When I worked on post at a US military base, years ago, all the phones had BIG RED STICKERS on them making clear that calls were monitored. Not even close to ambiguous or unclear.
Assuming you're referring to Bill Clinton, he was fully impeached (a function of the House of Representatives, analogous to indictment), but then not removed from office by the Senate. The article of impeachment that passed accused him of lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice, but not lying under oath to Congress.
One good reason would be because not all disclosure of classified information is equally broad, and rather than defining some complex standard to determine whether the information is truly and completely out of the bag, they simply require evaluation according to a set process to declassify it.
There's always EVE Online, which is about as far from a WoW clone as one can get. It's not an alternative to WoW, but a successful, different MMO model, and I think there's a lot to learn from the differences between the two of them. For the record, I've played both extensively.
I'm not sure I agree. The concern is presumably that the board, presumably not experts on engineering, would interpret his work mistakenly as having been prepared by a properly trained traffic engineer and assign it more than its due weight as a result.
It's possible that this problem could be cured by simply adding a disclaimer to the work to ensure that it's not misinterpreted as the product of a licensed traffic engineer.
In any case, reading farther along in the article, they mention that the likely outcome is that the engineering licensing board would write him a nasty letter, which I gather would be in lieu of charging him with a misdemeanor.
The "fasten seat belt" sign is just advisory. You can still get up when it's on if you need to for whatever reason.
From FAR 121.317:
(f) Each passenger required by 121.311(b) to occupy a seat or berth shall fasten his or her safety belt about him or her and keep it fastened while the "Fasten Seat Belt" sign is lighted.
In early 1996, I was a software engineer for Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics, in meetings to plan their first generation implementation of the ATV standard, on which current, U.S. HDTV devices are based. A huge priority for them at the time was to build a web browser into their television sets, and many ways to do this were investigated.
WebTV, which was pretty much the same idea in a set-top box, was in development at the time, and provided a model for that kind of thing, so Mitsubishi announced that they would, at some unspecified point, begin selling TVs with a feature they called "Diamond Internet" built into them.
It never happened. I don't know whether the issue was politics in the software department, or maybe just management recognition that it was a gimmick, but they never delivered such a product. Probably it came down to there just being too many other issues to manage to get an ATV set out the door.
However, it's clear that the idea's been there, lurking in people's minds, for the thirteen intervening years, and hasn't become any more useful a concept.
Incidentally, around that same time, I did buy a wonderful set-top-box by a company called Videoguide, that delivered TV schedules and news headlines to the device via unused text pager bandwidth. It was a great product, inexpensive and very useful, as even though I did have internet at home at that time, it wasn't an always-on connection. However, between shortened times to come out of sleep for laptops and PCs and the ubiquity of always-on internet connections in the home, I think the utility of a product like that isn't what it used to be. And anyway, Videoguide ended up getting bought out by Gemstar after spending tons of money.
Not surprised you didn't turn up positive on the test. I'm pretty sure those target specific high explosive substances that could be used in small amounts to bring down an airplane, and are not intended to detect common low-explosive propellants like gunpowder.
I believe you'll find that a government actor is held to an entirely different and much stricter legal standard than a private actor with respect to 4th amendment limitations.
The bank's responsible for 100% if you catch it within 60 days of the transaction. This guy did not piece together what had happened until 15 months after the first transaction.
The language is "fixed in physical form," which means something different from what you're reading. In any case, if the code's stable in memory long enough to execute it, that's most likely "fixed" enough as a matter of law.
You could unplug the power and destroy the copy, but you could also burn a book, doesn't make it any less a book.
About the question of whether it's bad design, the scarcity of resource nodes is balanced to give them a value that provides an in-game monetary reward for a player to spend an amount of time collecting them that's not so long that it ceases to be a fun thing to do (say 30 minutes or so.)
Arguably, it's simply impossible to balance that with some players automating their actions for hours on end.
Going down the route of simply taking scarcity entirely out of the game is even worse design -- scarcity IS the game, and it's why people find it so addictive.
I was saying that copying all or part of a copyrighted work into RAM is fixing it in physical form (specifically collections of electrons that make up accumulated charges, in the case of DRAM), and therefore subject to copyright law, and that's what the courts ruled in this case.
I agree enthusiastically that this is bad policy, but rather than simply denying that copying something into RAM is a physical process (which is demonstrably false), or creating a legal fiction that denies as a matter of law that it counts as a physical process (which would leave the statute saying one thing and meaning another), the most direct and effective way is to press Congress to change the statute. Of course, this is probably rather difficult because large media companies can donate more money than you or I can.
Regarding your comment, first, running WoW does copy chunks of the code into RAM. You don't have to copy the entire thing wholesale to bring copyright law into play, though the extent of copying does have an impact. Running WoW as a licensed user in this way, though, involves a type of copying that case law protects because it's incidental to the licensed use.
Second, in any case, Glider causes WoW to load in a nonstandard way, copying the entire binary into memory to facilitate what it's doing, so even if the question of loading it in part or in full mattered to a particular legal question, Glider's loading it in full.
"So, in the end, leveling and resource acquisition in WoW is a matter of time expenditure. Why does it matter, then, if I use a bot to put in 10 hours while I'm at work, or a college kid on break puts in 10 hours while I'm at work? We both end up in the same place at the same time, so nobody has an advantage."
A big problem is that one of the most common uses for things like Glider is to collect in-game resources that are limited in number -- a person who feels free to automate that contrary to the rules has a tendency not only to perform better at collecting those resources but to more completely shut out other players.
It's not just a matter of "oh that guy over there didn't have to spend the time that I did," though there's certainly some of that going on, it's that the guy over there let his computer gather up all the scarce resources overnight and now for player 2, who wants to spend the time themselves, there's no point because automated player 1 got there first.
"In fact, since it's a matter of time, people who can't be at the computer the maximum amount of time actually have a DISADVANTAGE by design."
Sure, but in the case of automation, people who take advantage of it have such a huge advantage over any real human being that permitting it would force everyone to automate. At some point in there it wouldn't be a game anymore.
Anyway, as for the legal issues raised in this case, Blizzard's arguments are not completely out there, though they are aggressive. Thing is, copyright is a creature of statute, and that they can make those arguments and sometimes win in court is a matter of what the statute says. Copyright law as it stands right now is chock full of bad policy, but only Congress can change that.
As an example, the idea that a copy of a copyrighted work in memory is fixed in physical form, which makes it subject to copyright under the statute, is actually true, no matter how inconvenient it is or absurd the result. There's case law that protects copying incidental and necessary to legal uses of a copyrighted work, but arguably (and Blizzard has argued this and won the point in this case) someone who copies incidentally to doing something that otherwise violates a contract with the copyright holder isn't protected by that case law.
I'm sure Blizzard's attorneys wouldn't want to be sued (or disbarred) because they came up with some argument the statute supported but elected not to use it despite it favoring their client.
0 - find and get 16mm film camera and lenses. 35mm is better. shoot on this video will NOT get you in the big festivals....
El Marachi and Blair witch are your examples of how the above was done. Blair Witch Project was shot on video.
The original article quoted the physicist saying "I don't know of another place in the universe that would have this intensity of light. We believe this is a record."
Saying it's a "record" means it's beat all the other measured light intensities known to us. There's nothing about that that even implies that he thinks that there's no actual higher light intensity somewhere else, only that if there is he doesn't know about it, and he thinks nobody else does either.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. "It's the same situation, by the way, with civil forfeiture" means that the Supreme Court has ruled that it's not punishment. I state this not because of ignorance but because I've read the case.:)
The Supreme Court has ruled that being included on one of these lists isn't "punishment," and thus is not subject to normal constitutional limits on judicial punishment.
Figure that one out.
(It's the same situation, by the way, with civil forfeiture.)
"the overwhelming majority of the worlds astronomers are amatours, almost none of whome have academic qualifications. In spite of this they are the acknowledged backbone of astronomy, responsible for a huge volume of discoveries and research. The field would be a wasteland without them."
There have been some notable discoveries by amateurs, but in general what you say about astronomy is simply not the case.
"I would suggest that Avid is a significant step above Final Cut, but I don't really work with video, so I could be mistaken."
I work with video, and you're mistaken. They're comparable products with similar feature sets. Avid's small advantage is that their file formats are de-facto standards.
You should probably be aware that there's a strong correlation between being well-connected with your community and having a longer life. Something to think about.
I have to disagree. I've been working in 3D animation production for ten years, having come from a software engineering background, and Blender's UI issues are not merely a result of the type of difficulty one would expect adapting to a complex package.
Take Houdini, generally regarded as a difficult 3D package to learn, for example. (I should point out that I'm not much of a Houdini user, let alone a partisan of it. My experience with it is similar to my experience with Blender.) Houdini's interface is different from most anything else out there, and there's a lot to learn before a user is functional with it. However, it has a clear structure and visual arrangement that, once learned, can make it easy to guess where to look for controls related to new features that the user hasn't ever seen before.
Blender seems to throw all the controls for its features around the window willy-nilly without a *plan* that would give you a sense for how to guess where to find something newly added. Furthermore, this quality appears to be so deeply rooted in the software that even the user interface improvements that have taken place so far have not improved Blender's situation. Based on what some posters in these comments have said about its design, it sounds like engineering that quality out of Blender will be difficult.
Obviously, it's great that there's such a technically advanced open source 3D package out there at all, but until Blender's UI is adjusted to the point that it becomes truly trainable to 3D artists who are not familiar with the package, it will be used only in a vanishingly small minority of paid 3D work.
Slashdot Mirror
When I worked on post at a US military base, years ago, all the phones had BIG RED STICKERS on them making clear that calls were monitored. Not even close to ambiguous or unclear.
There have been an ongoing series of Guardian articles that cover much more than what the President addressed in his comments.
Assuming you're referring to Bill Clinton, he was fully impeached (a function of the House of Representatives, analogous to indictment), but then not removed from office by the Senate. The article of impeachment that passed accused him of lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice, but not lying under oath to Congress.
One good reason would be because not all disclosure of classified information is equally broad, and rather than defining some complex standard to determine whether the information is truly and completely out of the bag, they simply require evaluation according to a set process to declassify it.
There's always EVE Online, which is about as far from a WoW clone as one can get. It's not an alternative to WoW, but a successful, different MMO model, and I think there's a lot to learn from the differences between the two of them. For the record, I've played both extensively.
That's because adults realize it's rude to play with their tablets at the dinner table.
I'm not sure I agree. The concern is presumably that the board, presumably not experts on engineering, would interpret his work mistakenly as having been prepared by a properly trained traffic engineer and assign it more than its due weight as a result. It's possible that this problem could be cured by simply adding a disclaimer to the work to ensure that it's not misinterpreted as the product of a licensed traffic engineer. In any case, reading farther along in the article, they mention that the likely outcome is that the engineering licensing board would write him a nasty letter, which I gather would be in lieu of charging him with a misdemeanor.
The "fasten seat belt" sign is just advisory. You can still get up when it's on if you need to for whatever reason.
From FAR 121.317:
(f) Each passenger required by 121.311(b) to occupy a seat or berth shall fasten his or her safety belt about him or her and keep it fastened while the "Fasten Seat Belt" sign is lighted.
So, no.
In early 1996, I was a software engineer for Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics, in meetings to plan their first generation implementation of the ATV standard, on which current, U.S. HDTV devices are based. A huge priority for them at the time was to build a web browser into their television sets, and many ways to do this were investigated.
WebTV, which was pretty much the same idea in a set-top box, was in development at the time, and provided a model for that kind of thing, so Mitsubishi announced that they would, at some unspecified point, begin selling TVs with a feature they called "Diamond Internet" built into them.
It never happened. I don't know whether the issue was politics in the software department, or maybe just management recognition that it was a gimmick, but they never delivered such a product. Probably it came down to there just being too many other issues to manage to get an ATV set out the door.
However, it's clear that the idea's been there, lurking in people's minds, for the thirteen intervening years, and hasn't become any more useful a concept.
Incidentally, around that same time, I did buy a wonderful set-top-box by a company called Videoguide, that delivered TV schedules and news headlines to the device via unused text pager bandwidth. It was a great product, inexpensive and very useful, as even though I did have internet at home at that time, it wasn't an always-on connection. However, between shortened times to come out of sleep for laptops and PCs and the ubiquity of always-on internet connections in the home, I think the utility of a product like that isn't what it used to be. And anyway, Videoguide ended up getting bought out by Gemstar after spending tons of money.
Not surprised you didn't turn up positive on the test. I'm pretty sure those target specific high explosive substances that could be used in small amounts to bring down an airplane, and are not intended to detect common low-explosive propellants like gunpowder.
> As a pure unpaid contributor of source code you have no patent liability.
Unfortunately, that's not true. Actually, as an unpaid, noncommercial USER of a software product, you CAN have patent liability.
Patents extend to the right to control all development and use of derivative technologies whether commercially or noncommercially.
I believe you'll find that a government actor is held to an entirely different and much stricter legal standard than a private actor with respect to 4th amendment limitations.
The bank's responsible for 100% if you catch it within 60 days of the transaction. This guy did not piece together what had happened until 15 months after the first transaction.
The language is "fixed in physical form," which means something different from what you're reading. In any case, if the code's stable in memory long enough to execute it, that's most likely "fixed" enough as a matter of law.
You could unplug the power and destroy the copy, but you could also burn a book, doesn't make it any less a book.
About the question of whether it's bad design, the scarcity of resource nodes is balanced to give them a value that provides an in-game monetary reward for a player to spend an amount of time collecting them that's not so long that it ceases to be a fun thing to do (say 30 minutes or so.)
Arguably, it's simply impossible to balance that with some players automating their actions for hours on end.
Going down the route of simply taking scarcity entirely out of the game is even worse design -- scarcity IS the game, and it's why people find it so addictive.
Your statement doesn't respond to mine at all.
I was saying that copying all or part of a copyrighted work into RAM is fixing it in physical form (specifically collections of electrons that make up accumulated charges, in the case of DRAM), and therefore subject to copyright law, and that's what the courts ruled in this case.
I agree enthusiastically that this is bad policy, but rather than simply denying that copying something into RAM is a physical process (which is demonstrably false), or creating a legal fiction that denies as a matter of law that it counts as a physical process (which would leave the statute saying one thing and meaning another), the most direct and effective way is to press Congress to change the statute. Of course, this is probably rather difficult because large media companies can donate more money than you or I can.
Regarding your comment, first, running WoW does copy chunks of the code into RAM. You don't have to copy the entire thing wholesale to bring copyright law into play, though the extent of copying does have an impact. Running WoW as a licensed user in this way, though, involves a type of copying that case law protects because it's incidental to the licensed use.
Second, in any case, Glider causes WoW to load in a nonstandard way, copying the entire binary into memory to facilitate what it's doing, so even if the question of loading it in part or in full mattered to a particular legal question, Glider's loading it in full.
"So, in the end, leveling and resource acquisition in WoW is a matter of time expenditure. Why does it matter, then, if I use a bot to put in 10 hours while I'm at work, or a college kid on break puts in 10 hours while I'm at work? We both end up in the same place at the same time, so nobody has an advantage."
A big problem is that one of the most common uses for things like Glider is to collect in-game resources that are limited in number -- a person who feels free to automate that contrary to the rules has a tendency not only to perform better at collecting those resources but to more completely shut out other players.
It's not just a matter of "oh that guy over there didn't have to spend the time that I did," though there's certainly some of that going on, it's that the guy over there let his computer gather up all the scarce resources overnight and now for player 2, who wants to spend the time themselves, there's no point because automated player 1 got there first.
"In fact, since it's a matter of time, people who can't be at the computer the maximum amount of time actually have a DISADVANTAGE by design."
Sure, but in the case of automation, people who take advantage of it have such a huge advantage over any real human being that permitting it would force everyone to automate. At some point in there it wouldn't be a game anymore.
Anyway, as for the legal issues raised in this case, Blizzard's arguments are not completely out there, though they are aggressive. Thing is, copyright is a creature of statute, and that they can make those arguments and sometimes win in court is a matter of what the statute says. Copyright law as it stands right now is chock full of bad policy, but only Congress can change that.
As an example, the idea that a copy of a copyrighted work in memory is fixed in physical form, which makes it subject to copyright under the statute, is actually true, no matter how inconvenient it is or absurd the result. There's case law that protects copying incidental and necessary to legal uses of a copyrighted work, but arguably (and Blizzard has argued this and won the point in this case) someone who copies incidentally to doing something that otherwise violates a contract with the copyright holder isn't protected by that case law.
I'm sure Blizzard's attorneys wouldn't want to be sued (or disbarred) because they came up with some argument the statute supported but elected not to use it despite it favoring their client.
The original article quoted the physicist saying "I don't know of another place in the universe that would have this intensity of light. We believe this is a record."
Saying it's a "record" means it's beat all the other measured light intensities known to us. There's nothing about that that even implies that he thinks that there's no actual higher light intensity somewhere else, only that if there is he doesn't know about it, and he thinks nobody else does either.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. "It's the same situation, by the way, with civil forfeiture" means that the Supreme Court has ruled that it's not punishment. I state this not because of ignorance but because I've read the case. :)
The Supreme Court has ruled that being included on one of these lists isn't "punishment," and thus is not subject to normal constitutional limits on judicial punishment. Figure that one out. (It's the same situation, by the way, with civil forfeiture.)
"the overwhelming majority of the worlds astronomers are amatours, almost none of whome have academic qualifications. In spite of this they are the acknowledged backbone of astronomy, responsible for a huge volume of discoveries and research. The field would be a wasteland without them."
There have been some notable discoveries by amateurs, but in general what you say about astronomy is simply not the case.
"I would suggest that Avid is a significant step above Final Cut, but I don't really work with video, so I could be mistaken." I work with video, and you're mistaken. They're comparable products with similar feature sets. Avid's small advantage is that their file formats are de-facto standards.
"Me vs. everyone."
You should probably be aware that there's a strong correlation between being well-connected with your community and having a longer life. Something to think about.
-- Mark
I have to disagree. I've been working in 3D animation production for ten years, having come from a software engineering background, and Blender's UI issues are not merely a result of the type of difficulty one would expect adapting to a complex package.
Take Houdini, generally regarded as a difficult 3D package to learn, for example. (I should point out that I'm not much of a Houdini user, let alone a partisan of it. My experience with it is similar to my experience with Blender.) Houdini's interface is different from most anything else out there, and there's a lot to learn before a user is functional with it. However, it has a clear structure and visual arrangement that, once learned, can make it easy to guess where to look for controls related to new features that the user hasn't ever seen before.
Blender seems to throw all the controls for its features around the window willy-nilly without a *plan* that would give you a sense for how to guess where to find something newly added. Furthermore, this quality appears to be so deeply rooted in the software that even the user interface improvements that have taken place so far have not improved Blender's situation. Based on what some posters in these comments have said about its design, it sounds like engineering that quality out of Blender will be difficult.
Obviously, it's great that there's such a technically advanced open source 3D package out there at all, but until Blender's UI is adjusted to the point that it becomes truly trainable to 3D artists who are not familiar with the package, it will be used only in a vanishingly small minority of paid 3D work.
-- Mark