Almost everything is work for hire unless stated otherwise. You really can only claim otherwise if you are a contractor and your contract specifies it. Photographers specifically mention that in their agreements.
Growing competition? Today the US has 3 wireless carriers: Sprint, AT&T, Verizon. A few years ago, there were 4: Cingular. All that is happening now is that the wireless carriers are selling service to subsidiaries who rebrand the service and resell it (Boost, Virgin, Net10, Tracfone...) so that it *appears* that there is more competition while the same 3 companies retain control.
Boost is reselling Sprint service. Net10 is reselling Verizon service. My house gets Verizon service but not AT&T. Sprint might work at my home, but definitely not in the rural area where I work. So my wireless choices are... Verizon.
Ultimately, this is the wrong question. We need multiple providers running over the same wireless towers. The US wireless network has the same fundamental flaw as the wired network . The service provider is the same company providing the bandwidth. That is the singular fundamental reason why network neutrality is even an issue.
Sure it is, as long as Super Fresh pays the full cost of those lanes and the traffic on those lanes does not degrade the transit time of the customers using the ordinary lanes.
Granted.
I was implying that that they aren't new lanes - they are re-purposing existing lanes. That's closer to what the ISPs want to do. If I make this analogy again, I'll specifically state that. Thanks for improving my argument in the future.
Isn't this what people are talking about trying to prevent from happening?
No. That's not network neutrality.
If someone wants to setup servers near New York and San Francisco to give those areas better service, that's just great. If they want to pay someone else to setup the server and host it for them, they can do that too. Shipping companies place hubs in busy areas. Supermarkets pay more money for real estate on busy roads. Gas stations try to get intersections. This is all fine.
Akamai is not an ISP. What we are trying to prevent is ISPs from filtering, delaying, or modifying traffic. Using my supermarket analogy: it's fine for Super Fresh to build a supermarket on a busy road. But it isn't fine if roads have special high-speed lanes for Super Fresh customers. ISPs are in the position of being able to create dedicated lanes on the internet, or to add stop signs that only apply to some people. If you make the roads, you must let all traffic pass equally. If you make telephone wires, you must pass all traffic equally.
I thought that too at first. But it is more about communism -vs- capitalism. In a capitalist nation, there is no point in reducing energy consumption unless energy prices rise. In a communist nation, there is no sense in closing an inefficient factory if the government subsidies pay the difference. Both systems are flawed.
What we need is the middle ground. The people in power (be it an oligarchy or a democracy) should make the costs of energy consumption include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. Then, the market will close the inefficient factories, or make them efficient.
Over cleanliness does not lead to gluten or peanut allergies. They are genetic. In the case of peanut allergies, you have them from day one. That is why they tell you never give peanuts to children under a year - it's instant death if they have the allergy.
Just so everyone knows: this isn't a new technique. It is called Optical image stabilization. It is common in digital cameras. The novelty is doing it on a camera that wasn't intended for this, like the iPhone.
If this argument was true, then we could not have common carrier laws either. Obviously, we would not want the phone company to be able to monitor or modify telephone conversations, and nobody thinks that violates the constitution. This is a huuuuuuggee stretch.
Just you didn't get what you thought you'd get doesn't mean you can reverse the charges.
Actually, you can.
In the particular example of rogue software, the seller has committed fraud. Maybe extortion. No question that the charges can be reversed. But there's also criminal penalties here too.
But in general, you still can reverse the charges. In the United States, if you buy a product, and the product is not what you paid for, then the seller must accept the return. It is part of the "implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose." I had one of those mall-vendors sell me a $40 toy that didn't do what the video made it seem like it did. When they pointed to their "no returns" sign I just left the item on the cart, took a picture, and called me credit card company. I told them to reverse the charges and that I no longer was in possession of the item. They reversed the charges without hassle.
It isn't always this easy - in theory, the credit card company could have sided with the vendor at which point I would have to go to court. It may not be worth that amount of effort though.
To explain the point the parent is alluding to: When you run copper wires at high bandwidth it induces a magnetic field. The magnetic field then induces a current in the neighboring wires. This is crosstalk. The more wires you have closer together, the more crosstalk. This is part of why everything is moving from massive parallelism (ribbon cables) to high-speed differential signaling. You use only two wires, and the two wires always send the opposite signal. When one wire sends a 1, the other sends a zero (that's a simplification). And vice-versa. Optical cables don't experience crosstalk.
The other major reason for the shift is that ribbon cables get expensive, and are a pain to route.
Examples of things that use this: - USB - SATA - DVI, HDMI - Ethernet
The real problem here is that this isn't an individual officer being a jerk. That happens in every profession: humans aren't perfect. But the response was a coordinated offensive involving many individuals. This sounds like it might involve dozens of individuals collaborating together.
obtained an arrest warrant charging Graber
I don't know how arrest warrants work. Did a judge issue this?
the State Police also obtained a search warrant
That's equally scary: the video was already on youtube. What was the search warrant for?
the Harford County State’s Attorney obtained a grand jury indictment,
Now the state's attorney is involved.
This now involves several police officers, the states attorney, and at least one judge. We don't have all the facts yet, but if this is how the ACLU presents it, then IMHO each of those people should be charged with some serious crimes. What crime is it when a public official tries to shake-down someone? Is this any different from when the mob was doing the same thing?
What was the last Chinese Car Manufacturer that even penetrated the US market to damage the sales of US companies?
Consider the exact opposite situation: General Motors has a significant presence in China. These documents could damage General Motors operations in China. And that might be worth $40 million.
There are various "coders for hire" sites and such like that. The sites do well, but they are not truly disruptive to the software industry. This is because few professional programmers will put the time and effort into going there because the rates are terrible. And few serious companies use it because they can't get quality for the prices they are offering. But bored students, the unemployed, a few freelancers, and inhabitants of undeveloped nations will look for work there.
The question is: what percentage of the demand for this product can be met by that market segment?
It may turn out that the average corporation can't tell a good design from a bad one. If so, then graphic designers will start to go out of business until either the corporations realize that their designs aren't working, or until graphic designers realize that design quality doesn't actually matter. I suspect reality lies somewhere in between: cruddy designs are good enough for a lot of the market. Only the best designers will survive to get the remaining high-end contracts.
What event precipitated this bill? Did the US courts actually do this? I was not aware that the US courts ever upheld foreign judgments. I thought that was what extradition was for -- you send the person to the other country, and they judge and enforce their law. I find it difficult to believe that even if the US did uphold a foreign judgment, that it would happen on something that violated hte first amendment. The US courts are pretty consistent on that one. It seems like an easy appeal.
any traffic coming from IP ranges known to belong to the RIAA, MPAA, or constituent organizations.
IMHO, that would be doing exactly what their enemies are doing. Their purpose is to let users access the internet without restrictions. Not to wall-off those things they find evil.
even just a legalese to English translator would be a non-trivial problem.
It would probably also be illegal because it would put some lawyers out of business.
Legalese is not a way to state things precisely and accurately. (I once naively assumed it was). I've learned that legalese is written to sound precise and accurate while being as open to interpretation as possible. These worlds collide when trying to write a patent - no good engineer could possibly write (or read and understand) a patent. Engineers write it, then the lawyers obfuscate it so it can be as broad as possible, and so that no judge or jury could ever hope to understand it. Often times, even the original author can't figure out what it was.
Hence, any such translator, if it is even possible to create one, would be stopped by very powerful interests.
You jest, but this is actually serious. Many computers these days are good consumer devices, but not good creative devices. They are becoming more like video game systems - read-only.
There's a generation who grew-up on computers as creative tools because they came with almost nothing else. Now, you have locked-down computers that let you run games, but you have to pay for a developers license to write software for them. That's a big difference, and it is visible already in CS graduates. Today one can graduate with a CS degree and not understand things that software engineers only a few years older than them take for granted. Something subtle but important is lost by not having root access from the start.
This summary makes it sound like ZFS is teetering on the edge of destruction. I thought ZFS was used all over the place by big database warehousing organizations. I went to a PostgreSQL conference a few years back and it seemed like everyone was using it. Is ZFS in such a weak position that one patent troll could have any significant impact on it?
Hotels might have a valid reason. Other merchants do not. They can refund charges without having the number. This is another case where I think we have to resort to legislation making it illegal to retain credit card numbers. It's stupid though on so many levels though.
1. The merchant shouldn't retain the credit card number (it is in their own best interest NOT to, since they are liable for the resulting fraud). 2. The credit card company shouldn't let the store retain the credit card information (fraud costs them money, PR, and customers). 3. The credit card company shouldn't even issue credit card numbers - there are far better ways to do it than having one magical number that gives anyone access to your account. 4. Credit cards shouldn't have personal information on them anyway.
The credit card system is wrong on so many levels it is just silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost everything is work for hire unless stated otherwise. You really can only claim otherwise if you are a contractor and your contract specifies it. Photographers specifically mention that in their agreements.
Growing competition? Today the US has 3 wireless carriers: Sprint, AT&T, Verizon. A few years ago, there were 4: Cingular. All that is happening now is that the wireless carriers are selling service to subsidiaries who rebrand the service and resell it (Boost, Virgin, Net10, Tracfone...) so that it *appears* that there is more competition while the same 3 companies retain control.
Boost is reselling Sprint service. Net10 is reselling Verizon service. My house gets Verizon service but not AT&T. Sprint might work at my home, but definitely not in the rural area where I work. So my wireless choices are... Verizon.
Ultimately, this is the wrong question. We need multiple providers running over the same wireless towers. The US wireless network has the same fundamental flaw as the wired network . The service provider is the same company providing the bandwidth. That is the singular fundamental reason why network neutrality is even an issue.
Sure it is, as long as Super Fresh pays the full cost of those lanes and the traffic on those lanes does not degrade the transit time of the customers using the ordinary lanes.
Granted.
I was implying that that they aren't new lanes - they are re-purposing existing lanes. That's closer to what the ISPs want to do. If I make this analogy again, I'll specifically state that. Thanks for improving my argument in the future.
Isn't this what people are talking about trying to prevent from happening?
No. That's not network neutrality.
If someone wants to setup servers near New York and San Francisco to give those areas better service, that's just great. If they want to pay someone else to setup the server and host it for them, they can do that too. Shipping companies place hubs in busy areas. Supermarkets pay more money for real estate on busy roads. Gas stations try to get intersections. This is all fine.
Akamai is not an ISP. What we are trying to prevent is ISPs from filtering, delaying, or modifying traffic. Using my supermarket analogy: it's fine for Super Fresh to build a supermarket on a busy road. But it isn't fine if roads have special high-speed lanes for Super Fresh customers. ISPs are in the position of being able to create dedicated lanes on the internet, or to add stop signs that only apply to some people. If you make the roads, you must let all traffic pass equally. If you make telephone wires, you must pass all traffic equally.
I thought that too at first. But it is more about communism -vs- capitalism. In a capitalist nation, there is no point in reducing energy consumption unless energy prices rise. In a communist nation, there is no sense in closing an inefficient factory if the government subsidies pay the difference. Both systems are flawed.
What we need is the middle ground. The people in power (be it an oligarchy or a democracy) should make the costs of energy consumption include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. Then, the market will close the inefficient factories, or make them efficient.
Over cleanliness does not lead to gluten or peanut allergies. They are genetic. In the case of peanut allergies, you have them from day one. That is why they tell you never give peanuts to children under a year - it's instant death if they have the allergy.
Just so everyone knows: this isn't a new technique. It is called Optical image stabilization. It is common in digital cameras. The novelty is doing it on a camera that wasn't intended for this, like the iPhone.
If this argument was true, then we could not have common carrier laws either. Obviously, we would not want the phone company to be able to monitor or modify telephone conversations, and nobody thinks that violates the constitution. This is a huuuuuuggee stretch.
Then how are microcells legal?
Just you didn't get what you thought you'd get doesn't mean you can reverse the charges.
Actually, you can.
In the particular example of rogue software, the seller has committed fraud. Maybe extortion. No question that the charges can be reversed. But there's also criminal penalties here too.
But in general, you still can reverse the charges. In the United States, if you buy a product, and the product is not what you paid for, then the seller must accept the return. It is part of the "implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose." I had one of those mall-vendors sell me a $40 toy that didn't do what the video made it seem like it did. When they pointed to their "no returns" sign I just left the item on the cart, took a picture, and called me credit card company. I told them to reverse the charges and that I no longer was in possession of the item. They reversed the charges without hassle.
It isn't always this easy - in theory, the credit card company could have sided with the vendor at which point I would have to go to court. It may not be worth that amount of effort though.
To explain the point the parent is alluding to: When you run copper wires at high bandwidth it induces a magnetic field. The magnetic field then induces a current in the neighboring wires. This is crosstalk. The more wires you have closer together, the more crosstalk. This is part of why everything is moving from massive parallelism (ribbon cables) to high-speed differential signaling. You use only two wires, and the two wires always send the opposite signal. When one wire sends a 1, the other sends a zero (that's a simplification). And vice-versa. Optical cables don't experience crosstalk.
The other major reason for the shift is that ribbon cables get expensive, and are a pain to route.
Examples of things that use this:
- USB
- SATA
- DVI, HDMI
- Ethernet
The real problem here is that this isn't an individual officer being a jerk. That happens in every profession: humans aren't perfect. But the response was a coordinated offensive involving many individuals. This sounds like it might involve dozens of individuals collaborating together.
obtained an arrest warrant charging Graber
I don't know how arrest warrants work. Did a judge issue this?
the State Police also obtained a search warrant
That's equally scary: the video was already on youtube. What was the search warrant for?
the Harford County State’s Attorney obtained a grand jury indictment,
Now the state's attorney is involved.
This now involves several police officers, the states attorney, and at least one judge. We don't have all the facts yet, but if this is how the ACLU presents it, then IMHO each of those people should be charged with some serious crimes. What crime is it when a public official tries to shake-down someone? Is this any different from when the mob was doing the same thing?
What was the last Chinese Car Manufacturer that even penetrated the US market to damage the sales of US companies?
Consider the exact opposite situation: General Motors has a significant presence in China. These documents could damage General Motors operations in China. And that might be worth $40 million.
There are various "coders for hire" sites and such like that. The sites do well, but they are not truly disruptive to the software industry. This is because few professional programmers will put the time and effort into going there because the rates are terrible. And few serious companies use it because they can't get quality for the prices they are offering. But bored students, the unemployed, a few freelancers, and inhabitants of undeveloped nations will look for work there.
The question is: what percentage of the demand for this product can be met by that market segment?
It may turn out that the average corporation can't tell a good design from a bad one. If so, then graphic designers will start to go out of business until either the corporations realize that their designs aren't working, or until graphic designers realize that design quality doesn't actually matter. I suspect reality lies somewhere in between: cruddy designs are good enough for a lot of the market. Only the best designers will survive to get the remaining high-end contracts.
What event precipitated this bill? Did the US courts actually do this? I was not aware that the US courts ever upheld foreign judgments. I thought that was what extradition was for -- you send the person to the other country, and they judge and enforce their law. I find it difficult to believe that even if the US did uphold a foreign judgment, that it would happen on something that violated hte first amendment. The US courts are pretty consistent on that one. It seems like an easy appeal.
What happened?
Nice troll. What it shows is that the city of Los Angeles did not have a functioning police department.
any traffic coming from IP ranges known to belong to the RIAA, MPAA, or constituent organizations.
IMHO, that would be doing exactly what their enemies are doing. Their purpose is to let users access the internet without restrictions. Not to wall-off those things they find evil.
even just a legalese to English translator would be a non-trivial problem.
It would probably also be illegal because it would put some lawyers out of business.
Legalese is not a way to state things precisely and accurately. (I once naively assumed it was). I've learned that legalese is written to sound precise and accurate while being as open to interpretation as possible. These worlds collide when trying to write a patent - no good engineer could possibly write (or read and understand) a patent. Engineers write it, then the lawyers obfuscate it so it can be as broad as possible, and so that no judge or jury could ever hope to understand it. Often times, even the original author can't figure out what it was.
Hence, any such translator, if it is even possible to create one, would be stopped by very powerful interests.
As we know, belief trumps fact./quote>
Is that a fact?
It has been widely believed to be true until studies have proven it to be true
Okay, I'll believe it then.
You still can program on a TI-83+ and related models. That isn't the kind of calculator they are talking about.
The law was not written in English. What is the precise word they used, and what does it translate to? It might be a translation problem.
You jest, but this is actually serious. Many computers these days are good consumer devices, but not good creative devices. They are becoming more like video game systems - read-only.
There's a generation who grew-up on computers as creative tools because they came with almost nothing else. Now, you have locked-down computers that let you run games, but you have to pay for a developers license to write software for them. That's a big difference, and it is visible already in CS graduates. Today one can graduate with a CS degree and not understand things that software engineers only a few years older than them take for granted. Something subtle but important is lost by not having root access from the start.
This summary makes it sound like ZFS is teetering on the edge of destruction. I thought ZFS was used all over the place by big database warehousing organizations. I went to a PostgreSQL conference a few years back and it seemed like everyone was using it. Is ZFS in such a weak position that one patent troll could have any significant impact on it?
Hotels might have a valid reason. Other merchants do not. They can refund charges without having the number. This is another case where I think we have to resort to legislation making it illegal to retain credit card numbers. It's stupid though on so many levels though.
1. The merchant shouldn't retain the credit card number (it is in their own best interest NOT to, since they are liable for the resulting fraud).
2. The credit card company shouldn't let the store retain the credit card information (fraud costs them money, PR, and customers).
3. The credit card company shouldn't even issue credit card numbers - there are far better ways to do it than having one magical number that gives anyone access to your account.
4. Credit cards shouldn't have personal information on them anyway.
The credit card system is wrong on so many levels it is just silly.