"The only advantage it has over CDs is that you don't have to wait or move your lazy ass out of your shack. that's all there is to it "
While I generally agree with everything you've said, this part is slightly wrong. True that the per-song cost is about the same from a download versus a CD, but on a CD you have to pay for all the songs even if you don't want them. In downloading you only pay for the songs you want. So there is some benefit. But, the rest of the things you say are true. The best value for the money is probably a compilation CD, especially one that is customer can define, with most or all songs being ones you want.
"So the basis of what's right and what's wrong is whether it's a business or an individual that's engaged in the violation?"
I think you missed the point. They're different. It's not a right or wrong issue. The "companies with a substantial amount of cash" can afford to fight lawsuits in court and/or more easily get their version of legislation approved. When a big company violates the copyrights of some nobody coder, it's very tough for the coder to either find out, have the law enforced, or successfully sue the big company. These generally require power, influence, and money. When a nobody downloader violates the copyrights of some big corporation, the corporation can afford to track them down, have influence to have the law enforced, and sue them successfully. Furthermore, a law that outlaws P2P, for example, screws over the downloaders (whether legal or illegal) but does nothing to stop companies from violating the GPL. Who gets affected by the laws will depend on where the law is targeted. Corporations will tend to influence the legislation to target those who "hurt" their business, with minimal to no effect on their ability to hurt other people.
This is getting childish guys. It was an analogy, it was even in quotes ("copyright terrorist"). Going into detailed semantics on strict definitions misses the point of an analogy. The point is that Senator Hatch is using extreme tactics, including the use of fear, to force people to conform to an ideal that they disagree with but that he believes in strongly. There is an analogy to terrorism in there, but of course it does not fit a strict definition of the meaning. Just like the Monte Carlo method has nothing to do with the city, a seahorse is not related to a horse, and neural networks don't actually use neurons.
"Just remember that it is also the responsibility of the computer users to patch their systems in a timely manner..."
This is true, but I'd like to go one step even further. Is there software out there to check if your PC has been co-opted, like what honeynet has but for regular users (just an integrity check)? I have a server with a firewall, then a router with a firewall, then ZoneAlarm software firewall on my main home PC. I expect this should be safe, but I know I've gotten spyware and adware on it (from downloaded programs), so even removing that how is one to know if there's an exploit through one of the legitimate I/O routes (web browser, P2P, IM, etc.).
"You're forgetting that the guy owns the IP of the modifications he made."
Yes, and I suspect that he can sign over the copyrights of the code he wrote. However, he cannot sign over the rights to the parts that IBM wrote nor terminate any legal obligations attached to those IP rights. So effectively his company becomes him in terms of the legalities, which means they are legally bound by the GPL regarding this code. Laying claim to code that is subject to the GPL doesn't extract it from the GPL. This guy hasn't done anything illegal, he didn't sign over any rights he didn't have. In fact, he only agreed to sign over whatever rights he did have, and he didn't have the right to violate the GPL. Therefore his company, in taking over his IP rights, also does not have that right. It's the company that's exceeding their rights and violating the law.
What about getting one of the organizations involved in protecting the GPL involved. A few letters from lawyers should make them see their error.
Actually, itis. Well, since you said "uncalibrated" I suppose you are mostly correct, though I don't mind calibrating my camera, that's relatively easy to do. But as far as 3D-from-motion (single camera) I have (and have read) the literature and examples from both of the referenced sources, and just 3 weeks ago we got a demo here of working 3D-from-motion system from one of our research partners. It's actually quite impressive, about on par with the stereo system we have and with similar limitations (lighting sensitivity, sensitivity to calibration, etc).
It's true stereo isn't a "done deal", but from all the research we've been monitoring it seems we're over the hump of the curve and everything from now is likely to be minor improvements with a lot of work. There are fundamental limitations of stereoscopy (and 3D-from-motion) that I think we're very near to.
But, I should also correct the inference. By "everyone and their dog" I meant that it's been (and being done) by lots and lots of people. There are very few people doing the 3D-from-motion.
I'm curious too. After all, Linux can certainly run on an IBM VM/ESA 390 and zSeries. However, perhaps the thought is that Linux is not as scalable as versions of UNIX, not that it isn't scalable at all. On the other hand, others disagree and think it's an ideal approach.
"As the PATRIOT Act does not give authorities that power, you appear to be speaking dishonestly here."
I had interpreted it as an analogy, as in the general case "the power to do X is good if limited to the intention of X". As far as the PATRIOT act, the bigger concerns aresurveillance issues. Perhaps rephrasing as "The power to spy on criminal suspects is good. The power to spy on whoever you feel like is bad." That is within the powers provided by the PATRIOT act.
Actually, now I'm even less impressed. The MDRobotics iSM uses a stereo camera system. I had thought it was a 3D-from-video method (particularly since it uses SIFT). I find those much more useful because I can use it with my home video cam. Making 3D models from a stereo-cam requires special equipment and has been done by everyone and their dog. I'm not so clear on why this is new or that interesting.
"Educationally, people could truly "walk around" in a virtual museum."
True, though I don't think this is the right technology for that. Don't get me wrong, I think this is impressive and interesting, though it isn't the first or only 3D model from video motion software. However, for hi-fidelity virtualization of museums or artifacts I'm far more impressed with otherapproaches.
"Are you really trying to say that to mount a rescue mission, nasa first has to go through a rigerous development and test cycle?"
No, I'm saying to launch a mission that will rely on a rescue mission to meet the safety requirements of the mission, which is the case of Hubble. If the damage on STS-107 (Columbia) had been found and they had to get back down somehow, obviously the solution would not have to go through the rigorous cycle. But now as a result of the CAIB report they can't go to Hubble without a plan to get the astronauts back in the case of failure of the shuttle. They can't just say "Oh, we'll come up with a plan if it ever happens and it'll probably use Soyuz". Any planned rescue system will indeed have to go through a very rigorous development and test cycle.
This also makes no sense. They can't dock the Soyuz to the shuttle without planning ahead during the launch anyway, as I've pointed out. They won't have the right equipment for it. Either it's a planned rescue mission or it won't work. And they need that plan to launch anyway.
Apollo 13 was an emergency rescue for which there was no plan and the scenario was not part of the requirements for launch, and nobody had such a plan. Even if they did have a rescue plan, the particulars of that accident would never have been predicted beforehand, such as the loss of oxygen and power. In the case of shuttle flights, there is no luxury of ignorance. Plans for rescue or repair are necessary. If something happens outside the scope of the planned rescue, then of course a "heroic" fix/rescue might come into play without strict development. Just the fact that you've identified the need for a rescue at Hubble (as has everyone else) means that it isn't outside the scope of what was considered.
Rather than looking for and adopting quick, cheap and simple fixes to problems, they insist on goldplating everything they do.
I call bullshit on this one. I work with NASA. The requirements for safety and ensuring certification and validation of systems and operations are (a) important to protecting the lives of the astronauts, the vehicles, and the success of the mission, (b) come from political requirements (particularly Congress and the White House, whom NASA gets beat up by when they fail), and (c) are required in any similar dangerous systems including military and nuclear. In fact, the CAIB report identifies that not enough attention was paid to proper safety processes for approving these things, and points to military and civilian dangerous programs where such requirements are also necessary. (BTW, the CAIB was a government appointed committee whose recommendations the government commited NASA to meeting.)
Your idea of "cheap and simple fixes" would not pass muster in any of these places. You'd very likely be fired outright for even suggesting it if you were in charge of anything at NASA or overseeing it from the government.
In your mind you have equated the act of publication with the act of libel. This is not black-and-white and was addressed by the court, as well as other courts. The act of libel include the requirement of defamation of character and that took place in Ontario. See, for instance, The 'Lectric Law Library's definition of the act of defamation:
An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation.
The shame, ridicule, contempt, damaged reputation and the community in which it happened were all in Ontario, not Washington. He also lost his employment status and earnings, also not in Washington. This did not set a precedence, in fact the ruling referenced precedence. (Both Dow Jones & Company v. Gutnick and Upper Lakes Shipping Ltd. v. Foster Yeoman Ltd. were used.) The court did consider that the publication occured in D.C., but that the damaged to reputation occured in Ontario, so both forums would be relevant but neither was clearly more appropriate. The ruling didn't claim that Ontario was better, but neither was D.C. Based on precedence in the latter reference, without a clearly more appropriate forum he had to rule that the plaintiff's choice was appropriate. That you consider the location of publication more important than the location of damage is neither legally recognized (certainly not in the U.S., Canada, Australia, or many other countries) nor clearly logical.
"If a Canadian newspaper writes a story on..."
"If I write something here about Olymic athletes as a group..."
"How do you know that YOUR post doesn't violate Uzbekistan law?"
Again, if you actually read my last post, these are all interesting legal questions and are current points of contention in many places. In particular, if you read the article I referenced you'd see that this is an issue at the forefront of internet and the law, and in many cases there is a hyprocrisy (such as the U.S. exerting its laws on copyright violations in other countries while maintaining that it doesn't have to abide by laws of other countries, particularly France as noted in the article and that which you presented in your post).
However, as pointed out in the article and me in my last post, which you seem to have missed or ignored, all of the examples you provide are cases where the act is not illegal in the coutry of production but is in some other country. As I pointed out, the Washington Post case was illegal in both Ontario and D.C. so this is really a non-issue and there is a fairly long history of such cases. The examples you quote are the interesting ones being slowly worked out over time. An even more interesting case might be if I wrote something from one country to Slashdot which "published" it in another country (such as on U.S. servers), and was read in a third country. What if what I said was legal in the first two countries, and not the third. Or if in the first but not the second, or vice versa. There's a whole bunch of interesting cases. The Washington Post one is clear-cut and uninteresting.
"However your example is a reversal of the actual situation. It's people in Ontario "calling" Washington."
No, that's not a reversal, in fact it's a moot semantic. If the people in Ontario called the guy in Washington, and the guy in Washington made the sladerous remark over the speakerphone in Ontario, the defamation would still occur in Ontario. Nobody in Washinton heard it and no damage was done in Washington. Who actually initiated the call would be irrelevent.
One more note, you keep referring to my logic. I a
If you want to avoid reading up on common law and international law, try a news.com article that talks about some of the issues. You'll see that breaking laws across borders is very old. It's not like telephones, international transactions, or import/export are new. The web offers one major twist in that it is passive so it is hard to prove active will to perform the act as in the previous cases, and this is an area of contention when it comes to breaking laws that only exist in foreign countries (like in your example). These cases are the ones that are of interest. The current one on the Washington Post involves breaking a civil law that exists almost everywhere, including Canada and the U.S., not to mention that the Washington Post is exported to Canada (though the specific issue in question was web-based). This is a boring, old, "been-done-before", and accepted outcome. Again, nothing to see here.
"If so, fine, run the case in the country where the act was done."
"How about the fact that the publishing was done there? When someone does something they should be subject to the law where they do it."
That's spelled out quite clearly in the justidiction ruling. Where the act was done is not clear cut, but seems to be more on the Ontario side. As I said (in referencing the rulings), the damage to the man's reputation was done in Ontario, not D.C. The man has no reputation in D.C. (no family, friends, co-workers, etc.) but did in Ontario, and the Washington Post is made available in Ontario.
Imagine, for instance, if I made a phone call from Washington to a speakerphone in Ontario where there was a big gathering of people, and during this phone call I slandered somebody who was at the Ontario end. Where did the act occur? I'm in Washington, but the slander itself isn't the words I say in Washington but the expression of them heard by the public in Ontario.
"If I say Allah does not exist, well the "damage" may be in Iran, but there's no way in hell I'm supposed to know Iranian law nor should I be subject to Iranian law."
You have no idea how common law systems or international law work, do you. I suggest you read up on them as well as the rulings in this case. As I said, this is not new and breaks no new ground, and isn't the same thing as you just suggested.
"...maybe it's time to regain some of that currently wasted heat back into electricity"
Good idea, I've always thought that it seemed like a waste of energy, and I know people are working on it. The problem is really that a system that uses the waste heat to generate energy (thereby reducing both heat output and power requirements) is generally big, heavy, and not too portable. I know there are small versions, but I'm guessing they haven't gotten them to the point where they are practical or economic for laptops. Someone can't point me to a reference if I'm wrong about this. Still, I expect it isn't too far in the future.
"there is a common docking collar now used on all manned vehicles, russian or american."
There are a few things wrong with your statement. First, although generally true that they use the same collar for docking to the ISS, the generic "all manned vehicles" isn't true. NASA has a variety of interfaces, including the Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) and Manual Berthing Mechanism (MBM) used on the ISS, but these are generally for berthing, not docking. Still, the CBM is an alternate docking mechanism (see for instance Section 5.1.5 of the Alternate Access to Station (AAS) Systems Concept of a Logistics Resupply Service to the ISS). The Russian interface is the Androgynous Peripheral Attachment System (APAS) as part of the Androgynous Peripheral Docking System(APDS). There are two parts to the APDS, passive and active. To convert from the NASA CBM interface to APAS, the ISS has three Pressurized Mating Adaptors (PMA1, 2, and 3). PMA1 has an active APDS because it connects the NASA Node 1 (Unity) to the Russian FGB module, and so isn't used for docking. PMA2 and PMA3 have passive APDS because they are used for docking. (See Section 1.1 of the Procurement Document for the APDS referenced above.)
Since both vehicles dock to the ISS, the shuttle does have an APAS adapter known as the Orbital Docking System (ODS). This is the 'L' shaped connector that attaches to the port at the front of the shuttle bay. It is only attached in missions to the ISS, and the APAS interface is only used for docking to the ISS. It isn't inherently true that all docking operations will be done using an APAS. However, since the only docking currently taking place is with the ISS, this is currently functionally true. It is only an ISS policy, however. The ODS is not installed on Hubble missions.
Furthermore, both the Soyuz and shuttle ODS have the active APDS side (again, see for instance Section 1.1 of the Procurement Document for the APDS above). Neither has the passive side because they are the ones doing the docking. In addition to this, approach and docking to the passive APDS is accomplished using docking cues (targets). (See, for example, Section 5.1.7.3.4.2 of the Interface Definition Document (IDD) for International Space Station (ISS) Visiting Vehicles (VVs). Neither the shuttle ODS nor Soyuz have these docking cues, again because they are the ones doing the docking.
So, I stand by my assertion that it is not as simple as you say. This method needs to be planned ahead with the right adaptors and docking systems developed and carried with them, probably flown on a Detailed Test Objective (DTO) flight, certified and validated. Again, such a system takes years of development.
As far as the orbit, it isn't clear that the Soyuz module or launch rocket are designed to go as far as Hubble. For instance, it appears that the Soyuz used for ISS mission and crew descent is only designed to descend from up to 460 km. The Hubble is at an altutude of about 600 km. So, if you have a reference on your assertion that "The Soyuz can easily reach the Hubble orbit", please forward it. Even better would be one that says it can descend from there. (Reaching it is useless as a rescue vehicle if it can't descend.)
It's not like NASA just missed the idea of using Soyuz, and you amazingly came up with the solution they're looking for. They are very smart you know. You also don't seem to realize that many of us who read Slashdot work for or with NASA (the geek ratio is quite high), so we often have the inside scoop or at least knowledge of what's involved.
"So it's the papers that come out, not the actual knowledge or the new treatments/cures that's the real benefit of scientific research?"
It's the transfer of the actual knowledge that's the most important. Some guy sitting in a lab with the knowledge in his head is useless. Knowledge is only useful if it is disseminated to those who can use it.
"Should every single thing paid for by government grant be available completely free to the taxpayer?"
I already covered that in the last post. That's a strawman argument, nobody said that. And you also seem to miss that I'm not arguing what I believe, but what many people have objected to. I don't have the right answer, it's a tough situation. The point is that the current system has some flaws that many people dislike.
NASA cannot send a manned shuttle to Hubble and meet the requirements of the CAIB report. In order to meet these requirements they need an automated inspection and repair system. They are just now getting the final process in place for meeting the requirements for return-to-flight of the shuttles to the ISS which has taken more than 2 years. The ISS version is easy compared to the requirements for Hubble. They don't even have solid ideas on how they might meet those requirements yet. We are talking many years and huge development costs in such a system while at the same time getting back to the ISS schedule and planning for the future changes to the program (retiring shuttles, building the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Moon and Mars plan, etc.)
If NASA is going to send the shuttle to Hubble, and it's still a possibility, it will have to violate its commitment to meeting the CAIB report recommendations. It is that simple. I work with NASA and astronauts and this is their exact position on Hubble. The manned mission is still on the table, and two robotic missions are in the planning. Nothing is set in stone. There is a new administrator coming on board too, so things may change.
There's a whole host of problems related to using Soyuz as a rescue vehicle for the shuttle. First, it can't dock to the shuttle. They'd have to come up with a docking system and bring it up with them, which takes years of development and certification. Second, Hubble is in a orbit about twice as high as the ISS. Since the Russians don't send Soyuz that far they might not have an appropriate rocket for it, at least not ready to go.
Not that it can't be done, but it certainly requires major development and preparations. It can't really be done as an afterthought.
And, in fact, the safety record of the Shuttle is better then was was expected.
Do you have a reference on this? I have been told (by NASA engineers) that the shuttle risk was supposed to be 1/67. They've now had two losses in just over 100 flights. Sounds like they are just slightly less safe than was expected.
"...but I think 3 to 1 in our favor would not be unreasonable."
Yeah, I don't work in retail, but I do work a lot with probabilities and statistics. This seems like a case where the circumstances of retail would inherently likely bias mistakes in favour of the vendor. However, that would suggest that it's in a retailer's best interests to make mistakes regularly, i.e., be intentionally incompetent. Perhaps that's the point that people were trying to make, that this shouldn't be allowed.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, he did say he was in Ottawa, Canada. iPods start (20 GB) at about $380 Canadian, which with taxes is $437.
Cute. It took me a minute to figure out what you're talking about.
While I generally agree with everything you've said, this part is slightly wrong. True that the per-song cost is about the same from a download versus a CD, but on a CD you have to pay for all the songs even if you don't want them. In downloading you only pay for the songs you want. So there is some benefit. But, the rest of the things you say are true. The best value for the money is probably a compilation CD, especially one that is customer can define, with most or all songs being ones you want.
I think you missed the point. They're different. It's not a right or wrong issue. The "companies with a substantial amount of cash" can afford to fight lawsuits in court and/or more easily get their version of legislation approved. When a big company violates the copyrights of some nobody coder, it's very tough for the coder to either find out, have the law enforced, or successfully sue the big company. These generally require power, influence, and money. When a nobody downloader violates the copyrights of some big corporation, the corporation can afford to track them down, have influence to have the law enforced, and sue them successfully. Furthermore, a law that outlaws P2P, for example, screws over the downloaders (whether legal or illegal) but does nothing to stop companies from violating the GPL. Who gets affected by the laws will depend on where the law is targeted. Corporations will tend to influence the legislation to target those who "hurt" their business, with minimal to no effect on their ability to hurt other people.
In short, no, it doesn't cut both ways.
This is getting childish guys. It was an analogy, it was even in quotes ("copyright terrorist"). Going into detailed semantics on strict definitions misses the point of an analogy. The point is that Senator Hatch is using extreme tactics, including the use of fear, to force people to conform to an ideal that they disagree with but that he believes in strongly. There is an analogy to terrorism in there, but of course it does not fit a strict definition of the meaning. Just like the Monte Carlo method has nothing to do with the city, a seahorse is not related to a horse, and neural networks don't actually use neurons.
I rate this a 000000000 on the geek scale.
This is true, but I'd like to go one step even further. Is there software out there to check if your PC has been co-opted, like what honeynet has but for regular users (just an integrity check)? I have a server with a firewall, then a router with a firewall, then ZoneAlarm software firewall on my main home PC. I expect this should be safe, but I know I've gotten spyware and adware on it (from downloaded programs), so even removing that how is one to know if there's an exploit through one of the legitimate I/O routes (web browser, P2P, IM, etc.).
Yes, and I suspect that he can sign over the copyrights of the code he wrote. However, he cannot sign over the rights to the parts that IBM wrote nor terminate any legal obligations attached to those IP rights. So effectively his company becomes him in terms of the legalities, which means they are legally bound by the GPL regarding this code. Laying claim to code that is subject to the GPL doesn't extract it from the GPL. This guy hasn't done anything illegal, he didn't sign over any rights he didn't have. In fact, he only agreed to sign over whatever rights he did have, and he didn't have the right to violate the GPL. Therefore his company, in taking over his IP rights, also does not have that right. It's the company that's exceeding their rights and violating the law.
What about getting one of the organizations involved in protecting the GPL involved. A few letters from lawyers should make them see their error.
Actually, it is. Well, since you said "uncalibrated" I suppose you are mostly correct, though I don't mind calibrating my camera, that's relatively easy to do. But as far as 3D-from-motion (single camera) I have (and have read) the literature and examples from both of the referenced sources, and just 3 weeks ago we got a demo here of working 3D-from-motion system from one of our research partners. It's actually quite impressive, about on par with the stereo system we have and with similar limitations (lighting sensitivity, sensitivity to calibration, etc).
It's true stereo isn't a "done deal", but from all the research we've been monitoring it seems we're over the hump of the curve and everything from now is likely to be minor improvements with a lot of work. There are fundamental limitations of stereoscopy (and 3D-from-motion) that I think we're very near to.
But, I should also correct the inference. By "everyone and their dog" I meant that it's been (and being done) by lots and lots of people. There are very few people doing the 3D-from-motion.
I'm curious too. After all, Linux can certainly run on an IBM VM/ESA 390 and zSeries. However, perhaps the thought is that Linux is not as scalable as versions of UNIX, not that it isn't scalable at all. On the other hand, others disagree and think it's an ideal approach.
That must have been nice. We had to learn to count using our hands. Luckily I have two hands so counting in binary is easy.
I had interpreted it as an analogy, as in the general case "the power to do X is good if limited to the intention of X". As far as the PATRIOT act, the bigger concerns aresurveillance issues. Perhaps rephrasing as "The power to spy on criminal suspects is good. The power to spy on whoever you feel like is bad." That is within the powers provided by the PATRIOT act.
Actually, now I'm even less impressed. The MDRobotics iSM uses a stereo camera system. I had thought it was a 3D-from-video method (particularly since it uses SIFT). I find those much more useful because I can use it with my home video cam. Making 3D models from a stereo-cam requires special equipment and has been done by everyone and their dog. I'm not so clear on why this is new or that interesting.
True, though I don't think this is the right technology for that. Don't get me wrong, I think this is impressive and interesting, though it isn't the first or only 3D model from video motion software. However, for hi-fidelity virtualization of museums or artifacts I'm far more impressed with other approaches.
No, I'm saying to launch a mission that will rely on a rescue mission to meet the safety requirements of the mission, which is the case of Hubble. If the damage on STS-107 (Columbia) had been found and they had to get back down somehow, obviously the solution would not have to go through the rigorous cycle. But now as a result of the CAIB report they can't go to Hubble without a plan to get the astronauts back in the case of failure of the shuttle. They can't just say "Oh, we'll come up with a plan if it ever happens and it'll probably use Soyuz". Any planned rescue system will indeed have to go through a very rigorous development and test cycle.
This also makes no sense. They can't dock the Soyuz to the shuttle without planning ahead during the launch anyway, as I've pointed out. They won't have the right equipment for it. Either it's a planned rescue mission or it won't work. And they need that plan to launch anyway.
Apollo 13 was an emergency rescue for which there was no plan and the scenario was not part of the requirements for launch, and nobody had such a plan. Even if they did have a rescue plan, the particulars of that accident would never have been predicted beforehand, such as the loss of oxygen and power. In the case of shuttle flights, there is no luxury of ignorance. Plans for rescue or repair are necessary. If something happens outside the scope of the planned rescue, then of course a "heroic" fix/rescue might come into play without strict development. Just the fact that you've identified the need for a rescue at Hubble (as has everyone else) means that it isn't outside the scope of what was considered.
Rather than looking for and adopting quick, cheap and simple fixes to problems, they insist on goldplating everything they do.
I call bullshit on this one. I work with NASA. The requirements for safety and ensuring certification and validation of systems and operations are (a) important to protecting the lives of the astronauts, the vehicles, and the success of the mission, (b) come from political requirements (particularly Congress and the White House, whom NASA gets beat up by when they fail), and (c) are required in any similar dangerous systems including military and nuclear. In fact, the CAIB report identifies that not enough attention was paid to proper safety processes for approving these things, and points to military and civilian dangerous programs where such requirements are also necessary. (BTW, the CAIB was a government appointed committee whose recommendations the government commited NASA to meeting.)
Your idea of "cheap and simple fixes" would not pass muster in any of these places. You'd very likely be fired outright for even suggesting it if you were in charge of anything at NASA or overseeing it from the government.
In your mind you have equated the act of publication with the act of libel. This is not black-and-white and was addressed by the court, as well as other courts. The act of libel include the requirement of defamation of character and that took place in Ontario. See, for instance, The 'Lectric Law Library's definition of the act of defamation:
The shame, ridicule, contempt, damaged reputation and the community in which it happened were all in Ontario, not Washington. He also lost his employment status and earnings, also not in Washington. This did not set a precedence, in fact the ruling referenced precedence. (Both Dow Jones & Company v. Gutnick and Upper Lakes Shipping Ltd. v. Foster Yeoman Ltd. were used.) The court did consider that the publication occured in D.C., but that the damaged to reputation occured in Ontario, so both forums would be relevant but neither was clearly more appropriate. The ruling didn't claim that Ontario was better, but neither was D.C. Based on precedence in the latter reference, without a clearly more appropriate forum he had to rule that the plaintiff's choice was appropriate. That you consider the location of publication more important than the location of damage is neither legally recognized (certainly not in the U.S., Canada, Australia, or many other countries) nor clearly logical.
"If a Canadian newspaper writes a story on..."
"If I write something here about Olymic athletes as a group..."
"How do you know that YOUR post doesn't violate Uzbekistan law?"
Again, if you actually read my last post, these are all interesting legal questions and are current points of contention in many places. In particular, if you read the article I referenced you'd see that this is an issue at the forefront of internet and the law, and in many cases there is a hyprocrisy (such as the U.S. exerting its laws on copyright violations in other countries while maintaining that it doesn't have to abide by laws of other countries, particularly France as noted in the article and that which you presented in your post).
However, as pointed out in the article and me in my last post, which you seem to have missed or ignored, all of the examples you provide are cases where the act is not illegal in the coutry of production but is in some other country. As I pointed out, the Washington Post case was illegal in both Ontario and D.C. so this is really a non-issue and there is a fairly long history of such cases. The examples you quote are the interesting ones being slowly worked out over time. An even more interesting case might be if I wrote something from one country to Slashdot which "published" it in another country (such as on U.S. servers), and was read in a third country. What if what I said was legal in the first two countries, and not the third. Or if in the first but not the second, or vice versa. There's a whole bunch of interesting cases. The Washington Post one is clear-cut and uninteresting.
"However your example is a reversal of the actual situation. It's people in Ontario "calling" Washington."
No, that's not a reversal, in fact it's a moot semantic. If the people in Ontario called the guy in Washington, and the guy in Washington made the sladerous remark over the speakerphone in Ontario, the defamation would still occur in Ontario. Nobody in Washinton heard it and no damage was done in Washington. Who actually initiated the call would be irrelevent.
One more note, you keep referring to my logic. I a
If you want to avoid reading up on common law and international law, try a news.com article that talks about some of the issues. You'll see that breaking laws across borders is very old. It's not like telephones, international transactions, or import/export are new. The web offers one major twist in that it is passive so it is hard to prove active will to perform the act as in the previous cases, and this is an area of contention when it comes to breaking laws that only exist in foreign countries (like in your example). These cases are the ones that are of interest. The current one on the Washington Post involves breaking a civil law that exists almost everywhere, including Canada and the U.S., not to mention that the Washington Post is exported to Canada (though the specific issue in question was web-based). This is a boring, old, "been-done-before", and accepted outcome. Again, nothing to see here.
"How about the fact that the publishing was done there? When someone does something they should be subject to the law where they do it."
That's spelled out quite clearly in the justidiction ruling. Where the act was done is not clear cut, but seems to be more on the Ontario side. As I said (in referencing the rulings), the damage to the man's reputation was done in Ontario, not D.C. The man has no reputation in D.C. (no family, friends, co-workers, etc.) but did in Ontario, and the Washington Post is made available in Ontario.
Imagine, for instance, if I made a phone call from Washington to a speakerphone in Ontario where there was a big gathering of people, and during this phone call I slandered somebody who was at the Ontario end. Where did the act occur? I'm in Washington, but the slander itself isn't the words I say in Washington but the expression of them heard by the public in Ontario.
"If I say Allah does not exist, well the "damage" may be in Iran, but there's no way in hell I'm supposed to know Iranian law nor should I be subject to Iranian law."
You have no idea how common law systems or international law work, do you. I suggest you read up on them as well as the rulings in this case. As I said, this is not new and breaks no new ground, and isn't the same thing as you just suggested.
Good idea, I've always thought that it seemed like a waste of energy, and I know people are working on it. The problem is really that a system that uses the waste heat to generate energy (thereby reducing both heat output and power requirements) is generally big, heavy, and not too portable. I know there are small versions, but I'm guessing they haven't gotten them to the point where they are practical or economic for laptops. Someone can't point me to a reference if I'm wrong about this. Still, I expect it isn't too far in the future.
There are a few things wrong with your statement. First, although generally true that they use the same collar for docking to the ISS, the generic "all manned vehicles" isn't true. NASA has a variety of interfaces, including the Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) and Manual Berthing Mechanism (MBM) used on the ISS, but these are generally for berthing, not docking. Still, the CBM is an alternate docking mechanism (see for instance Section 5.1.5 of the Alternate Access to Station (AAS) Systems Concept of a Logistics Resupply Service to the ISS). The Russian interface is the Androgynous Peripheral Attachment System (APAS) as part of the Androgynous Peripheral Docking System(APDS). There are two parts to the APDS, passive and active. To convert from the NASA CBM interface to APAS, the ISS has three Pressurized Mating Adaptors (PMA1, 2, and 3). PMA1 has an active APDS because it connects the NASA Node 1 (Unity) to the Russian FGB module, and so isn't used for docking. PMA2 and PMA3 have passive APDS because they are used for docking. (See Section 1.1 of the Procurement Document for the APDS referenced above.)
Since both vehicles dock to the ISS, the shuttle does have an APAS adapter known as the Orbital Docking System (ODS). This is the 'L' shaped connector that attaches to the port at the front of the shuttle bay. It is only attached in missions to the ISS, and the APAS interface is only used for docking to the ISS. It isn't inherently true that all docking operations will be done using an APAS. However, since the only docking currently taking place is with the ISS, this is currently functionally true. It is only an ISS policy, however. The ODS is not installed on Hubble missions.
Furthermore, both the Soyuz and shuttle ODS have the active APDS side (again, see for instance Section 1.1 of the Procurement Document for the APDS above). Neither has the passive side because they are the ones doing the docking. In addition to this, approach and docking to the passive APDS is accomplished using docking cues (targets). (See, for example, Section 5.1.7.3.4.2 of the Interface Definition Document (IDD) for International Space Station (ISS) Visiting Vehicles (VVs). Neither the shuttle ODS nor Soyuz have these docking cues, again because they are the ones doing the docking.
So, I stand by my assertion that it is not as simple as you say. This method needs to be planned ahead with the right adaptors and docking systems developed and carried with them, probably flown on a Detailed Test Objective (DTO) flight, certified and validated. Again, such a system takes years of development.
As far as the orbit, it isn't clear that the Soyuz module or launch rocket are designed to go as far as Hubble. For instance, it appears that the Soyuz used for ISS mission and crew descent is only designed to descend from up to 460 km. The Hubble is at an altutude of about 600 km. So, if you have a reference on your assertion that "The Soyuz can easily reach the Hubble orbit", please forward it. Even better would be one that says it can descend from there. (Reaching it is useless as a rescue vehicle if it can't descend.)
It's not like NASA just missed the idea of using Soyuz, and you amazingly came up with the solution they're looking for. They are very smart you know. You also don't seem to realize that many of us who read Slashdot work for or with NASA (the geek ratio is quite high), so we often have the inside scoop or at least knowledge of what's involved.
It's the transfer of the actual knowledge that's the most important. Some guy sitting in a lab with the knowledge in his head is useless. Knowledge is only useful if it is disseminated to those who can use it.
"Should every single thing paid for by government grant be available completely free to the taxpayer?"
I already covered that in the last post. That's a strawman argument, nobody said that. And you also seem to miss that I'm not arguing what I believe, but what many people have objected to. I don't have the right answer, it's a tough situation. The point is that the current system has some flaws that many people dislike.
NASA cannot send a manned shuttle to Hubble and meet the requirements of the CAIB report. In order to meet these requirements they need an automated inspection and repair system. They are just now getting the final process in place for meeting the requirements for return-to-flight of the shuttles to the ISS which has taken more than 2 years. The ISS version is easy compared to the requirements for Hubble. They don't even have solid ideas on how they might meet those requirements yet. We are talking many years and huge development costs in such a system while at the same time getting back to the ISS schedule and planning for the future changes to the program (retiring shuttles, building the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Moon and Mars plan, etc.)
If NASA is going to send the shuttle to Hubble, and it's still a possibility, it will have to violate its commitment to meeting the CAIB report recommendations. It is that simple. I work with NASA and astronauts and this is their exact position on Hubble. The manned mission is still on the table, and two robotic missions are in the planning. Nothing is set in stone. There is a new administrator coming on board too, so things may change.
Not that it can't be done, but it certainly requires major development and preparations. It can't really be done as an afterthought.
Do you have a reference on this? I have been told (by NASA engineers) that the shuttle risk was supposed to be 1/67. They've now had two losses in just over 100 flights. Sounds like they are just slightly less safe than was expected.
Yeah, I don't work in retail, but I do work a lot with probabilities and statistics. This seems like a case where the circumstances of retail would inherently likely bias mistakes in favour of the vendor. However, that would suggest that it's in a retailer's best interests to make mistakes regularly, i.e., be intentionally incompetent. Perhaps that's the point that people were trying to make, that this shouldn't be allowed.