There is no "fuzzy". The California associate is a salesperson promoting a product on Amazon by providing a link to that item and promoting that item. In return Amazon pays that associate up to 15% of the sales generated through those links. This is no different than the Associate using Amazon as the wholesaler who ships directly to the Associate's customer. The Associate simply accepts the retail markup terms from Amazon.
It may appear fuzzy to you because of a subtle difference between a generic banner ad and a links to specific products being distributed by Amazon. A banner ad generates its income from clicks and views, where as an associate is earning a commission from actual sales. Using your analogy, a TV station sells adds at a set rate based on an estimated number of viewers for the period that the commercial airs. The TV station does not get its revenue from the percentage of sales generated from that commercial. So your analogy doesn't apply.
Someone please tell me how a corporation based in Washington State and legally incorporated in Delaware suddenly becomes a tax collector for states in which it does not have a physical presence?
I think the problem Amazon is having is that they had associates that were based in California. These associates have a physical presence in California and forces Amazon to abide by state law. Amazon wants to continue to have an associate program, yet not have to keep track of sales tax for each state that an associate exists. This is why Amazon is lobbying for this referendum in California.
I think the distinction between a traditional fan + heatsink combo and what is described in the article is that the impeller blades are dissipating the heat instead of merely blowing cooler air over the fins of a stationary heatsink.
I'm jealous. In the 80's, I had to use IBM's MUSIC System and I want to say that the default language of that time was PL/I. I still don't remember what language was introduced in CS101. I do remember using 'ed' on a DECwriter terminal (*shudder*).
I was lucky. The punch card machine was barely retired by the time I walked into the door. However CRTs were few and far between.
Thank you for the information, but it didn't make the developers look any better. Basically from what you tell me the developers originally named their software "Pantyshot" or "Upskirt" and changed it to "Momoko" which could either be from Japanese Anime that shows women wearing suggestive clothing with men constantly trying to look up their skirts, or a Japanese model that wears suggestive clothing.
Going by your information, I can only assume that the developers have the mental maturity of a 12 year old, have a low opinion about women, and take pride in picking a name that demeans women. I still don't understand the "bullshit" comment since the summary's assessment of the developers still appear to be spot on. Also I think the differences between the hyperbole from the article you quote and your explanations doesn't quite rise to the level of FUD. I would say that they may have made some exaggerations, but its inclusion doesn't discredit the information being presented.
I'm thinking along the lines that now that you experienced an unsophisticated language to whet your appetite, you'll fully appreciate the much better suited languages later in the CS curriculum.
It's CS101. I don't even remember what rudimentary language I had to learn for that *intro* class. It's not like Stanford is dictating that javascript will be taught in all classes.
You have to admit that if you run a CS degree program and you want to look "hip", "current", "bleeding edge", or "relevant" what is better than picking a popular web language for your CS101 class. It will make slashdot (this is really a slashvertisment for Stanford's CS program) and may attract more freshmen into your program. It's not like the important classes are being affected by this change.
Yes because we all know it's better than telling the truth which is Active Vigourous Effort started 2pm. Slept at 2:15pm and woke up at 6:15pm and logged the activity.
You can't trademark a generic term, like AppStore.
The problem with your example is that AppStore is not a generic term. "App Store" is a brand of online software exchange created by Apple. I have not seen any evidence of that term ever being used to describe a site or brick-n-mortar retailer prior to Apple penning the term.
There were plenty of "Computer stores", "Software stores", and "Technology stores" but no "App Store".
Open WiFi is - I argue - the same thing as an open shop, as evidenced by how the average nontechnical person views it. An average person would never think it was OK to walk into a random house, but many people use open WiFi if it's available with only a vague - if any - idea that it's bad.
Sorry but that is a pretty weak example, and it seems to contradict your argument. Ignorance based on public perception is not a very good defense, nor does it invalidate the actual written law.
To take your hypothesis a step further. If you go into a coffee shop and see a sign that says free wifi and you turn on your laptop and find "CoffeeShopWiFi" as a SSID, you can pretty much assume that its okay to use that WiFi. Especially if the instructions on how to access the network is being given to the public. Now you have permission from the network owner to use that network and since you are receiving these transmission on your machine, you can probably do what ever you want with that SSID. Notice I said SSID. You still are not permitted to use a packet sniffer and disclose the contents of someone else's connection to that same coffee shop.
At the coffee shop, it was safe to assume you had permission to access that network. You can not make that assumption while driving around a neighborhood and see an unprotected wifi access named "Linksys".
Now back to the topic at hand: Google. They drove around neighborhoods and recorded and mapped SSIDs of private WiFi networks. They *knew* and *understood* that many of these networks were private, but needed the information because these SSIDs could be used to determine location.
Here is where the legal hairsplitting begins. If an SSID is being broadcasted as configured from the WiFi access point, then we reached a legal grey area. The SSID is going to be received by all WiFi receivers in the area and be shown in all of the connection managers of those computers. Google could simply say well as the "Street View" car drove past it recorded the location of where it received that particular SSID.
Here are two of the possible issues facing Google:
1. Does Google have permission to publish or use that transmission? According to FCC Part 15.9 - NO. Even though you receive that SSID and it shows on your computer as an available network, you still don't have explicit permission to publicize the contents of the SSID. Even though Google may argue that having the SSID broadcast enabled implies that people other than the network owners have permission to receive and use that information. Of course, Google would have to convince a judge that the SSID broadcast was not enabled solely for the network owner's use. That would be a tough sell.
2. What if the SSID is not being broadcasted by the WiFi access point, but Google received it by intercepting an ongoing transmission. This will be a tougher case for Google to win, and there's already damning evidence that Google uses this method to collect SSID information. The whoops we didn't mean to store the contents of the transmission packet apology is pretty damning public evidence. Again part 15.9 applies with the added bonus that the owner intentionally disabled the SSID broadcast to deter others from using the network.
Wireless, especially open wireless, is not generally considered private - and this is what matters.
By whom? What do you mean by "open"? "Open" as being unencrypted does not make a transmission "public" it just makes it unsecured. I think you've enter a realm of wishful thinking. I referenced actual regulations that prohibit the dissemination of the contents of wireless transmissions without the expressed permission of all parties involved. Now show me the regulations that says the contents of an open (ie. unsecured) WiFi network is available for public use without the expressed permission of the parties.
To recap: We all know that unencrypted wireless makes it easy for others to eavesdrop, but that still doesn't give the listener permission to make the contents of the intercepted transmissions available to the general public. In fact its against the FCC regulations.
Maybe because they had to develop for a moving target. Blame mozilla's handling of version numbers for minor updates not the people who have to develop despite of this stupid every update is a major version number.
But I argue that the lack of encryption, combined with the ease of encryption, should be seen as deliberate rather than an omission, making the conversation not private.
Thankfully the law doesn't work this way. An unwelcomed individual walks into your front door that you accidentally left unlocked is still unlawful entry.
As a ham you should be aware that your transmissions are not covered by part 15 rule above. You are running a licensed station that must operate within the Part 97 rules. You should know this because you took the exam. Part 97 also covers what you can rebroadcast and the expectation of privacy (ie. none). In fact the use of encryption is prohibited if its sole purpose is to obscure the meaning of the transmission. The interpretation of the encryption prohibition is still a hotly debated issue. Lately I've seen the opinion that besides the obvious telecommanding exception, the encryption of sensitive third-party data may be allowed in some cases.
As for shared band plans (where WiFi channels are conscerned), having an amateur radio license doesn't give you a license to monitor non-amateur radio related transmissions. There are exceptions like when unauthorized transmissions (or interference) is being made on amateur radio frequencies. WiFi doesn't count as interference, because it is authorized within its portion of the band plan.
As for the police scanner retransmission, there are arguments that these transmissions are public record. I don't agree but that's the argument.
True. But traditionally (traditionally being the operative word here) the judges don't overrule a precedent established by a previous session. This was one of the talking points during the congressional approval for Sonia Sotomayor.
You are confusing broadcasting with communications.
Broadcasting is when a radio station is sending a signal with the expectation that it will be listened to by more than one individuals. These are always one way communications (eg. Radio Transmitter Tower broadcasts to your FM receiver in your car). There is generally no expectation of privacy with broadcasts, since that isn't the way it's suppose to work.
Communications is when a when more than one radio transmitter/receiver stations are engaged in two-way communications. Expectation of privacy is the same regardless of the communication band. It is against the law (and FCC regulations) to rebroadcast the contents of a two-way communication. It is also against the law to eavsedrop on these wireless communications. There is no legal requirement for encryption or for the reception to be "non-trivial" in order for the expectation of privacy to remain valid.
I defer to FCC rules on Part 15 devices which I believe covers unlicensed operations of WiFi radio devices:
15.9 Prohibition against eavesdropping.
Except for the operations of law enforcement officers conducted under
lawful authority, no person shall use, either directly or indirectly, a
device operated pursuant to the provisions of this part for the purpose
of overhearing or recording the private conversations of others unless
such use is authorized by all of the parties engaging in the
conversation.
Understood. I don't understand why we need a law to dictate what materials are appropriate for children. We have movie ratings and theaters generally do not allow minors to see 'R' rated of 'NC-17' rated movies. Also go into any bookstore and you'll see the explicit materials behind a counter or in a section designated for adults only.
Nothing prevents a store from refusing to sell a game to a minor, and nothing prevents the community from boycotting businesses that do sell violent games to minors. In the end, the free market will decide what materials are easily obtainable to children. The other question of course being where the hell are the parents while these games are being purchased or played?
Agree. Not only that this supreme court has in my opinion contradicted a precedent set by 1973's Miller v. California and Scalia's comments are a feeble attempt at reconciling the outcome of this case with that of Miller.
The problem being that the Miller case dealt with pornography and not obscenities in general.
The other mind boggling part of this judgement is that this isn't really about censorship. It's about restricting the sale of questionable materials to minors.
Eventually it would be cheaper just to do it the way it is now. Your suggestion sounded reasonable but it doubled the part count.
$50 is really isn't that bad for a specialty cable that has a small market atm. It will go down as soon as third-party cables become available.
Try buying a cable with hermetic connectors on them. They don't have fancy electronics and they aren't cheap either. My point being don't complain about the cost of the very first cable that connects a light peak device to an apple computer. This what we call bleeding edge prices. It will do down as soon as the market gets more than a week old.
Happens all the time. Some students do a class project and post it on a blog and eventually word gets around. Because it's MIT (or harvard) then the press that picks it up thinks that it maybe something new and trendy.
A lot of times the news media just wants to fill air time with assorted stories that may be interesting to someone. Then it's the audience that believes that if its MIT or Harvard students doing it then it must be something that no one ever attempted before.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. They still offer the associate program to residents of other states, and they would like to be able to offer the service again to Californians.
Otherwise why have this site?
There is no "fuzzy". The California associate is a salesperson promoting a product on Amazon by providing a link to that item and promoting that item. In return Amazon pays that associate up to 15% of the sales generated through those links. This is no different than the Associate using Amazon as the wholesaler who ships directly to the Associate's customer. The Associate simply accepts the retail markup terms from Amazon.
It may appear fuzzy to you because of a subtle difference between a generic banner ad and a links to specific products being distributed by Amazon. A banner ad generates its income from clicks and views, where as an associate is earning a commission from actual sales. Using your analogy, a TV station sells adds at a set rate based on an estimated number of viewers for the period that the commercial airs. The TV station does not get its revenue from the percentage of sales generated from that commercial. So your analogy doesn't apply.
I think the problem Amazon is having is that they had associates that were based in California. These associates have a physical presence in California and forces Amazon to abide by state law. Amazon wants to continue to have an associate program, yet not have to keep track of sales tax for each state that an associate exists. This is why Amazon is lobbying for this referendum in California.
Brings a whole new meaning to Whooosh. ;)
Congress finally balanced the budget and agreed to raise the debt ceiling? I mean it looks like they have time for trivial matters now.
I meant singular impeller not plural impellers. For those who don't read the article there is only one moving impeller.
I think the distinction between a traditional fan + heatsink combo and what is described in the article is that the impeller blades are dissipating the heat instead of merely blowing cooler air over the fins of a stationary heatsink.
I think a better description would be a heatsink that is a fan or probably more accurately an impeller but without the tube enclosure.
I'm jealous. In the 80's, I had to use IBM's MUSIC System and I want to say that the default language of that time was PL/I. I still don't remember what language was introduced in CS101. I do remember using 'ed' on a DECwriter terminal (*shudder*).
I was lucky. The punch card machine was barely retired by the time I walked into the door. However CRTs were few and far between.
Thank you for the information, but it didn't make the developers look any better. Basically from what you tell me the developers originally named their software "Pantyshot" or "Upskirt" and changed it to "Momoko" which could either be from Japanese Anime that shows women wearing suggestive clothing with men constantly trying to look up their skirts, or a Japanese model that wears suggestive clothing.
Going by your information, I can only assume that the developers have the mental maturity of a 12 year old, have a low opinion about women, and take pride in picking a name that demeans women. I still don't understand the "bullshit" comment since the summary's assessment of the developers still appear to be spot on. Also I think the differences between the hyperbole from the article you quote and your explanations doesn't quite rise to the level of FUD. I would say that they may have made some exaggerations, but its inclusion doesn't discredit the information being presented.
I'm thinking along the lines that now that you experienced an unsophisticated language to whet your appetite, you'll fully appreciate the much better suited languages later in the CS curriculum.
It's CS101. I don't even remember what rudimentary language I had to learn for that *intro* class. It's not like Stanford is dictating that javascript will be taught in all classes.
You have to admit that if you run a CS degree program and you want to look "hip", "current", "bleeding edge", or "relevant" what is better than picking a popular web language for your CS101 class. It will make slashdot (this is really a slashvertisment for Stanford's CS program) and may attract more freshmen into your program. It's not like the important classes are being affected by this change.
Yes because we all know it's better than telling the truth which is Active Vigourous Effort started 2pm. Slept at 2:15pm and woke up at 6:15pm and logged the activity.
80's try the 1920's. It was called Telex.
Actually back in the 80's there was a local chain of retail stores called "Software City" that considered themselves the "Software Super Store".
We call these descriptive names "brands".
The problem with your example is that AppStore is not a generic term. "App Store" is a brand of online software exchange created by Apple. I have not seen any evidence of that term ever being used to describe a site or brick-n-mortar retailer prior to Apple penning the term.
There were plenty of "Computer stores", "Software stores", and "Technology stores" but no "App Store".
Sorry but that is a pretty weak example, and it seems to contradict your argument. Ignorance based on public perception is not a very good defense, nor does it invalidate the actual written law.
To take your hypothesis a step further. If you go into a coffee shop and see a sign that says free wifi and you turn on your laptop and find "CoffeeShopWiFi" as a SSID, you can pretty much assume that its okay to use that WiFi. Especially if the instructions on how to access the network is being given to the public. Now you have permission from the network owner to use that network and since you are receiving these transmission on your machine, you can probably do what ever you want with that SSID. Notice I said SSID. You still are not permitted to use a packet sniffer and disclose the contents of someone else's connection to that same coffee shop.
At the coffee shop, it was safe to assume you had permission to access that network. You can not make that assumption while driving around a neighborhood and see an unprotected wifi access named "Linksys".
Now back to the topic at hand: Google. They drove around neighborhoods and recorded and mapped SSIDs of private WiFi networks. They *knew* and *understood* that many of these networks were private, but needed the information because these SSIDs could be used to determine location.
Here is where the legal hairsplitting begins. If an SSID is being broadcasted as configured from the WiFi access point, then we reached a legal grey area. The SSID is going to be received by all WiFi receivers in the area and be shown in all of the connection managers of those computers. Google could simply say well as the "Street View" car drove past it recorded the location of where it received that particular SSID.
Here are two of the possible issues facing Google:
1. Does Google have permission to publish or use that transmission? According to FCC Part 15.9 - NO. Even though you receive that SSID and it shows on your computer as an available network, you still don't have explicit permission to publicize the contents of the SSID. Even though Google may argue that having the SSID broadcast enabled implies that people other than the network owners have permission to receive and use that information. Of course, Google would have to convince a judge that the SSID broadcast was not enabled solely for the network owner's use. That would be a tough sell.
2. What if the SSID is not being broadcasted by the WiFi access point, but Google received it by intercepting an ongoing transmission. This will be a tougher case for Google to win, and there's already damning evidence that Google uses this method to collect SSID information. The whoops we didn't mean to store the contents of the transmission packet apology is pretty damning public evidence. Again part 15.9 applies with the added bonus that the owner intentionally disabled the SSID broadcast to deter others from using the network.
By whom? What do you mean by "open"? "Open" as being unencrypted does not make a transmission "public" it just makes it unsecured. I think you've enter a realm of wishful thinking. I referenced actual regulations that prohibit the dissemination of the contents of wireless transmissions without the expressed permission of all parties involved. Now show me the regulations that says the contents of an open (ie. unsecured) WiFi network is available for public use without the expressed permission of the parties.
To recap: We all know that unencrypted wireless makes it easy for others to eavesdrop, but that still doesn't give the listener permission to make the contents of the intercepted transmissions available to the general public. In fact its against the FCC regulations.
Maybe because they had to develop for a moving target. Blame mozilla's handling of version numbers for minor updates not the people who have to develop despite of this stupid every update is a major version number.
Thankfully the law doesn't work this way. An unwelcomed individual walks into your front door that you accidentally left unlocked is still unlawful entry.
As a ham you should be aware that your transmissions are not covered by part 15 rule above. You are running a licensed station that must operate within the Part 97 rules. You should know this because you took the exam. Part 97 also covers what you can rebroadcast and the expectation of privacy (ie. none). In fact the use of encryption is prohibited if its sole purpose is to obscure the meaning of the transmission. The interpretation of the encryption prohibition is still a hotly debated issue. Lately I've seen the opinion that besides the obvious telecommanding exception, the encryption of sensitive third-party data may be allowed in some cases.
As for shared band plans (where WiFi channels are conscerned), having an amateur radio license doesn't give you a license to monitor non-amateur radio related transmissions. There are exceptions like when unauthorized transmissions (or interference) is being made on amateur radio frequencies. WiFi doesn't count as interference, because it is authorized within its portion of the band plan.
As for the police scanner retransmission, there are arguments that these transmissions are public record. I don't agree but that's the argument.
True. But traditionally (traditionally being the operative word here) the judges don't overrule a precedent established by a previous session. This was one of the talking points during the congressional approval for Sonia Sotomayor.
You are confusing broadcasting with communications.
Broadcasting is when a radio station is sending a signal with the expectation that it will be listened to by more than one individuals. These are always one way communications (eg. Radio Transmitter Tower broadcasts to your FM receiver in your car). There is generally no expectation of privacy with broadcasts, since that isn't the way it's suppose to work.
Communications is when a when more than one radio transmitter/receiver stations are engaged in two-way communications. Expectation of privacy is the same regardless of the communication band. It is against the law (and FCC regulations) to rebroadcast the contents of a two-way communication. It is also against the law to eavsedrop on these wireless communications. There is no legal requirement for encryption or for the reception to be "non-trivial" in order for the expectation of privacy to remain valid.
I defer to FCC rules on Part 15 devices which I believe covers unlicensed operations of WiFi radio devices:
15.9 Prohibition against eavesdropping.
Except for the operations of law enforcement officers conducted under lawful authority, no person shall use, either directly or indirectly, a device operated pursuant to the provisions of this part for the purpose of overhearing or recording the private conversations of others unless such use is authorized by all of the parties engaging in the conversation.
Understood. I don't understand why we need a law to dictate what materials are appropriate for children. We have movie ratings and theaters generally do not allow minors to see 'R' rated of 'NC-17' rated movies. Also go into any bookstore and you'll see the explicit materials behind a counter or in a section designated for adults only.
Nothing prevents a store from refusing to sell a game to a minor, and nothing prevents the community from boycotting businesses that do sell violent games to minors. In the end, the free market will decide what materials are easily obtainable to children. The other question of course being where the hell are the parents while these games are being purchased or played?
Agree. Not only that this supreme court has in my opinion contradicted a precedent set by 1973's Miller v. California and Scalia's comments are a feeble attempt at reconciling the outcome of this case with that of Miller.
The problem being that the Miller case dealt with pornography and not obscenities in general.
The other mind boggling part of this judgement is that this isn't really about censorship. It's about restricting the sale of questionable materials to minors.
Eventually it would be cheaper just to do it the way it is now. Your suggestion sounded reasonable but it doubled the part count.
$50 is really isn't that bad for a specialty cable that has a small market atm. It will go down as soon as third-party cables become available.
Try buying a cable with hermetic connectors on them. They don't have fancy electronics and they aren't cheap either. My point being don't complain about the cost of the very first cable that connects a light peak device to an apple computer. This what we call bleeding edge prices. It will do down as soon as the market gets more than a week old.
Happens all the time. Some students do a class project and post it on a blog and eventually word gets around. Because it's MIT (or harvard) then the press that picks it up thinks that it maybe something new and trendy.
A lot of times the news media just wants to fill air time with assorted stories that may be interesting to someone. Then it's the audience that believes that if its MIT or Harvard students doing it then it must be something that no one ever attempted before.