But why does Google know about them in the first place?
Publically-accessible referrer page logs.
Let's say A.com/index.html links to B.com/index.html, and to A.com/referrerlog.html. B.com has three pages -- B.com/index.html, B.com/webcam.html, and B.com/referrerlog.html -- but B.com/index.html doesn't link to either of them. However, B.com/webcam.html has a link to B.com/index.html
How does Google wind up with a link chain to B.com/webcam.html?
Well, OwnerB checked B.com/webcam.html, and then hits the link on that page to B.com/index.html. This creates a referrer entry in B.com/referrerlog.html to the webcam page, since it logs referrers to B.com pages.
Later on, OwnerB chacks his referrer page, and sees he's been getting hits from A.com/index.html. Interested in what the link is saying about him, he clicks on the address. As he arrives at A.com/index.html, a referrer entry appears in A.com/referrerlog.html pointing to B.com/referrerlog.html.
Now Google's spider reaches A.com/index.html, and follows the link to A.com/referrerlog.html. There, it finds a link to B.com/referrerlog.html, and follows it. Now, at B.com/referrerlog.html, it finds a link to B.com/webcam.html . . . and indexes it.
Now, despite OwnerB never having (intentionally) linked to either his referrer log or his webcam site, both have been found and indexed by Google. Oops.
If "their rumor accuracy is amazing", there's not a chance in hell they can be hit for libel. Truth is an absolute defense against libel in American law.
Similarly, since Apple's a public corporation with a worldwide media presence, it's certainly a "public person". Under the Sullivan standard, a libel suit for the "negative spin" you mention would have to prove that ThinkSecret knew small Apple resellers would be able get enough and that hard drive manufacturers could keep up, and deliberately lied about it, with malicious intent. No way in hell. (Supply chain problems are common enough for hot products that speculating about the potential for one doesn't even come remotely close to the "reckless disregard" standard, especially when written explicitly as speculation.)
In short, you're a moron who has no idea what he's talking about. Apple doesn't have much of a chance on the trade secret angle, since they'll need to show coercion or bribery of an NDAed employee. On libel they'd probably be rebuked by the judge, maybe even fined for contempt of court for a blatant attempt at barratry.
Territorial waters extends only 12 nautical miles, yes.
However, there are several other factors under international law.
First, the Exclusive Economic Zone extends to 200 nautical miles. In this zone, "[t]he coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, [and] take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention."
Second, international law does not merely permit, but requires countries to repress the slave trade, piracy, narcotics trafficing, and unauthorized broadcasting on the high seas (that is, the portion of the ocean outside of national jurisdiction).
Third, all ships on the high seas either fly the flag of a soverign nation and are subject to its laws, or are "without nationality" -- and in the latter case, they are subject to boarding by any state's warships at any time, the lack of nationality itself being sufficient reason.
None of this is new; the first is in the Convention of the Law of the Sea and goes back 25 years, while the international precedents for the second and third date to the ninteenth century and even earlier.
By the way, note that since piracy is, under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea and other international precedents, "any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed . . . against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State", it would be piracy to shoot these buoys even if they were on the high seas instead of in the U.S.'s EEZ. At which point every nation on Earth is obligated to cooperate in your capture.
If you're Christian . . . you may know the early Church explicitly and consciously moved the Sabbath obsevation from the seventh day to the first day in celebration of the fact that the Ressurection took place on the first day of the week. (That Jesus Christ, who is God made flesh, rested in the grave on the seventh day is of great symbolic significance.)
Similarly, in a historical context, it can be noted that Sunday was the first day of the week to both the Babylonians and Jews, who were the first peoples to ever use a week; to the Romans, who promulgated the Julian calendar; and again in the Catholic Church calendar when it promulgated the Gregorian reform to the Julian calendar.
Now, it is true that some European countries moved Sunday to the end of the week. This was an understandable change that happened due to the collapse of civilization into the Medieval period and an application of the "rested on the seventh day" principle in ignorance of the deliberate change made by the Church. For Sunday to be the last day of the week results in the logical necessity that some time between the fall of Rome and the modern day there was an eight-day or one-day week, which started and ended on a Sunday.
Sunday and Saturday are thus, historically, the "week ends" as in the "front end" and "back end", as opposed Monday and Tuesday being the "start" and Saturday and Sunday the "end".
Now, yes, the ISO has designated Monday the start of the week. Of course, it was dominated by Europeans from the countries that lost track during the Middle Ages . ..
Yes, the government can force people to sell land for public use but till recently that has meant state parks, military bases, and such
Er, no, not really. The nineteenth century U.S. was full of condemnations of private land to build privately-owned railroads. I think there are some private turnpike cases from even earlier (and which would be even more on-point), but I won't swear to it.
I'm sorry, Word Thief® is a registered trademark of the American Plagarists Guild. Unauthorized use is, in an acknowledged irony, forbidden.
If you wish to avoid lawsuits, you may join the Guild. Just send us a photocopied Newspaper Guild/Communications Workers of America membership form with a check made out to cash. (We couldn't be bothered to come up with our own form, and over 90% of our members have professional access to the NG/CWA form anyway . . . )
First, we have the SCO Group, formerly Caldera, founded by a former Novell exec as part of the Canopy Group, which used to sell a version of Unix Sys V it bought from the Santa Cruz Operation, which Santa Cruz Operation bought from Novell, with Novell bought from AT&T. It also used to distribute Linux and DR/Novell/Open-DOS, but doesn't anymore.
Second, we have DRDOS Inc, founded by a former Novell, Caldera, and Lineo employee, which sells DR/Novell/Open-DOS, which it acquired in a spinoff from Lineo, which Lineo got in a spinoff from Caldera, which bought it from Novell, which bought it from Digital Research. It sells DRLX, a form of embedded Linux, too.
Lineo is still around, and sells Linux. The Santa Cruz Operation, known as Tarantella, is also around, selling something-or-other. Of course Novell is now a major Linux vendor. IBM, which has an equity stake in Novell, its own Unix, and sells other people's versions of Linux, still sells its DOS. Finally, Microsoft, which sold its Unix to SCO/Tarantella, and which doesn't sell the DOS it bought from SCP and licensed to IBM anymore except as a subsystem in another operating system, bought some Unix code from SCO/Caldera to use in another subsystem for that OS, after resolving some antitrust issues over DOS with the same. Despite regular rumors, it isn't developing a version of Windows that would run DOS programs on a Linux core.
Yeah, the Mac unit is making money. What it isn't doing is showing any growth. With the exception of 2000 (4,558,000 Macs sold), Apple has been selling roughly 3 million Macintosh units a year every year for the last ten years.
It's a steady buisness, but from the perspective of the growth part of the company (iPod/iTunes/iTunes Music Store), it's a millstone that stops them from being a growth stock. A supply of cash to finance further growth and product development without the headaches of maintainging a stagnant (however profitable) division would be of real benefit . . ..
So sell the computers to IBM, the apps and OS to IBM or anyone else willing to buy it, make Apple Computers a high-class tech retailer, and spin off iPod as its own company with plenty of cash to fuel growth (and no more Apple trademark to draw Apple Corps lawsuits).
Steve Jobs would probably be happier running a digital toys company anyway.
Historical note: While SRAM isn't used for main system memory any more, back in the 1980s it occasionally was. The IBM PC Convertable (1986) and the Apple Macintosh Portable (1989) are the most prominent examples.
First, instead of strange interpretations of "free software", you just need to use the obvious one that everybody not steeped in the politics of the FSF immediately reaches -- that it doesn't cost anything. Like, say, Internet Explorer.
Second, "open" doesn't need any more strange interpretations than "free". Open, like free, has a vast number of English meanings. While one is "completely free from concealment : exposed to general view or knowledge", others include "not restricted to a particular group or category of participants", "available to follow or make use of", "not repressed by legal controls", and "free from checking or hampering restraints".
So, "open source", by standard dictionary definition, can quite easily mean source code that anyone can see and make use of without hampering restraints. That is, "free software", with no possibility of anybody mistaking no-money-charged closed-source software for it, or confusing the issue with rival definitions of "freedom" (commonly articulated in the BSD community) that are incompatible with copyleft protections.
Neither term is optimal. But "open" isn't any worse that "free" for confusion, and the emphasis of "source" is superior to "software", since it emphasizes we aren't talking about mere releases of binaries.
You're comparing bonded fiberglass to non-bonded Kevlar vests. Bonded Kevlar is rigid and quite effective against impaling attacks, while non-bonded fiberglass is quite useless as protection against anything.
Anklyosaur armor is, from the description of fibers through the bone, analogous to bonded Kevlar or fiberglass.
The article is somewhat misleading, since unbonded Kevlar is the material protective vests are usually made from, not bonded. (Though there are bonded Kevlar armors, they're rather more a special-use item than your average bulletproof vest.) I imagine the writer and his editor didn't fully understand the comparisons made by the researcher.
Well, I don't want to start a flamewar here, but while this may be true for the GNU compiler, it certainly is NOT true for, for example, the Microsoft compiler.
Okay. However, if it is true for g++, then that's enough to keep C++ out of the kernel right there. Unless you're seriously suggesting that compiling the Linux kernel be made dependent on the Microsoft compiler . . ..
Dow Jones, a U.S. company, published an article on a U.S. webserver, which was not even remotely libel under U.S. law. The Australian subject of the article sued for libel in an Australian court, and won. Dow Jones in the U.S. was not directly under Australian jurisdiction, but their Australian branch was; rather than have their Australian operations punished for their noncompliance, Dow Jones obeyed the order. Australia didn't need the U.S. government to help enforce its judgment against Dow Jones U.S. since Dow Jones was not willing to shut down Australian operations to try to avoid the judgment.
Let's apply the precedent here.
The copyright holder sues PG in the U.S. over something published in Australia which doesn't violate Australian law. The U.S. court decides its publication on the Web does infringe U.S. copyright, and rules against PG. PG in Australia is not directly under U.S. jurisdiction, but their U.S. operations are; rather than have their U.S. operations punished for their noncompliance, PG obeys the order. The U.S. doesn't need the Australian government to help enforce its judgment against PG Australia since PG is not willing to shut down U.S. operations to try to avoid the judgment.
With a 500,000 sq. mile observation area per blimp, a little math quickly reveals that you're talking a spacing of 800 miles between blimps. It might be remotely possible for airplanes to fly through those 800-mile gaps.
Before this ruling, the copyright never expired (clearly bad). Now what? There's NO copyright at all? You can copy and distribute at will?
IANAL, but IIRC:
If the artist has arranged a recording of the performance, they're fixing the performance in a tangible medium and can get an ordinary copyright on it. So the artist does get first crack at releasing and profiting off a live CD of the show. (This is how the Kings make money off clips of the "I Have A Dream" speech -- MLK, Jr. arranged for it to be recorded.)
If, however, the artist is not recording the performance, the performance isn't under ordinary copyright. In that later case, it was covered by this bootleg law, but isn't any longer.
Now, while the performance isn't under copyright, the song itself still may be. In that case, you need to pay appropriate royalties (for a cumpulsory license) to the holders of the song's copyright, but owe nothing to the performers.
Slashdot Mirror
But why does Google know about them in the first place?
Publically-accessible referrer page logs.
Let's say A.com/index.html links to B.com/index.html, and to A.com/referrerlog.html. B.com has three pages -- B.com/index.html, B.com/webcam.html, and B.com/referrerlog.html -- but B.com/index.html doesn't link to either of them. However, B.com/webcam.html has a link to B.com/index.html
How does Google wind up with a link chain to B.com/webcam.html?
Well, OwnerB checked B.com/webcam.html, and then hits the link on that page to B.com/index.html. This creates a referrer entry in B.com/referrerlog.html to the webcam page, since it logs referrers to B.com pages.
Later on, OwnerB chacks his referrer page, and sees he's been getting hits from A.com/index.html. Interested in what the link is saying about him, he clicks on the address. As he arrives at A.com/index.html, a referrer entry appears in A.com/referrerlog.html pointing to B.com/referrerlog.html.
Now Google's spider reaches A.com/index.html, and follows the link to A.com/referrerlog.html. There, it finds a link to B.com/referrerlog.html, and follows it. Now, at B.com/referrerlog.html, it finds a link to B.com/webcam.html . . . and indexes it.
Now, despite OwnerB never having (intentionally) linked to either his referrer log or his webcam site, both have been found and indexed by Google. Oops.
If "their rumor accuracy is amazing", there's not a chance in hell they can be hit for libel. Truth is an absolute defense against libel in American law.
Similarly, since Apple's a public corporation with a worldwide media presence, it's certainly a "public person". Under the Sullivan standard, a libel suit for the "negative spin" you mention would have to prove that ThinkSecret knew small Apple resellers would be able get enough and that hard drive manufacturers could keep up, and deliberately lied about it, with malicious intent. No way in hell. (Supply chain problems are common enough for hot products that speculating about the potential for one doesn't even come remotely close to the "reckless disregard" standard, especially when written explicitly as speculation.)
In short, you're a moron who has no idea what he's talking about. Apple doesn't have much of a chance on the trade secret angle, since they'll need to show coercion or bribery of an NDAed employee. On libel they'd probably be rebuked by the judge, maybe even fined for contempt of court for a blatant attempt at barratry.
Amazing. You managed to hook up three 250 MB drives into a 500,000 MB RAID-5?
(Yes, I assume you meant GB. I don't know if you meant GB as in ".5GB RAID-5" or in "three 250GB WD drives".)
OS/2 man, OS/2.
Territorial waters extends only 12 nautical miles, yes.
However, there are several other factors under international law.
First, the Exclusive Economic Zone extends to 200 nautical miles. In this zone, "[t]he coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, [and] take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention."
Second, international law does not merely permit, but requires countries to repress the slave trade, piracy, narcotics trafficing, and unauthorized broadcasting on the high seas (that is, the portion of the ocean outside of national jurisdiction).
Third, all ships on the high seas either fly the flag of a soverign nation and are subject to its laws, or are "without nationality" -- and in the latter case, they are subject to boarding by any state's warships at any time, the lack of nationality itself being sufficient reason.
None of this is new; the first is in the Convention of the Law of the Sea and goes back 25 years, while the international precedents for the second and third date to the ninteenth century and even earlier.
By the way, note that since piracy is, under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea and other international precedents, "any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed . . . against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State", it would be piracy to shoot these buoys even if they were on the high seas instead of in the U.S.'s EEZ. At which point every nation on Earth is obligated to cooperate in your capture.
If you're Christian . . . you may know the early Church explicitly and consciously moved the Sabbath obsevation from the seventh day to the first day in celebration of the fact that the Ressurection took place on the first day of the week. (That Jesus Christ, who is God made flesh, rested in the grave on the seventh day is of great symbolic significance.)
.
Similarly, in a historical context, it can be noted that Sunday was the first day of the week to both the Babylonians and Jews, who were the first peoples to ever use a week; to the Romans, who promulgated the Julian calendar; and again in the Catholic Church calendar when it promulgated the Gregorian reform to the Julian calendar.
Now, it is true that some European countries moved Sunday to the end of the week. This was an understandable change that happened due to the collapse of civilization into the Medieval period and an application of the "rested on the seventh day" principle in ignorance of the deliberate change made by the Church. For Sunday to be the last day of the week results in the logical necessity that some time between the fall of Rome and the modern day there was an eight-day or one-day week, which started and ended on a Sunday.
Sunday and Saturday are thus, historically, the "week ends" as in the "front end" and "back end", as opposed Monday and Tuesday being the "start" and Saturday and Sunday the "end".
Now, yes, the ISO has designated Monday the start of the week. Of course, it was dominated by Europeans from the countries that lost track during the Middle Ages . .
Yes, the government can force people to sell land for public use but till recently that has meant state parks, military bases, and such
Er, no, not really. The nineteenth century U.S. was full of condemnations of private land to build privately-owned railroads. I think there are some private turnpike cases from even earlier (and which would be even more on-point), but I won't swear to it.
Actually, I wonder whether a masochist could port Firefox to DOS, between DJGPP and Microwindows . . .
Sorry, the correct answer is £6 8s 10d, with a remainder of tuppence.
(Okay, but if you're using decimal pounds, £6.43 is closer than £6.42, being one penny over instead of six short.)
I'm sorry, Word Thief® is a registered trademark of the American Plagarists Guild. Unauthorized use is, in an acknowledged irony, forbidden.
If you wish to avoid lawsuits, you may join the Guild. Just send us a photocopied Newspaper Guild/Communications Workers of America membership form with a check made out to cash. (We couldn't be bothered to come up with our own form, and over 90% of our members have professional access to the NG/CWA form anyway . . . )
Well, not SCO, one of the other Calderas.
First, we have the SCO Group, formerly Caldera, founded by a former Novell exec as part of the Canopy Group, which used to sell a version of Unix Sys V it bought from the Santa Cruz Operation, which Santa Cruz Operation bought from Novell, with Novell bought from AT&T. It also used to distribute Linux and DR/Novell/Open-DOS, but doesn't anymore.
Second, we have DRDOS Inc, founded by a former Novell, Caldera, and Lineo employee, which sells DR/Novell/Open-DOS, which it acquired in a spinoff from Lineo, which Lineo got in a spinoff from Caldera, which bought it from Novell, which bought it from Digital Research. It sells DRLX, a form of embedded Linux, too.
Lineo is still around, and sells Linux. The Santa Cruz Operation, known as Tarantella, is also around, selling something-or-other. Of course Novell is now a major Linux vendor. IBM, which has an equity stake in Novell, its own Unix, and sells other people's versions of Linux, still sells its DOS. Finally, Microsoft, which sold its Unix to SCO/Tarantella, and which doesn't sell the DOS it bought from SCP and licensed to IBM anymore except as a subsystem in another operating system, bought some Unix code from SCO/Caldera to use in another subsystem for that OS, after resolving some antitrust issues over DOS with the same. Despite regular rumors, it isn't developing a version of Windows that would run DOS programs on a Linux core.
Yeah, the Mac unit is making money. What it isn't doing is showing any growth. With the exception of 2000 (4,558,000 Macs sold), Apple has been selling roughly 3 million Macintosh units a year every year for the last ten years.
.
It's a steady buisness, but from the perspective of the growth part of the company (iPod/iTunes/iTunes Music Store), it's a millstone that stops them from being a growth stock. A supply of cash to finance further growth and product development without the headaches of maintainging a stagnant (however profitable) division would be of real benefit . . .
So sell the computers to IBM, the apps and OS to IBM or anyone else willing to buy it, make Apple Computers a high-class tech retailer, and spin off iPod as its own company with plenty of cash to fuel growth (and no more Apple trademark to draw Apple Corps lawsuits).
Steve Jobs would probably be happier running a digital toys company anyway.
Historical note: While SRAM isn't used for main system memory any more, back in the 1980s it occasionally was. The IBM PC Convertable (1986) and the Apple Macintosh Portable (1989) are the most prominent examples.
First, instead of strange interpretations of "free software", you just need to use the obvious one that everybody not steeped in the politics of the FSF immediately reaches -- that it doesn't cost anything. Like, say, Internet Explorer.
Second, "open" doesn't need any more strange interpretations than "free". Open, like free, has a vast number of English meanings. While one is "completely free from concealment : exposed to general view or knowledge", others include "not restricted to a particular group or category of participants", "available to follow or make use of", "not repressed by legal controls", and "free from checking or hampering restraints".
So, "open source", by standard dictionary definition, can quite easily mean source code that anyone can see and make use of without hampering restraints. That is, "free software", with no possibility of anybody mistaking no-money-charged closed-source software for it, or confusing the issue with rival definitions of "freedom" (commonly articulated in the BSD community) that are incompatible with copyleft protections.
Neither term is optimal. But "open" isn't any worse that "free" for confusion, and the emphasis of "source" is superior to "software", since it emphasizes we aren't talking about mere releases of binaries.
You're comparing bonded fiberglass to non-bonded Kevlar vests. Bonded Kevlar is rigid and quite effective against impaling attacks, while non-bonded fiberglass is quite useless as protection against anything.
Anklyosaur armor is, from the description of fibers through the bone, analogous to bonded Kevlar or fiberglass.
The article is somewhat misleading, since unbonded Kevlar is the material protective vests are usually made from, not bonded. (Though there are bonded Kevlar armors, they're rather more a special-use item than your average bulletproof vest.) I imagine the writer and his editor didn't fully understand the comparisons made by the researcher.
They can't donate it. Novell already sold it to Corel.
Ed is the standard text editor.
But if you must insist, use VIPER.
Well, I don't want to start a flamewar here, but while this may be true for the GNU compiler, it certainly is NOT true for, for example, the Microsoft compiler.
.
Okay. However, if it is true for g++, then that's enough to keep C++ out of the kernel right there. Unless you're seriously suggesting that compiling the Linux kernel be made dependent on the Microsoft compiler . . .
Does anybody remember the Dow Jones libel case?
Dow Jones, a U.S. company, published an article on a U.S. webserver, which was not even remotely libel under U.S. law. The Australian subject of the article sued for libel in an Australian court, and won. Dow Jones in the U.S. was not directly under Australian jurisdiction, but their Australian branch was; rather than have their Australian operations punished for their noncompliance, Dow Jones obeyed the order.
Australia didn't need the U.S. government to help enforce its judgment against Dow Jones U.S. since Dow Jones was not willing to shut down Australian operations to try to avoid the judgment.
Let's apply the precedent here.
The copyright holder sues PG in the U.S. over something published in Australia which doesn't violate Australian law. The U.S. court decides its publication on the Web does infringe U.S. copyright, and rules against PG. PG in Australia is not directly under U.S. jurisdiction, but their U.S. operations are; rather than have their U.S. operations punished for their noncompliance, PG obeys the order. The U.S. doesn't need the Australian government to help enforce its judgment against PG Australia since PG is not willing to shut down U.S. operations to try to avoid the judgment.
Sigh. Everybody knows it's spelled "Strine".
Certainly not. Silver is.
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY (10^-8 ohms m):
Pure Metal 273 K 293 K 298 K 300 K 400 K
Aluminum 2.417 2.650 2.709 2.733 3.87
Copper 1.543 1.678 1.712 1.725 2.402
Gold 2.051 2.214 2.255 2.271 3.107
Silver 1.467 1.587 1.617 1.629 2.241
With a 500,000 sq. mile observation area per blimp, a little math quickly reveals that you're talking a spacing of 800 miles between blimps. It might be remotely possible for airplanes to fly through those 800-mile gaps.
Budweiser in Britain is the American stuff.
VLF is electromagnetic radiation. Sonar is sound waves. They can no more use the same range than a light bulb and a violin can.
Before this ruling, the copyright never expired (clearly bad). Now what? There's NO copyright at all? You can copy and distribute at will?
IANAL, but IIRC:
If the artist has arranged a recording of the performance, they're fixing the performance in a tangible medium and can get an ordinary copyright on it. So the artist does get first crack at releasing and profiting off a live CD of the show. (This is how the Kings make money off clips of the "I Have A Dream" speech -- MLK, Jr. arranged for it to be recorded.)
If, however, the artist is not recording the performance, the performance isn't under ordinary copyright. In that later case, it was covered by this bootleg law, but isn't any longer.
Now, while the performance isn't under copyright, the song itself still may be. In that case, you need to pay appropriate royalties (for a cumpulsory license) to the holders of the song's copyright, but owe nothing to the performers.