how can they claim a church, receiving/viewing the broadcast, is "copying," and therefore in violation of copyright?
Since the only practical use of a broadcast is to view it, isn't such viewing (at least non-commercially) "fair use?" Why is it a copyright violation for a group of parishiners to watch together, but not for a family to do the same? Is a license required to view content carried over the public airwaves? (this isn't Great Britain!)
BTW, you totally missed/ignored the original point - a sports broadcast is functional, not creative.
Furthermore, to be copyrighted, a work must be fixed into a "tangible medium." That is not the case for a live broadcast (although it might be for an after-the-fact replay).
one simply has to make the polluter pay all costs of a lost suit, which provides great incentive to not pollute in the first place. Additionally, application of the law would become extremely efficient as case law developed, so the costs you mention would not be ongoing.
You're other invalid assumption from your previous post is that all users of incandescant bulbs (in this case) use coal power. If I use wind, or solar, or pedal a bike to run a generator, who are you to tell me what my choice of lighting should be? I might decide to use highly energy efficient lighting, but it's MY choice.
MEN being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it...government has no other end but the preservation of property
"lower quality air, disruptions from climate change etc." can be addressed directly, through strict enforcement of property rights. If you build a coal plant, and it pollutes the air I breathe, I have a cause of action against you. Why do you consider attacking the issue indirectly/inefficiently is required?
There is no need for such laws - people can "vote" with their wallets. Purchase alternative lighting if you feel the need, but don't assume you have any right to force others to do so. Ditto with the new mileage standards. Those concerned with fuel economy can, and do, purchase vehicles with 35+ MPG. Having an illegitimate national government (it's supposed to be a federal system!) interfere with free market choices never produces the desired results.
release the file into the public domain and put it out on bit torrent? You'll get lots of backups made, for free. It will get converted to new formats, and backed up again, for free. Oh, you want future profits? Then quityerbitchin about the archival costs.
read before you post. "Free market" obviously refers to sales of reception devices. Are you claiming that sales of TVs is somehow regulated? It's not (minor exception for requiring closed caption and parental control features). If you want to buy a PAL or SECAM TV, you can.
modern "emergency" communications networks are, at best, extremely unreliable. Witness 9/11 and Katrina, where the only effective communications came from the private sector (primarily amateur radio).
Virtually all new "emergency" systems are based on frequency changing "trunked" systems, which depend upon a centralized intelligence for proper operation. In a severe emergency, such systems fail as soon as the central-site power does.
There is no need for new RF spectrum to provide emergency communications, what is already allotted is entirely sufficient, it's just used in an idiotic manner.
1) The national government has no Constitutional authority for controlling RF spectrum. 2) The entire US system of regulation is unconstitutional. It is defacto law without representation. The Constitution grants sole legistative authority to Congress, and makes no provision to allow Congress to delegate that authority.
3) Even if the above weren't true, the airwaves belong to the public, and the national govenment can't legitimately sell rights to the airwaves, anymore than they can sell rights to speech or the air you breathe.
I thought basic economics and government courses were requisites in public schools these days.
Of course, TANSTAAFL. The national government will be taking tax dollars from people, taking an administrative cut, then turning around and giving it back to pay exclusively for converter boxes. The net effect is the US national government is screwing with free markets and funding (mostly overseas) consumer electronics companies.
,blockquote>2.4 Ghz is one of the most badly managed spectrum for consumers.
From the article:
Barber says the signal seems be created by the console's embedded 2.4GHz radio, which is used to communicate with the handheld wireless controller..
So, the XBox is an intentional emitter, and therefore has been tested to meet the FCC rules regarding emissions in the 2.4GHz band. That makes this a non-story. When using unlicensed spectrum, per FCC Part 15 regulations:
Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions
that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the
operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial,
scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
"Harmful interference" is defined as
Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of
a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly
interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this Chapter.
Note that the "harmful interference" and "interference must be accepted" clauses produce an ambiguity. Any complaint to the FCC would likely result nothing at all happening, since the basic concept is that unlicensed devices will only interfere with each other when they are in close proximity, and therefore it's up to the user, and not the device or its manufacturer, to resolve the problem.
TAI itself isn't known until after the fact, since it is an average of multiple national time standards. Even those standards aren't synchronized to within their inherent precision. Different clocks which contribute to TAI can differ from each other in the microsecond range.
The easiest, and most common method, is to lock to GPS. GPS time, like TAI, is not adjusted for leap seconds like UTC. GPS time is 19 seconds behind TAI.
But note, NTP isn't based on TAI, but on UTC, so a leap second table is required to maintain accurate time. That's the simple explanation. NTP/UTC/leap seconds is more complex in reality.
Slashdot Mirror
how can they claim a church, receiving/viewing the broadcast, is "copying," and therefore in violation of copyright?
Since the only practical use of a broadcast is to view it, isn't such viewing (at least non-commercially) "fair use?" Why is it a copyright violation for a group of parishiners to watch together, but not for a family to do the same? Is a license required to view content carried over the public airwaves? (this isn't Great Britain!)
BTW, you totally missed/ignored the original point - a sports broadcast is functional, not creative.
They are in no way creative works. What "original authorship" exists? "Copyright shelters only fixed, original and creative expression," which a football game isn't.
Furthermore, to be copyrighted, a work must be fixed into a "tangible medium." That is not the case for a live broadcast (although it might be for an after-the-fact replay).
but that's only a small start to our plan for world domination!
in business can reduce profits. Guess which wins?
The same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the world!
apply to automobiles, not calendars.
(go even further.)
OSHA has something to say about the matter.
one simply has to make the polluter pay all costs of a lost suit, which provides great incentive to not pollute in the first place. Additionally, application of the law would become extremely efficient as case law developed, so the costs you mention would not be ongoing.
You're other invalid assumption from your previous post is that all users of incandescant bulbs (in this case) use coal power. If I use wind, or solar, or pedal a bike to run a generator, who are you to tell me what my choice of lighting should be? I might decide to use highly energy efficient lighting, but it's MY choice.
but quickly reversed course. We do not need government.
Oh, and fuck you, too.
"lower quality air, disruptions from climate change etc." can be addressed directly, through strict enforcement of property rights. If you build a coal plant, and it pollutes the air I breathe, I have a cause of action against you. Why do you consider attacking the issue indirectly/inefficiently is required?
There is no need for such laws - people can "vote" with their wallets. Purchase alternative lighting if you feel the need, but don't assume you have any right to force others to do so. Ditto with the new mileage standards. Those concerned with fuel economy can, and do, purchase vehicles with 35+ MPG. Having an illegitimate national government (it's supposed to be a federal system!) interfere with free market choices never produces the desired results.
I think you underestimate the resources that some enthusiasts are willing to expend. Might be a problem for some films, though.
release the file into the public domain and put it out on bit torrent? You'll get lots of backups made, for free. It will get converted to new formats, and backed up again, for free. Oh, you want future profits? Then quityerbitchin about the archival costs.
-Oxford English Dictionary
-American Heritage Dictionary
read before you post. "Free market" obviously refers to sales of reception devices. Are you claiming that sales of TVs is somehow regulated? It's not (minor exception for requiring closed caption and parental control features). If you want to buy a PAL or SECAM TV, you can.
modern "emergency" communications networks are, at best, extremely unreliable. Witness 9/11 and Katrina, where the only effective communications came from the private sector (primarily amateur radio).
Virtually all new "emergency" systems are based on frequency changing "trunked" systems, which depend upon a centralized intelligence for proper operation. In a severe emergency, such systems fail as soon as the central-site power does.
There is no need for new RF spectrum to provide emergency communications, what is already allotted is entirely sufficient, it's just used in an idiotic manner.
you should know that...
1) The national government has no Constitutional authority for controlling RF spectrum.
2) The entire US system of regulation is unconstitutional. It is defacto law without representation. The Constitution grants sole legistative authority to Congress, and makes no provision to allow Congress to delegate that authority.
3) Even if the above weren't true, the airwaves belong to the public, and the national govenment can't legitimately sell rights to the airwaves, anymore than they can sell rights to speech or the air you breathe.
but it's also my birthday. Do I get the job?
really?
I thought basic economics and government courses were requisites in public schools these days.
Of course, TANSTAAFL. The national government will be taking tax dollars from people, taking an administrative cut, then turning around and giving it back to pay exclusively for converter boxes. The net effect is the US national government is screwing with free markets and funding (mostly overseas) consumer electronics companies.
when the record labels paid the radio stations to play their stuff?
From the article:So, the XBox is an intentional emitter, and therefore has been tested to meet the FCC rules regarding emissions in the 2.4GHz band. That makes this a non-story. When using unlicensed spectrum, per FCC Part 15 regulations:"Harmful interference" is defined as Note that the "harmful interference" and "interference must be accepted" clauses produce an ambiguity. Any complaint to the FCC would likely result nothing at all happening, since the basic concept is that unlicensed devices will only interfere with each other when they are in close proximity, and therefore it's up to the user, and not the device or its manufacturer, to resolve the problem.
BTW, my license reads "Extra."
TAI itself isn't known until after the fact, since it is an average of multiple national time standards. Even those standards aren't synchronized to within their inherent precision. Different clocks which contribute to TAI can differ from each other in the microsecond range.
Timing GPS receivers can sync to well under that. NIST has some information on tracability.
The short answer is that your question was in regard to NTP, and a time server locked to GPS time is considered to be Stratum 1.
The easiest, and most common method, is to lock to GPS. GPS time, like TAI, is not adjusted for leap seconds like UTC. GPS time is 19 seconds behind TAI.
But note, NTP isn't based on TAI, but on UTC, so a leap second table is required to maintain accurate time. That's the simple explanation. NTP/UTC/leap seconds is more complex in reality.