I'm not sure even tools like Acronis are really safe since they run under, and are subject to restrictions imposed by Windows. For example using Easeus Partition Manager to clone the boot partition of your main drive to another clean drive will not produce a bootable disk, even if you copy the hidden boot partition (whose raison d'etre M$ claims is bitlocker). I don't believe anything that runs under Windows will make a perfect duplicate of your boot disk-- if you want to have a spare drive in your desk that can be swapped in for your failed C:\ drive without a hiccup, do what I do and boot your system from, say, a FreeBSD Live DVD (I use PC-BSD) and use dd. That is as good as you can get, and I've proven it works (just don't boot the system with your clone installed alongside your boot drive). (Of course, be sure both drives are the same kind, i.e. PATA, SATA or SCSI.) (Note: Most Live Linux and Unix discs will not complete booting from a SATA optical drive-- not sure why. You must use PATA.)
dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/dev/ad1 bs=4096 conv=noerror (with Unix it's as easy as that, though the disk names in your system may be different). If you are going to do this, be sure your destination drive is the same size, or larger than, the source drive, even if you're only interested in copying the first couple of partitions (the partition table will be wrong, and that will cause an error, unless all partitions are present). What I haven't confirmed yet is whether you can shrink all partitions on your source drive so their combined size is smaller than a destination drive that's smaller than the source so that the partition table on the destination drive won't refer to areas beyond its physical boundaries, but logically, that should work. (How about cloning your C:\ drive to a nice (but smaller) solid-state replacement drive?)
It's too bad M$ doesn't make a more capable OS, but we know why they don't.
...the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text."
Not true-- this is what was said:
“In this upcoming round of ACTA negotiations, the U.S. delegation will be working with other delegations to resolve some fundamental issues, such as the scope of the intellectual property rights that are the focus of this agreement. Progress is necessary so that we can prepare to release a text that will provide meaningful information to the public and be a basis for productive dialogue."
This says if we work on scope our release will be more meaningful-- it by no means says no release until scope issues are resolved.
"Today's court decision invalidated the prior commission's approach to preserving an open Internet," the agency's statement said. "But the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."
Seems like the Court said you can't do it this way but you can try others. That doesn't sound so grim as originally sounded.
"...and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel."
The equivalent of a distribution channel where tens of thousands get movies for free, but then a randomly selected group has to pay a hundred times the cost of the movie in litigation fees.
At least they're innovating...
See http://www.savecinema.org/index.html, the U.S. Copyright Group. They think threatening bittorrent users with demands in the $500. to $1000. range will work better than past approaches, and instead of suing few users for multiple media like the RIAA, they will sue multiple users for individual films. Most of us would cough up $500.00 to $1000.00 to keep our lives free from lawyers. They offer their services on contingency to the producers, meaning no upfront investment-- just about $20 million in recoveries per film if you multiply the typically 30,000 infringers (prior to release on DVD) times about $750.00 per. Yes, a lot of studios may come to see the USCG $20 million as an expected line revenue item. USCG specifically targets the 30,000 infringers who act in the window between theatrical release and DVD sale, which presumably means downloaders of "cam" copies are the targets.
Who knows how this will play out. This is a new approach; we have to wait and see.
The new system is to be known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).
ADS-B will create a nationwide system to replace radar with a far more accurate aircraft tracking system based on the Global Positioning System. It also will build a high-speed data network that will allow aircraft to transmit information to one another and the ground as if they were on the Internet.
I mean from what I understand you use GPS to find out where you are and then have to radio that to air control.
Not a worry. Position information will be sent as part of the transponder signal, or otherwise automatically reported. Good grief, do you think ATC would stand for something other than a real-time visual display of relative aircraft positions?
I feel sorry for the private pilots who are going to need another expensive transponder in their aircraft. If you have a $5,000. aircraft (they do exist) how'd it be to have to put a $5,000. new piece of equipment in it? (Former small aircraft owner here.)
The registration on all those works is out of date because Toaplan broke up in 1994. Who owns the copyright in a work whose copyright is registered to a company that no longer exists?
Then the copyright devolves to the successors in interest of the company, e.g the individual partners or shareholders. Much more likely there will be a purchaser or an entitled creditor, though, than either of the former.
You have to track what happened to the original copyright holder. By the way, you don't have to register to have a copyright-- that just makes it easier to prove you created the work and when. A copyright attaches by law as soon as you create the work.
That does mean, if there is no registration, you are in a murky area-- never knowing if someone will come out of the woodwork and offer evidence he created the work before you took over. You're much better off finding out there is a registered owner.
>Apple doesn't care about other peoples names but then cries over some company that has been using Macpro name for over 25 years before Apple.
Where is the surprise here? They want what's best for them whichever side of the argument they're on. People are generally like this, and corporations are known to be even less even-handed than people.
I know there are legal implications to certain decisions I might make, but...
But nothing. You're asking a legal question, you need to go to a legal expert. Slashdotters are not legal experts, they just think they are, and their advice is worse than useless.
As a supposed legal expert (yes, IAAL), I can advise that if it cannot be positively determined that copyright is not in force (and after only 18 years it seems impossible that it would not be) then yes, without permission you could be sued, very likely successfully-- but then, the copyright holder may not wish to sue, and as another post noted, even be supportive. Be sure to get that expression of support in writing. (And be sure the author and copyright holder are one and the same.)
Copyright protection: How do we protect against illegal piracy of copyrighted works and intellectual property on the Internet while preserving the rights of users to access lawful content? NTIA and our sister agency at the Department of Commerce, the US Patent and Trademark Office, are beginning a comprehensive consultation process that will help the Administration develop a forward-looking set of policies to address online copyright infringement in a balanced, Internet-savvy manner.
That's only because he left out some words: "... at a fundamental level there is a symmetry and orthogonality of conceptualization that leads to a seamless user experience to empower the core business for enterprise synergy and a strong paradigm shift."
Now, instead of burning, you fell asleep, right?
My mind must be messed up. I actually understood that.
My Verizon Droid is a fabulous ebook reader. Any book you can find on the net can be converted to open ebook format (.epub) with Calibre, not just ebooks the likes of Amazon or B&N want to sell you. An infinite library and it fits in your pocket. (It takes calls too.)
IAAL. It is really a part of the same trial-- the rules of remittitur say if you don't like how the judge reduced your award, you can try the issue of damages again. Basically means if you think the judge wrongly reduced the jury verdict, you can and should have the jury try again, so we know, on appeal, what a second jury verdict was (a perspective on the reasonableness of how much the judge chopped off the first verdict). If I were an appellate court judge I think I'd want to see that.
$14.99 is the way to doom for publishers. That's annoying enough to put a ebook (.epub) reader on your smartphone and find an open-source.txt etc. to.epub converter (like Calibre), and then go romping amongst the seemingly millions of scanned books, including current titles, most anyplace on the web.
Greed = failure. Think about it before you gouge us, publishers!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure even tools like Acronis are really safe since they run under, and are subject to restrictions imposed by Windows. For example using Easeus Partition Manager to clone the boot partition of your main drive to another clean drive will not produce a bootable disk, even if you copy the hidden boot partition (whose raison d'etre M$ claims is bitlocker). I don't believe anything that runs under Windows will make a perfect duplicate of your boot disk-- if you want to have a spare drive in your desk that can be swapped in for your failed C:\ drive without a hiccup, do what I do and boot your system from, say, a FreeBSD Live DVD (I use PC-BSD) and use dd. That is as good as you can get, and I've proven it works (just don't boot the system with your clone installed alongside your boot drive). (Of course, be sure both drives are the same kind, i.e. PATA, SATA or SCSI.) (Note: Most Live Linux and Unix discs will not complete booting from a SATA optical drive-- not sure why. You must use PATA.)
dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/dev/ad1 bs=4096 conv=noerror (with Unix it's as easy as that, though the disk names in your system may be different). If you are going to do this, be sure your destination drive is the same size, or larger than, the source drive, even if you're only interested in copying the first couple of partitions (the partition table will be wrong, and that will cause an error, unless all partitions are present). What I haven't confirmed yet is whether you can shrink all partitions on your source drive so their combined size is smaller than a destination drive that's smaller than the source so that the partition table on the destination drive won't refer to areas beyond its physical boundaries, but logically, that should work. (How about cloning your C:\ drive to a nice (but smaller) solid-state replacement drive?)
It's too bad M$ doesn't make a more capable OS, but we know why they don't.
Have you looked at the Terrafugia?
If above link does not work: http://www.terrafugia.com/
...the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text."
Not true-- this is what was said:
“In this upcoming round of ACTA negotiations, the U.S. delegation will be working with other delegations to resolve some fundamental issues, such as the scope of the intellectual property rights that are the focus of this agreement. Progress is necessary so that we can prepare to release a text that will provide meaningful information to the public and be a basis for productive dialogue."
This says if we work on scope our release will be more meaningful-- it by no means says no release until scope issues are resolved.
"Today's court decision invalidated the prior commission's approach to preserving an open Internet," the agency's statement said. "But the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."
Seems like the Court said you can't do it this way but you can try others. That doesn't sound so grim as originally sounded.
"...and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel."
The equivalent of a distribution channel where tens of thousands get movies for free, but then a randomly selected group has to pay a hundred times the cost of the movie in litigation fees.
At least they're innovating...
See http://www.savecinema.org/index.html, the U.S. Copyright Group. They think threatening bittorrent users with demands in the $500. to $1000. range will work better than past approaches, and instead of suing few users for multiple media like the RIAA, they will sue multiple users for individual films. Most of us would cough up $500.00 to $1000.00 to keep our lives free from lawyers. They offer their services on contingency to the producers, meaning no upfront investment-- just about $20 million in recoveries per film if you multiply the typically 30,000 infringers (prior to release on DVD) times about $750.00 per. Yes, a lot of studios may come to see the USCG $20 million as an expected line revenue item. USCG specifically targets the 30,000 infringers who act in the window between theatrical release and DVD sale, which presumably means downloaders of "cam" copies are the targets.
Who knows how this will play out. This is a new approach; we have to wait and see.
Read this story from 2007 in USAToday:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-08-27-airport-radar_N.htm
The new system is to be known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).
ADS-B will create a nationwide system to replace radar with a far more accurate aircraft tracking system based on the Global Positioning System. It also will build a high-speed data network that will allow aircraft to transmit information to one another and the ground as if they were on the Internet.
I mean from what I understand you use GPS to find out where you are and then have to radio that to air control.
Not a worry. Position information will be sent as part of the transponder signal, or otherwise automatically reported. Good grief, do you think ATC would stand for something other than a real-time visual display of relative aircraft positions?
I feel sorry for the private pilots who are going to need another expensive transponder in their aircraft. If you have a $5,000. aircraft (they do exist) how'd it be to have to put a $5,000. new piece of equipment in it? (Former small aircraft owner here.)
The registration on all those works is out of date because Toaplan broke up in 1994. Who owns the copyright in a work whose copyright is registered to a company that no longer exists?
Then the copyright devolves to the successors in interest of the company, e.g the individual partners or shareholders. Much more likely there will be a purchaser or an entitled creditor, though, than either of the former.
You have to track what happened to the original copyright holder. By the way, you don't have to register to have a copyright-- that just makes it easier to prove you created the work and when. A copyright attaches by law as soon as you create the work.
That does mean, if there is no registration, you are in a murky area-- never knowing if someone will come out of the woodwork and offer evidence he created the work before you took over. You're much better off finding out there is a registered owner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration
>Apple doesn't care about other peoples names but then cries over some company that has been using Macpro name for over 25 years before Apple.
Where is the surprise here? They want what's best for them whichever side of the argument they're on. People are generally like this, and corporations are known to be even less even-handed than people.
I know there are legal implications to certain decisions I might make, but...
But nothing. You're asking a legal question, you need to go to a legal expert. Slashdotters are not legal experts, they just think they are, and their advice is worse than useless.
As a supposed legal expert (yes, IAAL), I can advise that if it cannot be positively determined that copyright is not in force (and after only 18 years it seems impossible that it would not be) then yes, without permission you could be sued, very likely successfully-- but then, the copyright holder may not wish to sue, and as another post noted, even be supportive. Be sure to get that expression of support in writing. (And be sure the author and copyright holder are one and the same.)
Hallelujah.
Of course this is in Europe. Can it happen in the US?
This is great. Now all we need is oxygen and we can live there. Hmmm..... O2 from electrolysis of water, powered by solar?
Sounds like it might now be vastly easier to establish a self-sustaining moon colony.
Directly from TFA:
Copyright protection: How do we protect against illegal piracy of copyrighted works and intellectual property on the Internet while preserving the rights of users to access lawful content? NTIA and our sister agency at the Department of Commerce, the US Patent and Trademark Office, are beginning a comprehensive consultation process that will help the Administration develop a forward-looking set of policies to address online copyright infringement in a balanced, Internet-savvy manner.
1. You would have to be stupid to buy this phone.
2. Anybody know when it comes to Canada?
Yeah, I would have rated that "Funny" too.
BTW if you want the same kind of phone for more than $1,000.00 less, look at this
Samsung knockoff.
Rickroll.
Two questions:
Reportedly the green light would flicker so briefly it could have been mistaken for part of a startup polling process.
If they had known the camera to be on, many would have thought of tape.
As they have sown, so they shall reap. All hail the false idol of money and bow before the might of the corporate gods.
Mammon
That's only because he left out some words: "... at a fundamental level there is a symmetry and orthogonality of conceptualization that leads to a seamless user experience to empower the core business for enterprise synergy and a strong paradigm shift."
Now, instead of burning, you fell asleep, right?
My mind must be messed up. I actually understood that.
My Verizon Droid is a fabulous ebook reader. Any book you can find on the net can be converted to open ebook format (.epub) with Calibre, not just ebooks the likes of Amazon or B&N want to sell you. An infinite library and it fits in your pocket. (It takes calls too.)
IAAL. It is really a part of the same trial-- the rules of remittitur say if you don't like how the judge reduced your award, you can try the issue of damages again. Basically means if you think the judge wrongly reduced the jury verdict, you can and should have the jury try again, so we know, on appeal, what a second jury verdict was (a perspective on the reasonableness of how much the judge chopped off the first verdict). If I were an appellate court judge I think I'd want to see that.
How can this possibly be anything but an infrastructure for massive spying on its own citizens?
Why should the ISPs enter into talks when they've already won in court?
$14.99 is the way to doom for publishers. That's annoying enough to put a ebook (.epub) reader on your smartphone and find an open-source .txt etc. to .epub converter (like Calibre), and then go romping amongst the seemingly millions of scanned books, including current titles, most anyplace on the web.
Greed = failure. Think about it before you gouge us, publishers!