This is a case where a plaintiff of an action (that they probably lost) is sueing opposing council for using the internet archive looking for old documentation that is used as evidence against its claims. In effect, they're claiming that because they had a robots.txt any page that might have been on the internet archive was there illegaly, and shouldn't have been used as evidence.
In effect, they're saying "we were wrong, we tried to destroy the evidence of our wrongdoing, but because the shredder jammed and you found the evidence anyway, you're abusing our copyright".
The court hearing their argument should thoroughly smack them. Perhaps they should be brought to justice for trying to destroy evidence (or instructing a third party to do so), surely that's illegal in these post-Enron days.
He isn't against any and all copyright protection, that's the company's line.
Though even if he was, in a democratic society, should government contracts not be awarded to companies who have an employee who has a desire to change the law? Isn't wanting to change the law, well, politics? And Government cracking down on dissenting political views with tax money, isn't that a bit shady?
Even at time already it was extremely common for companies to derive this information from databases. They had the data, they had the talent. They used it not to give recommendations, but to spot anomalies. The reason you may not have heard of it, is because these were the credit card companies trying to discover and track fraud. Very much hush hush.
The police nabbed the server because someone boasted of violent criminal behaviour on it, and the police want to trace them.
Suppose a kidnapper used my typewriter to write a ransom note. Would my freedom of speech be curtailed if the police took it down the station to dust it for prints?
Suppose the Police seized the printing presses of the Sun newspaper because a letter to the editor contained some nasty words. Would that curtail any freedom of speech, you think?
There may well be excellent journalists working for indymedia, but responsible journalists do not allow anonymous, unchecked "facts" into their news output.
You mean like the BBC did? As pointed out by the Hutton enquiry? Though as it later transpired, the BBC was entirely right (and the Government should have sued them or put in a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission, in stead of a blatant attempt at cencorship, much like seizing Indymedia's servers?).
In fact, that just encourages scurrilous rumor mongering -- which is diametrically opposed to good journalism.
You see, the thing is, rumor mongering is covered by Freedom of Speech to a very great extent. After all, who is to say what is Good Journalism? The Government??
Seizing servers without a judicial verdict is kind of iffy. Usually if you slander/libel you'd get a fine and the instruction to retract your story. The Government doesn't get to impound printing presses, nor servers. Not in civilized countries, anyway.
Actually, I don't think the streams would be cascaded. I would expect that the iLBC would be strictly used for the Skype portion of the call and that your cellphone would be responsible for vocoding into GSM/CDMA.
Unless it is a datacall. If it is a datacall, then you wouldn't need anything other than iLBC, but I don't think it is a datacall, because you are listening on the other end. When you listen on the other end, your network provider's vocoder must encode voice from you and decode voice to you.
Granted, you will lose some bits here and there, but these things are definetly in serial, not in parallel.
Dude. It sure doesn't help the qound quality when you're talking out of your ass.
Cascading is when you serially link lossy compression - since codecs use different psycho-acoustical models (else they'd be the same codec) they'll drop different aspects of the signal; you'll end up with only the sounds where both codecs overlappingly decide those frequencies are important, and both codecs will introduce their own artifacts.
The joyful bit is where artifacts that are particularly noticeable are most likely to be amplified by the second codec, since it's likely to figure noticeable sounds are psychoacoustically significant (which they are).
A "unanimous decision" in the Supreme Court is a single decision by all judges, not a majority with one or more judges dissenting. It's the dictionary definition of unanimous (from the Latin, of one mind) not the slangy use of the word, by which people really mean "unambiguous".
IMHO, it is quite interesting that some of the most popular Microsoft products have the simplest names, names that most likely could not be registered: Windows, Office, Word, Internet Explorer. If the Windows vs. Lindows dispute had gone to court, Microsoft might have lost their best known trademark. (Of course, IANAL.)
Head on over to microsoft.com and try to find a mention of Windows(R). You won't. You'll only find mentions of "Microsoft Windows", as a phrase, being a trademark. Likewise for Word.
This will cost money to implement, and money to maintain, but if the company has a presence, that should not be a problem. Either the company is in Texas, in which case it has to deal with the rules of Texas, or it is outside and the consumer is responsible.
RTFA. Borders-the-website isn't in CA, but because their logo is, they're treated as if they were. So now they have a presence in multiple states. And they now have to figure out how to do salestaxes for CA as well. As soon as each and ervery state jumps on the bandwagon, you'll have to do it for each individual state. Joy.
Yahoo News is reporting that scientists at Sandia National Labs have created a magnetic pulse gun (rail gun) that can accelerate small aluminum plates faster than the Earth travels through space.
well Duh!! They're ON earth aren't they? Only if you fire them in the opposite direction of where the earth is moving they'd be going slower than earth!
To elaborate a bit further; GSM even provides functionality to choose what line your outgoing call uses (*11) and handsets can have different numbers/lines for voice, data and fax. These advanced options are all within the same provider though.
Personally, I like having 2 phones (though 1 doubles up as a PDA), so when one rings, I can be sure it's either business or personal.
All phones can handle this, so long as the two numbers belong to the same service provider, they can make sure calls end up on the same handset; just a matter of routing in the switch. Phonecalls ending up at two handets (whichever picks up first gets the call) are no problem either.
They usually only offer it to corporate accounts though, or you'd have to resort to call forwarding (*21) which usually costs extra.
or (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States; This doesn't protect anybody but the government... Back to the drawing board I guess.
The wording is because of States' rights. Congress can pass laws regulating interstate commerce, and some other topics (like defense, international relations, etc.)
In practice, if you've ever used your computer to buy something off of e-bay, or to even look at a commercial from out-of-state, it's been used for interstate commerce. And if you haven't, you might. So that means everybody, just nice and constitutional-like.
common users could always make webpages
There was life before the web, you know. Online services like GEnie, Prodigy Online, Compuserve, AOL, those weren't always too kind to common users. Even fairly grass-roots networks like FIDOnet required quite a bit of time and money, or political clout, to set up your own BBS/filearea/echo..
Nowadays, a website comes included with just about every internet access plan. Dynamic database driven sites are just a few bucks a month, and.coms adresses can be had for much the same amount of money. There's no censorship or vetting procedure, no favoritism in listing you (unless you count paying for ads on search-engines, which themselves are a dime a dozen).
Youse pays (or gets included with youse access) your webhosting fees, you gets your site online. Maybe place some ads, print or your businesscard, list in search-engines, and you're up and running.
This is VERY unlike what the process to get your service online, or even just your message out, in the Olden days, before the Web. Thank Gopher and Veronica for that.
proceeded to tell me to fire my attorney, right in front of her, because he said she wasn't giving me correct information about the law.
Ooh! Slander! Why didn't she sue them for that alone? Doesn't her testimony count as evidence, being an officer of the court? She could have made out like a bandit!
Unless you're doing something utterly retarded like trying to use an MS desktop OS for a server, or trying to run a server on NT 3.x or Win9x, then it's probably your apps or drivers not the OS that's broken.
Yes, it's absolutely no flaw of the OS itself that until very recently printer drivers(!) had to run in kernel mode. Only in longhorn will kernel-mode printer-drivers be disallowed by the OS. There's even a policy that lets non-power users install printer drivers (which is on by default) - there goes security and stability right out the window.
Of course, if the printer driver happens to make your system crash once in a while, you might argue it's the driver's fault.. But why the hell is it running in kernel mode?! Because the OS lets it!
Slashdot Mirror
I anxiously await the first person to point out a spelling or usage error in my post--it's traditional.
Very well. The comma after "If the content is interesting enough" is superfluous. Happy now, punk?
This is a case where a plaintiff of an action (that they probably lost) is sueing opposing council for using the internet archive looking for old documentation that is used as evidence against its claims. In effect, they're claiming that because they had a robots.txt any page that might have been on the internet archive was there illegaly, and shouldn't have been used as evidence.
In effect, they're saying "we were wrong, we tried to destroy the evidence of our wrongdoing, but because the shredder jammed and you found the evidence anyway, you're abusing our copyright".
The court hearing their argument should thoroughly smack them. Perhaps they should be brought to justice for trying to destroy evidence (or instructing a third party to do so), surely that's illegal in these post-Enron days.
Though even if he was, in a democratic society, should government contracts not be awarded to companies who have an employee who has a desire to change the law? Isn't wanting to change the law, well, politics? And Government cracking down on dissenting political views with tax money, isn't that a bit shady?
Except for meet-in-the-middle attacks. And as luck might have it, biometrics don't change (they're not supposed to).
As a single factor, biometrics are worthless (even without delving into false positives and negatives). You'd still need a token.
Biometrics aren't harder to remove than passwords, just use rubber hose cryptanalysis.
People write down passwords. On the other hand, people leave biometrics all over the place, like fingerprints on glasses.
Biometrics are pretty much useless for authenticating to machines. Just stick with a token-with-pin-pad.
Yahoo! owns 5% of Google. Also, they only post stories supplied by third parties, in this case Ziff-Davies' PC Magazine.
Even at time already it was extremely common for companies to derive this information from databases. They had the data, they had the talent. They used it not to give recommendations, but to spot anomalies. The reason you may not have heard of it, is because these were the credit card companies trying to discover and track fraud. Very much hush hush.
Suppose a kidnapper used my typewriter to write a ransom note. Would my freedom of speech be curtailed if the police took it down the station to dust it for prints?
Suppose the Police seized the printing presses of the Sun newspaper because a letter to the editor contained some nasty words. Would that curtail any freedom of speech, you think?
It's not like they seized your laptop, dude.
You mean like the BBC did? As pointed out by the Hutton enquiry? Though as it later transpired, the BBC was entirely right (and the Government should have sued them or put in a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission, in stead of a blatant attempt at cencorship, much like seizing Indymedia's servers?).
In fact, that just encourages scurrilous rumor mongering -- which is diametrically opposed to good journalism.
You see, the thing is, rumor mongering is covered by Freedom of Speech to a very great extent. After all, who is to say what is Good Journalism? The Government??
Seizing servers without a judicial verdict is kind of iffy. Usually if you slander/libel you'd get a fine and the instruction to retract your story. The Government doesn't get to impound printing presses, nor servers. Not in civilized countries, anyway.
Unless it is a datacall. If it is a datacall, then you wouldn't need anything other than iLBC, but I don't think it is a datacall, because you are listening on the other end. When you listen on the other end, your network provider's vocoder must encode voice from you and decode voice to you.
Granted, you will lose some bits here and there, but these things are definetly in serial, not in parallel.
Dude. It sure doesn't help the qound quality when you're talking out of your ass.
Cascading is when you serially link lossy compression - since codecs use different psycho-acoustical models (else they'd be the same codec) they'll drop different aspects of the signal; you'll end up with only the sounds where both codecs overlappingly decide those frequencies are important, and both codecs will introduce their own artifacts.
The joyful bit is where artifacts that are particularly noticeable are most likely to be amplified by the second codec, since it's likely to figure noticeable sounds are psychoacoustically significant (which they are).
A "unanimous decision" in the Supreme Court is a single decision by all judges, not a majority with one or more judges dissenting. It's the dictionary definition of unanimous (from the Latin, of one mind) not the slangy use of the word, by which people really mean "unambiguous".
Head on over to microsoft.com and try to find a mention of Windows(R). You won't. You'll only find mentions of "Microsoft Windows", as a phrase, being a trademark. Likewise for Word.
This will cost money to implement, and money to maintain, but if the company has a presence, that should not be a problem. Either the company is in Texas, in which case it has to deal with the rules of Texas, or it is outside and the consumer is responsible. RTFA. Borders-the-website isn't in CA, but because their logo is, they're treated as if they were. So now they have a presence in multiple states. And they now have to figure out how to do salestaxes for CA as well. As soon as each and ervery state jumps on the bandwagon, you'll have to do it for each individual state. Joy.
Yahoo News is reporting that scientists at Sandia National Labs have created a magnetic pulse gun (rail gun) that can accelerate small aluminum plates faster than the Earth travels through space. well Duh!! They're ON earth aren't they? Only if you fire them in the opposite direction of where the earth is moving they'd be going slower than earth!
http://www.keyghost.com/ (There are also cheaper competing products with similar functionality)
1900x1200.. Great way to go blind (peering at a Dell Latitude D800 screen as I type this)
Are Morse coders more efficient than C++ coders?
My website is so amazingly hot, I think I'll hold out for the .XXXX TLD.
To elaborate a bit further; GSM even provides functionality to choose what line your outgoing call uses (*11) and handsets can have different numbers/lines for voice, data and fax. These advanced options are all within the same provider though. Personally, I like having 2 phones (though 1 doubles up as a PDA), so when one rings, I can be sure it's either business or personal.
All phones can handle this, so long as the two numbers belong to the same service provider, they can make sure calls end up on the same handset; just a matter of routing in the switch. Phonecalls ending up at two handets (whichever picks up first gets the call) are no problem either. They usually only offer it to corporate accounts though, or you'd have to resort to call forwarding (*21) which usually costs extra.
Spot on, especially with the force-feedback, camera control and such.
or (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States; This doesn't protect anybody but the government... Back to the drawing board I guess. The wording is because of States' rights. Congress can pass laws regulating interstate commerce, and some other topics (like defense, international relations, etc.) In practice, if you've ever used your computer to buy something off of e-bay, or to even look at a commercial from out-of-state, it's been used for interstate commerce. And if you haven't, you might. So that means everybody, just nice and constitutional-like.
common users could always make webpages There was life before the web, you know. Online services like GEnie, Prodigy Online, Compuserve, AOL, those weren't always too kind to common users. Even fairly grass-roots networks like FIDOnet required quite a bit of time and money, or political clout, to set up your own BBS/filearea/echo.. Nowadays, a website comes included with just about every internet access plan. Dynamic database driven sites are just a few bucks a month, and .coms adresses can be had for much the same amount of money. There's no censorship or vetting procedure, no favoritism in listing you (unless you count paying for ads on search-engines, which themselves are a dime a dozen).
Youse pays (or gets included with youse access) your webhosting fees, you gets your site online. Maybe place some ads, print or your businesscard, list in search-engines, and you're up and running.
This is VERY unlike what the process to get your service online, or even just your message out, in the Olden days, before the Web. Thank Gopher and Veronica for that.
Of course, yahoo owns 5% of google, so those two cooperating isn't a complete schock.
proceeded to tell me to fire my attorney, right in front of her, because he said she wasn't giving me correct information about the law. Ooh! Slander! Why didn't she sue them for that alone? Doesn't her testimony count as evidence, being an officer of the court? She could have made out like a bandit!
Unless you're doing something utterly retarded like trying to use an MS desktop OS for a server, or trying to run a server on NT 3.x or Win9x, then it's probably your apps or drivers not the OS that's broken. Yes, it's absolutely no flaw of the OS itself that until very recently printer drivers(!) had to run in kernel mode. Only in longhorn will kernel-mode printer-drivers be disallowed by the OS. There's even a policy that lets non-power users install printer drivers (which is on by default) - there goes security and stability right out the window. Of course, if the printer driver happens to make your system crash once in a while, you might argue it's the driver's fault.. But why the hell is it running in kernel mode?! Because the OS lets it!