And Australia... there are other places in the world (you know, that bit outside the contiguous 48) where English is the primary language and people can easily translate the Americanisms out of shows.
We even take slops like Oprah, Judge Judy, Bold and The Beautiful, various flavours of CSI, NBC Today, and (for something truly parochial) PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour.
"Normal" people never think "embedded system" only geeks and design engineers do. Normal people think, "What a cool gadget", "It's too expensive/purple/big/small etc.", or exactly what the sales drone has told them (right or wrong).
Did the order also list each an every member of Stichting Brein and each and every work in which such members claim or hold some copyright interest? If not, how is one supposed to even start to comply?
Material that is reviewed and "Refused Classification" (or likely to be) is absolutely NOT legally available in Australia including the ACT and NT under the various State and Territory laws (e.g Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995 Div 2.2 Sect 16 and 20). This is where child porn, bestiality, incitement to crime etc. end up. In classic double-standards, any computer game that would receive R18+ if it were a movie is refused classification.
AFAIK no state bans ownership of X18+ pornography, just the sale. The ACT legislative assembly has long taken a pragmatic view on pornography by regulating and taxing rather than trying to ban. Material classified X18+ is legally available for sale in the ACT, and trade provisions in the Constitution make it legal to take cross-border once purchased. It is of dubious legality to host material that would be classified X18+ on any server anywhere in Australia, which typically includes the covers of X18+ movies: online shops will be hosted overseas.
They do have shareholders and they are distributing the wealth to them; there just isn't an explicit shareholder's register. CSIRO is only partly government funded, making the federal government of Australia and by extension the Australian people a shareholder. Other shareholders are companies that fund research cooperatively and take a cut of returns or take on the commercialisation themselves. Like any company the directors are electing to reinvest the income rather than issue a dividend to the Government. It's likely that the previous Government would have demanded a dividend paid into general revenue (a decreed amount and not one tied to actual income) but the current Govt is (I assume) allowing this much more sane use of funds.
What would be interesting to know is how much of the remaining $50M or so went into the pockets of the US legal profession as dead money.
In my twenty-something years as an employee I have never seen this sort of corporate "suggestion". I'm in Australia. I mainly worked for Australian companies, but have worked in a subsidiary of a very large US company. I see a few concrete examples in the replies so far, but they all seem to be US residents. Does this crap happen outside of the US?
It's clear that while they are charged with looking they haven't been, which is why is used the phrase "actually watching" and not "supposed to be watching". These organisations allowed major US corporations to operate their day-to-day finances entirely on short term credit without thinking that perhaps they are actually trading while insolvent....could not see a massive housing bubble fuelled by high risk loans funded by a house-of-cards stack of financial smoke and mirrors was a recipe for disaster....when presented with evidence of gross financial malfeasance by Madoff, a comparatively simple target to monitor, didn't think there was anything even worth looking into.
Even if they had been watching, the absence of codified limits defining "normal" or "acceptable" risk in this area effectively removed any trigger for action. Even a poorly run nuclear facility has normal operating parameters, risk mitigation strategies, safety margins, trigger points for shut down, and emergency plans.
Of course, nobody was actually watching for signs of problems in the banking system. Even the worst run nuclear energy facility has people watching for signs of problems (yes, I know that is fallible) and definition of what is good and healthy (something the supposedly sophisticated financial markets clearly lacked).
For a theoretical/measured depiction they could just read the reader manufacturer's data sheet, which will almost certainly contain a diagram of the antenna sensitivity pattern in a couple of planes and probably some concrete figures.
Owned and hosted by US companies, sure. American site? Only insofar are there are any boundaries on this new-fangled interweb thingo, which is to say, it isn't. You want a US-only site, stop serving to the world (precisely what./ers tell Murdoch to do with Google), and while you're at it, stop using news from the rest of the world.
You ever think it might go to the publisher that fronted the author money, paid for the editors, marketed the book and promoted it? Gosh, those costs might not change for an eBook at all.
Indeed, they may be fixed, but they are amortised over the entire distribution of the book. It doesn't take too long to recoup cost of editing if the book sells: the facts that publishers still exist and are profitable attests to this. Of course, once those costs are covered the difference between cost and sell price becomes straight profit. (Your figures indicate a 6- or 7-fold return on investment). Since electronic distribution also removes the printing and transport costs from the publishers (passing them on to the retailer in the form of data centres) the profit becomes almost absolute. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is reasonable to ask for some of that to translate into reduced sell-price either to the consumer or the retailer.
Given that the patent application was filed May 8, 2006 is seems that Toyota's hybrid easily predates (circa 1997) the patent.
The patent claims start, "1. A hybrid vehicle, comprising: at least two pairs of wheels, each pair of wheels operable to receive power to propel said hybrid vehicle;..." No later claim seems to remove the requirement that power is deliverable to all pair of wheels. Does a Prius drive all four wheels?
So, does this replace the functionality of Windows Defender, or does it cover areas not covered by Defender?
If it is the latter then you have yet another service that slows start-up and chews resources.
As for the music contained in shows and movies, RIAA already collects a piece of every DVD sale or VHS sale or TV rerun. It makes sense they'd want to collect a few pennies off the internet sale too. So I don't have a problem with it.
I do. The author and performer of any music present in a DVD's content has already been paid for by the producer of the DVD content and is already factored into the sale price that Joe Average pays. It matters not whether that content is delivered by carrier pigeon on disc, downloaded, or tapped out in Morse code: it has still been paid for. If ASCAP's authors/performers aren't happy with the deals the signed to allow the music into the DVD then they should take that up with the DVD content producer not the end retailer/user.
Make the hardware open. Imagine the state tech would be in if every computer manufacturer made its own cpu, motherboard, graphic processor, interface protocols, operating system and software, and they were all non-interchangeable between models.
You mean like television or stereo innards are standardised? Doesn't seem to have stopped the home electronics industry from surviving despite the fact there is little to no standardisation between manufactures. Sure, it might be sane and desirable to have an upgrade path for your TV, but it is not essential.
As a matter of fact, AFAIK so far all the MAJOR private space ventures are HQ'd in the US precisely because of the freedom afforded by the market
Bollocks. This is a natural consequence of anything to do with rockets or rocket guidance being treated as weaponry, and therefore subject to export limitation by US Government restrictions. Further, most of these technologies are also restricted to work only by "US persons"; something hard to find, for example, in Australia and other "safe" places to play with rocketry. While ostensibly protecting "national security" these restrictions also very conveniently stack things in favour of US companies. If the money is originating in the US then the work must also occur there; if it did not the private venture would be buried in so much red tape that it would never surface.
How about: A patent can only be enforced, and damages awarded, if the patent holder is actively engaged in marketing the invention claimed by the patent. If they cannot show income attributable to their use of their granted monopoly in a product of theirs then they forfeit the privilege to extract money from others for doing so.
Not once have I had to surrender my fingerprint(s) to cross the border of an EU (or even non-US) nation.
Not once has my laptop hard disk been imaged and stored as I crossed the border of an EU country.
Not once has my employer outright banned carrying our work-a-day laptop on trips to EU countries.
My last employer, a large US company subsidiary, even issued clean machines to people travelling to the US because (clearly) the corporation doesn't trust its own government officials. Of course, all our files were still available on the global corporate network, which made a joke of the border controls anyway.
And if facts ever become a form of intellectual property, you can pretty much kiss ALL human advancement goodbye.
Get your kisser warmed up... this rot is already well entrenched. In Australia we have a TV media company claiming that any list of the programs it broadcasts constitutes a derivative work of their schedule and therefore infringing [1], while at the same time refusing to licence their schedule to parties that might make use of it (like MythTV users). While (eventually) our High Court sided with the little guy, I won't have to look far to find other instances where copyright claims on aggregations of facts lead to ridiculous demands for royalties.
My high 5-figure online business recently ditched PayPal because despite the various fees and commissions a bricks and mortar bank merchant facility was marginally cheaper and, here's the big one, they never reject a valid credit card. They also don't require nineteen types of personal information to process a simple, small payment. In the name of security PayPal occasionally would reject perfectly valid cards from customers with a good trading history (in one case several of the customer's cards were rejected). PayPal would not talk to the merchant about the customer's card, and the customer's time is better spent buying elsewhere rather than fighting to pay through the PayPal "Customer Service*" call centre in downtown Calcutta (that's what it sounds like).
* Just who is PayPal's customer anyway? Is it the merchant or the buyer, or is it whoever gives PP the easiest option/biggest profit?
You may be right about "Buyer Protection" (which in Au is largely worthless) but I think it is more about the CC companies. Your CC issuer will treat the "Gift" transaction as a cash advance and start charging interest on that amount immediately rather than after any grace period goods purchases might get. Also, payment processors will likely have to report good/services transactions, and probably not (small) gifts, to the taxation authorities on request.
Slashdot Mirror
Mandriva sounds to me like someone you'd rather not meet in a federal penitentiary
And Australia... there are other places in the world (you know, that bit outside the contiguous 48) where English is the primary language and people can easily translate the Americanisms out of shows.
We even take slops like Oprah, Judge Judy, Bold and The Beautiful, various flavours of CSI, NBC Today, and (for something truly parochial) PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour.
"Normal" people never think "embedded system" only geeks and design engineers do. Normal people think, "What a cool gadget", "It's too expensive/purple/big/small etc.", or exactly what the sales drone has told them (right or wrong).
Did the order also list each an every member of Stichting Brein and each and every work in which such members claim or hold some copyright interest? If not, how is one supposed to even start to comply?
Material that is reviewed and "Refused Classification" (or likely to be) is absolutely NOT legally available in Australia including the ACT and NT under the various State and Territory laws (e.g Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995 Div 2.2 Sect 16 and 20). This is where child porn, bestiality, incitement to crime etc. end up. In classic double-standards, any computer game that would receive R18+ if it were a movie is refused classification.
AFAIK no state bans ownership of X18+ pornography, just the sale. The ACT legislative assembly has long taken a pragmatic view on pornography by regulating and taxing rather than trying to ban. Material classified X18+ is legally available for sale in the ACT, and trade provisions in the Constitution make it legal to take cross-border once purchased. It is of dubious legality to host material that would be classified X18+ on any server anywhere in Australia, which typically includes the covers of X18+ movies: online shops will be hosted overseas.
Hmmmm, sounds familiar... Oh yes! That's what the Taliban did to a whole country.
They do have shareholders and they are distributing the wealth to them; there just isn't an explicit shareholder's register. CSIRO is only partly government funded, making the federal government of Australia and by extension the Australian people a shareholder. Other shareholders are companies that fund research cooperatively and take a cut of returns or take on the commercialisation themselves. Like any company the directors are electing to reinvest the income rather than issue a dividend to the Government. It's likely that the previous Government would have demanded a dividend paid into general revenue (a decreed amount and not one tied to actual income) but the current Govt is (I assume) allowing this much more sane use of funds.
What would be interesting to know is how much of the remaining $50M or so went into the pockets of the US legal profession as dead money.
In my twenty-something years as an employee I have never seen this sort of corporate "suggestion". I'm in Australia. I mainly worked for Australian companies, but have worked in a subsidiary of a very large US company. I see a few concrete examples in the replies so far, but they all seem to be US residents. Does this crap happen outside of the US?
It's clear that while they are charged with looking they haven't been, which is why is used the phrase "actually watching" and not "supposed to be watching". These organisations allowed major US corporations to operate their day-to-day finances entirely on short term credit without thinking that perhaps they are actually trading while insolvent. ...could not see a massive housing bubble fuelled by high risk loans funded by a house-of-cards stack of financial smoke and mirrors was a recipe for disaster. ...when presented with evidence of gross financial malfeasance by Madoff, a comparatively simple target to monitor, didn't think there was anything even worth looking into.
Even if they had been watching, the absence of codified limits defining "normal" or "acceptable" risk in this area effectively removed any trigger for action. Even a poorly run nuclear facility has normal operating parameters, risk mitigation strategies, safety margins, trigger points for shut down, and emergency plans.
Of course, nobody was actually watching for signs of problems in the banking system. Even the worst run nuclear energy facility has people watching for signs of problems (yes, I know that is fallible) and definition of what is good and healthy (something the supposedly sophisticated financial markets clearly lacked).
For a theoretical/measured depiction they could just read the reader manufacturer's data sheet, which will almost certainly contain a diagram of the antenna sensitivity pattern in a couple of planes and probably some concrete figures.
Owned and hosted by US companies, sure. American site? Only insofar are there are any boundaries on this new-fangled interweb thingo, which is to say, it isn't. You want a US-only site, stop serving to the world (precisely what ./ers tell Murdoch to do with Google), and while you're at it, stop using news from the rest of the world.
Indeed, they may be fixed, but they are amortised over the entire distribution of the book. It doesn't take too long to recoup cost of editing if the book sells: the facts that publishers still exist and are profitable attests to this. Of course, once those costs are covered the difference between cost and sell price becomes straight profit. (Your figures indicate a 6- or 7-fold return on investment). Since electronic distribution also removes the printing and transport costs from the publishers (passing them on to the retailer in the form of data centres) the profit becomes almost absolute. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is reasonable to ask for some of that to translate into reduced sell-price either to the consumer or the retailer.
Given that the patent application was filed May 8, 2006 is seems that Toyota's hybrid easily predates (circa 1997) the patent.
The patent claims start, "1. A hybrid vehicle, comprising: at least two pairs of wheels, each pair of wheels operable to receive power to propel said hybrid vehicle;..." No later claim seems to remove the requirement that power is deliverable to all pair of wheels. Does a Prius drive all four wheels?
So, does this replace the functionality of Windows Defender, or does it cover areas not covered by Defender? If it is the latter then you have yet another service that slows start-up and chews resources.
For me it brought back memories of the sky during the Canberra bushfires in 2003... Similar effect, but a shed load less worrisome.
I do. The author and performer of any music present in a DVD's content has already been paid for by the producer of the DVD content and is already factored into the sale price that Joe Average pays. It matters not whether that content is delivered by carrier pigeon on disc, downloaded, or tapped out in Morse code: it has still been paid for. If ASCAP's authors/performers aren't happy with the deals the signed to allow the music into the DVD then they should take that up with the DVD content producer not the end retailer/user.
You mean like television or stereo innards are standardised? Doesn't seem to have stopped the home electronics industry from surviving despite the fact there is little to no standardisation between manufactures. Sure, it might be sane and desirable to have an upgrade path for your TV, but it is not essential.
Bollocks. This is a natural consequence of anything to do with rockets or rocket guidance being treated as weaponry, and therefore subject to export limitation by US Government restrictions. Further, most of these technologies are also restricted to work only by "US persons"; something hard to find, for example, in Australia and other "safe" places to play with rocketry. While ostensibly protecting "national security" these restrictions also very conveniently stack things in favour of US companies. If the money is originating in the US then the work must also occur there; if it did not the private venture would be buried in so much red tape that it would never surface.
How about: A patent can only be enforced, and damages awarded, if the patent holder is actively engaged in marketing the invention claimed by the patent. If they cannot show income attributable to their use of their granted monopoly in a product of theirs then they forfeit the privilege to extract money from others for doing so.
Not once have I had to surrender my fingerprint(s) to cross the border of an EU (or even non-US) nation.
Not once has my laptop hard disk been imaged and stored as I crossed the border of an EU country.
Not once has my employer outright banned carrying our work-a-day laptop on trips to EU countries. My last employer, a large US company subsidiary, even issued clean machines to people travelling to the US because (clearly) the corporation doesn't trust its own government officials. Of course, all our files were still available on the global corporate network, which made a joke of the border controls anyway.
Be careful! You are perilously close to infringing their rights to the sound of their own defeat :)
Get your kisser warmed up... this rot is already well entrenched. In Australia we have a TV media company claiming that any list of the programs it broadcasts constitutes a derivative work of their schedule and therefore infringing [1], while at the same time refusing to licence their schedule to parties that might make use of it (like MythTV users). While (eventually) our High Court sided with the little guy, I won't have to look far to find other instances where copyright claims on aggregations of facts lead to ridiculous demands for royalties.
[1] http://www.icetv.com.au.nyud.net/news/?p=614
My high 5-figure online business recently ditched PayPal because despite the various fees and commissions a bricks and mortar bank merchant facility was marginally cheaper and, here's the big one, they never reject a valid credit card. They also don't require nineteen types of personal information to process a simple, small payment. In the name of security PayPal occasionally would reject perfectly valid cards from customers with a good trading history (in one case several of the customer's cards were rejected). PayPal would not talk to the merchant about the customer's card, and the customer's time is better spent buying elsewhere rather than fighting to pay through the PayPal "Customer Service*" call centre in downtown Calcutta (that's what it sounds like).
* Just who is PayPal's customer anyway? Is it the merchant or the buyer, or is it whoever gives PP the easiest option/biggest profit?
You may be right about "Buyer Protection" (which in Au is largely worthless) but I think it is more about the CC companies. Your CC issuer will treat the "Gift" transaction as a cash advance and start charging interest on that amount immediately rather than after any grace period goods purchases might get. Also, payment processors will likely have to report good/services transactions, and probably not (small) gifts, to the taxation authorities on request.