...the current YahooGroups was formed from merging eGroups into the already existing YahooGroups. And then deciding the eGroups interface was better, and using that for both.
...they only support Compact Flash on their very high-end cameras, because CF *is* the high-end camera standard, and they simply wouldn't sell/be taken seriously if they were Memory Stick only. (MS isn't available in high capacities like CF is.) Everything else is bloody Memory Stick (would love a SD/MMC slot on my Vaio laptop.)
They support compact-flash on most Sony devices now (especially cameras). The days of memory-sticks-only are over.
...albeit the first with *built-in* GSM/GPRS and WiFi. If you can make VOIP calls over WiFi using your standard Pocket PC, you can do it with this device (whether T-Mobile makes it easy or integrates it into their software is another matter.)
T-Mobile don't have any control over the use of the WiFi in the phone, if you want to use it on your own AP, or anyone elses for that matter. The only scenario where they would is if you *happen* to be using a T-Mobile hotspot, which you could also use with any other WiFi-enabled device (for a fee).
...with the dialer company (the telco in the foreign country, that is) - otherwise the dialer company would not make any money! The only way that the scam can work is that the foreign telco passes on some of the call revenue to the dialer company. Having said that, in some countries the home telco should also be held responsible - for example, here in Ireland the monopoly telco has specifically put all of the 'dialer countries' into a special band, for which they charge 360c/min, *three times* what they charge for the next band down (122c for 'rest of Pacific Rim'). As such, they make substantially more than the dialer companies themselves out of these scams (which doesn't motivate them to fix the problem.)
I think generally it's not that the phone company is in cahoots with the dialer company, it's just that they don't bother to regulate it or their government hasn't passed laws officially banning the practice.
Last year a german airline started allowing cellphones
I don't believe this is true; I'd like to see a link substantiating it. Certainly Lufthansa don't allow them. Perhaps you are thinking of airlines that allow phone/PDA type devices in 'flight mode' (with the radio component switched off)? Or perhaps the airlines that are allowing them in the plane *on the ground* (e.g. before takeoff and after landing?) Or perhaps something like this, which deals with airlines installing mini-cells in the actual planes themselves? But as far as I'm aware no airline currently allows the use of cellphones in flight.
...does not make it true (293m). It always facinates me how many Americans don't know the population of their own country. Or perhaps the CIA is just hiding the other 300m people;-)
...until you mentioned it - I had always associated the phrase with the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, which did in fact turn the moon blue.
He did the test only with free hosts...
on
Testing ISP Censorship
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...which is yet another black hole in his methodology. (See the full report for details of the methodology.)
Quote from the article:
The UK ISP took Mill down almost immediately (in huge letters, as a heading, followed by:)
The US ISP followed up on the dubious complaint, made on behalf of the chairman of the non-existent John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation, with detailed questions. But the UK ISP took the site down almost immediately, effectively censoring legal content without investigation.
In the full report, he details how the US ISP refused to take down the content *unless he explicitly perjured himself in writing*, acknowledging in writing the phrase "under penalty of perjury". Unsurprisingly he was unwilling to do this and terminated the project - so the US ISP left the content there, and did exactly the right thing - a fact he completely skips over in the summary article.
The reason it did do this was that the DCMA provides a framework for such complaints. While ultimately his point in the article is that government regulation may be preferable to private corporate censorship, he doesn't want to explicitly draw the logical conclusion that in this case the DCMA is working exactly as intended, protecting the alleged infringer against specious claims. Rather he decides to reference "anecdotal evidence" that the DCMA has chilling effects.
Now I believe the DCMA to be one of the most wrong-headed laws ever signed, and I agree with this guy's conclusions, but the report reads obviously that he has started with these conclusions and moulded his data to fit them. His methodology is completely out the window. And that's a problem, because anyone can come up with a "research report"; that proves whatever they want, including the bad guys - and from a methodology perspective this guy could get a job with them.
Ironically, the PDF reveals the 'US ISP' as...
on
Testing ISP Censorship
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Lycos - on page 21, where he has shoddily neglected to blank it out. Ironic, as Lycos is actually owned by Terra, a Spanish (EU) ISP.
I agree that this study is a very good idea; I just wish he could have done it a bit better and more thoroughly. Two ISPs, one from the US, one from the EU, is simply not enough to draw any sort of conclusion.
...they changed the trading name from British Telecom to 'BT' in 1991 and the corporate name to BT Group plc in 2000. You will find it hard to actually even find a reference to 'British Telecom' on bt.com.
You would not own rights to the song, but you would own rights to the broadcast; copyright can have many layers with different people holding the rights to the different layers.
It's analogous to the copyright a printer has in the typesetting of a book. You are infringing copyright if you photocopy a recently typeset Penguin Classic of a public domain work, but not if you transcribe it. You can however photocopy older published books at your leisure.
Another example: Dangermouse infringed on both the Beatles and Jay-Zs copyright in creating the Grey Album but he still holds copyright on that work, e.g. the Beatles or Jay-Z could not just decide to appropriate it and sell it themselves (without his permission).
...buying something like this. The FlashTrax is probably the nicest portable hard disk card reader but you can also get cheaper ones without the screen; for example I got a USB2 X-Drive 20gb, which reads all memory formats but xD card, for around €150. Which is a lot cheaper than 20gb in memory cards.
The National Academy of Sciences is calling for more funding for the patent office where 3,000 examiners handle 350,000 applications a year with an average of 17 to 25 hours to check on the validity of a patent application.
3,000 examiners handle 350,000 applications a year. That means 117 applications per year each. If we presume a pretty holiday-free 250 working days in the year, that means 2 patents per day. At 17 to 25 hours to check the validity, that leaves them working 34-50 hours per day...
No holidays and working a 34-50 hour day. That's long hours, even by American standards.
...indeed in the headline. The term was used by a guy at Intel and has a specific meaning somewhat unrelated to the Slashdot/BBS meaning of the term.
Specifically, it refers to a company that buys an erroneously granted paper patent
cheaply, often from a failed company. They then proceed to threaten the entire computer industry, or a major player in it. An example is given of a company who bought a patent for $50,000 and then proceeded to sue Intel for $7 billion, claiming that all chips since the original Pentium infringed. The point is that all the troll company has to lose is their cheaply acquired patent, while the targeted company could lost their entire business - as such it is generally cheaper just to settle, which makes it such a lucrative business model.
Sort of like SCO - who I guess is someone we 'don't like, or agree with', but for a different reason than the trolls.
...indeed in the headline. The term was used by a guy at Intel and has a specific meaning somewhat unrelated to the Slashdot/BBS meaning of the term (people goading for a reaction).
Specifically, it refers to a company that buys an erroneously granted paper patent cheaply, often from a failed company. They then proceed to threaten the entire computer industry, or a major player in it. An example is given of a company who bought a patent for $50,000 and then proceeded to sue Intel for $7 billion, claiming that all chips since the original Pentium infringed. The point is that all the troll company has to lose is their cheaply acquired patent, while the targeted company could lost their entire business - as such it is generally cheaper just to settle, which makes it such a lucrative business model.
Sort of like SCO. So while it doesn't fit the defintion of troll as such it coincidentally does fit in with 'don't like, or agree with'.
Patronage was a way that very rich individuals supported artists and received reflected social status in return. Often there were religious reasons at work also (pay for a church, receive salvation). Key to the system was that very rich *individuals* provided the financials and received the consequent glory. I don't think this would work so well with large groups making voluntary donations to a project.
I'm not saying that donations from the many can't work (although they probably won't, unless they are forced through taxation and government bequests to the arts) but just pointing out that this was most certainly not how patronage worked.
Seriously, that's part of the problem. Animation is a very painstaking and laborious process and - popular though it is among some groups - Anime is a niche market outside Japan. Perhaps there is a need for films that reach out more to a mainstream demographic?
...with a smaller fine and less legal bills than they otherwise would have faced. The evidence was there, and against them. "Big companies" will generally do what is in their best interest and have remarkably little "pride". Pleading guilty in this case was in their best interest.
One employee of the school district (who was bribed as part of the scam, although not directly by NEC) did go to jail. I don't know why no-one from NEC is going to jail though, for their part in the fraud.
Corporations are legally persons only when it benefits them, I guess - imagine the concept of 'sending NEC to jail'.
...Smell-O-Vision *was* a short-lived movie fad in 1960. During the 50s in particular the movie industry tried lots of gimmicks (e.g. 3D) to counter the rising popularity of TV. The only one that really took hold (unfortunately in the view of many directors) was widescreen. One would think that all the people pursuing computer smell attachments would have learned from that experience.
Slashdot Mirror
...like this one - it automatically switches between the MS DHTML control in IE, or a Java applet in other browsers.
...the current YahooGroups was formed from merging eGroups into the already existing YahooGroups. And then deciding the eGroups interface was better, and using that for both.
Just checked, and I've been 93% idle since I started work this morning. Then again, I have been reading Slashdot...
...they only support Compact Flash on their very high-end cameras, because CF *is* the high-end camera standard, and they simply wouldn't sell/be taken seriously if they were Memory Stick only. (MS isn't available in high capacities like CF is.) Everything else is bloody Memory Stick (would love a SD/MMC slot on my Vaio laptop.)
They support compact-flash on most Sony devices now (especially cameras). The days of memory-sticks-only are over.
...albeit the first with *built-in* GSM/GPRS and WiFi. If you can make VOIP calls over WiFi using your standard Pocket PC, you can do it with this device (whether T-Mobile makes it easy or integrates it into their software is another matter.)
T-Mobile don't have any control over the use of the WiFi in the phone, if you want to use it on your own AP, or anyone elses for that matter. The only scenario where they would is if you *happen* to be using a T-Mobile hotspot, which you could also use with any other WiFi-enabled device (for a fee).
...with the dialer company (the telco in the foreign country, that is) - otherwise the dialer company would not make any money! The only way that the scam can work is that the foreign telco passes on some of the call revenue to the dialer company. Having said that, in some countries the home telco should also be held responsible - for example, here in Ireland the monopoly telco has specifically put all of the 'dialer countries' into a special band, for which they charge 360c/min, *three times* what they charge for the next band down (122c for 'rest of Pacific Rim'). As such, they make substantially more than the dialer companies themselves out of these scams (which doesn't motivate them to fix the problem.)
I think generally it's not that the phone company is in cahoots with the dialer company, it's just that they don't bother to regulate it or their government hasn't passed laws officially banning the practice.
...is that you *needed* to append that final line for people to realise that you weren't deadly serious. Only on Slashdot...
Last year a german airline started allowing cellphones
I don't believe this is true; I'd like to see a link substantiating it. Certainly Lufthansa don't allow them. Perhaps you are thinking of airlines that allow phone/PDA type devices in 'flight mode' (with the radio component switched off)? Or perhaps the airlines that are allowing them in the plane *on the ground* (e.g. before takeoff and after landing?) Or perhaps something like this, which deals with airlines installing mini-cells in the actual planes themselves? But as far as I'm aware no airline currently allows the use of cellphones in flight.
...does not make it true (293m). It always facinates me how many Americans don't know the population of their own country. Or perhaps the CIA is just hiding the other 300m people ;-)
...until you mentioned it - I had always associated the phrase with the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, which did in fact turn the moon blue.
...which is yet another black hole in his methodology. (See the full report for details of the methodology.)
Quote from the article:
The UK ISP took Mill down almost immediately (in huge letters, as a heading, followed by:)
The US ISP followed up on the dubious complaint, made on behalf of the chairman of the non-existent John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation, with detailed questions. But the UK ISP took the site down almost immediately, effectively censoring legal content without investigation.
In the full report, he details how the US ISP refused to take down the content *unless he explicitly perjured himself in writing*, acknowledging in writing the phrase "under penalty of perjury". Unsurprisingly he was unwilling to do this and terminated the project - so the US ISP left the content there, and did exactly the right thing - a fact he completely skips over in the summary article.
The reason it did do this was that the DCMA provides a framework for such complaints. While ultimately his point in the article is that government regulation may be preferable to private corporate censorship, he doesn't want to explicitly draw the logical conclusion that in this case the DCMA is working exactly as intended, protecting the alleged infringer against specious claims. Rather he decides to reference "anecdotal evidence" that the DCMA has chilling effects.
Now I believe the DCMA to be one of the most wrong-headed laws ever signed, and I agree with this guy's conclusions, but the report reads obviously that he has started with these conclusions and moulded his data to fit them. His methodology is completely out the window. And that's a problem, because anyone can come up with a "research report"; that proves whatever they want, including the bad guys - and from a methodology perspective this guy could get a job with them.
Lycos - on page 21, where he has shoddily neglected to blank it out. Ironic, as Lycos is actually owned by Terra, a Spanish (EU) ISP.
I agree that this study is a very good idea; I just wish he could have done it a bit better and more thoroughly. Two ISPs, one from the US, one from the EU, is simply not enough to draw any sort of conclusion.
...they changed the trading name from British Telecom to 'BT' in 1991 and the corporate name to BT Group plc in 2000. You will find it hard to actually even find a reference to 'British Telecom' on bt.com.
You would not own rights to the song, but you would own rights to the broadcast; copyright can have many layers with different people holding the rights to the different layers.
It's analogous to the copyright a printer has in the typesetting of a book. You are infringing copyright if you photocopy a recently typeset Penguin Classic of a public domain work, but not if you transcribe it. You can however photocopy older published books at your leisure.
Another example: Dangermouse infringed on both the Beatles and Jay-Zs copyright in creating the Grey Album but he still holds copyright on that work, e.g. the Beatles or Jay-Z could not just decide to appropriate it and sell it themselves (without his permission).
What kinda phrase is that? Holy events, man, they deleted all my events! There was some good events in there, too...
...buying something like this. The FlashTrax is probably the nicest portable hard disk card reader but you can also get cheaper ones without the screen; for example I got a USB2 X-Drive 20gb, which reads all memory formats but xD card, for around €150. Which is a lot cheaper than 20gb in memory cards.
The National Academy of Sciences is calling for more funding for the patent office where 3,000 examiners handle 350,000 applications a year with an average of 17 to 25 hours to check on the validity of a patent application.
3,000 examiners handle 350,000 applications a year. That means 117 applications per year each. If we presume a pretty holiday-free 250 working days in the year, that means 2 patents per day. At 17 to 25 hours to check the validity, that leaves them working 34-50 hours per day...
No holidays and working a 34-50 hour day. That's long hours, even by American standards.
...indeed in the headline. The term was used by a guy at Intel and has a specific meaning somewhat unrelated to the Slashdot/BBS meaning of the term.
Specifically, it refers to a company that buys an erroneously granted paper patent
cheaply, often from a failed company. They then proceed to threaten the entire computer industry, or a major player in it. An example is given of a company who bought a patent for $50,000 and then proceeded to sue Intel for $7 billion, claiming that all chips since the original Pentium infringed. The point is that all the troll company has to lose is their cheaply acquired patent, while the targeted company could lost their entire business - as such it is generally cheaper just to settle, which makes it such a lucrative business model.
Sort of like SCO - who I guess is someone we 'don't like, or agree with', but for a different reason than the trolls.
...indeed in the headline. The term was used by a guy at Intel and has a specific meaning somewhat unrelated to the Slashdot/BBS meaning of the term (people goading for a reaction).
Specifically, it refers to a company that buys an erroneously granted paper patent cheaply, often from a failed company. They then proceed to threaten the entire computer industry, or a major player in it. An example is given of a company who bought a patent for $50,000 and then proceeded to sue Intel for $7 billion, claiming that all chips since the original Pentium infringed. The point is that all the troll company has to lose is their cheaply acquired patent, while the targeted company could lost their entire business - as such it is generally cheaper just to settle, which makes it such a lucrative business model.
Sort of like SCO. So while it doesn't fit the defintion of troll as such it coincidentally does fit in with 'don't like, or agree with'.
I've got a 14-character alphanumeric obscure email address that I've never given anyone - but at least I don't get spam!
Do you get any email at all?
Spam is all about the signal to noise ratio, you know.
Patronage was a way that very rich individuals supported artists and received reflected social status in return. Often there were religious reasons at work also (pay for a church, receive salvation). Key to the system was that very rich *individuals* provided the financials and received the consequent glory. I don't think this would work so well with large groups making voluntary donations to a project.
I'm not saying that donations from the many can't work (although they probably won't, unless they are forced through taxation and government bequests to the arts) but just pointing out that this was most certainly not how patronage worked.
Was Spirited Away too mainstream for you?
Seriously, that's part of the problem. Animation is a very painstaking and laborious process and - popular though it is among some groups - Anime is a niche market outside Japan. Perhaps there is a need for films that reach out more to a mainstream demographic?
...with a smaller fine and less legal bills than they otherwise would have faced. The evidence was there, and against them. "Big companies" will generally do what is in their best interest and have remarkably little "pride". Pleading guilty in this case was in their best interest.
One employee of the school district (who was bribed as part of the scam, although not directly by NEC) did go to jail. I don't know why no-one from NEC is going to jail though, for their part in the fraud.
Corporations are legally persons only when it benefits them, I guess - imagine the concept of 'sending NEC to jail'.
...Smell-O-Vision *was* a short-lived movie fad in 1960. During the 50s in particular the movie industry tried lots of gimmicks (e.g. 3D) to counter the rising popularity of TV. The only one that really took hold (unfortunately in the view of many directors) was widescreen. One would think that all the people pursuing computer smell attachments would have learned from that experience.