I don't accept the premise that the Earth is or ever has been at equilibrium, implying stasis. The climate has been changing, sometimes radically, since the crust cooled.
I believe the 6th amendment's intent is pretty clear, even just going by the wording of it. I also don't think you should read the Constitution or its amendments in a vacuum; you should know the context from which they came about.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
OK...and the context was displeasure at having these things done to colonists by the mother country. Honestly, I fail to find any relevance here whatsoever. Be a pal and spell it out for me.
You don't think Coca Cola would sue if its formula were posted on the web?
They could sue the leaker, assuming that s/he was under NDA or held the trade secret under confidence. But once the secret is out, there is little they could do to prevent people from disseminating it. That's why they guard it so carefully. Similarly, if I tell somebody a secret, and they blab it to the press, I can go after my friend but I can't stop it from being published.
What is the advantage to having to spell out every possible thing you can do that is 'wrong'?
There are many advantages, such as the potential to know the law in advance, to reasonably ascertain its limits, to have input into its formation, to promote fairness in application, to prevent unauthorized expansion. and most of all, so that elected representatives can know precisely what it is they are voting for, thus putting power in the hands of elected legislators, not appointed judges. Whether there are in fact too many rules and regulations is a completely separate issue.
Sorry, no. If Apple were the "good guy," they might use DRM, but they would make it available to other device manufacturers. The only reason for the iPod lock-in is to benefit Apple.
Not that I think there's anything inherently wrong with this - that's business, after all. But don't put Apple out there as some altruistic "good guy."
The same law that prevents me from spying on my neighbor, and collecting information about him
But what law would that be? I am not aware of laws that prohibit you from logging what your neighbor does, or watching him from your property. You can't trespass on his property of course, or steal his garbage - but what law prevents you from tracking all information he allows to flow onto your property?
I don't think it counts as recursive, because the "Data" that is in the name of the act is NOT referring to the acronym "DATA," it's referring to the actual word "Data." To be recursive, an acronym must be self-referential, but this one is not.
There's an exemption if they encrypt their data - even if the encryption is lame or broken.
It doesn't say that! Stop making stuff up.
The term `encryption' means the protection of data in electronic form in storage or in transit using an encryption algorithm implemented within a validated cryptographic module that has been approved by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or another comparable standards body recognized by the Commission, rendering such data indecipherable in the absence of associated cryptographic keys necessary to enable decryption of such data. Such encryption must include appropriate management and safeguards of such keys to protect the integrity of the encryption.
Now perhaps there are encryption algorithms approved by the NIST that you feel are not sufficiently strong - though you haven't given any examples - but to claim that you can use any old encryption algorithm is FUD, pure and simple.
It should be implied as interpreted through our Constitution, and amendments, etc.
What? How? You can't just pretend those documents say something they don't. Well, you shouldn't.
We can't publish sensitive data from a major corporation on the Internet, or we would get sued.
What makes you think that?That being said, it should be implied, understood, and common practice to prevent big business from doing some of the things that they should be doing in the first place (privacy violations, overcharging, bastardly interest rates, etc).
What is the advantage to having regulation be "implied, understood, and common practice" as opposed to clearly spelling it out in statute?
Apple is selling music, but they are not a music publisher. They are a music reseller, like Tower Records, just in a different format.
I would have agreed with you in the past. But their system for for-profit "podcasts" - which is really just digital publishing when you get right down to it - I think definitiely pushes it into the "publisher" or even "label" category.
Exactly. The summary doesn't make it clear that he is saying that the changes are not required because Microsoft could simply pay them for the privilege of not changing it. I say, you sue somebody for doing something, you forfeit your right to complain when they stop doing it!
Even if what you say is totally true, what reason is there not to disclose the content of those communications to Microsoft? How could a judge possibly rule that irrelevant?
Yeah, and I used to think that way about the back catalogs too. But then I loaded up the emulators on my Xbox, and lo and behold, most of those games were far crappier than I remember. Mario World was still fun, mostly, but I'd already played it through several times in the past and can't bring myself to want to do it again. And Tetris is still addicting. But for me, the nostalgia bubble burst pretty quickly, and I usually end up playing Super Mario War (an open-source game for the Xbox) when people come over while the old ROMS go unplayed.
I can't remember which college off hand, but didn't he teach at a "straight-laced, suit-and-tie" college full of clean-cut students that didn't lynch him?
I guess he left the University of Berlin before they got a chance.
Okay, fine. But what else can you do, when you might have hundreds of applications for each position? You simply can't possibly spend the amount of time necessarily to get to know the life story and inner feelings of each one. You start having to make judgements which really boil down to educated assumptions until you have a manageable number. Then those candidates get the full treatment. Not surprisingly, candidates who try to work against those assumptions get weeded out sooner, and often never make it to the stage where getting to know them would work in their favor. On the other hand, given everything I say, if they can't or won't work with HR by trying to signal their employability, that itself says something about them as a potential employee.
A few problems with this. First of all, being a "geek" doesn't put you in the same league as Einstein. Come back when you've revolutionized a field of science. Second of all, Einstein didn't have a ponytail and his hair, while wild, was not that long. Third of all, Einstein frequently wore a suit and tie, or at least a sweater and tie or a sport coat. Fourth of all, he would have been lynched? Give me a break.
Slashdot Mirror
Anthropomorphizations do not like to be mocked.
I don't accept the premise that the Earth is or ever has been at equilibrium, implying stasis. The climate has been changing, sometimes radically, since the crust cooled.
OK...and the context was displeasure at having these things done to colonists by the mother country. Honestly, I fail to find any relevance here whatsoever. Be a pal and spell it out for me.
You don't think Coca Cola would sue if its formula were posted on the web?
They could sue the leaker, assuming that s/he was under NDA or held the trade secret under confidence. But once the secret is out, there is little they could do to prevent people from disseminating it. That's why they guard it so carefully. Similarly, if I tell somebody a secret, and they blab it to the press, I can go after my friend but I can't stop it from being published.
What is the advantage to having to spell out every possible thing you can do that is 'wrong'?
There are many advantages, such as the potential to know the law in advance, to reasonably ascertain its limits, to have input into its formation, to promote fairness in application, to prevent unauthorized expansion. and most of all, so that elected representatives can know precisely what it is they are voting for, thus putting power in the hands of elected legislators, not appointed judges. Whether there are in fact too many rules and regulations is a completely separate issue.
One is liberally licensed to third parties who wish to use it. The other is not.
Sorry, no. If Apple were the "good guy," they might use DRM, but they would make it available to other device manufacturers. The only reason for the iPod lock-in is to benefit Apple.
Not that I think there's anything inherently wrong with this - that's business, after all. But don't put Apple out there as some altruistic "good guy."
But what law would that be? I am not aware of laws that prohibit you from logging what your neighbor does, or watching him from your property. You can't trespass on his property of course, or steal his garbage - but what law prevents you from tracking all information he allows to flow onto your property?
I don't think it counts as recursive, because the "Data" that is in the name of the act is NOT referring to the acronym "DATA," it's referring to the actual word "Data." To be recursive, an acronym must be self-referential, but this one is not.
It doesn't say that! Stop making stuff up.
The term `encryption' means the protection of data in electronic form in storage or in transit using an encryption algorithm implemented within a validated cryptographic module that has been approved by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or another comparable standards body recognized by the Commission, rendering such data indecipherable in the absence of associated cryptographic keys necessary to enable decryption of such data. Such encryption must include appropriate management and safeguards of such keys to protect the integrity of the encryption.
Now perhaps there are encryption algorithms approved by the NIST that you feel are not sufficiently strong - though you haven't given any examples - but to claim that you can use any old encryption algorithm is FUD, pure and simple.
What? How? You can't just pretend those documents say something they don't. Well, you shouldn't.
We can't publish sensitive data from a major corporation on the Internet, or we would get sued.
What makes you think that?That being said, it should be implied, understood, and common practice to prevent big business from doing some of the things that they should be doing in the first place (privacy violations, overcharging, bastardly interest rates, etc).
What is the advantage to having regulation be "implied, understood, and common practice" as opposed to clearly spelling it out in statute?
I find your lack of faith in our consensus disturbing.
Got a cite for those EPA figures at all? That seems awful high to me.
Well, GM is certainly heading in that direction - maybe they'll be there in a year or two. Happy?
Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others
It's not that hard to come up with a scenario where confusion would occur, e.g.:
PERSON A: Who owns the right to distribute Beatles songs?
PERSON B: Apple, I think.
PERSON A: Okay, thanks.
Assuming that Person A has no prior knowledge of Apple Corps' history, who do you think they are likely to assume that Person B meant by "Apple?"
I would have agreed with you in the past. But their system for for-profit "podcasts" - which is really just digital publishing when you get right down to it - I think definitiely pushes it into the "publisher" or even "label" category.
Go banana!
Exactly. The summary doesn't make it clear that he is saying that the changes are not required because Microsoft could simply pay them for the privilege of not changing it. I say, you sue somebody for doing something, you forfeit your right to complain when they stop doing it!
Then they would either have to compenstate MS for the seizure of its IP or withdraw from the Berne convention.
Even if what you say is totally true, what reason is there not to disclose the content of those communications to Microsoft? How could a judge possibly rule that irrelevant?
What about the Berne convention?
Yeah, and I used to think that way about the back catalogs too. But then I loaded up the emulators on my Xbox, and lo and behold, most of those games were far crappier than I remember. Mario World was still fun, mostly, but I'd already played it through several times in the past and can't bring myself to want to do it again. And Tetris is still addicting. But for me, the nostalgia bubble burst pretty quickly, and I usually end up playing Super Mario War (an open-source game for the Xbox) when people come over while the old ROMS go unplayed.
I guess he left the University of Berlin before they got a chance.
Okay, fine. But what else can you do, when you might have hundreds of applications for each position? You simply can't possibly spend the amount of time necessarily to get to know the life story and inner feelings of each one. You start having to make judgements which really boil down to educated assumptions until you have a manageable number. Then those candidates get the full treatment. Not surprisingly, candidates who try to work against those assumptions get weeded out sooner, and often never make it to the stage where getting to know them would work in their favor. On the other hand, given everything I say, if they can't or won't work with HR by trying to signal their employability, that itself says something about them as a potential employee.
A few problems with this. First of all, being a "geek" doesn't put you in the same league as Einstein. Come back when you've revolutionized a field of science. Second of all, Einstein didn't have a ponytail and his hair, while wild, was not that long. Third of all, Einstein frequently wore a suit and tie, or at least a sweater and tie or a sport coat. Fourth of all, he would have been lynched? Give me a break.
LEARN TO READ! HTH HAND.