The grandparent post that says the picture should be in the public domain -- buy my main point was that this may or may not be correct. If the picture is from 1959 (published in 1959), the picture would be in the public domain now if the copyright wasn't renewed (and in reality, most aren't.) But we don't know if this copyright was renewed or not -- but the fact that the author claimed to still own copyright on it suggests that it was (or maybe he didn't understand the law?) But we don't know for sure.
If the picture is in the public domain, then that doesn't make his work worthless -- but it does remove the author's ability to claim copyright on it. You can argue against the public domain if you want, but it IS the law, and works are supposed to eventually go into it, and the laws in place in 1959 would place this work in the public domain now if it was published in 1959 and the copyright was not renewed. (But again, we don't know if this was the case.)
But even assuming that the picture isn't in the public domain, the claim that this use of it was fair use is very strong. It's not the age of the work that would matter, but how it's used. And it doesn't require the agreement of the copyright holder, or any payments to him or anything along those lines.
Fair use (and public domain) laws are important. They aren't there to "steal" the works from the hard working artists and authors and deny them their due compensation, in spite of what companies like Disney have been telling us.
Personally, I think the guy shouldn't have settled. He should have dared the person to sue him -- yes, it's a risk, but I think things were strongly in his favor, and while yes, it would cost to defend such a suit properly, it would also cost to launch such a suit properly, and so the photographer would probably realize that it wasn't worth the risk.
to see all MS Windows versions from WinXP and older all source code released as GPL-3
I don't see how changing the patent term would have any effect on this whatsoever. Even if the copyright term was shrunk and they fell out of copyright, they'd go into the public domain rather than GPL.
Although I suppose it won't be long before cops carry cell jammers as a regular thing.
Cell phone jammers are illegal.
(Of course, the police may not care, but this is federal law, enforced by the FCC. If the FCC is given concrete proof of the police's actions, they'll send the police a sternly worded letter to cut that out.)
The thing that always amuses me about cancer panic regarding non-ionizing radiation from cell phones and now wifi, is that we're literally living in a sea of non-ionizing radiation, and have been for 70 years
s/70 years/for as long as man has walked the earth/
The Sun itself emits a sea of non-ionizing radiation in addition to the ionizing radiation it emits. Hell, the universe itself does-- the cosmic background radiation (though it is pretty weak compared to what the Sun emits.)
(Of course, it IS well known that exposure to the Sun does cause cancer (via it's ionizing radiation). Of course, it also helps you make vitamin D and is pretty hard to avoid for most people, so we accept the risk -- but mitigate it when needed.)
Yes, that is more accurate. And an even longer, more accurate description could be come up with as well.
But scientists don't sit around figuring out ways to apply the scientific method -- it's a general guideline, not a flowchart, but their work (at least good science, that is) tends to fall into the same general flow.
Bad science, that's another matter entirely. There, people seem to start with a proposal -- "I want to show that X is true" and then cherry pick their data to do so. Unfortunately, this seems to be the method used by governments and corporations... "I want to show that global warming isn't happening" or "I want to show that my new drug is effective with no side effects".
The nose however stayed up which might mean that the rudder was frozen by ice or immobile by other factors. That would turn the stall from a simple stall to a "flat stall" which is unrecoverable.
Elevator, not rudder.
As for a flat stall, do you mean a flat spin? As for what can be recovered from, that depends on the plane and center of gravity and some other stuff. I wouldn't assume it can't be recovered from.
Absolutely right. This stuff is totally alien.... it's so totally alien that my BS alarms go off when I hear people talking about it. I've read lots of stuff talking about how quantum computers will work, how they'll change everything, etc. -- but they sound like science fiction. And yet here's a commercial version for sale. It just doesn't ring true with me.
Yes, but if you're singling out the outliers for police involvement, you should probably look for people several standard deviations away from the average. I don't know what the standard deviation would be in this case, but I'll bet a significant percentage of the households in Canada use over 930 kWhr per month. Especially the wealthy with larger houses.
Hour... The hour (common symbol: h or hr; also known as a stound)
If you're going to go out of your way to call somebody an idiot for being wrong, the least you could do is make sure they're actually wrong, and ideally make sure they're wrong about something that actually matters (if your beef is Hr vs hr).
Do you correct people for going "6 sec" rather than "6 s" too? I'll bet you're great fun at parties!
The average price of electricity in the US for residential customers is 11 cents/kWHr".
So 93 kWHr/day works out to an average electric bill of $312 -- which is likely on the high side for a house in the south using A/C (or perhaps a house in the north with electric heat) but far from excessively high.
I imagine that this bylaw gives them the right to inspect a significant percentage their customer's houses at least once a year... at least the larger houses, anyways.
OS/2 2.0 offered all these "modern things" you're talking about back when Windows 3.0 was the newest that Microsoft had out, and MacOS was far behind as well.
Yet OS/2 was quite superior to the versions of Windows that Microsoft had out at the time.
In any event, IBM and Microsoft generally work in different areas now -- considering how IBM has their fingers in everything there's considerable overlap, but for the most part they're very different.
Just look inside the connector, it's painfully obvious which way to plug in a USB cable. You'd have to be an idiot not to be able to figure it out after all this time.
Yes, but what about the other end? Suppose it's on the back of your computer which is back up against the back of your desk? You can't see it without pulling the computer out (or using a small mirror, I guess) and can easily damage it by trying to force the USB in anyways.
USB A plugs, especially the female version, are quite fragile, and you can ruin them pretty easily, requiring that a new plug be soldered into the device (if being shorted out didn't damage it beyond just the plug) or the port just be given up on (and covered up, because if you do try to use it, the odds are good you'll crash the computer when you accidentally short it out.)
Micro-USB is far better.
Not that any of this really has anything to do with the bus itself, only the plug chosen, but for most purposes the two are married.
Note also that a hardware toggle allows the passwords to be reset, so at the VERY WORST they would have had to get someone to pop over to each Cisco rack and reset the passwords to blank.
I'm not familiar with the exact hardware in question, but the Cisco routers I've used in the past had no documented "hardware toggle" that merely reset passwords -- you could clear the configuration easily enough, but if you did that, the router had to be totally reconfigured -- it wouldn't work until it was.
Now, the configurations should be available somewhere and so this should be easily done, but that assumes that one knows where it is... and I imagine only Terry did.
Now, perhaps Cisco themselves knew how to do more, perhaps reset the passwords only... or maybe not.
Compressing my HD rip to save 5MB on a 50GB download!
In the case of movies, it's not so much that it saves space, it's more that it breaks the large file up into more manageable chunks and it also gives you checksums to know if something got corrupted.
This isn't particularly important for distribution methods like bittorrent which provides it's own checksums and doesn't have problems with files over 2 or 4 GB, but for some other distribution methods it does make a big difference, especially when you throw par2 files into the mix for correcting problems.
For example... after Usama's death... it took, what, a week before a presidential alert was issued?
Um, what?
Are you referring to Usama/Osama Bin Laden? According to wikipedia the operation to kill him started at 20:00, May 1 UTC (that's when they breached the walls, anyways) and Obama addressed the US at May 2, 2011, 3:35 UTC -- 7.5 hours later, not a week.
And really, that should not be the sort of thing that gets an "alert" sent out at all for anyways. It's news, yes, but we don't need to spam every American with that news.
Truecrypt is open source. No, I haven't looked at it myself, but it only takes one person to rat such a thing out.
Encryption is hard. Really hard to do right.
The NSA can hire the best. It's entirely possible that they (or some other comparable agency) hired somebody to inject a weakness into it's algorithms that would only be noticed in a code audit by somebody extremely skilled in the art. I'm not saying there's a backdoor such as "if you == NSA, decrypt everything!" but there may be something that greatly restricts the key combination that must be tested to crack it or something.
If you're in a situation that the authorities would give anything to get access to your encrypted data, a lot of paranoia is a very healthy thing.
I do agree that I'd trust open source code more than closed source code in this regard, but it's certainly possible for open source code to have backdoors or weaknesses -- intentional or accidental -- and for nobody to notice it for a long time.
Just to add some points of comparison:
Normal hard braking is about 0.4 Gs. Skilled hard braking is around 0.7 Gs. Around 1 G seems to be the limit for skilled braking with performance tires and a great road surface.
Thanks to ABS systems I'd say that most drivers come pretty close to the "skilled" limit just by mashing on the brakes as hard as they can.
And I think most passenger cars can get pretty close to 1 G as long as they have good brakes, good tires and ideal road conditions -- you don't really need a sports car or performance tires for that. Of course, the article was about SUVs, but even they can probably come pretty close to that.
Still, it's seems pretty obvious that there was no significant braking happening when these pictures were taken if the brake lights weren't on.
I do believe that another poster was right on about how this problem will be fixed -- there will only be one picture provided. Either that, or the timestamps will be removed, or their precision will be greatly reduced.
I would expect the costs for "reporters, editors, typesetters, proofreaders" to be roughly the same for web vs. print. And it wouldn't really go up much with increased readership, though in an ideal world I'd expect somewhat more money to be spent on these things as readership goes up.
But then you've got "printers, printer overhead, then distributors, distributor overhead, then a delivery mechanism", which is directly related to the number of readers. Similarly, "web hosting (bandwidth, servers, backups, etc.)" costs are also directly related to the number of readers.
I would also assume that once you've made a print paper/magazine, it's relatively simple to make it into a web site, and the converse is true as well. (By relatively simple, I mean the cost/time needed to convert to the new format vs. the cost/time needed to generate the content in the first place. Certainly, it's not simple to make a good web site from a good newspaper and vice versa, but I imagine it's much harder to make a good newspaper or web site in the first place.)
So it boils down to this -- what's cheaper, serving via the web, or serving via paper? And I would think that the answer is obviously "web, by a large margin, and it's getting larger over time". Offering video rather than just text and some pictures probably drives up the cost of the web side, but I'll bet it's still cheaper to provide.
The question is, what's the ratio of the first set of jobs (mostly creative) to the second set of jobs (mostly more down and dirty)? And I do not know. Certainly as a paper or website gets more readers/viewers, I'd expect the ratio to get smaller, and I'd expect it to be larger for a web site than a newspaper (and a mix for a place that does both, as I'd say most papers do now.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure you understand the issue.
The grandparent post that says the picture should be in the public domain -- buy my main point was that this may or may not be correct. If the picture is from 1959 (published in 1959), the picture would be in the public domain now if the copyright wasn't renewed (and in reality, most aren't.) But we don't know if this copyright was renewed or not -- but the fact that the author claimed to still own copyright on it suggests that it was (or maybe he didn't understand the law?) But we don't know for sure.
If the picture is in the public domain, then that doesn't make his work worthless -- but it does remove the author's ability to claim copyright on it. You can argue against the public domain if you want, but it IS the law, and works are supposed to eventually go into it, and the laws in place in 1959 would place this work in the public domain now if it was published in 1959 and the copyright was not renewed. (But again, we don't know if this was the case.)
Here's an even more detailed chart on when things enter the public domain.
But even assuming that the picture isn't in the public domain, the claim that this use of it was fair use is very strong. It's not the age of the work that would matter, but how it's used. And it doesn't require the agreement of the copyright holder, or any payments to him or anything along those lines.
Fair use (and public domain) laws are important. They aren't there to "steal" the works from the hard working artists and authors and deny them their due compensation, in spite of what companies like Disney have been telling us.
That photo should flat out be public domain at this time regardless of whether the photographer is a live or dead.
Maybe.
Personally, I think the guy shouldn't have settled. He should have dared the person to sue him -- yes, it's a risk, but I think things were strongly in his favor, and while yes, it would cost to defend such a suit properly, it would also cost to launch such a suit properly, and so the photographer would probably realize that it wasn't worth the risk.
My Big Traks's wait is almost over! Their day of glory is nigh!
Pretty sure it's the pennies thing -- they know they *have* to do it, but don't have to make it easy for you.
to see all MS Windows versions from WinXP and older all source code released as GPL-3
I don't see how changing the patent term would have any effect on this whatsoever. Even if the copyright term was shrunk and they fell out of copyright, they'd go into the public domain rather than GPL.
Although I suppose it won't be long before cops carry cell jammers as a regular thing.
Cell phone jammers are illegal.
(Of course, the police may not care, but this is federal law, enforced by the FCC. If the FCC is given concrete proof of the police's actions, they'll send the police a sternly worded letter to cut that out.)
The thing that always amuses me about cancer panic regarding non-ionizing radiation from cell phones and now wifi, is that we're literally living in a sea of non-ionizing radiation, and have been for 70 years
s/70 years/for as long as man has walked the earth/
The Sun itself emits a sea of non-ionizing radiation in addition to the ionizing radiation it emits. Hell, the universe itself does-- the cosmic background radiation (though it is pretty weak compared to what the Sun emits.)
(Of course, it IS well known that exposure to the Sun does cause cancer (via it's ionizing radiation). Of course, it also helps you make vitamin D and is pretty hard to avoid for most people, so we accept the risk -- but mitigate it when needed.)
Pretty much *not* a Godwin, as nobody was compared to the Nazis.
The Nazis weren't the only people to do Evil in history, or even during WW2 ...
Isn't it more accurate to say
Yes, that is more accurate. And an even longer, more accurate description could be come up with as well.
But scientists don't sit around figuring out ways to apply the scientific method -- it's a general guideline, not a flowchart, but their work (at least good science, that is) tends to fall into the same general flow.
Bad science, that's another matter entirely. There, people seem to start with a proposal -- "I want to show that X is true" and then cherry pick their data to do so. Unfortunately, this seems to be the method used by governments and corporations ... "I want to show that global warming isn't happening" or "I want to show that my new drug is effective with no side effects".
You do realize that a failure to understand something is not, rationally, reason to outright reject it.
I didn't outright reject it.
But it still sounds like science fiction.
The nose however stayed up which might mean that the rudder was frozen by ice or immobile by other factors. That would turn the stall from a simple stall to a "flat stall" which is unrecoverable.
Elevator, not rudder.
As for a flat stall, do you mean a flat spin? As for what can be recovered from, that depends on the plane and center of gravity and some other stuff. I wouldn't assume it can't be recovered from.
Absolutely right. This stuff is totally alien. ... it's so totally alien that my BS alarms go off when I hear people talking about it. I've read lots of stuff talking about how quantum computers will work, how they'll change everything, etc. -- but they sound like science fiction. And yet here's a commercial version for sale. It just doesn't ring true with me.
Yes, but if you're singling out the outliers for police involvement, you should probably look for people several standard deviations away from the average. I don't know what the standard deviation would be in this case, but I'll bet a significant percentage of the households in Canada use over 930 kWhr per month. Especially the wealthy with larger houses.
Thanks Anonymous dad!
Side note: from wikipedia --
If you're going to go out of your way to call somebody an idiot for being wrong, the least you could do is make sure they're actually wrong, and ideally make sure they're wrong about something that actually matters (if your beef is Hr vs hr).
Do you correct people for going "6 sec" rather than "6 s" too? I'll bet you're great fun at parties!
The average price of electricity in the US for residential customers is 11 cents/kWHr".
So 93 kWHr/day works out to an average electric bill of $312 -- which is likely on the high side for a house in the south using A/C (or perhaps a house in the north with electric heat) but far from excessively high.
I imagine that this bylaw gives them the right to inspect a significant percentage their customer's houses at least once a year ... at least the larger houses, anyways.
Correction ... Windows 3.1 came out at the same time as OS/2 2.0.
OS/2 2.0 offered all these "modern things" you're talking about back when Windows 3.0 was the newest that Microsoft had out, and MacOS was far behind as well.
Yet OS/2 was quite superior to the versions of Windows that Microsoft had out at the time.
In any event, IBM and Microsoft generally work in different areas now -- considering how IBM has their fingers in everything there's considerable overlap, but for the most part they're very different.
Just look inside the connector, it's painfully obvious which way to plug in a USB cable. You'd have to be an idiot not to be able to figure it out after all this time.
Yes, but what about the other end? Suppose it's on the back of your computer which is back up against the back of your desk? You can't see it without pulling the computer out (or using a small mirror, I guess) and can easily damage it by trying to force the USB in anyways.
USB A plugs, especially the female version, are quite fragile, and you can ruin them pretty easily, requiring that a new plug be soldered into the device (if being shorted out didn't damage it beyond just the plug) or the port just be given up on (and covered up, because if you do try to use it, the odds are good you'll crash the computer when you accidentally short it out.)
Micro-USB is far better.
Not that any of this really has anything to do with the bus itself, only the plug chosen, but for most purposes the two are married.
Note also that a hardware toggle allows the passwords to be reset, so at the VERY WORST they would have had to get someone to pop over to each Cisco rack and reset the passwords to blank.
I'm not familiar with the exact hardware in question, but the Cisco routers I've used in the past had no documented "hardware toggle" that merely reset passwords -- you could clear the configuration easily enough, but if you did that, the router had to be totally reconfigured -- it wouldn't work until it was.
Now, the configurations should be available somewhere and so this should be easily done, but that assumes that one knows where it is ... and I imagine only Terry did.
Now, perhaps Cisco themselves knew how to do more, perhaps reset the passwords only ... or maybe not.
Compressing my HD rip to save 5MB on a 50GB download!
In the case of movies, it's not so much that it saves space, it's more that it breaks the large file up into more manageable chunks and it also gives you checksums to know if something got corrupted.
This isn't particularly important for distribution methods like bittorrent which provides it's own checksums and doesn't have problems with files over 2 or 4 GB, but for some other distribution methods it does make a big difference, especially when you throw par2 files into the mix for correcting problems.
For example... after Usama's death... it took, what, a week before a presidential alert was issued?
Um, what?
Are you referring to Usama/Osama Bin Laden? According to wikipedia the operation to kill him started at 20:00, May 1 UTC (that's when they breached the walls, anyways) and Obama addressed the US at May 2, 2011, 3:35 UTC -- 7.5 hours later, not a week.
And really, that should not be the sort of thing that gets an "alert" sent out at all for anyways. It's news, yes, but we don't need to spam every American with that news.
Truecrypt is open source. No, I haven't looked at it myself, but it only takes one person to rat such a thing out.
Encryption is hard. Really hard to do right.
The NSA can hire the best. It's entirely possible that they (or some other comparable agency) hired somebody to inject a weakness into it's algorithms that would only be noticed in a code audit by somebody extremely skilled in the art. I'm not saying there's a backdoor such as "if you == NSA, decrypt everything!" but there may be something that greatly restricts the key combination that must be tested to crack it or something.
If you're in a situation that the authorities would give anything to get access to your encrypted data, a lot of paranoia is a very healthy thing.
I do agree that I'd trust open source code more than closed source code in this regard, but it's certainly possible for open source code to have backdoors or weaknesses -- intentional or accidental -- and for nobody to notice it for a long time.
Just to add some points of comparison:
Normal hard braking is about 0.4 Gs.
Skilled hard braking is around 0.7 Gs.
Around 1 G seems to be the limit for skilled braking with performance tires and a great road surface.
Thanks to ABS systems I'd say that most drivers come pretty close to the "skilled" limit just by mashing on the brakes as hard as they can.
And I think most passenger cars can get pretty close to 1 G as long as they have good brakes, good tires and ideal road conditions -- you don't really need a sports car or performance tires for that. Of course, the article was about SUVs, but even they can probably come pretty close to that.
Still, it's seems pretty obvious that there was no significant braking happening when these pictures were taken if the brake lights weren't on.
I do believe that another poster was right on about how this problem will be fixed -- there will only be one picture provided. Either that, or the timestamps will be removed, or their precision will be greatly reduced.
I would expect the costs for "reporters, editors, typesetters, proofreaders" to be roughly the same for web vs. print. And it wouldn't really go up much with increased readership, though in an ideal world I'd expect somewhat more money to be spent on these things as readership goes up.
But then you've got "printers, printer overhead, then distributors, distributor overhead, then a delivery mechanism", which is directly related to the number of readers. Similarly, "web hosting (bandwidth, servers, backups, etc.)" costs are also directly related to the number of readers.
I would also assume that once you've made a print paper/magazine, it's relatively simple to make it into a web site, and the converse is true as well. (By relatively simple, I mean the cost/time needed to convert to the new format vs. the cost/time needed to generate the content in the first place. Certainly, it's not simple to make a good web site from a good newspaper and vice versa, but I imagine it's much harder to make a good newspaper or web site in the first place.)
So it boils down to this -- what's cheaper, serving via the web, or serving via paper? And I would think that the answer is obviously "web, by a large margin, and it's getting larger over time". Offering video rather than just text and some pictures probably drives up the cost of the web side, but I'll bet it's still cheaper to provide.
The question is, what's the ratio of the first set of jobs (mostly creative) to the second set of jobs (mostly more down and dirty)? And I do not know. Certainly as a paper or website gets more readers/viewers, I'd expect the ratio to get smaller, and I'd expect it to be larger for a web site than a newspaper (and a mix for a place that does both, as I'd say most papers do now.)