"gauge" is not imperial or metric. It's dimensionless. Gauge (for wires) is neither metric or imperial. Gauge (for ammunition) isn't a large issue in most other countries because buying ammunition isn't a common occurrence. And ammo is sold in sizes like 5.56x45mm, again metric.
Yes, many are still parts of an inch,.22 is common world-wide, as it's a cheap target shooting round. But it's not universal. Though yes, the definition of "gauge" used in shot is purely imperial, but nobody uses that as an actual measure. The bore matters.
Also, note that it's location specific. Like a king bed is called "king" world-wide and measured in the US in imperial units, when you buy a king bed and king sheets outside the US, you'll get a rough local approximation of the size, but rounded to metric units. So nobody asserts that a metric king isn't a true king.
For example, dowries which must be repaid to the woman if there is a divorce, husband has to pay wife half of salary for half as long as they have been married, etc. I wouldn't say it's self-harming; I'd say it's generally to a certain penalty that both parties have an interest in not breaking the contract.
Odd that in both your examples, it's the man that has to pay. Sounds like remnants of a patriarchal society.
That theory only works if there were deliberate poisonings of copycats. The distribution was too narrow, and the incidents too spread out to account for all of the poisonings with a single industrial accident. Unless Tylenol committed murder as part of a cover-up.
There is an inherent state that many of the bugs that get exploited are unknowable
I'd agree if 99% of exploits weren't one of a basic set of vulnerabilities. "I never though someone would get a Privilege escalation though a buffer overflow from an improperly sanitized input." The threats aren't "bugs" A "bug" is bad code that allows a threat a vector of attack.
Computer security is saying that you secure doors and windows on a house only after each of them has been broken in, and only in the minimum way to prevent the previous attack from working. "Oh, they got in with a credit-card jimmy of the lock? We'll fix that on this window, but the other windows are safe because nobody has tried them yet."
There are lots of places the trouble lies, and whether an author or bad-actor finds bad code first isn't top of the list.
in those days many of us actually had our home addresses in our bloody sigs!
Didn't matter. Well, not a lot. I was tracked to a specific computer in a specific lab more than once (all in good fun). There were so fewcomputers on the Internet then that it wasn't hard to find out who owned that IP, and they were almost all statically assigned, so you could then track it down to a lab, if you talked to the right person with the right questions.
Anonymity on the Internet was fake, then real, now is fake again. I've always used my real name and such, and it's never been a problem. Though I have gotten a few death threats from Slashdotters, it's not like they are actually willing to leave Momma's basement, so I feel safe.
the fossil fuel industry is subsidized more than 8b PER year in America.
But that's hidden and confusing. Like the subisdy for coal miners health. It's not a direct payment to the mine owners, so it's not like the cash payments around renewables. And the 8B is mostly a lie. If you count Alaska, the oil pumped out of the ground is a "gift" from Alaska to the oil companies, and treated like a subsidy by oil haters. But then taxed by Alaska, and treated like a non-subsidy payment to the government by the oil-lovers.
So every number you see on the situation is a lie. The truth is better or much worse than whoever you are talking to says.
To make the bottom line look good, the State of Alaska "sells" oil to the oil companies at $0 per barrel removed from the ground. Then the state taxes the "free" oil. BP counts it as a "tax" on their books, which has better benefits to their books than calling it an expense. And the people that bash stupid government moves call the "free" oil a subsidy to the industry. The real subsidy is there, but lost in the accounting. The treatment of the exchange allows BP to claim tax credits, and that's a federal tax credit that's not counted by anyone as it's too complex to describe to the average American.
Finally, claiming that it is the POOR that pay for these subsidies is a joke. Right now, in America, the bottom 50% pay NOTHING in the federal taxes.
Hilarious. The SS-hating conservatives tell us daily that SS is a tax for the general federal budget, not a trust fund. But when hating on the poor, the SS taxes are ignored.
If Social Security taxes are taxes, then the poor are taxed. It's a shame that they can't get rebated on the SS tax through income tax.
I read the question in the title, and answered that. The question is that if you make work A, someone makes a new copyrightable work B as a derivative of A, then you make a derivative work C from B, can you be "infringing" based on your original work?
The answer is "yes". Nobody said A loses copyright on B because it was derivative. But, similarly, B doesn't lose copyright on C.
Though, the details in TFA indicate that C is unrelated to B, so B has no claim on C at all, but the similarities caused people to ask what would have happened.
In most cases, copyrights aren't "issued" and even if they are, that's meaningless to such claims, other than to establish who published first, should that be in dispute.
But you can't sell multiple copies, because the act of copying that photo means you have violated copyright. Because you can't make copies in the first place.
I never said you could. I just said that it was different enough to allow copyright to be claimed on the derivative work. I discussed solely B to C relationship, and you took some offense to how you think I'd look at the A to B relationship.
I made no such claim, and hold no such views. Work C is copyrighted by both A and B creators. That C's creator is the same as A's has no bearing to B's claim to copyright.
An exact painting of a photograph isn't transformative, but a photograph that's in a frame (generally) is a transformative work. Framing has been recognized as an art, even if the item framed isn't, but the framed whole is a transformative work of the item framed. The description is that the work was "transformed" by being annotated and printed from a screenshot. I have no problem with that. Though, TFA and the summary disagree on whether the exact $90 item is the same as the $9000 item, or just a new transformative work of the original, unrelated to the $9000 item (unrelated meaning copying the style, but not content).
The thing that confuses most people about copyright is that sweat of the brow is unrelated to copyright. A creation that's trivial is a creation. A work that's not creative, but takes 10,000,000 man hours, is not copyrightable.
John sold his copyright, then copied himself. That is a clear and not a problem, though maybe a good warning for people to not sell copyright completely if they plan on continuing to work in the industry.
It's simple, if it's copyrighted, it's copyrighted. It doesn't matter that it's a derivative of your own earlier works. That a screenshot (of someone else's work) is copyrightable is the problem. If you were to copy his method to come to a similar (or even identical) work, you'd be legal, but to copy his exact work, it doesn't matter that it's transformative of your original work.
These issues have been well explored in music, where "borrowing" from others is well known and broadly practiced.
Because SDN isn't real. Alcatel-Lucent is selling SDN that's a router with features. Turn on VPN and configure with a central server? That's SDN.
But don't tell the advocates that's been around for 20+ years. They get angry. SDN is the future, despite being indistinguishable from the stacked switches I worked on 20+ years ago, or the provisioning server that remotely re-configured the entire network in a single keystroke, also 20+ years old.
The "original" SDN was from the early VM days, where you needed a way to control communication between servers, and made a software switch, but that's a new term for an old idea, and so far, I haven't seen anything in SDN that's "new", other than some UI improvements on 20+ year old ideas.
I've supported fraudsters, getting enough information to protect myself from them. Someone offering to kill for you isn't right in the head. Pissing them off by rudely declining "fuck off" would probably not be a wise move. Failing to rebuff immediately someone who approached you is far from soliciting them, or transacting with them.
The US has officially weaponized anthrax without violating any treaties. The official story is that they needed to weaponize it to develop effective countermeasures. It's not a biological weapon. It's a biological defense. It's just indistinguishable from the weapon of the same name.
I don't think that would work. After 9/11, the coverage showed unbroken windows removed from the rubble at the pentagon. The windows were designed to withstand a hit from any man-portable weapon system. This included the most powerful sniper weapons, as well as RPGs. I'm assuming the White House is no worse than the pentagon, but I didn't build either.
So we shouldn't place control on non-LOS 50+ lb drones because there exist 2 lb LOS-only drones? I can put enough C4 on a 2 lb drone to cause problems. The glass on the White House is designed to stop a.50 cal armor piercing sniper bullet. If you wanted to shoot the president, you'd be better off shooting through the wall. But a pound or two of C4 on a small drone, landing at the base of the wall may damage it enough for a clear shot, or dislodge one of the supremely heavy windows. Though I suspect that wouldn't work, for other reasons.
If the connector was trying to provide 25 amps at 5 volts via the thin little wires, they would arc into gas almost immediately.
My phone charge does 5A at 5V without an issue, and my laptop doing 5A at 20V does so over tiny wires.
As an RV-er, I'm familar with both 12 volt and 120 volt systems. For a LED TV or other low wattage appliance, 12 volt is better, just because it directly comes from the batteries. However, for a load like a microwave, A/C, heater, or anything above 300 watts, trying to run that on 12 volts would require very fat, expensive cable.
You answer the question, then immediately forget the answer. You have AC at 240 (sigh, 110, if you must) and have outlets in some strategic areas (kitchens and for major appliances), and 12V or 48V everywhere else.
I think we should have a 48V internal wiring standard, with some 240V appliance plugs, for vacuums, refrigerators, washers and driers, and such. The dual-standard will complicate things slightly, but result in a large overall savings, as wall-warts are eliminated, and all their waste.
More sense is 240 AC for appliances, and 12V or 48V for everything else. DC-DC stepping in the wall jack isn't hard. So you go to the jack at 48V, and there to 5V for your wall-wart voltages. With some for 12V or 48V for higher powered things.
If it were me, I'd design a mechanical switch in the plug that activated the circuit, so it would have zero loss when not used, unlike current wall warts. We use 110 VAC because it's what we've always used, not because it's a good voltage or current type.
Slashdot Mirror
"gauge" is not imperial or metric. It's dimensionless. Gauge (for wires) is neither metric or imperial. Gauge (for ammunition) isn't a large issue in most other countries because buying ammunition isn't a common occurrence. And ammo is sold in sizes like 5.56x45mm, again metric.
.22 is common world-wide, as it's a cheap target shooting round. But it's not universal. Though yes, the definition of "gauge" used in shot is purely imperial, but nobody uses that as an actual measure. The bore matters.
Yes, many are still parts of an inch,
Also, note that it's location specific. Like a king bed is called "king" world-wide and measured in the US in imperial units, when you buy a king bed and king sheets outside the US, you'll get a rough local approximation of the size, but rounded to metric units. So nobody asserts that a metric king isn't a true king.
For example, dowries which must be repaid to the woman if there is a divorce, husband has to pay wife half of salary for half as long as they have been married, etc. I wouldn't say it's self-harming; I'd say it's generally to a certain penalty that both parties have an interest in not breaking the contract.
Odd that in both your examples, it's the man that has to pay. Sounds like remnants of a patriarchal society.
That theory only works if there were deliberate poisonings of copycats. The distribution was too narrow, and the incidents too spread out to account for all of the poisonings with a single industrial accident. Unless Tylenol committed murder as part of a cover-up.
There is an inherent state that many of the bugs that get exploited are unknowable
I'd agree if 99% of exploits weren't one of a basic set of vulnerabilities. "I never though someone would get a Privilege escalation though a buffer overflow from an improperly sanitized input." The threats aren't "bugs" A "bug" is bad code that allows a threat a vector of attack.
Computer security is saying that you secure doors and windows on a house only after each of them has been broken in, and only in the minimum way to prevent the previous attack from working. "Oh, they got in with a credit-card jimmy of the lock? We'll fix that on this window, but the other windows are safe because nobody has tried them yet."
There are lots of places the trouble lies, and whether an author or bad-actor finds bad code first isn't top of the list.
in those days many of us actually had our home addresses in our bloody sigs!
Didn't matter. Well, not a lot. I was tracked to a specific computer in a specific lab more than once (all in good fun). There were so fewcomputers on the Internet then that it wasn't hard to find out who owned that IP, and they were almost all statically assigned, so you could then track it down to a lab, if you talked to the right person with the right questions.
Anonymity on the Internet was fake, then real, now is fake again. I've always used my real name and such, and it's never been a problem. Though I have gotten a few death threats from Slashdotters, it's not like they are actually willing to leave Momma's basement, so I feel safe.
the fossil fuel industry is subsidized more than 8b PER year in America.
But that's hidden and confusing. Like the subisdy for coal miners health. It's not a direct payment to the mine owners, so it's not like the cash payments around renewables. And the 8B is mostly a lie. If you count Alaska, the oil pumped out of the ground is a "gift" from Alaska to the oil companies, and treated like a subsidy by oil haters. But then taxed by Alaska, and treated like a non-subsidy payment to the government by the oil-lovers.
So every number you see on the situation is a lie. The truth is better or much worse than whoever you are talking to says.
That, and the numbers are all lies.
To make the bottom line look good, the State of Alaska "sells" oil to the oil companies at $0 per barrel removed from the ground. Then the state taxes the "free" oil. BP counts it as a "tax" on their books, which has better benefits to their books than calling it an expense. And the people that bash stupid government moves call the "free" oil a subsidy to the industry. The real subsidy is there, but lost in the accounting. The treatment of the exchange allows BP to claim tax credits, and that's a federal tax credit that's not counted by anyone as it's too complex to describe to the average American.
Finally, claiming that it is the POOR that pay for these subsidies is a joke. Right now, in America, the bottom 50% pay NOTHING in the federal taxes.
Hilarious. The SS-hating conservatives tell us daily that SS is a tax for the general federal budget, not a trust fund. But when hating on the poor, the SS taxes are ignored.
If Social Security taxes are taxes, then the poor are taxed. It's a shame that they can't get rebated on the SS tax through income tax.
Requiring all new buildings to pay for solar that costs 60 cents/kw is an indirect tax.
So requiring all buildings be built to basic safety standards is a tax as well.
I read the question in the title, and answered that. The question is that if you make work A, someone makes a new copyrightable work B as a derivative of A, then you make a derivative work C from B, can you be "infringing" based on your original work?
The answer is "yes". Nobody said A loses copyright on B because it was derivative. But, similarly, B doesn't lose copyright on C.
Though, the details in TFA indicate that C is unrelated to B, so B has no claim on C at all, but the similarities caused people to ask what would have happened.
In most cases, copyrights aren't "issued" and even if they are, that's meaningless to such claims, other than to establish who published first, should that be in dispute.
But you can't sell multiple copies, because the act of copying that photo means you have violated copyright. Because you can't make copies in the first place.
I never said you could. I just said that it was different enough to allow copyright to be claimed on the derivative work. I discussed solely B to C relationship, and you took some offense to how you think I'd look at the A to B relationship.
I made no such claim, and hold no such views. Work C is copyrighted by both A and B creators. That C's creator is the same as A's has no bearing to B's claim to copyright.
An exact painting of a photograph isn't transformative, but a photograph that's in a frame (generally) is a transformative work. Framing has been recognized as an art, even if the item framed isn't, but the framed whole is a transformative work of the item framed. The description is that the work was "transformed" by being annotated and printed from a screenshot. I have no problem with that. Though, TFA and the summary disagree on whether the exact $90 item is the same as the $9000 item, or just a new transformative work of the original, unrelated to the $9000 item (unrelated meaning copying the style, but not content).
The thing that confuses most people about copyright is that sweat of the brow is unrelated to copyright. A creation that's trivial is a creation. A work that's not creative, but takes 10,000,000 man hours, is not copyrightable.
John sold his copyright, then copied himself. That is a clear and not a problem, though maybe a good warning for people to not sell copyright completely if they plan on continuing to work in the industry.
It's simple, if it's copyrighted, it's copyrighted. It doesn't matter that it's a derivative of your own earlier works. That a screenshot (of someone else's work) is copyrightable is the problem. If you were to copy his method to come to a similar (or even identical) work, you'd be legal, but to copy his exact work, it doesn't matter that it's transformative of your original work.
These issues have been well explored in music, where "borrowing" from others is well known and broadly practiced.
Because SDN isn't real. Alcatel-Lucent is selling SDN that's a router with features. Turn on VPN and configure with a central server? That's SDN.
But don't tell the advocates that's been around for 20+ years. They get angry. SDN is the future, despite being indistinguishable from the stacked switches I worked on 20+ years ago, or the provisioning server that remotely re-configured the entire network in a single keystroke, also 20+ years old.
The "original" SDN was from the early VM days, where you needed a way to control communication between servers, and made a software switch, but that's a new term for an old idea, and so far, I haven't seen anything in SDN that's "new", other than some UI improvements on 20+ year old ideas.
Free is a France startup that is doing really well. Others like OneAccess started in France in the boom, and are still around and growing.
I've supported fraudsters, getting enough information to protect myself from them. Someone offering to kill for you isn't right in the head. Pissing them off by rudely declining "fuck off" would probably not be a wise move. Failing to rebuff immediately someone who approached you is far from soliciting them, or transacting with them.
The US has officially weaponized anthrax without violating any treaties. The official story is that they needed to weaponize it to develop effective countermeasures. It's not a biological weapon. It's a biological defense. It's just indistinguishable from the weapon of the same name.
The world has more than enough food, even if a particular person doesn't.
The current barrier to divorce is that you must sue the government for permission. Why would people make a self-harming contract?
I don't think that would work. After 9/11, the coverage showed unbroken windows removed from the rubble at the pentagon. The windows were designed to withstand a hit from any man-portable weapon system. This included the most powerful sniper weapons, as well as RPGs. I'm assuming the White House is no worse than the pentagon, but I didn't build either.
So we shouldn't place control on non-LOS 50+ lb drones because there exist 2 lb LOS-only drones? I can put enough C4 on a 2 lb drone to cause problems. The glass on the White House is designed to stop a .50 cal armor piercing sniper bullet. If you wanted to shoot the president, you'd be better off shooting through the wall. But a pound or two of C4 on a small drone, landing at the base of the wall may damage it enough for a clear shot, or dislodge one of the supremely heavy windows. Though I suspect that wouldn't work, for other reasons.
If the connector was trying to provide 25 amps at 5 volts via the thin little wires, they would arc into gas almost immediately.
My phone charge does 5A at 5V without an issue, and my laptop doing 5A at 20V does so over tiny wires.
As an RV-er, I'm familar with both 12 volt and 120 volt systems. For a LED TV or other low wattage appliance, 12 volt is better, just because it directly comes from the batteries. However, for a load like a microwave, A/C, heater, or anything above 300 watts, trying to run that on 12 volts would require very fat, expensive cable.
You answer the question, then immediately forget the answer. You have AC at 240 (sigh, 110, if you must) and have outlets in some strategic areas (kitchens and for major appliances), and 12V or 48V everywhere else.
I think we should have a 48V internal wiring standard, with some 240V appliance plugs, for vacuums, refrigerators, washers and driers, and such. The dual-standard will complicate things slightly, but result in a large overall savings, as wall-warts are eliminated, and all their waste.
More sense is 240 AC for appliances, and 12V or 48V for everything else. DC-DC stepping in the wall jack isn't hard. So you go to the jack at 48V, and there to 5V for your wall-wart voltages. With some for 12V or 48V for higher powered things.
If it were me, I'd design a mechanical switch in the plug that activated the circuit, so it would have zero loss when not used, unlike current wall warts. We use 110 VAC because it's what we've always used, not because it's a good voltage or current type.