original equipment upon which it was used or distributed. (Having tossed out dozens of badly worn phonograph records from my collection, I can assure you this isn't a new phenomena). Yet my digital music never need "wear out" or expire. My e-books will survive much longer than the already yellowing paperbacks.
DRM is more about controlling reproduction than enforcing end of life.
Slashdot Mirror
Wireless communication FUD has been debunked. Completely.
Neonicotinoid chemicals on the other hand are a new field of study that has been tested by simply removing the source of these chemicals from the bee hives. It was creeping in not from the fields, but from the Beekeepers themselves. That too was greed, this time on the part of the beekeepers.
So were the scientists at the chemical companies right or were the 3 million people who signed a petition right? Did an emotional outcry of ignorance just stop the use of something harmless? Guess we'll know in a couple of years... maybe.
Good question. The consequence of delay in allowing the use of Neonicotinoid chemicals in this case is minimal. It seems the prudent thing to do.
There is good science behind this ban. A Harvard study showed that these Neonicotinoids leak through the production chain of corn syrup, which beekeepers are using to winter their colonies. As soon as that news was out, many, if not most US beekeepers immediately switched back to Cane Sugar syrup, or leaving more Honey in the hives for the bees instead of selling it off. The trend to feed bees corn syrup is not something that had been going on for all that long - since the 70s. But the addition of Neonicotinoid chemicals is fairly new.
The pesticides are not actually used on or near crops normally pollinated by bees. It was found to be creeping in through the corn syrup. These pesticides are not harmful to humans (as far as we know) so the regulations governing their presence in industrial corn syrup were simply too lax. It remains to be seen if they can be refined out of corn syrup.
Woosh!
I believe "dead" is the clinical term for innificient organisms,
Not necessarily. Some organisms live at the edge of sustainability, but most have plenty of slack to be somewhat inefficient.
Having those blackberry vines around would soon mean you would have no passable street s left. They would cut your children to ribbons on the way to school.
I think you would want an evergreen species anyway, not something that drops its leaves in the dark months.
Why would efficiency be a concern?
Plant seeds, get a plant that stores energy of the sun to light up the paths at night.
Where is the efficiency issue? How could manufacturing a battery and solar cell possibly compete with growing a self replicating plant.
There may be a ecological concerns, but efficiency isn't even an issue.
Too simple and obvious - takes away the mystique of being a great interviewer. Also you've got to know your stuff to use the technique.
Nail hit squarely on head here.....
Many companies try to centralize hiring into HR departments who pretend they can evaluate any other field. These guys are easily bluffed and bafflegabbed and overly impressed with silly pieces of paper and training certificates.
Even when the HR department refers someone for a departmental interview, it is commonly done by some middle management type, rather than the actual programming team the recruit would have to work with.
Both HR and Manager types tend to think of people as interchangeable parts.
Wrong. Its still precedent. Every where.
Until another circuit rules differently it is still essentially the law of the land.
Different rulings in different circuits are a rarity in US jurisprudence, and they are virtually never are allowed to stand. They are strictly temporal anomalies.
By refusing to review the case, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled that that the lower court's decision stands, and it is perfectly legal to record police.
Actually, you are quite wrong.
The ebooks also read on my computer.
The iTunes music also plays on my android devices. (I told you that, but you chose to ignore it).
Spies in this context means someone who hangs out in a chat room watching for people posting links to their illegally uploaded content. So, yes you can feel free to do that. Knock yourself out.
But try not to obsess over a casual word choice by a journalist who's mother tongue is not English.
Yup, lots of my ebooks have drm, and i virtually never turn on the wifi on my Nook readers.
Still have some old iTunes music I purchased years ago that I play on my android.
Reread the story.
These logs were captured with Finland officials present.
Keep reading:
This resulted in the prosecutor ordering a police investigation into the changes that had been made.
“Police then proceeded by comparing the ‘work copy’ that the IFPI investigator produced with the material that police and the defending counsels had received. Police found out that the material had differences in over 10 files,” Hietanen reveals.
How does a lawyer tampering with his copy also cast doubt on the Police copy that was obtained before the lawyer even had a copy?
Chain of evidence rule.
Please quote that rule, from Finland law.
Police had the logs.
They gave lawyers a copy.
Lawyers changed their copy for court presentation.
Police compare logs and find the differences.
At no time were the police logs out of police custody.
So just what part of the chain of evidence was broken? The Police copy is still pristine.
I assure you the laws are different in Finland.
How does a lawyer tampering with his copy also cast doubt on the Police copy that was obtained before the lawyer even had a copy?
Read the story.
4 Defendants previously found guilty are still guilty.
2 Defendants previously acquitted are still acquitted.
Nothing has changed.
Police had untouched copies and that is how the differences were found. No evidence was manufactured, only some non-related material was deleted to protect their source. This is a procedural error at worst (failure to notify). Lawyers get a tongue lashing and nothing more.
Read the Story. The police had other copies and were able to compare the files verify that the only changes made were to hide the identity of their informant.
I predict that unless it is proven that they fabricated evidence, the person on trial will still get convicted, and the MPAA will get nothing more than a verbal slap on the wrist.
Deletion of exculpatory evidence is one thing, but deletion to hide a source is simply redaction, which governments do daily. They will laugh it off as a minor oversight.
It doesn't work that way. Take for instance the "terrorist" in the UK a few years ago that got run down and shot in the back of the head repeatedly. Mysteriously all of the cameras (that the uk is known for) in the area were "not working" that day.
Are you really going to pin your hopes and dreams on the idea that someone in your local government is going to be as honest when its your life on the line?
Boston Marathon.
Not only was every fixed security cam in range scoured for images, but private images were also solicited, and soon high res shots appeared via public submission of random grab shots.
At the first sign of something odd going on, in any American city, you will see every second bystander whip out a cell phone and start shooting pictures. Its everywhere. Even fender benders are photographed by uninvolved bystanders.
The cat is out of the bag, the Supreme Court has spoken, and nobody is putting down their cameras any time soon in the US.
That's not to say that all police reports are immediately to be trusted, simply that there is no place the police can hide either.
DRM is more about controlling reproduction than enforcing end of life.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
I have exactly ZERO digital works that expire, or have any built in end-of-life.
So if anyone is wrong here, its you.
At least the parent (me) had the courage of his conviction.
Largely well said.
I disagree on a few minor points.
There aren't really Numerous Business Models, unfortunately. There are really only two, sales or rentals. (Performance is a form of rental as far as the arts are concerned). Both require some form of copy control.
As for it being in everyone's interest to allow a variety of agreement.....
Public employment of artists, who's works are then immediately public domain seems to be the only un-tried avenue. (It works in engineering, roads, buildings, and other infrastructure, but hasn't been tried in the arts that I am aware of.). It would be interesting for a government to try hiring a few authors for a two to five year stint, to crank out public domain books. Would it actually produce books better than some that are freely available on Smashwords and other sites? Or could Governments (arts councils) simply purchase with public funds the rights to works of art and literature and turn them over for free public consumption and copying?
That's one business model that would be worth exploring.
No DRM means no income for the artist. No income for the artist, no new art.
So there was no "new" art prior to the invention of artificial copyright?
None that you could afford to own.
Hiring a monastery full of monks to hand-copy books, or finding an artist sufficiently talented to make you your very own copy of the Mona Lisa pretty much prevented coping in any practical form or volume, therefore, as far as the man in the street was concerned, the only new art were traveling minstrel shows, theater, and storytelling. The patron that hired the artist was not about to let you copy it.
Once the printing press reduced the cost of books, artificial copyright evolved almost immediately into written law, although it had existed far longer than that.
Only with the advent of cheap printing did the written word take off in large volume.
That was around the 1400's. Prior to that books were few and far between, mostly religious works, and wood block printed artwork dominated popular art. Nobody but the rich could afford their own artists. Playwrights and mistrals made money from performance, and were loath to print their works.
But some form of copyright has been around for much much longer than the printing press, dating back to ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish law. The first instance of a national copyright law appeared in 1710, a scant 300 years after common availability of moveable type in europe. However even this law was simply a nationalization of long standing local and regional laws.
So the arts have pretty much always enjoyed some form of copyright, either physical, or legal. The argument that the arts existed to any great degree prior to any form of copyright is simply factually wrong.
I disagree.
DRM, by and large has less to do with duration, and is more about unauthorized duplication.
(There are exceptions of course, on-line movie rentals often come with an expiration, but one could argue that is the nature of a "Rental" as opposed to a purchase.)
Purchases of ebooks, music, movies, games etc that are packaged with DRM, by and large do not expire like your air conditioner.
DRM does not wear out. Machinery wears out, and even machinery designed with exceedingly long life times becomes obsolete and too expensive to operate as technological progress yields far cheaper solutions. This explains why your AC wears out, and is not designed to last forever. The efficiency and power savings of newer designs probably justify replacement well before old AC units wear out.
You could argue that DRM forces replacement of the book, music, or what-ever, due to the eventual failure of the original equipment upon which it was used or distributed. (Having tossed out dozens of badly worn phonograph records from my collection, I can assure you this isn't a new phenomena). Yet my digital music never need "wear out" or expire. My e-books will survive much longer than the already yellowing paperbacks.
DRM is more about controlling reproduction than enforcing end of life.