This data probably means: sons of engineers are more likely than daughters of engineers to participate in autism experiments, and the same for daughters vs. sons of nurses.
If they wanted to test the hypotheses being presented in the (typically brain-dead) pop science article, they'd have to set up an experiment to test a random sample of the population AND to correct for reporting bias (e.g. men may be more likely to characterize their parents as "engineers" and daughters may be more likely to characterize their parents as "talk-show hosts" if the parents in question have careers that don't fit into neat categories or have had multiple careers. This actually sounds like a really likely explanation or the data.)
Legislatures pass unfinished laws all the time, although usually their "unfinished" nature is a consequence of conflicting factions inserting various compromise amendments and bits of pork that render the end result incoherent. They then rely on the judiciary to interpret and implement them. I think it's actually a pretty good analogy to the release of unfinished software into the hands of developers/sysadmins.
Uh... okay, here are the other definitions I could find:
regime also régime n.
1.
1. A form of government: ("a fascist regime").
2. A government in power; administration: ("suffered under the new regime").
2. A prevailing social system or pattern.
3. The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
4. A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.
[French régime, from Old French, from Latin regimen, from regere, to rule. See reg- in Indo-European Roots.]
Which, exactly, is the one you think is being used here?
Interesting. I think jeblucas is right, but it's dicey.
1) The track is probably not protected by copyright. Cage's case seems to contradict this, but it sounds to me like the holding turned on how the track was framed. Here, a court would be unlikely to find the silent track to be minimally original -- I'd like to hear the argument from the other side on that one.
2) Even if it were copyright-protected, the DMCA violation here sounds more like "access" than "copying". Insofar as digital "access" almost always includes "copying", I assume that what they mean by "access" as distinguished from "copying" is e.g. opening a password-protected file without the password. Of course, iTunes' DRM prevents not just copying, but also access by unauthorized devices/application. What's going on here? He's definitely "copying" it (onto a new device), but does the act of gaining "access" via an unauthorized application/device (the portable player and whatever it's running) trigger the first DMCA clause, thereby creating liability, when the user already had "access" through authorized devices/applications (e.g. his iTunes player software, his iPod, etc)? On this rather technical point, this could be an interesting test case.
Note that the courts are cooling to abuses of the DMCA (see recent/. coverage of the Lexmark case, which implicates DMCA protection of content that plays fast and loose with the minimal creativity standard).
Am I wrong? Is there a legal precedent on what constitutes "access" as opposed to "copying"? The DeCSS case involved distribution, so it needed only to meet the "copying" rather than the "access" standard, but does anyone remember whether the honorable Judge Kaplan declared private use of DeCSS on legally purchased DVDs to constitute "unauthorized access"? I'm pretty sure everything turned on "access" rather than "copying" (after all, you don't need DeCSS to copy a DVD), so I think Universal v. Corley would declare the instant case to constitute "access" and therefore a violation of the DMCA. But I personally think that Corley is overdue for review, and I think the recording industry knows this and is skittish about getting into it again. For this and other reasons, I don't think this guy is going to see the inside of a courtroom for this stunt.
Slashdot Mirror
If they wanted to test the hypotheses being presented in the (typically brain-dead) pop science article, they'd have to set up an experiment to test a random sample of the population AND to correct for reporting bias (e.g. men may be more likely to characterize their parents as "engineers" and daughters may be more likely to characterize their parents as "talk-show hosts" if the parents in question have careers that don't fit into neat categories or have had multiple careers. This actually sounds like a really likely explanation or the data.)
Legislatures pass unfinished laws all the time, although usually their "unfinished" nature is a consequence of conflicting factions inserting various compromise amendments and bits of pork that render the end result incoherent. They then rely on the judiciary to interpret and implement them. I think it's actually a pretty good analogy to the release of unfinished software into the hands of developers/sysadmins.
Uh... okay, here are the other definitions I could find:
regime also régime
n.
1.
1. A form of government: ("a fascist regime").
2. A government in power; administration: ("suffered under the new regime").
2. A prevailing social system or pattern.
3. The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
4. A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.
[French régime, from Old French, from Latin regimen, from regere, to rule. See reg- in Indo-European Roots.]
Which, exactly, is the one you think is being used here?
PS: You are an idiot.
1) The track is probably not protected by copyright. Cage's case seems to contradict this, but it sounds to me like the holding turned on how the track was framed. Here, a court would be unlikely to find the silent track to be minimally original -- I'd like to hear the argument from the other side on that one.
2) Even if it were copyright-protected, the DMCA violation here sounds more like "access" than "copying". Insofar as digital "access" almost always includes "copying", I assume that what they mean by "access" as distinguished from "copying" is e.g. opening a password-protected file without the password. Of course, iTunes' DRM prevents not just copying, but also access by unauthorized devices/application. What's going on here? He's definitely "copying" it (onto a new device), but does the act of gaining "access" via an unauthorized application/device (the portable player and whatever it's running) trigger the first DMCA clause, thereby creating liability, when the user already had "access" through authorized devices/applications (e.g. his iTunes player software, his iPod, etc)? On this rather technical point, this could be an interesting test case.
Note that the courts are cooling to abuses of the DMCA (see recent /. coverage of the Lexmark case, which implicates DMCA protection of content that plays fast and loose with the minimal creativity standard).
Am I wrong? Is there a legal precedent on what constitutes "access" as opposed to "copying"? The DeCSS case involved distribution, so it needed only to meet the "copying" rather than the "access" standard, but does anyone remember whether the honorable Judge Kaplan declared private use of DeCSS on legally purchased DVDs to constitute "unauthorized access"? I'm pretty sure everything turned on "access" rather than "copying" (after all, you don't need DeCSS to copy a DVD), so I think Universal v. Corley would declare the instant case to constitute "access" and therefore a violation of the DMCA. But I personally think that Corley is overdue for review, and I think the recording industry knows this and is skittish about getting into it again. For this and other reasons, I don't think this guy is going to see the inside of a courtroom for this stunt.