Having the password does not make you authorized. But being a dead persons heir, authorize you to take control of their posessions. Downloading the deceased's music is not piracy. similiar to how using the door key to enter the deceaseds home and grab the furniture is not burglary. It is all yours now - assuming the testament was not contested and all the heirs agreed on who gets what. Your brother got the sofa, you got the ebook collection,...
The deceased, unless they created the music, does not own the music. The purchased a license for them to listen to the music. Same with ebooks. You aren't buying anything, you are licensing the content. Most of these things are licensed to specific users (the one paying the fee) and are not licensed where anyone can use it as long as it is only one person at a time (although some are). However, the deceased party created the music, or photos or whatever, then they, as copyright owner, do own it. That is of course unless the service you turned it over to includes that you transferred copyright to them.
In short, except for user created content, there is no electronic data to inherit.
If a doctor recommended surgery, and the mortality rate was 1 in 4000, I'd make damn sure the benefits outweighed the risk. And I'd update my will.
If you are having surgery and the mortality rate is 1 in 4000 (0.025%) those are excellent odds. Usually surgical mortality rates vary between 1% and 6% depending on the procedure.
The real problem is that the goal of most IT companies is to maximize profit in the short term. As such, engineers, like most employees are just a resource to be consumed. This isn't unique to IT companies, but it is most obvious there because many are started by venture capitalists who want to make their money and run. While engineers focus on quality solutions, the typical VC wants quick results at a low cost. The old adage of fast, quality, and cheap are at play in the IT world and you can't have all three.
Public/uni libraries, even prior to ebooks had less selection that what was commercially available. Whether paper or ebook, they still have to purchase the book with limited funds, so they are more likely to purchase something on the best seller list than something of a technical nature. It's just basic supply and demand and the format of the book doesn't change that.
Sounds like the article's discussing the way in which it's not screwed.
There are circumstances under which such rules can be waived.
I especially hope they wave them, because Tesla's almost certainly a net-benefit to California's environment anyway (by making the industry wake up to electric vehicles when traditional automakers seemed like they were intentionally failing).
Driving electric vehicles may be good for the environment, but producing them is not necessarily so. At least not locally.
Libraries were created for the common good. That is why they are free to the public (and paid for through taxes). Instead of replacing the library with a corporation like Amazon.com, maybe what is needed, for the common good, is a public library version of something like Amazon. Already many local libraries allow one to check out e-books.
E-readers and public libraries aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe sometime in the 21st century, there won't be as many physical libraries, but the public library will still exist through through the checking out of free e-books. There is no reason why libraries and book stores could coexist and not e-libraries and Amazon.
Only if it is copied. Paraphrasing technical information is not a copyright violation.
Actually, it doesn't matter whether it is a copyright violation or not. per the DMCA, publishing how to circumvent a protection is a violation of the DMCA regardless of copyright. The question is whether or not the software running on the oscilloscope is protected under the DMCA and most experts believe it is.
All I can say is that evidently, Tectronix things the DMCA is on their side. It would seem foolish to issue a takedown notice for something obviously not protected as you state. Maybe it's as simple as the oscilloscope runs software and the hack talks about how to circumvent the built in protection. I mean, if a takedown notice can be validly issued for how to circumvent protection on a game or other software, why not on the oscilloscope's software, too?
But as I said, IANAL and will defer to those that are.
Copyright doesn't give them control over a fact. "The SKU for feature X isyyyyyyyy" is a fact, and therefore not protectable. If hackaday had copied and pasted paragraphs of prose from the manual, that would have been copyright infringement because copyright protects a unique expression.
If the manual had a table of SKU numbers and the article had a list, there's no copyright infringement because it's a different, unique expression.
IANAL, but based on what I have read elsewhere, I believe you are incorrect.
Most likely was just plain suicide. Right or wrong, Japanese culture has people feel and take much more responsibility for failures. It's all about honor.
Actually, you, as an individual could enable all fo those things. Same for the oscilloscope. You cannot, however, post online how to do it--at least not according to Tektronics.
So, what Tektronics is saying is that the dissemination of knowledge is a crime?
Do I even have to point out how slippery that slope is?
I agree it is a slippery slope, however, technically, they are correct in that the information being disseminated is from their copyrighted manuals. Posting their copyrighted information has led to the takedown notice. I'm curious, though, if the process could be posted without referencing their specific content - such as "look up the serial number for the feature you want to enable and enter it on such and such screen," instead of "Enter xyz1234 to enable this feature." Technically, if you aren't reproducing their content, they can't use the DMCA to knock it down.
As long as a how to is produced without using specific content, it shouldn't be a violation.
Actually, you, as an individual could enable all fo those things. Same for the oscilloscope. You cannot, however, post online how to do it--at least not according to Tektronics.
You evidently don't understand what science is. Science is "right", because the point is that falsehoods are verifiable, and the established truths are verified by the process of peer review. Science is also getting more "right" with each new discovery. This discovery doesn't invalidate previous discoveries: it bolsters them, and adds new information.
We used to think the Earth was the center of the Universe. New discoveries led to new insights. These changes to the scientific understanding didn't change the model of the motion of planets across the sky. It helped improve them.
Conversely, I don't see anyone blaming creationist parks.
There are also museums of natural history dotted around the world, which collectively contain (I would say) tens of thousands of models, which would either have to be replaced or reworked, or reinterpreted as being an artefact of an earlier, less complete understanding.
Say what? There is very little in science that is right. Take the atom, if we accept what we know today about it, then pretty much everything for the last century or two is wrong. Same with dinosaurs. If they were all covered in feathers, then what we knew about them before is wrong.
If scientific ideas really were right, then there wouldn't be changes in understanding. Such a concept wouldn't make sense. Math is right or wrong. 2+2 = 4 is either right or it is not. Our understanding of higher mathematics doesn't change our understanding of prior concepts. Science, for the most part is applied mathematics. How we apply math may not be right and therefore the scientific theory is wrong. That is why science uses models, which again, are mathematical. If enough models point to the same conclusion, then the probability of the science being wrong is reduced. If it is reduced enough, then it is no longer theory but fact.
Creationists have their theory on how the world came about and so do evolutionists. There are more models to support the scientific theory, but even then, there are something like 35 competing theories of evolution. So, until we can refine the models to narrow the results, all we can say is that we know evolution occurs, but we don't really know how. That's not a lot different from what the creationists say.
For the record, I disagree with the creationists. However, if one wants to be totally objective (or at least minimize biases), one has to admit that science doesn't always have the answers. The idea that science can eventually explain everything is as an untestable hypothesis as a deity creating everything. Neither can be proven.
BTW, science is not about proving falsehoods wrong. It is about describing the world/universe around us and doing so with greater and greater precision. Quantum theory states that everything is based on probability. The goal of science is, in any field, is to refine the methodology so that the probability increases that what is modeled most likely represents what is actual.
I'm not convinced people in mud huts were numerous enough or destructive enough to manage the megafauna extinctions. A lot of this hysterical screaming about how we're destroying the planet seems a lot like hubris.
On certain level, the idea that we have that much power pleases the egos of some people.
I am quite confident in stating that primitive peoples (ie. living in huts and the like) were not the cause of megafauna extinctions. One only has to look at similar peoples today in the rain forests and the outback to see that they live in balance with nature. As I stated in a separate post, it takes technology to live beyond what the ecosystem can sustain and those primitive people simply did not possess enough of it to make an impact.
Take the American Buffalo. It wasn't the Native Americans that caused their extinction. It was the intentional slaughter of them by others as a means to wipe out the Native Americans that did.
People who lived in mud huts or worse were responsible for most of the megafauna extinctions, not technology. Humans who can't see or don't consider the consequences of their actions are destructive with or without advanced tech.
I'm pretty sure that in the Amazon, it's not the tribal people there bulldozing down acre after acre of rain forest. As society can only sustain so many people living in huts. It takes technology, of some sort, to allow the population to expand beyond what the ecosystem can support. Left to nature, things tend to balance out. It is technology that allows the scales to be tipped.
There is a simple reason for this - economics. Early adopters went with iPads as they were really the only choice at the time. Now that the rest of the schools are going to jump on the bandwagon there are other choices and price comes into play. You can buy twice as many chromebooks as you can iPads for the same money.
Of course, that is assuming that their is educational software on the chromebooks that fit the students needs.
Kimberly did not volunteer the information for internet signage. Harassment.
Nor do businesses and people reported to the better business bureau, angie's list, amazon.com, ebay and similar rating services. While the tweet seems harsh based on the given information, the father didn't do anything but report tweet her name that was visible on her publicly displayed name badge. Airlines, just like stores, have employees where such badges so the public knows who has done them wrong or right and can report to management the actions.
While the tweet seems harsh given the limited information presented and probably foolish, it isn't harassment. Likewise, over-reacting to an airline employee normally will get you removed from a plane and possibly arrested, so he should be happy that he was only delayed in his trip.
Why is this called the "Brazil Nut Effect?" This is just normal buoyancy, science teachers have been doing demonstrations like this for years. You can do the same thing if you put a golf ball in the bottom of a container full of shredded bark and shake it.
Because in a can of mixed nuts, the Brazil Nuts are almost always on the top. Thus, the Brazil Nut Effect. It actually has nothing to do with buoyancy which involves mass. It's all about size. Put your golf ball in a container and cover it with marbles and then shake it up. The golf ball will rise to the top as the smaller marbles fall beneath it.
Slashdot Mirror
Having the password does not make you authorized. But being a dead persons heir, authorize you to take control of their posessions. Downloading the deceased's music is not piracy. similiar to how using the door key to enter the deceaseds home and grab the furniture is not burglary. It is all yours now - assuming the testament was not contested and all the heirs agreed on who gets what. Your brother got the sofa, you got the ebook collection, ...
The deceased, unless they created the music, does not own the music. The purchased a license for them to listen to the music. Same with ebooks. You aren't buying anything, you are licensing the content. Most of these things are licensed to specific users (the one paying the fee) and are not licensed where anyone can use it as long as it is only one person at a time (although some are). However, the deceased party created the music, or photos or whatever, then they, as copyright owner, do own it. That is of course unless the service you turned it over to includes that you transferred copyright to them.
In short, except for user created content, there is no electronic data to inherit.
If a doctor recommended surgery, and the mortality rate was 1 in 4000, I'd make damn sure the benefits outweighed the risk. And I'd update my will.
If you are having surgery and the mortality rate is 1 in 4000 (0.025%) those are excellent odds. Usually surgical mortality rates vary between 1% and 6% depending on the procedure.
The real problem is that the goal of most IT companies is to maximize profit in the short term. As such, engineers, like most employees are just a resource to be consumed. This isn't unique to IT companies, but it is most obvious there because many are started by venture capitalists who want to make their money and run. While engineers focus on quality solutions, the typical VC wants quick results at a low cost. The old adage of fast, quality, and cheap are at play in the IT world and you can't have all three.
Public/uni libraries, even prior to ebooks had less selection that what was commercially available. Whether paper or ebook, they still have to purchase the book with limited funds, so they are more likely to purchase something on the best seller list than something of a technical nature. It's just basic supply and demand and the format of the book doesn't change that.
Sounds like the article's discussing the way in which it's not screwed.
There are circumstances under which such rules can be waived.
I especially hope they wave them, because Tesla's almost certainly a net-benefit to California's environment anyway (by making the industry wake up to electric vehicles when traditional automakers seemed like they were intentionally failing).
Driving electric vehicles may be good for the environment, but producing them is not necessarily so. At least not locally.
Libraries were created for the common good. That is why they are free to the public (and paid for through taxes). Instead of replacing the library with a corporation like Amazon.com, maybe what is needed, for the common good, is a public library version of something like Amazon. Already many local libraries allow one to check out e-books.
E-readers and public libraries aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe sometime in the 21st century, there won't be as many physical libraries, but the public library will still exist through through the checking out of free e-books. There is no reason why libraries and book stores could coexist and not e-libraries and Amazon.
Oracle Forms is visual basic on steroids, only more painful to develop. 90s tech and still we are using it, god help us.
QFTFT
We have C# now people. You can quit living in the stone age. It's like Java, only not terrible.
That's fine if you live in a Windows only .Net world, but not everybody does. And while there is Mono, it is not 100% compatible.
Sorta? If you have a home mortgage in the US, I can say for a fact that you've got a 50/50 chance of using COBOL every month.
And if you pay taxes, at least in the US, there is a better than 80% chance of COBOL being involved.
This may come as a shock to timothy, but expensive hotels usually have bigger rooms, better views, and are more conveniently located also.
Better hookers as well.
Well, more expensive ones, anyway.
Only if it is copied. Paraphrasing technical information is not a copyright violation.
Actually, it doesn't matter whether it is a copyright violation or not. per the DMCA, publishing how to circumvent a protection is a violation of the DMCA regardless of copyright. The question is whether or not the software running on the oscilloscope is protected under the DMCA and most experts believe it is.
All I can say is that evidently, Tectronix things the DMCA is on their side. It would seem foolish to issue a takedown notice for something obviously not protected as you state. Maybe it's as simple as the oscilloscope runs software and the hack talks about how to circumvent the built in protection. I mean, if a takedown notice can be validly issued for how to circumvent protection on a game or other software, why not on the oscilloscope's software, too?
But as I said, IANAL and will defer to those that are.
Copyright doesn't give them control over a fact. "The SKU for feature X isyyyyyyyy" is a fact, and therefore not protectable. If hackaday had copied and pasted paragraphs of prose from the manual, that would have been copyright infringement because copyright protects a unique expression.
If the manual had a table of SKU numbers and the article had a list, there's no copyright infringement because it's a different, unique expression.
IANAL, but based on what I have read elsewhere, I believe you are incorrect.
Most likely was just plain suicide. Right or wrong, Japanese culture has people feel and take much more responsibility for failures. It's all about honor.
Actually, you, as an individual could enable all fo those things. Same for the oscilloscope. You cannot, however, post online how to do it--at least not according to Tektronics.
So, what Tektronics is saying is that the dissemination of knowledge is a crime?
Do I even have to point out how slippery that slope is?
I agree it is a slippery slope, however, technically, they are correct in that the information being disseminated is from their copyrighted manuals. Posting their copyrighted information has led to the takedown notice. I'm curious, though, if the process could be posted without referencing their specific content - such as "look up the serial number for the feature you want to enable and enter it on such and such screen," instead of "Enter xyz1234 to enable this feature." Technically, if you aren't reproducing their content, they can't use the DMCA to knock it down.
As long as a how to is produced without using specific content, it shouldn't be a violation.
Actually, you, as an individual could enable all fo those things. Same for the oscilloscope. You cannot, however, post online how to do it--at least not according to Tektronics.
Except his research was on using adult stem cells, so it is unlikely he would have triggered the angst of religious or abortion groups.
You evidently don't understand what science is. Science is "right", because the point is that falsehoods are verifiable, and the established truths are verified by the process of peer review. Science is also getting more "right" with each new discovery. This discovery doesn't invalidate previous discoveries: it bolsters them, and adds new information.
We used to think the Earth was the center of the Universe. New discoveries led to new insights. These changes to the scientific understanding didn't change the model of the motion of planets across the sky. It helped improve them.
Conversely, I don't see anyone blaming creationist parks.
There are also museums of natural history dotted around the world, which collectively contain (I would say) tens of thousands of models, which would either have to be replaced or reworked, or reinterpreted as being an artefact of an earlier, less complete understanding.
Say what? There is very little in science that is right. Take the atom, if we accept what we know today about it, then pretty much everything for the last century or two is wrong. Same with dinosaurs. If they were all covered in feathers, then what we knew about them before is wrong.
If scientific ideas really were right, then there wouldn't be changes in understanding. Such a concept wouldn't make sense. Math is right or wrong. 2+2 = 4 is either right or it is not. Our understanding of higher mathematics doesn't change our understanding of prior concepts. Science, for the most part is applied mathematics. How we apply math may not be right and therefore the scientific theory is wrong. That is why science uses models, which again, are mathematical. If enough models point to the same conclusion, then the probability of the science being wrong is reduced. If it is reduced enough, then it is no longer theory but fact.
Creationists have their theory on how the world came about and so do evolutionists. There are more models to support the scientific theory, but even then, there are something like 35 competing theories of evolution. So, until we can refine the models to narrow the results, all we can say is that we know evolution occurs, but we don't really know how. That's not a lot different from what the creationists say.
For the record, I disagree with the creationists. However, if one wants to be totally objective (or at least minimize biases), one has to admit that science doesn't always have the answers. The idea that science can eventually explain everything is as an untestable hypothesis as a deity creating everything. Neither can be proven.
BTW, science is not about proving falsehoods wrong. It is about describing the world/universe around us and doing so with greater and greater precision. Quantum theory states that everything is based on probability. The goal of science is, in any field, is to refine the methodology so that the probability increases that what is modeled most likely represents what is actual.
I'm not convinced people in mud huts were numerous enough or destructive enough to manage the megafauna extinctions. A lot of this hysterical screaming about how we're destroying the planet seems a lot like hubris.
On certain level, the idea that we have that much power pleases the egos of some people.
I am quite confident in stating that primitive peoples (ie. living in huts and the like) were not the cause of megafauna extinctions. One only has to look at similar peoples today in the rain forests and the outback to see that they live in balance with nature. As I stated in a separate post, it takes technology to live beyond what the ecosystem can sustain and those primitive people simply did not possess enough of it to make an impact.
Take the American Buffalo. It wasn't the Native Americans that caused their extinction. It was the intentional slaughter of them by others as a means to wipe out the Native Americans that did.
People who lived in mud huts or worse were responsible for most of the megafauna extinctions, not technology. Humans who can't see or don't consider the consequences of their actions are destructive with or without advanced tech.
I'm pretty sure that in the Amazon, it's not the tribal people there bulldozing down acre after acre of rain forest. As society can only sustain so many people living in huts. It takes technology, of some sort, to allow the population to expand beyond what the ecosystem can support. Left to nature, things tend to balance out. It is technology that allows the scales to be tipped.
Why not? We've had evidence that we ATE them going back to the 1800's.
The early 1800's
We also eat cows and they aren't going extinct. Correlation is not causation.
Did he tweet her full name, or just Kimberly S, as the article says?
Just Kimberly S, like the article says as that was the only information he had.
There is a simple reason for this - economics. Early adopters went with iPads as they were really the only choice at the time. Now that the rest of the schools are going to jump on the bandwagon there are other choices and price comes into play. You can buy twice as many chromebooks as you can iPads for the same money.
Of course, that is assuming that their is educational software on the chromebooks that fit the students needs.
Kimberly did not volunteer the information for internet signage. Harassment.
Nor do businesses and people reported to the better business bureau, angie's list, amazon.com, ebay and similar rating services. While the tweet seems harsh based on the given information, the father didn't do anything but report tweet her name that was visible on her publicly displayed name badge. Airlines, just like stores, have employees where such badges so the public knows who has done them wrong or right and can report to management the actions.
While the tweet seems harsh given the limited information presented and probably foolish, it isn't harassment. Likewise, over-reacting to an airline employee normally will get you removed from a plane and possibly arrested, so he should be happy that he was only delayed in his trip.
But an anti-hydrogen atom still has mass.
Why is this called the "Brazil Nut Effect?" This is just normal buoyancy, science teachers have been doing demonstrations like this for years. You can do the same thing if you put a golf ball in the bottom of a container full of shredded bark and shake it.
Because in a can of mixed nuts, the Brazil Nuts are almost always on the top. Thus, the Brazil Nut Effect. It actually has nothing to do with buoyancy which involves mass. It's all about size. Put your golf ball in a container and cover it with marbles and then shake it up. The golf ball will rise to the top as the smaller marbles fall beneath it.