According to the article in the (quality) newspaper I read (http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artik elid=DMF13022007_023, Dutch only), the stated fine is 25,000 per day. Which amounts to a lot more than $472,675 per year, 9,125,000 using your method of calculation (probably should only count business days, doesn't really matter now). (Note: 9,125,000 is approximately $11,877,000).
Also, this is the second ruling on the matter. In the first ruling the fine was 1,000,000 per day the articles were on a google site.
Quick, call Boeing! They probably didn't even consider that! They'll love to hear the your expert opinion!
Or:
Ask yourself who'll know best. You or them.
Wow, for a second there I thought Microsoft was doing something for the good of all mankind! Preserve data for future civilisations? Great!
Then I clicked the link to the patent application. I almost forgot Microsoft's (or any corp) actions are solely driven by profit. Damn writeup.
Solar power is nice since it does not pollute when in use and generating power. However, mass production of solar cells is very taxing for the environment. So I can't help but wondering which is worse: 1000 sq. ft. (which is, accounting for chip packaging and other overhead, still a HUGE silicon area) or heating the old fashioned way (e.g. with gas, which is less polluting than say coal, and using decent insulation) and using a car that is not a fuel-hungry SUV...
In this light, I'd be interesting to see some statistics: for example, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_ percap-gross-national-income-per-capita Even more interesting would be to see the the same statistics, but with the top and/or bottom 10, 20% incomes omitted. Assuming that the poor are better of then elsewhere in the world, based upon the fact that "the richest people in the world make their money in the US"? I don't know...
You're missing something. Those phones already exist . Many of them aren't in production anymore, but I've noticed for example Nokia keeping such a model in stores (I think it's the 3310 model). It has a good battery life (about a week or so), I never have dropped calls, and there are cheap rubber 'jackets' which protect them from said 5 ft. drops. Hell, I've dropped it many times without the jacket and it always survived. It's even somewhat waterproof. It got soaked in sweat at a concert, rendering the screen all black. Next day phone worked as if nothing happened.
There will always be a market for totally unnecessary gadgets. Some people think having the latest most expensive handheld with all useless crap on it is somehow a symbol of social status. Hence, someone will produce this junk. That doesn't mean there aren't any decent phones around
I agree that they are quite reasonable in the whole matter. In fact, they explicitly state
We do not object to use of this slang term to describe UCE.
But OTOH, they say
Ultimately, we are trying to avoid the day when the consuming public asks, "Why would Hormel Foods name its product after junk e-mail?"
Which kind of conflicts with the former quote. Everyone knows about spam-email. Everyone has to deal with it.
Seems to me they're fighting a lost case, and they know it.
Aren't trademarks only there to protect a certain brand from being used by others in similar types of industry? Fighting off unwanted commercial e-mail and selling pig's intestines as food are way different playing fields, so I don't see how Hormel has a case...
Of course, IANAL, so correct me if I'm wrong...
I experienced something similar. I attended a concert in a quite hot hall, and due to 'some' moving i was soaked in sweat afterwards. Of course my cell phone was still in my pocket, almost dead. The screen still gave some output: all black. After a day it dried up, and worked just like before.
There is no reason why you should assume electronics are dead when wet. This widely assumed, but if power is cut fast enough (electronically I mean, as in surge protection), I don't see any reason why other electronics should suffer damage from getting wet. It's not that the water itself inflicts damage upon electronics. Some electronic device got soaked? Just let it dry long enough
Come on, isn't this obvious? The big issue with this is that the the great institution of scouting is being abused, as a tool for 1 branch of industy, that the tradition of badges is being abused for the profit of the recording industry. Not about the right or wrong about piracy.
I find this truly appaling. Now over here in.be we don't have the badge system, but the idea of a honour in learning IP low is just wrong. I feel compelled to look up those at the HK scouts who approved this and making my point clear.
Any suggestions about the contents of that e-mail?
Exactly. I am what I think Americans would refer to as a scout master (I'm from.be). We build rafts, we send our boys & girls on a 3-day hiking trip,...
The point of the whole thing: have fun, and in the mean time try to teach them about things such as functioning within a group, self-reliance, responsibility,... 'Learning about IP law' and scouting otoh go together like RMS and a razor blade;-)
Well, it only uses compressed air for accelerating and climbing up hills. So it does make sense to use air: short burst of acceleration on air (much power), steady driving on battery (lower power)
Wouldn't you think in case of multiple instances of 1 error (take/. for example) 1 mail would be sent saying "We're having trouble, fix it" (and maybe at regular intervals an update on the situation)? I'd be surprised if many admins of a site with any serious traffic has his server send him an email everytime en error occurs.
All discussion seems to be limited to childish and pathetic "they will surrender" jokes or other rants. Consider this:
If Google archives US libraries, there would be a bias towards english literature. I don't think many would disagree. And whatever is on google gets spread lightning fast, unlike (e.g. french) paper libraries. So the man has a point in pointing out this possible bias.
Oh yes, to all those idio^H^H^H^Hposters saying 'then do it yourself': A large profit driven company like Google would have the proper resources to do this. A librarian wouldn't. (I know, oversimplification).
From the article:
She said her client was playing with his young daughter, using the laser's narrow green beam to point at stars and illuminating trees and neighbor's houses.
And shamelessly lifted from another post in this discussion,
this http://www.skypointer.net/ link states that
Red laser pointers have grown cheap and ubiquitous, but unfortunately, they are not very effective as sky pointers. In contrast, green laser pointers are very effective because of the eye's greater sensitivity to the 532 nanometer green light. Under dark sky conditions, the beam from a 5 milliwatt green laser pointer creates a dramatic impression, and the beam apparently extends for more than a kilometer.
which supports the former statement.
In short, the guy was pointing out stars to his daughter, he NEVER intended to point it at an airliner (I'd like to see someone with a handheld laser pinpointing an airliner several thousands of meter up). So calling it "assault" is just ridiculous. Picking out this guy also is: supposing the linked site sold any number of units, this means that many people in the US are doing exactly the same, they just didn't hit the one in chance of flashing an airliner miles away AND having the beam deflected into a pilot's eyes. Conclusion: there has been much media attention about lasers hitting an airplane recently so a scapegoat had to be found. He's just one unlucky bastard. Not a criminal. And definately not a terrorist. Why do I hint at scapegoating?
"We need to send a clear message to the public that there is no harmless mischief when it comes to airplanes,"
Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases, but said Banach's arrest shows how seriously they take the matter.
Also, I really disliked this little piece of information:
After the agent switched it on, Banach warned him "not to shine the laser in his eyes because it could blind him," the court documents say.
Let me just say "well DUH!" A 5mW laser (a bit more than the presentation-purpose lasers) are ubiquitous and one shouldn't look straight into those from a few cm away either. This just makes it blatantly obvious this is pure sensationalist "journalism" about a gross injustice, namely picking out one individual, ruining his life, to make a public impression.
ps. If this laser situation should prove potentially dangerous, something SHOULD be done, agreed, but this is just a perversion of justice.
I hear your point. However, you assume that people will understand the absurdity of some statements. It takes only a few who don't to cause problems. The subject you chose is indeed unlikely to be taken seriously. Comparing to a rodent infestation or whatever and blaming them for all society's problems, and then using this to justify violence is a whole other playing field.
Like i indicated, free speech is vital to a democracy, but blindness is not.
I have mixed feelings about this.
I believe restricting speech on the internet is nonsense. However!
The way I see it, one should ask himself following question:
Is free speech desirable if that free speech limits the freedom of, or has a negative impact on, certain population groups? Especially when it comes to minorities, who should be protected imho. If the 'free speech' of someone implicates encouraging others to commit acts of violence against, say, jews, isn't society as a whole better of if it was made sure this hate-speech reaches as few people as possible?
(It al comes down to stating that one's freedom is limited by the freedom of others)
Blindly defending free speech at any level without even considering the possible consequenses.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article in the (quality) newspaper I read (http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artik elid=DMF13022007_023, Dutch only), the stated fine is 25,000 per day. Which amounts to a lot more than $472,675 per year, 9,125,000 using your method of calculation (probably should only count business days, doesn't really matter now). (Note: 9,125,000 is approximately $11,877,000).
Also, this is the second ruling on the matter. In the first ruling the fine was 1,000,000 per day the articles were on a google site.
Quick, call Boeing! They probably didn't even consider that! They'll love to hear the your expert opinion! Or: Ask yourself who'll know best. You or them.
Wow, for a second there I thought Microsoft was doing something for the good of all mankind! Preserve data for future civilisations? Great! Then I clicked the link to the patent application. I almost forgot Microsoft's (or any corp) actions are solely driven by profit. Damn writeup.
Solar power is nice since it does not pollute when in use and generating power. However, mass production of solar cells is very taxing for the environment. So I can't help but wondering which is worse: 1000 sq. ft. (which is, accounting for chip packaging and other overhead, still a HUGE silicon area) or heating the old fashioned way (e.g. with gas, which is less polluting than say coal, and using decent insulation) and using a car that is not a fuel-hungry SUV...
In this light, I'd be interesting to see some statistics: for example, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_ percap-gross-national-income-per-capita Even more interesting would be to see the the same statistics, but with the top and/or bottom 10, 20% incomes omitted. Assuming that the poor are better of then elsewhere in the world, based upon the fact that "the richest people in the world make their money in the US"? I don't know...
You're missing something. Those phones already exist . Many of them aren't in production anymore, but I've noticed for example Nokia keeping such a model in stores (I think it's the 3310 model). It has a good battery life (about a week or so), I never have dropped calls, and there are cheap rubber 'jackets' which protect them from said 5 ft. drops. Hell, I've dropped it many times without the jacket and it always survived. It's even somewhat waterproof. It got soaked in sweat at a concert, rendering the screen all black. Next day phone worked as if nothing happened.
There will always be a market for totally unnecessary gadgets. Some people think having the latest most expensive handheld with all useless crap on it is somehow a symbol of social status. Hence, someone will produce this junk. That doesn't mean there aren't any decent phones around
I agree that they are quite reasonable in the whole matter. In fact, they explicitly state
We do not object to use of this slang term to describe UCE.
But OTOH, they say
Ultimately, we are trying to avoid the day when the consuming public asks, "Why would Hormel Foods name its product after junk e-mail?"
Which kind of conflicts with the former quote. Everyone knows about spam-email. Everyone has to deal with it. Seems to me they're fighting a lost case, and they know it.
Aren't trademarks only there to protect a certain brand from being used by others in similar types of industry? Fighting off unwanted commercial e-mail and selling pig's intestines as food are way different playing fields, so I don't see how Hormel has a case...
Of course, IANAL, so correct me if I'm wrong...
Or am I crazy?
Yes.
I experienced something similar. I attended a concert in a quite hot hall, and due to 'some' moving i was soaked in sweat afterwards. Of course my cell phone was still in my pocket, almost dead. The screen still gave some output: all black. After a day it dried up, and worked just like before.
There is no reason why you should assume electronics are dead when wet. This widely assumed, but if power is cut fast enough (electronically I mean, as in surge protection), I don't see any reason why other electronics should suffer damage from getting wet. It's not that the water itself inflicts damage upon electronics. Some electronic device got soaked? Just let it dry long enough
Come on, isn't this obvious? The big issue with this is that the the great institution of scouting is being abused, as a tool for 1 branch of industy, that the tradition of badges is being abused for the profit of the recording industry. Not about the right or wrong about piracy.
I find this truly appaling. Now over here in .be we don't have the badge system, but the idea of a honour in learning IP low is just wrong. I feel compelled to look up those at the HK scouts who approved this and making my point clear.
Any suggestions about the contents of that e-mail?
Exactly. I am what I think Americans would refer to as a scout master (I'm from .be). We build rafts, we send our boys & girls on a 3-day hiking trip, ... ... 'Learning about IP law' and scouting otoh go together like RMS and a razor blade ;-)
The point of the whole thing: have fun, and in the mean time try to teach them about things such as functioning within a group, self-reliance, responsibility,
Or like CNN sounds these days.
Well, it only uses compressed air for accelerating and climbing up hills. So it does make sense to use air: short burst of acceleration on air (much power), steady driving on battery (lower power)
Wouldn't you think in case of multiple instances of 1 error (take /. for example) 1 mail would be sent saying "We're having trouble, fix it" (and maybe at regular intervals an update on the situation)? I'd be surprised if many admins of a site with any serious traffic has his server send him an email everytime en error occurs.
All discussion seems to be limited to childish and pathetic "they will surrender" jokes or other rants. Consider this:
If Google archives US libraries, there would be a bias towards english literature. I don't think many would disagree. And whatever is on google gets spread lightning fast, unlike (e.g. french) paper libraries. So the man has a point in pointing out this possible bias.
Oh yes, to all those idio^H^H^H^Hposters saying 'then do it yourself': A large profit driven company like Google would have the proper resources to do this. A librarian wouldn't. (I know, oversimplification).
From the article:
She said her client was playing with his young daughter, using the laser's narrow green beam to point at stars and illuminating trees and neighbor's houses.
And shamelessly lifted from another post in this discussion, this http://www.skypointer.net/ link states that
Red laser pointers have grown cheap and ubiquitous, but unfortunately, they are not very effective as sky pointers. In contrast, green laser pointers are very effective because of the eye's greater sensitivity to the 532 nanometer green light. Under dark sky conditions, the beam from a 5 milliwatt green laser pointer creates a dramatic impression, and the beam apparently extends for more than a kilometer.
which supports the former statement.
In short, the guy was pointing out stars to his daughter, he NEVER intended to point it at an airliner (I'd like to see someone with a handheld laser pinpointing an airliner several thousands of meter up). So calling it "assault" is just ridiculous. Picking out this guy also is: supposing the linked site sold any number of units, this means that many people in the US are doing exactly the same, they just didn't hit the one in chance of flashing an airliner miles away AND having the beam deflected into a pilot's eyes. Conclusion: there has been much media attention about lasers hitting an airplane recently so a scapegoat had to be found. He's just one unlucky bastard. Not a criminal. And definately not a terrorist. Why do I hint at scapegoating?
"We need to send a clear message to the public that there is no harmless mischief when it comes to airplanes,"
Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases, but said Banach's arrest shows how seriously they take the matter.
Also, I really disliked this little piece of information:
After the agent switched it on, Banach warned him "not to shine the laser in his eyes because it could blind him," the court documents say.
Let me just say "well DUH!" A 5mW laser (a bit more than the presentation-purpose lasers) are ubiquitous and one shouldn't look straight into those from a few cm away either. This just makes it blatantly obvious this is pure sensationalist "journalism" about a gross injustice, namely picking out one individual, ruining his life, to make a public impression.
ps. If this laser situation should prove potentially dangerous, something SHOULD be done, agreed, but this is just a perversion of justice.
Points to a well-written editorial at nytimes (bugmenot.com is your friend, I used cpunk89/asdfasdf) about US aid to the relief effort. Worth a read.
Why? What's the use of this?
There have been quakes that went up to 9.0 (or even 9.5, depending on your source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_scale or http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/ magnitude.html), being the Chilean Earthquake of 1960. The second link also hints at a magnitude 10 event as being "San-Andreas type fault circling Earth"
Either the Dutch have weirdly shaped cars, or the image of the parked cars on the far right side is distorted...
Capable of addressing an astronomical 18 billion GB, or 18 exabytes, of memory,
I know the first 2 digits are 1 and 8, but 2^64 bytes is still 'only' 16 exabytes...
I hear your point. However, you assume that people will understand the absurdity of some statements. It takes only a few who don't to cause problems. The subject you chose is indeed unlikely to be taken seriously. Comparing to a rodent infestation or whatever and blaming them for all society's problems, and then using this to justify violence is a whole other playing field.
Like i indicated, free speech is vital to a democracy, but blindness is not.
I have mixed feelings about this. I believe restricting speech on the internet is nonsense. However! The way I see it, one should ask himself following question:
Is free speech desirable if that free speech limits the freedom of, or has a negative impact on, certain population groups? Especially when it comes to minorities, who should be protected imho. If the 'free speech' of someone implicates encouraging others to commit acts of violence against, say, jews, isn't society as a whole better of if it was made sure this hate-speech reaches as few people as possible?
(It al comes down to stating that one's freedom is limited by the freedom of others)
Blindly defending free speech at any level without even considering the possible consequenses.