Your argument may hold water for land based carriers since tax dollars were spent on installing and supporting the infrastructure. But unless I am mistaken tax dollars were not spent on cellular roll-outs.
You could still do your research at the library or at schools (low and behold which would have internet access) and your banking at the teller. So online research and online banking are not quite as critical as the land-based libraries or banks. In-so-far as your "rights" are concerned. Internet access is ALWAYS going to be a "convenience" service as there is hardly any activity on the Internet which could not (with enough effort) be duplicated in the real world (face-to-face) without a network link.
I personally would love to see Internet access distribution handled similarly to how the electrical grid works. You could get discounts for running your P2P / large download applications on "off-peak" hours, your service is metered at flat rates instead of false "unlimited usage", and your connection couldn't be terminated unless a regulated checklist was completed.
Maybe I'm just dreaming though. It seems like big-business ISPs would prefer the system to be run like satellite television; high rates for "unlimited" service, subscription based service, "bundled" packages, limited local coverage, and provider lock-in using proprietary technology.
I've had positive experiences with Acer support once I actually figured out how to get a hold of their support department (dealt with someone from Texas once and California a few times, not India).
Fast turn around times, prompt service, not much paperwork involved with either Software replacement CDs or hardware warranty work. And my service requests were for machines worth less than $500 so you know I wasn't "worth" much to them.
I used to have a very very different opinion of their machines and support until I actually had to use more than 20 of their machines for a corporate setup (purchased individually and not registered with them as a corporate customer).
My 2002 Chevy Cavalier has an adjustment with three settings controlling the level of aggressiveness (or simply turning it off) for the auto-volume. Low doesn't make the radio loud enough if I'm driving on the highway, and high makes it so I notice the radio too well while I'm accelerating. Medium fortunately adjusts the volume relatively well to match outside noise in the cab of my car (unless it's really windy with the windows down).
Instead of bludgeoning your radio and dashboard why not try cracking the user manual or looking up the adjustment online?
...and when that child is only concerned about fucking? what then, mr.wizard? last I checked, hormonally speaking, kids are way more interested in the approval of their classmates & getting a girlfriend/boyfriend. Knowing about the war of 1812 or the gold standard hinders that, not helps it..... Hell, you can't even teach them *sex-ed* 'cause they're too uptight about it.
I might venture to say that SOME children become most interested in fucking due to a lack of interest in other areas or in other words... boredom with the broken school system... (I cite myself at a younger age as my source, take it as you will). And this is only most prominent generally in a band of age between 11 and 17. I was already bored with our schooling system when I hit second grade. School had already failed me before I started to fail the school system.
If you give children respect (like a little adult), and explicitly trust in them, AND you make this known to them from a young age; you might be surprised in how "good" they will turn out.
My close friends two children (teenagers), whom I have known since they were both babies, both have turned out fantastic so far even though they had really rough lives including divorced parents (twice divorced on for one parent). These are the type of kids which have a "world-view" of people three times their age. They might be moderated "insightful" if they were to post here.
As to your topic about the inability to teach children sex-ed; have you ever stopped to wonder why that is such a miserable topic to try and teach (for the students as well as the teachers)?
American children have a 12 year head start "self-learning" about sex with themselves, friends, and classmates before the school system even starts to begin to address it with them. 12 years to potentially learn everything wrong or poorly.
Some kids parent's (fortunately) do not ignorantly believe that their child knows nothing about sex or the human body (and does not try to shield them from everything possible) and choose to start educating their child about it much sooner than the schools do (as it naturally comes up). Yet some other parents don't even want sex-ed taught in school at all fearing their child will become "corrupt" or "tempted by the devil" or some such garbage.
As a public institution, how do you even reconcile those two extremes of parenting styles without killing your own funding or having an angry mob of parents trying to burn your school down (or have your head on a stake)?
The answer so far is: You totally neuter the sex-ed course until you are teaching only the biology of it. You remove all potentially interesting aspects to it. Every tie to society, religion, relationships, and romance is severed. Everything which makes sex interesting to a teenager's hormonal mind is gone. The schools must leave all of that to the parents (do you see a loop here? Schools leave it to the parents, parents expect the schools to "appropriately" handle it.)
You can teach children sex-ed so long as you keep it relevant to their lives. You can teach children the history of the war of 1812 so long as you keep it relevant to their lives. You can teach children the gold standard (and even the fractional reserve banking system) so long as you keep it relevant to them. Spark their curiosity, present the material in an interesting way, and for the love of ---- do not underestimate children.
Last I checked, intellectually speaking, adults frequently underestimate how bright their children REALLY are and what they are capable of when they are both properly schooled and properly parented at the same time.
In the history of the Internet has this ever been reported to have happened even once?
We have had SSL certificates in use for many years, and I have never heard of self-signed or CA-signed certificates compromised in any such similar way.
This reminds me of how the CA's will "insure" your certificate financially for $X more per cert per year, but there has never been a single collection on that policy in the history of the CA's.
In bad form I will reply to me existing post to state that I WOULD like to see touch panels with LCD screen backings supported by the operating system, but only as a quadrinary module to the keyboard / mouse / monitor trio.
The market for devices fitting the above description is in it's infancy still. But better native support from the operating system for "add-on" work surfaces on devices like this would be a good thing in my opinion. (Instead of expecting every vendor to support these modules separately through crappy drivers...)
Think X-server alternate screens but for Windows and with actual OS support for off-loading menus and such to the alternate "surface".
It hardly sounds logical to insist that keyboards and mice will be replaced with touch screens which are doubling as your display.
Unless you expect to put your screen in your lap and cramp your neck looking down, or separate the display from the touch surface, this will not replace keyboard and mouse interactivity entirely.
There is a problem in that human arms are not designed to be held away from the body for extended time periods. Keyboards work well simply because you can comfortably hold your arms in that position for extended periods while looking ahead instead of down (and if it's in your lap and the screen is straight ahead, what good is a touch screen if you aren't looking at it?)
Try this to see the effect: Hold your preferred arm in front of your body and point with only your index finger away from your chest. Now draw small figure-eights and make a pushing motion like you are using an ATM. Now do this for multiple hours. Yeah, didn't think so.
I only see this being viable as an additional option useful for some applications like CAD or 3d Modeling work, but not as a primary navigation tool for my OS or ESPECIALLY web browser. I really don't feel the necessity to fake turning pages with my entire arm while reading document on my computer.
The cable (fiber optic) has multiple lasers sending through it at once (multiplexing). So a single laser could operate at 100Gbps, but 164 of them at once... well...
They just use different "colors" of lasers for each 100Gbps signal.
I understand it's bad form to reply to your own posts, but I found it interesting that I missed the fact that:
FTA: --- Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me. ---
After her policy is in place we wouldn't be able to attribute David Kelly with passing on this information! Hell I bet she will deny saying anything of the sort:p
FTA: --- Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me. ---
This seems to me that this would make it so that the following would be easily plausible:
1. Reporter gets bad news about something which effects the public from one of their engineers, staff members, or experts but cannot attribute their source. 2. Reporter has to leave it as a "trusted source" causing many to doubt the validity of the claims. (Or, alternately it is never released simply because the news outlet can not attribute the source). 3. Since Ms. Nason did not explicitly allow that exchange to take place (or for it to be attributed to the source) the facts can be denied (or at least remain unverifiable) on the grounds that the NHTSA has never "officially" released such information. Or, the Public has never even heard of it depending on how the media outlet handles the previous decision (#2).
This only seems to me to be a method of covering up something. Is there any legitimate purpose for an organization such as this to withhold information from the public? Especially that which would come (potentially) from Engineers or other "experts" on the matters with which they are being questioned.
Try getting any predetermined piece of any format of an audio file (just the one piece you want, just a sound-bite), and playing it back or inserting it into another audio compilation without having to run through some serious headaches (if it is even possible).
I would imagine fair use would include downloading the entire file, snipping out what you want, and tossing the rest.
But I don't see the relevance here to the case at hand since the alleged infringement hasn't even happened yet (from my understanding of it).
This is a civil proceeding so "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. Unfortunately.
See my earlier post "But wait..." for my own take on this...
I agree with what I could understand your point to be, and I still think that the "crime", as stated by the FBI notices, and covered under older copyright law is much more applicable to these situations than the DMCA / RIAA love-fest that is going on. In other words, this case would be tossed unless it was proven to be for-profit, ongoing, or large scale (not that it COULD have been large scale).
I like this idea! And while we are at it, they have to match expenditures with the defendant's legal defence (I.E. both sides are allowed a maximum amount of legal funds on a scale which goes according to the damages being sought.)
I agree that it (the infringement which the RIAA is trying their case on) being labelled as a criminal offence would potentially have very very large (and negative) legal ramifications for our rights as consumers (licensees?) of copyright works, but in the same shot I would suggest that criminal intent (I.E. for-profit distribution like the pirates which are actually selling printed "fake" materials or whatever from a stand or a similar electronic system) must be proven and mandatory before a case is to be had in the first place.
To give insight as to my original suggestion (and my opinion): The existing laws pre-DMCA etc. already covered such scenarios. Hell, the FBI was the organization to produce that warning on video tapes! It already WAS a criminal offence under pre-DMCA laws to pirate these works in a manner which meant more than pennies to the copyright holders.
It's not that I want to criminalize the acts which the RIAA are alleging are infringing. Rather, I would rather toss their alligations out of the window entirely, and revert to prior copyright laws which already handled the people which copyright is to protect against (large-scale operations, or for-profit systems).
I'm sorry if my explanation doesn't lend it's self to easily being interpreted.
A bit OT: I think the RIAA is just trying to bend laws and legislation to make a new business model instead of adapting their model to the market. As an Internet Radio consumer (which is a little different situation, but not much) I would be thrilled if their monopoly is destroyed. Tell me again what the difference between Microsoft and the RIAA is? How are they not price fixing, market controlling, lawsuit happy bastards?
Is the entire basis of the RIAA claims in all of these cases striking anyone else as being entirely based on "it may have been" scenarios being used as proof?
I think that all corporations which sue individuals should have to adhere to criminal court standards instead of needing just a "whiff" of possibility. Individual vs. Individual of course would still be run as a Civil matter. They should be required to obtain warrants if they want a "Discovery" into any non-public records of the individual. IMHO, they should absolutely NOT be able to get any records from any organization whatsoever about an individual without a warrant (consider ISP's releasing IP address / account information to a corporation for a shady example).
This is why I think copyright infringement should be up to the courts to investigate and prove or disprove as a criminal matter and NOT the plaintiff (corporations).
There seems to be a serious disadvantage for an individual in almost ALL cases involving a company suing an individual (specifically the depth of their pocket books and ability to pay a lawyer).
Thanks for your efforts NewYorkCountryLawyer
- Toast
Much of this post may be conjecture, ranting, etc. I apologize if I got OT, but I would like clarification if any of my views are out of whack, and I wouldn't mind alternate viewpoints so long as they aren't in troll fashion.
P.S. To all grammar Nazi's; I don't really care if I missed anything when I glanced over this post. Don't waste your breath or potentially cause yourself carpal-tunnel by trying to fix it.
If you have been keeping up with all of the ODF discussions prior to this. ODF is NOT a program, it does not necessarily have to cause you to use a different program than Microsoft Office, it will not make you have to go switch to Linux, and will not make your cyber-wife leave you because you use the "other" format.
Microsoft Office applications could support the ODF format just the same as any other word processing application. It is trying to become a standard, not an application.
Sorta like PDF files. Except it would be an OPEN format instead of a commercially licensed one. You can still read and even write PDF files with many other applications than Acrobat software.
Mass users do not need to migrate to anything, you don't need to buy anything, hell you wouldn't even know Word was using ODF formatting until you went to "File" -> "Save As". (If Microsoft gave up their competing format or at least let Office operate in both formats.)
What it WOULD do however, is make it so that it didn't matter WHICH office suite you used. Whether it be OOo, Microsoft Office, StarOffice, etc. (I know I am missing a bunch) as all of the files would be saved in a common format.
THIS is why people want to see ODF become a success.
Please understand that rallying against ODF on the grounds that it would cause people to dump and relearn everything they know is like rallying against CSV files on the same grounds.
My $.02, and a little late in the discussion, but oh well.
If anybody doubts that we have lost our edge in the technology arena let me ask you one question:
Name one complete sub-assembly inside of your computer which had the majority of the R&D and Fabrication done in the USA.
Of that sub-assembly (assuming you have named one), which components are utilizing NEW technology developed here in the USA.
I would like to know why the USA (given a dedicated effort) could not take back the crown of technology power house without doing so by stifling our competition over seas.
There has to be enough room in the future technology development for us to foster and train our citizens to come up with new concepts which will not rely on foreign brains, labor, or money to develop, market, and sell.
I am definitely outside of my field of study here, and not really sure if my question is quite on topic but here goes:
The fuse thing bothers me. It leaves the impression that mammals were going to burst into proliferation at some point no matter what. Like there was a guaranteed start to that. I still think it was an accident by natures "need to survive". I can't think of another species which would be a better candidate however but that is not helped by my lack of understanding in the field.
To me it seems more likely that a freak accident (or "natural accident") may have activated a specific genetic sequence or mutated some aspect of mammals which increased their survivability rate. This just seems like evolution at it's best.
My assumptions about mammals and what has made us more adaptable than some other species: We are warm blooded - Much larger geographic areas are available to us and we are a much "hardier" species for extreme weather.
We have hair - Goes along with being warm blooded and the geography thing mentioned above.
We nurse our young - Our young are not fully developed before birth, to me this signals that we have exceeded some "original" amount of time anticipated by nature that it should take to give our young rudimentary skills. Remember some species are born with everything they need to know for life already in their programming. Learning and experience mean more to many species of mammals than just wrought memorization like you frequently see with reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, etc. By virtue of how "we" do things as mammals we give our young much more time to learn, adapt, and become "ready" for the world.
We are omnivorous - Mammals as a whole are generally omnivorous, though in the context of millions of years ago I would venture to assume that much of this is by adaptation anyhow. In any case this drastically expands our food selections as most (all?) mammals are not limited to eating one food group or even a very narrow selection of foods.
Maybe another disease died out, or maybe this is where we started developing a better immune system. It's hard to tell when our internal workings developed from so long ago just because of a serious lack of soft tissues. Maybe our eyesight just took a while to improve from being nocturnal for so long? Maybe the Dinosaurs were the primary reason for mammals to be nocturnal, and once the large ones were gone it took a while for evolution to "switch back"
Now I am just rambling, but maybe someone with a clearer understanding of such things would be so kind as to disprove or converse about some of my ramblings.
What I am all for: Government funding technology and scientific development in the private sector, and reigning in corporations such as AT&T (well, ok... previously they reigned in AT&T but I am still waiting for the "New" AT&T to be reigned in) when they start abusing their positions of power.
What I am against: The government being the source of funding for "useless" technology, corporations abusing their position like the telecommunications companies currently, or funding pork barrel types of projects or initiatives.
My opinion is that we want government funding to turn space flight into a future commodity which many can enjoy (especially since NASA's budget has been flagging a lot recently). I certainly do not currently see an issue with their funding unless their actual goals are different than my perceived assumption, or if someone is just trying to make a small fortune off of the American citizens back VIA taxes and subsidies without providing equal compensation to those paying.
Considering this was FTA: --- Now the voters in the Dona Ana County municipality where the project is to be located will weigh in, in a referendum scheduled for April 3 on a new sales tax to fund the project.
If Spaceport America meets with voter approval, a maiden space voyage is expected in two to three years. If passed, the new tax would add 25 cents to a 100-dollar purchase, bringing in about 6.5 million dollars per year. ---
My take is that the voters will decide, and fortunately we are talking state (county?) legislature, not federal taxes. If you don't like the project, vote against it. If you don't live in that county or other involved counties in New Mexico, don't like it, and hence won't be paying for it, why do you care?
It seems that this is not really pork barrel spending like the telecommunications stuff was. That (telecommunications stuff) was just a lot of people getting a lot of money, with minimal to no returns for the people actually funding it. And on top of that I don't ever recall there being a method for me to directly vote against any of that telecommunications spending myself, only by proxy of a congress critter.
This is New Mexico funding a project which could (potentially) net New Mexico tourisim dollars, not to mention all this research and development is (or would be) paying for people to have jobs, and hence, pay taxes into the program.
I wish them luck, and if they (or the other two states mentioned get this program off of the ground) I might consider taking a tour if the price ever comes down from the clouds or if I happen to get rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Dig deeper Watson!
- Toast
Your argument may hold water for land based carriers since tax dollars were spent on installing and supporting the infrastructure. But unless I am mistaken tax dollars were not spent on cellular roll-outs.
You could still do your research at the library or at schools (low and behold which would have internet access) and your banking at the teller. So online research and online banking are not quite as critical as the land-based libraries or banks. In-so-far as your "rights" are concerned. Internet access is ALWAYS going to be a "convenience" service as there is hardly any activity on the Internet which could not (with enough effort) be duplicated in the real world (face-to-face) without a network link.
I personally would love to see Internet access distribution handled similarly to how the electrical grid works. You could get discounts for running your P2P / large download applications on "off-peak" hours, your service is metered at flat rates instead of false "unlimited usage", and your connection couldn't be terminated unless a regulated checklist was completed.
Maybe I'm just dreaming though. It seems like big-business ISPs would prefer the system to be run like satellite television; high rates for "unlimited" service, subscription based service, "bundled" packages, limited local coverage, and provider lock-in using proprietary technology.
- Toast
I've had positive experiences with Acer support once I actually figured out how to get a hold of their support department (dealt with someone from Texas once and California a few times, not India).
Fast turn around times, prompt service, not much paperwork involved with either Software replacement CDs or hardware warranty work. And my service requests were for machines worth less than $500 so you know I wasn't "worth" much to them.
I used to have a very very different opinion of their machines and support until I actually had to use more than 20 of their machines for a corporate setup (purchased individually and not registered with them as a corporate customer).
Your mileage may vary of course.
- Toast
My 2002 Chevy Cavalier has an adjustment with three settings controlling the level of aggressiveness (or simply turning it off) for the auto-volume. Low doesn't make the radio loud enough if I'm driving on the highway, and high makes it so I notice the radio too well while I'm accelerating. Medium fortunately adjusts the volume relatively well to match outside noise in the cab of my car (unless it's really windy with the windows down).
Instead of bludgeoning your radio and dashboard why not try cracking the user manual or looking up the adjustment online?
- Toast
...and when that child is only concerned about fucking? what then, mr.wizard? last I checked, hormonally speaking, kids are way more interested in the approval of their classmates & getting a girlfriend/boyfriend. Knowing about the war of 1812 or the gold standard hinders that, not helps it..... Hell, you can't even teach them *sex-ed* 'cause they're too uptight about it.
I might venture to say that SOME children become most interested in fucking due to a lack of interest in other areas or in other words... boredom with the broken school system... (I cite myself at a younger age as my source, take it as you will). And this is only most prominent generally in a band of age between 11 and 17. I was already bored with our schooling system when I hit second grade. School had already failed me before I started to fail the school system.
If you give children respect (like a little adult), and explicitly trust in them, AND you make this known to them from a young age; you might be surprised in how "good" they will turn out.
My close friends two children (teenagers), whom I have known since they were both babies, both have turned out fantastic so far even though they had really rough lives including divorced parents (twice divorced on for one parent). These are the type of kids which have a "world-view" of people three times their age. They might be moderated "insightful" if they were to post here.
As to your topic about the inability to teach children sex-ed; have you ever stopped to wonder why that is such a miserable topic to try and teach (for the students as well as the teachers)?
American children have a 12 year head start "self-learning" about sex with themselves, friends, and classmates before the school system even starts to begin to address it with them. 12 years to potentially learn everything wrong or poorly.
Some kids parent's (fortunately) do not ignorantly believe that their child knows nothing about sex or the human body (and does not try to shield them from everything possible) and choose to start educating their child about it much sooner than the schools do (as it naturally comes up). Yet some other parents don't even want sex-ed taught in school at all fearing their child will become "corrupt" or "tempted by the devil" or some such garbage.
As a public institution, how do you even reconcile those two extremes of parenting styles without killing your own funding or having an angry mob of parents trying to burn your school down (or have your head on a stake)?
The answer so far is: You totally neuter the sex-ed course until you are teaching only the biology of it. You remove all potentially interesting aspects to it. Every tie to society, religion, relationships, and romance is severed. Everything which makes sex interesting to a teenager's hormonal mind is gone. The schools must leave all of that to the parents (do you see a loop here? Schools leave it to the parents, parents expect the schools to "appropriately" handle it.)
You can teach children sex-ed so long as you keep it relevant to their lives. You can teach children the history of the war of 1812 so long as you keep it relevant to their lives. You can teach children the gold standard (and even the fractional reserve banking system) so long as you keep it relevant to them. Spark their curiosity, present the material in an interesting way, and for the love of ---- do not underestimate children.
Last I checked, intellectually speaking, adults frequently underestimate how bright their children REALLY are and what they are capable of when they are both properly schooled and properly parented at the same time.
- Toast
In the history of the Internet has this ever been reported to have happened even once?
We have had SSL certificates in use for many years, and I have never heard of self-signed or CA-signed certificates compromised in any such similar way.
This reminds me of how the CA's will "insure" your certificate financially for $X more per cert per year, but there has never been a single collection on that policy in the history of the CA's.
- Toast
In bad form I will reply to me existing post to state that I WOULD like to see touch panels with LCD screen backings supported by the operating system, but only as a quadrinary module to the keyboard / mouse / monitor trio.
The market for devices fitting the above description is in it's infancy still. But better native support from the operating system for "add-on" work surfaces on devices like this would be a good thing in my opinion. (Instead of expecting every vendor to support these modules separately through crappy drivers...)
Think X-server alternate screens but for Windows and with actual OS support for off-loading menus and such to the alternate "surface".
- Toast
It hardly sounds logical to insist that keyboards and mice will be replaced with touch screens which are doubling as your display.
Unless you expect to put your screen in your lap and cramp your neck looking down, or separate the display from the touch surface, this will not replace keyboard and mouse interactivity entirely.
There is a problem in that human arms are not designed to be held away from the body for extended time periods. Keyboards work well simply because you can comfortably hold your arms in that position for extended periods while looking ahead instead of down (and if it's in your lap and the screen is straight ahead, what good is a touch screen if you aren't looking at it?)
See Gorilla Arm: http://www.hacker-dictionary.com/terms/gorilla-arm
Try this to see the effect:
Hold your preferred arm in front of your body and point with only your index finger away from your chest. Now draw small figure-eights and make a pushing motion like you are using an ATM. Now do this for multiple hours. Yeah, didn't think so.
I only see this being viable as an additional option useful for some applications like CAD or 3d Modeling work, but not as a primary navigation tool for my OS or ESPECIALLY web browser. I really don't feel the necessity to fake turning pages with my entire arm while reading document on my computer.
- Toast
Yes. Yes there is.
- Did someone plan that?
Here is mine:
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. -- H. Poincar'e
The cable (fiber optic) has multiple lasers sending through it at once (multiplexing). So a single laser could operate at 100Gbps, but 164 of them at once... well...
They just use different "colors" of lasers for each 100Gbps signal.
As a fun additional tidbit, Nintendo will be turning 118 later this month (the 23rd). So yeah, they have been around for a while :P
Happy 118th birthday Nintendo!
(http://www.nintendo.com/corp/history.jsp)
I understand it's bad form to reply to your own posts, but I found it interesting that I missed the fact that:
:p
FTA:
---
Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me.
---
After her policy is in place we wouldn't be able to attribute David Kelly with passing on this information! Hell I bet she will deny saying anything of the sort
- Toast
FTA:
---
Ms. Nason felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a "central spokesperson" and "we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record," David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me.
---
This seems to me that this would make it so that the following would be easily plausible:
1. Reporter gets bad news about something which effects the public from one of their engineers, staff members, or experts but cannot attribute their source.
2. Reporter has to leave it as a "trusted source" causing many to doubt the validity of the claims. (Or, alternately it is never released simply because the news outlet can not attribute the source).
3. Since Ms. Nason did not explicitly allow that exchange to take place (or for it to be attributed to the source) the facts can be denied (or at least remain unverifiable) on the grounds that the NHTSA has never "officially" released such information. Or, the Public has never even heard of it depending on how the media outlet handles the previous decision (#2).
This only seems to me to be a method of covering up something. Is there any legitimate purpose for an organization such as this to withhold information from the public? Especially that which would come (potentially) from Engineers or other "experts" on the matters with which they are being questioned.
- Toast
I'm not going to comment on Espionage, however, if you are using Clam-AV as a mail filter the unofficial signatures here:
http://sanesecurity.co.uk/clamav/index.htm
May help substantially.
- Toast
Try getting any predetermined piece of any format of an audio file (just the one piece you want, just a sound-bite), and playing it back or inserting it into another audio compilation without having to run through some serious headaches (if it is even possible).
I would imagine fair use would include downloading the entire file, snipping out what you want, and tossing the rest.
But I don't see the relevance here to the case at hand since the alleged infringement hasn't even happened yet (from my understanding of it).
- Toast
Wall of text crits you for 9999 damage. You die.
On a different note:
This is a civil proceeding so "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. Unfortunately.
See my earlier post "But wait..." for my own take on this...
I agree with what I could understand your point to be, and I still think that the "crime", as stated by the FBI notices, and covered under older copyright law is much more applicable to these situations than the DMCA / RIAA love-fest that is going on. In other words, this case would be tossed unless it was proven to be for-profit, ongoing, or large scale (not that it COULD have been large scale).
- Toast
I like this idea! And while we are at it, they have to match expenditures with the defendant's legal defence (I.E. both sides are allowed a maximum amount of legal funds on a scale which goes according to the damages being sought.)
We can all dream right?
- Toast
I agree that it (the infringement which the RIAA is trying their case on) being labelled as a criminal offence would potentially have very very large (and negative) legal ramifications for our rights as consumers (licensees?) of copyright works, but in the same shot I would suggest that criminal intent (I.E. for-profit distribution like the pirates which are actually selling printed "fake" materials or whatever from a stand or a similar electronic system) must be proven and mandatory before a case is to be had in the first place.
To give insight as to my original suggestion (and my opinion): The existing laws pre-DMCA etc. already covered such scenarios. Hell, the FBI was the organization to produce that warning on video tapes! It already WAS a criminal offence under pre-DMCA laws to pirate these works in a manner which meant more than pennies to the copyright holders.
It's not that I want to criminalize the acts which the RIAA are alleging are infringing. Rather, I would rather toss their alligations out of the window entirely, and revert to prior copyright laws which already handled the people which copyright is to protect against (large-scale operations, or for-profit systems).
I'm sorry if my explanation doesn't lend it's self to easily being interpreted.
A bit OT: I think the RIAA is just trying to bend laws and legislation to make a new business model instead of adapting their model to the market. As an Internet Radio consumer (which is a little different situation, but not much) I would be thrilled if their monopoly is destroyed. Tell me again what the difference between Microsoft and the RIAA is? How are they not price fixing, market controlling, lawsuit happy bastards?
Is the entire basis of the RIAA claims in all of these cases striking anyone else as being entirely based on "it may have been" scenarios being used as proof?
I think that all corporations which sue individuals should have to adhere to criminal court standards instead of needing just a "whiff" of possibility. Individual vs. Individual of course would still be run as a Civil matter. They should be required to obtain warrants if they want a "Discovery" into any non-public records of the individual. IMHO, they should absolutely NOT be able to get any records from any organization whatsoever about an individual without a warrant (consider ISP's releasing IP address / account information to a corporation for a shady example).
This is why I think copyright infringement should be up to the courts to investigate and prove or disprove as a criminal matter and NOT the plaintiff (corporations).
There seems to be a serious disadvantage for an individual in almost ALL cases involving a company suing an individual (specifically the depth of their pocket books and ability to pay a lawyer).
Thanks for your efforts NewYorkCountryLawyer
- Toast
Much of this post may be conjecture, ranting, etc. I apologize if I got OT, but I would like clarification if any of my views are out of whack, and I wouldn't mind alternate viewpoints so long as they aren't in troll fashion.
P.S. To all grammar Nazi's; I don't really care if I missed anything when I glanced over this post. Don't waste your breath or potentially cause yourself carpal-tunnel by trying to fix it.
You must have missed the part of the article where we ALREADY have paid for it. We just haven't gotten it.
- toast
If you have been keeping up with all of the ODF discussions prior to this. ODF is NOT a program, it does not necessarily have to cause you to use a different program than Microsoft Office, it will not make you have to go switch to Linux, and will not make your cyber-wife leave you because you use the "other" format.
Microsoft Office applications could support the ODF format just the same as any other word processing application. It is trying to become a standard, not an application.
Sorta like PDF files. Except it would be an OPEN format instead of a commercially licensed one. You can still read and even write PDF files with many other applications than Acrobat software.
Mass users do not need to migrate to anything, you don't need to buy anything, hell you wouldn't even know Word was using ODF formatting until you went to "File" -> "Save As". (If Microsoft gave up their competing format or at least let Office operate in both formats.)
What it WOULD do however, is make it so that it didn't matter WHICH office suite you used. Whether it be OOo, Microsoft Office, StarOffice, etc. (I know I am missing a bunch) as all of the files would be saved in a common format.
THIS is why people want to see ODF become a success.
Please understand that rallying against ODF on the grounds that it would cause people to dump and relearn everything they know is like rallying against CSV files on the same grounds.
My $.02, and a little late in the discussion, but oh well.
- Toast
If anybody doubts that we have lost our edge in the technology arena let me ask you one question:
Name one complete sub-assembly inside of your computer which had the majority of the R&D and Fabrication done in the USA.
Of that sub-assembly (assuming you have named one), which components are utilizing NEW technology developed here in the USA.
I would like to know why the USA (given a dedicated effort) could not take back the crown of technology power house without doing so by stifling our competition over seas.
There has to be enough room in the future technology development for us to foster and train our citizens to come up with new concepts which will not rely on foreign brains, labor, or money to develop, market, and sell.
I am definitely outside of my field of study here, and not really sure if my question is quite on topic but here goes:
The fuse thing bothers me. It leaves the impression that mammals were going to burst into proliferation at some point no matter what. Like there was a guaranteed start to that. I still think it was an accident by natures "need to survive". I can't think of another species which would be a better candidate however but that is not helped by my lack of understanding in the field.
To me it seems more likely that a freak accident (or "natural accident") may have activated a specific genetic sequence or mutated some aspect of mammals which increased their survivability rate. This just seems like evolution at it's best.
My assumptions about mammals and what has made us more adaptable than some other species:
We are warm blooded - Much larger geographic areas are available to us and we are a much "hardier" species for extreme weather.
We have hair - Goes along with being warm blooded and the geography thing mentioned above.
We nurse our young - Our young are not fully developed before birth, to me this signals that we have exceeded some "original" amount of time anticipated by nature that it should take to give our young rudimentary skills. Remember some species are born with everything they need to know for life already in their programming. Learning and experience mean more to many species of mammals than just wrought memorization like you frequently see with reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, etc. By virtue of how "we" do things as mammals we give our young much more time to learn, adapt, and become "ready" for the world.
We are omnivorous - Mammals as a whole are generally omnivorous, though in the context of millions of years ago I would venture to assume that much of this is by adaptation anyhow. In any case this drastically expands our food selections as most (all?) mammals are not limited to eating one food group or even a very narrow selection of foods.
Maybe another disease died out, or maybe this is where we started developing a better immune system. It's hard to tell when our internal workings developed from so long ago just because of a serious lack of soft tissues. Maybe our eyesight just took a while to improve from being nocturnal for so long? Maybe the Dinosaurs were the primary reason for mammals to be nocturnal, and once the large ones were gone it took a while for evolution to "switch back"
Now I am just rambling, but maybe someone with a clearer understanding of such things would be so kind as to disprove or converse about some of my ramblings.
What I am all for:
Government funding technology and scientific development in the private sector, and reigning in corporations such as AT&T (well, ok... previously they reigned in AT&T but I am still waiting for the "New" AT&T to be reigned in) when they start abusing their positions of power.
What I am against:
The government being the source of funding for "useless" technology, corporations abusing their position like the telecommunications companies currently, or funding pork barrel types of projects or initiatives.
My opinion is that we want government funding to turn space flight into a future commodity which many can enjoy (especially since NASA's budget has been flagging a lot recently). I certainly do not currently see an issue with their funding unless their actual goals are different than my perceived assumption, or if someone is just trying to make a small fortune off of the American citizens back VIA taxes and subsidies without providing equal compensation to those paying.
Considering this was FTA:
---
Now the voters in the Dona Ana County municipality where the project is to be located will weigh in, in a referendum scheduled for April 3 on a new sales tax to fund the project.
If Spaceport America meets with voter approval, a maiden space voyage is expected in two to three years. If passed, the new tax would add 25 cents to a 100-dollar purchase, bringing in about 6.5 million dollars per year.
---
My take is that the voters will decide, and fortunately we are talking state (county?) legislature, not federal taxes. If you don't like the project, vote against it. If you don't live in that county or other involved counties in New Mexico, don't like it, and hence won't be paying for it, why do you care?
It seems that this is not really pork barrel spending like the telecommunications stuff was. That (telecommunications stuff) was just a lot of people getting a lot of money, with minimal to no returns for the people actually funding it. And on top of that I don't ever recall there being a method for me to directly vote against any of that telecommunications spending myself, only by proxy of a congress critter.
This is New Mexico funding a project which could (potentially) net New Mexico tourisim dollars, not to mention all this research and development is (or would be) paying for people to have jobs, and hence, pay taxes into the program.
I wish them luck, and if they (or the other two states mentioned get this program off of the ground) I might consider taking a tour if the price ever comes down from the clouds or if I happen to get rich.
(Just my 2 cents)