circumventing an access-control device that is easily circumvented does not mean that it was open. So if I visit a site that uses javascript to disable the right-click menu, and I never know because I have scripts blocked, am I violating the DMCA?
The main reason the FCC doesn't require the print to be on the radio anymore is because most of them were impossible to read anyway. I'd guess it has more to do with companies with deep pockets wanting to keep their circuits secret.
As has been mentioned before on/. Microsoft will require signed drivers on their 64 bit OS It won't be long after signing is required that Microsoft's private key is known.
FTA: Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. This clearly violates the spirit of the constitution, although I couldn't find text it violates directly. There is absolutely no reason or basis in law for a non-government group to be specifically named in a law like this.
Sure that is what everyone intended the anti-terrorism money to go to. Since when has the government cared about the will of the people? I believe that ended after Washington retired.
I'm wondering what patents Microsoft could be holding regarding email, which is several decades older than Microsoft itself. Man, I should have went to law school.
As a rising senior physics and CS major, I am seriously considering law school for IP law, just for this reason.
Can someone explain why copyrights and patents should expire? I'm being serious.
Well first there is the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
Congress shall have Power
...
To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;...
They said it pretty well right there. The idea behind patents and copyrights is to promote progress, not profit.
There are various different arguments lurking in there, especially patents in general and software patents in particular, but I'll just argue copyright at the moment, since that was the original subject.
Let's take first an extreme example, and then move back towards the realm of reason: Do you really want to find Shakespeare's ancestors (or more likely nowadays, publisher) and pay them royalties for reading Hamlet? The Velveteen Rabbit and Ulysses are two of the last works to enter the public domain. Both were published in 1922, and both of their Authors died in the 1940s. It is perhaps reasonable to expect the authors to be paid for every copy sold during their lifetimes (although I'm sure they deserved more than what the publishers gave them, even in those days). It might even be reasonable to expect the children of the authors to receive some compensation for a short time after their parents died, say 5 years or until they turn 25, whichever is first. It is quite unreasonable to say that James Joyce's 75-year-old grandson should still have a continuing source of money, unaffected by inflation, from his grandfather's work.
Now take the well-known British author Eric Arthur Blair. He published a book in 1949, and died in 1950. The copyright on this book will last until 1944. Explain to me why any author's great grandchildren should see royalties until 94 years after the death of a relative they were only distantly related to? This part is purely hypothetical; I could find no information on his only son. By the way, Eric Arthur Blair went by the pseudonym George Orwell, and in 1949 published Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the atmosphere the US government is creating, every good citizen should read it. Despite Orwell's death early in 1950, however, it remains under US copyright (but not in Russia or Australia).
I believe publishing (first) just proves you were the first to come up with the idea, and you have a certain amount of time (2 years?) to patent it afterwards, and no one else can patent it because your publication proves prior art.
If you want to prove me wrong, please cite the text of the law.
I haven't personally done this, but it seems to me the logical thing to do should be work on it by yourself, or maybe with a friend or two if they're interested until you have a working sample, prototype or alpha test quality, and then set the project up on google code or sourceforge.
Not unless their mass is large enough for the gravitational potential to overcome the "zero-point energy" which keeps particles from violating Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (more info). Wikipedia has a stub about gravitational collapse which I should expand when I get some free time. The important thing is that no, mass does not collapse into a black hole just because it doesn't give off energy.
In one test subjects were more critical of a product's design flaws when evaluation took place in a shorter room. This result could have important implications for retailers.
I wonder how many stores are going to see this and move to a larger, more spacious facility like most Barnes and Noble and Best Buy stores I see. Personally
The chance of a bacteria surviving out there is 1:2 to the power of 276,709. Then again, the bacteria does have 30 seconds...
I think you're confusing bacteria with humans. Bacteria can indeed survive the vacuum of space. If anything, it will be re-entry into some planet's atmosphere that is most likely to kill them.
Yes, urine is considered sterile in the sense that it normally should not contain bacteria. Bacteriuria is the presence of bacteria in the urine, that is not attributed to contamination from the skin, foreskin, or vagina. Although urine produced freshly by the kidneys is sterile (unless the individual has a kidney infection), it can become infected with bacteria or yeast in the presence of a urinary tract infection. Sometimes an individual may have bacteria in the urine in the absence of symptoms of a urinary tract infection (asymptomatic bacteriuria). I hope this answers your question regarding the sterility of urine. Wish you the best.
This information is provided for general medical education purposes only. Please consult your physician for diagnostic and treatment options pertaining to your specific medical condition. More individualized care is available at the Henry Ford Hospital and its satellites (1 800 653 6568).
Slashdot Mirror
Whodathunk.
It's things like this that make me want to go to law school.
Let's take first an extreme example, and then move back towards the realm of reason: Do you really want to find Shakespeare's ancestors (or more likely nowadays, publisher) and pay them royalties for reading Hamlet?
The Velveteen Rabbit and Ulysses are two of the last works to enter the public domain. Both were published in 1922, and both of their Authors died in the 1940s. It is perhaps reasonable to expect the authors to be paid for every copy sold during their lifetimes (although I'm sure they deserved more than what the publishers gave them, even in those days). It might even be reasonable to expect the children of the authors to receive some compensation for a short time after their parents died, say 5 years or until they turn 25, whichever is first. It is quite unreasonable to say that James Joyce's 75-year-old grandson should still have a continuing source of money, unaffected by inflation, from his grandfather's work.
Now take the well-known British author Eric Arthur Blair. He published a book in 1949, and died in 1950. The copyright on this book will last until 1944. Explain to me why any author's great grandchildren should see royalties until 94 years after the death of a relative they were only distantly related to? This part is purely hypothetical; I could find no information on his only son. By the way, Eric Arthur Blair went by the pseudonym George Orwell, and in 1949 published Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the atmosphere the US government is creating, every good citizen should read it. Despite Orwell's death early in 1950, however, it remains under US copyright (but not in Russia or Australia).
The means of implementation is almost always what is patented. The notable exception is software patents, where the idea is usually patented.
I believe publishing (first) just proves you were the first to come up with the idea, and you have a certain amount of time (2 years?) to patent it afterwards, and no one else can patent it because your publication proves prior art.
If you want to prove me wrong, please cite the text of the law.
I haven't personally done this, but it seems to me the logical thing to do should be work on it by yourself, or maybe with a friend or two if they're interested until you have a working sample, prototype or alpha test quality, and then set the project up on google code or sourceforge.
Not unless their mass is large enough for the gravitational potential to overcome the "zero-point energy" which keeps particles from violating Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (more info). Wikipedia has a stub about gravitational collapse which I should expand when I get some free time. The important thing is that no, mass does not collapse into a black hole just because it doesn't give off energy.
... this seems to do absolutely nothing unless you know your credit security has been breached.
Oops, wrong button...
Personally, I wouldn't mind a more spacious store. They should do a study that shows people prefer aisles wide enough to walk through.
I blame the extra-short ceiling on my floor for less-than-perfect grades freshman year!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Google it
How long until some nerd stops writing the URL at the eol?
It seems like a good idea overall, I hope the funding continues.