Unless you live in an insanely cheap area, why are you complaining about this? I made more than this (in 1984 dollars) my first year out of school, with neither a high school diploma or a college degree. Why is it that it's scandalous when teachers make decent money after all the education they had to pay for just to get their foot in the door?
Of course Chicago has been using the Charter School initiative as a tool for union-busting. Senior teachers with those nice $80k/year are getting fired for cause from the main system and then rehired in the Charter system for half what they were making, with less benefits. And while you can do pretty well on $80k/year in Chicago, it's not exactly mad money. You _might_ be able to afford a condo somewhere decent, if you are frugal.
I moved away from the Bay Area because it was so damned expensive to live there. $80k is better than a lot of people there make, but you are not buying a house on that—you are renting in a fairly crappy neighborhood.
Do you actually _know_ any teachers? Teachers do get some vacation in the summer, but they also have to prepare their lesson plans for the fall. They work long hours during the school year because they have to grade papers and be prepared for each day's lesson. Imagine teaching from 8am to 3pm every day—that's five hours of teaching. How much time would you want to prepare? Now add in correcting tests, quizzes and papers. How long does that take? Yes, they get two and a half months off in the summer, during which they may spend time doing useless things like taking professional improvement courses to keep up with new material. But the notion that they are getting an incredible deal is simply untrue.
My upstairs neighbors until recently were school teachers. They do not get $80k/year—if they did they would be buying a house, not renting, and driving a BMW (or maybe a Prius), not a tiny econobox. They certainly wouldn't have put up with their upstairs neighbors for six months (yelling, swearing, loud music, doors slamming, garbage in the basement). We only put up with it because we knew we'd be moving into the house we were building on our geek salaries and parental largesse.
The idea that people should don a hair shirt in order to do useful and important work for society is deeply fucked up.
It would be essentially a phone, only with no ability to place calls—just data+GPS.
I don't really see why this is remotely controversial. The point at which the kid starts to think about disabling it is the same point at which the kid is probably capable of making rational decisions. A three-year-old is not yet capable of doing that, and having a device like this would be a major anxiety-reducer for parents. It's not likely to make the kid hugely safer, but who cares?
That, or else "buy a windows 8 upgrade, you damned hippy!" I'd go with your mathematical series theory, except that I doubt Steve Ballmer can do higher math.
Yes, you are one of the few thousand people who uses network transparency. That doesn't actually contradict my point. If you want to contradict my point, show me the 100,000 people who are using network transparency.
The fact is that what we used to get from X we mostly get from ssh and http now. X is pounding a nail with the heavy end of a screwdriver.
Nobody ever uses network transparency. Well, okay, perhaps a few thousand people do, but rounded to the nearest 1% of the total number of Windows or Mac users, _zero_ people use it. Network transparency should be a layer on top of the window system for those who need it, not something that's present and causing breakage by default.
Yes, we will need more generating capacity, but wind generating capacity is ideal for this application, so this isn't the big problem that it seems to be at first.
The great thing about electric cars is that they have batteries, and at least potentially have intelligent chargers. So they are ideal for energy sources like wind, where you need demand to meet supply very closely. As the wind rises, you signal to the home chargers to amp up. As it fades, you signal them to chill out. This works best if the cars are plugged in all the time that they aren't driving, and that's probably what we'll see in the long run, but it works pretty well even if they're only plugged in at night.
Even better, electric cars can be used as a reservoir to some extent, so if you have a sudden demand for power that exceeds your online carrying capacity, you can tell the home charger to provide energy to the grid to ride over the hump. So in fact having more and more electric cars will be really good for the responsiveness of the grid.
Start riding. Thirty miles a day is a lot at first, because you aren't in shape, so you have to ramp up to it. You start out with maybe three easy miles a day, but do it consistently, every day. After a few weeks it'll seem easy, so start ramping up. Pay attention to how your butt feels after the ride—if it's seriously sore, you're going too far. But if you just keep adding miles, you'll get up to thirty in a month or two, depending on what kind of condition you're in. The main thing is that if you start off too aggressively, you'll injure yourself and stop, whereas if you start gradually, you'll be able to build up to the point where thirty miles in two bite-sized chunks is easy.
It's funny that you are so sure that you are liable if you leave your router open, but you are not as sure if it's a company and the company's employee misuses their internet connection. What is the distinction between these two cases that is so clear to you? I don't see it. Why is an Internet cafe different, for that matter?
If I didn't know better, I'd say you worked for a cable company or something, and were trying to discourage WiFi sharing.
Right. If you leave your car's emergency brake off on a slope, and it rolls down and kills someone, you're responsible for that person's death. Of course, they'd have to prove that you were the one who parked the car badly. Now, what's the equivalent analogy for an open WiFi connection?
The MAC address is only available on the home router. Home routers tend not to log this kind of information, because it would involve infrequent writes of small amounts of data to flash storage, which is a really great way to make it fail quickly. So in pretty much any case where the network wouldn't be secure, there would be no record of the MAC address.
Also, it's trivial to spoof a MAC address. E.g., just run bittorrent in a vmware virtual machine, and then blow it away when you're done—evidence gone, and the log will show that you are innocent.
The bottom line is that trusting IP addresses as personal identifiers is a really bad idea, which causes a great deal of social harm for a very small social benefit.
Read it again: "This last sentence indicates that, in the Court's view, copies "lawfully made" under the laws of a foreign country — though perhaps not produced in violation of any United States laws — are not necessarily "lawfully made" insofar as that phrase is used in 109(a) of our Copyright Act.[42]" What the court is saying here is that the mere fact that the copyrighted materials were produced legally in the country where they were produced does not always mean that they are "lawfully made" under U.S. law. It does not say that they are never "lawfully made" under U.S. law, and if you read the rest of the text on the pages you reference, you can see that the court acknowledges that some imported copies—those that are made with the permission of the copyright owner—may be subject to the first sale doctrine.
As to the question of patents, it's true that a ruling in support of the District Court's decision could have implications that would carry over into patent law, but this ruling would not set a precedent that would apply to patent law.
Oh, as for the bit on p. 218, the specific case they are talking about is where the copyright holder has granted publication rights in the U.S. to one company, and in Great Britain to another, and this second company attempts to import works printed in Great Britain into the U.S. In this case, they would not have permission from the copyright holder to do so, and hence the sale of these products in the U.S. would not be allowed.
Whether it should be possible to prevent such sales is certainly a question that I think is worth asking, and I think the answer should be "no." But what the law says about such sales is well established—they are not allowed.
There are actually two opposing rulings on this case—if you read the summary of the question before the court from their web site, you can get a clear picture. But my point is that it doesn't apply to patents. And you should read the appellate court decision more carefully—it explicitly refers to "Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title..." IOW, not what you said.
This comment represents a really deep misunderstanding of the question before the court, which seems to be reflected by most of the comments on this thread, unfortunately. Sorry to pick on you, but you're early in the list.
The misunderstanding is that this law specifically applies to products imported without the permission of the manufacturer. And it only applies to copyright, because copyright is where the doctrine of first sale applies. It doesn't, for instance, apply to patents, nor even to trademarks. The case turns specifically on the question of whether the doctrine of first sale applies to a product purchased in a foreign country, imported into the U.S. without the permission of the copyright holder, and then sold here in the U.S.
So unfortunately this will not serve to boost American manufacturers, unless they can propagandize people into believing something that isn't true. But it will serve to further restrict grey markets, allowing copyright holders to continue charging different prices to rich Americans than they do to rich Europeans.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you live in an insanely cheap area, why are you complaining about this? I made more than this (in 1984 dollars) my first year out of school, with neither a high school diploma or a college degree. Why is it that it's scandalous when teachers make decent money after all the education they had to pay for just to get their foot in the door?
Of course Chicago has been using the Charter School initiative as a tool for union-busting. Senior teachers with those nice $80k/year are getting fired for cause from the main system and then rehired in the Charter system for half what they were making, with less benefits. And while you can do pretty well on $80k/year in Chicago, it's not exactly mad money. You _might_ be able to afford a condo somewhere decent, if you are frugal.
I moved away from the Bay Area because it was so damned expensive to live there. $80k is better than a lot of people there make, but you are not buying a house on that—you are renting in a fairly crappy neighborhood.
Standardized tests are a great way to tell if a student is good at taking standardized tests. They are a very poor measure of teaching effectiveness.
Do you actually _know_ any teachers? Teachers do get some vacation in the summer, but they also have to prepare their lesson plans for the fall. They work long hours during the school year because they have to grade papers and be prepared for each day's lesson. Imagine teaching from 8am to 3pm every day—that's five hours of teaching. How much time would you want to prepare? Now add in correcting tests, quizzes and papers. How long does that take? Yes, they get two and a half months off in the summer, during which they may spend time doing useless things like taking professional improvement courses to keep up with new material. But the notion that they are getting an incredible deal is simply untrue.
My upstairs neighbors until recently were school teachers. They do not get $80k/year—if they did they would be buying a house, not renting, and driving a BMW (or maybe a Prius), not a tiny econobox. They certainly wouldn't have put up with their upstairs neighbors for six months (yelling, swearing, loud music, doors slamming, garbage in the basement). We only put up with it because we knew we'd be moving into the house we were building on our geek salaries and parental largesse.
The idea that people should don a hair shirt in order to do useful and important work for society is deeply fucked up.
Technically, it's both...
Have you ever tried to get a three-year-old to have a coherent phone conversation?
It would be essentially a phone, only with no ability to place calls—just data+GPS.
I don't really see why this is remotely controversial. The point at which the kid starts to think about disabling it is the same point at which the kid is probably capable of making rational decisions. A three-year-old is not yet capable of doing that, and having a device like this would be a major anxiety-reducer for parents. It's not likely to make the kid hugely safer, but who cares?
We could even have a countdown timer, like in Logan's Run. It would really help with the population problem.
That, or else "buy a windows 8 upgrade, you damned hippy!" I'd go with your mathematical series theory, except that I doubt Steve Ballmer can do higher math.
Yes, you are one of the few thousand people who uses network transparency. That doesn't actually contradict my point. If you want to contradict my point, show me the 100,000 people who are using network transparency.
The fact is that what we used to get from X we mostly get from ssh and http now. X is pounding a nail with the heavy end of a screwdriver.
Nobody ever uses network transparency. Well, okay, perhaps a few thousand people do, but rounded to the nearest 1% of the total number of Windows or Mac users, _zero_ people use it. Network transparency should be a layer on top of the window system for those who need it, not something that's present and causing breakage by default.
Well, it certainly doesn't need replacing with another X server. What it needs replacing with is something a little less complex and wonderful.
Yes, we will need more generating capacity, but wind generating capacity is ideal for this application, so this isn't the big problem that it seems to be at first.
The great thing about electric cars is that they have batteries, and at least potentially have intelligent chargers. So they are ideal for energy sources like wind, where you need demand to meet supply very closely. As the wind rises, you signal to the home chargers to amp up. As it fades, you signal them to chill out. This works best if the cars are plugged in all the time that they aren't driving, and that's probably what we'll see in the long run, but it works pretty well even if they're only plugged in at night.
Even better, electric cars can be used as a reservoir to some extent, so if you have a sudden demand for power that exceeds your online carrying capacity, you can tell the home charger to provide energy to the grid to ride over the hump. So in fact having more and more electric cars will be really good for the responsiveness of the grid.
Start riding. Thirty miles a day is a lot at first, because you aren't in shape, so you have to ramp up to it. You start out with maybe three easy miles a day, but do it consistently, every day. After a few weeks it'll seem easy, so start ramping up. Pay attention to how your butt feels after the ride—if it's seriously sore, you're going too far. But if you just keep adding miles, you'll get up to thirty in a month or two, depending on what kind of condition you're in. The main thing is that if you start off too aggressively, you'll injure yourself and stop, whereas if you start gradually, you'll be able to build up to the point where thirty miles in two bite-sized chunks is easy.
The best part is, once the extraction is done, you have two new basketball courts!
Ask the Lorax, dude. Ask the Lorax.
It's funny that you are so sure that you are liable if you leave your router open, but you are not as sure if it's a company and the company's employee misuses their internet connection. What is the distinction between these two cases that is so clear to you? I don't see it. Why is an Internet cafe different, for that matter?
If I didn't know better, I'd say you worked for a cable company or something, and were trying to discourage WiFi sharing.
Right. If you leave your car's emergency brake off on a slope, and it rolls down and kills someone, you're responsible for that person's death. Of course, they'd have to prove that you were the one who parked the car badly. Now, what's the equivalent analogy for an open WiFi connection?
Unfortunately the standard in civil cases is "a preponderance of evidence," not "no reasonable doubt."
The MAC address is only available on the home router. Home routers tend not to log this kind of information, because it would involve infrequent writes of small amounts of data to flash storage, which is a really great way to make it fail quickly. So in pretty much any case where the network wouldn't be secure, there would be no record of the MAC address.
Also, it's trivial to spoof a MAC address. E.g., just run bittorrent in a vmware virtual machine, and then blow it away when you're done—evidence gone, and the log will show that you are innocent.
The bottom line is that trusting IP addresses as personal identifiers is a really bad idea, which causes a great deal of social harm for a very small social benefit.
Read it again: "This last sentence indicates that, in the Court's view, copies "lawfully made" under the laws of a foreign country — though perhaps not produced in violation of any United States laws — are not necessarily "lawfully made" insofar as that phrase is used in 109(a) of our Copyright Act.[42]" What the court is saying here is that the mere fact that the copyrighted materials were produced legally in the country where they were produced does not always mean that they are "lawfully made" under U.S. law. It does not say that they are never "lawfully made" under U.S. law, and if you read the rest of the text on the pages you reference, you can see that the court acknowledges that some imported copies—those that are made with the permission of the copyright owner—may be subject to the first sale doctrine.
As to the question of patents, it's true that a ruling in support of the District Court's decision could have implications that would carry over into patent law, but this ruling would not set a precedent that would apply to patent law.
Oh, as for the bit on p. 218, the specific case they are talking about is where the copyright holder has granted publication rights in the U.S. to one company, and in Great Britain to another, and this second company attempts to import works printed in Great Britain into the U.S. In this case, they would not have permission from the copyright holder to do so, and hence the sale of these products in the U.S. would not be allowed.
Whether it should be possible to prevent such sales is certainly a question that I think is worth asking, and I think the answer should be "no." But what the law says about such sales is well established—they are not allowed.
There are actually two opposing rulings on this case—if you read the summary of the question before the court from their web site, you can get a clear picture. But my point is that it doesn't apply to patents. And you should read the appellate court decision more carefully—it explicitly refers to "Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title..." IOW, not what you said.
This comment represents a really deep misunderstanding of the question before the court, which seems to be reflected by most of the comments on this thread, unfortunately. Sorry to pick on you, but you're early in the list.
The misunderstanding is that this law specifically applies to products imported without the permission of the manufacturer. And it only applies to copyright, because copyright is where the doctrine of first sale applies. It doesn't, for instance, apply to patents, nor even to trademarks. The case turns specifically on the question of whether the doctrine of first sale applies to a product purchased in a foreign country, imported into the U.S. without the permission of the copyright holder, and then sold here in the U.S.
So unfortunately this will not serve to boost American manufacturers, unless they can propagandize people into believing something that isn't true. But it will serve to further restrict grey markets, allowing copyright holders to continue charging different prices to rich Americans than they do to rich Europeans.