Dude, tell your friend to click "Start," press C, click Command Prompt, maximize this window and pretend that he is a "Power User" in some *nix OS. Some guy complaining that Windows indexing is using up all of the "resources" of his quad core, 4 GB RAM, new Vista machine. LOL
*actually, the window will only take up half the screen so some dummy doesn't "lose" their desktop.:-\
The caption and a summary of the article implies that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that the anti-piracy statutes relating to satellite TV did not apply to researchers and "tinkerers" of the anti-piracy technology. In fact, the EFF (as amicus) may have argued this, but the court took no notice of it whatsoever.
In point of fact, the Court noted that the statute establishes a two-tiered system of culpability and punishment. The lower level is for run of the mill, individual pirates utilize the piracy technology of access cards which have been "restored" by an "unlooper" device. A second tier of culpability, was substantially harsher penalties, applies to those pirates who actually make or fabricate the equipment as described by the statute or to those who distribute such equipment.
In the case before the court, DirecTV argued that the defendant was guilty under both parts of the statute. The Court emphasized the distinction between the two and found that the facts, as pled, did not support liability for the manufacture or distribution of piracy equipment. It found any allegations in that regard, "not well pled." This case arose in the context of default judgment, i.e., the bare allegations of the complaint were taken as true because the defendant made no appearance to contest them. There was no trial or other factual record.
In any event, the gravamen of the court's ruling is summarized in the following portion:
"Reading 605 as a whole makes clear that Congress
intended to treat differently individuals who played different
roles in the pirating system. In contrast to subsection (a)'s tar-
geting of individuals who use piracy devices to intercept satellite
signals, subsection (e)(4) aims at bigger fish--the
assemblers, manufacturers, and distributors of piracy devices.
The statute's two-tier damages provision treats each class
quite differently, subjecting violators of subsection (e)(4) to
significantly harsher penalties than those levied against violators
of subsection (a). See 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).
Because reprogramming access cards and inserting these
modified access cards into DirecTV receivers is necessary to
intercept signals in violation of subsection (a), treating these
actions as violations of subsection (e)(4) would collapse the
distinction Congress established. The context of subsection
(e)(4) and its penalties indicate that Congress intended that it
apply to those who make piracy devices for commercial purposes
rather than to end-users who employ piracy devices for
individual personal use." (DIRECTV, INC. v. HUYNH 12276-6)
That's all. That's it. Not really a big deal. Had DirecTV been more careful in its pleading, it could have easily have obtained judgment against the defendants under both portions of the statute. As noted, the Court takes all well pled allegations as true. DirecTV just failed to plead very well. This does not mean the case has no meaning. In a contested case, an end-user who did not manufacture or distribute any piracy equipment will probably be able to successfully establish that it cannot be held liable and subject to the more severe penalties of section 605.
I read about this in InformationWeek. The author describes the setup it is utilizing 50 tiled consumer grade Dell and Apple monitors using consumer video cards. Does this mean that the actual resolution, expressed in DPI, is the same as widely available consumer monitors. The display is big, but otherwise, what is the big deal?
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, tell your friend to click "Start," press C, click Command Prompt, maximize this window and pretend that he is a "Power User" in some *nix OS. Some guy complaining that Windows indexing is using up all of the "resources" of his quad core, 4 GB RAM, new Vista machine. LOL *actually, the window will only take up half the screen so some dummy doesn't "lose" their desktop. :-\
I didn't see this coming! The shuttles are nominally old, but they have many new and rebuilt parts. Only the airframe and motors are original.
News about a legacy OS.
"The question is not whether machines can think, but whether submarines can swim."
I read about this in InformationWeek. The author describes the setup it is utilizing 50 tiled consumer grade Dell and Apple monitors using consumer video cards. Does this mean that the actual resolution, expressed in DPI, is the same as widely available consumer monitors. The display is big, but otherwise, what is the big deal?
a 45% increase in practically nothing is... practically nothing.