When you keep going up to people & screaming HIT ME it's only a matter of time until someone does.
Yes they were asking for it, yes they are probably ready for it, and yes I can almost garauntee that the local equivalent of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) already has a gameplan for it.
As to your question - Is that the same as saying a woman wearing revealing clothing is "asking for it" IYHO? - no. But it is about the same as dressing in a skimpy outfit, standing on a seedy corner & asking everyone who stops at the light if they would like to have a good time - eventually someone's going to say yes - and you had better have a gameplan ready.
[notice type:fine-print]
'good time' is a registered trademark of amusements inc. Varying deffinitions of fun are employed with 'good time' advertising, and no single deffinition of fun should be implied to encompass all aspects of the 'good time' advertising campain.
They were pyrotechnics not fireworks. Subtle but distinct difference. IIRC it was a couple of spark fountains and some flashpots.
The club owner used that cheap crap eggcrate foam (extremely flamible & certainly not code) for sound damping on the ceiling & some walls after receiving noise complaints. He is serving time also.
There is/was contention on whether or not the band had permission to use the pyrotechnics or not. There was certainly a request made, but whether permission was granted I do not recall. Either way, that was a contractual issue with the tour management, the people setting up the show do not go over the contracts, they just tweek the show for the venue according to what they are told by management. If management does not say no pyrotechnics, and they are a normal part of the show, they get used - because that's what they are supposed to do.
It is not the pyrotechnicians job to verify that the foam & all other structures meet firecode. It is his job to make sure that the pyrotechnics are placed and implimented in such a way as to ensure their safe use - when the surrounding materials are what they are reported to be. If the spark fountain says maintain 4' of clearance from plaster walls and 9' of clearance from a wall w/ accoustic foam & I place it 9' from a wall which appears to have accoustic foam on it, I did my job. It's not my job to go test that the accoustic foam is really accoustic foam & not some cheap packing material - that is the job of the building owner & the fire marshal.
Some of the emergency exits where chained closed - to prevent people from sneaking in.
The club was at, I believe, double it's liscenced capacity.
Overall this was a huge tragedy, with more than enough blame to be passed around. Most of it should rest on the club owners - for being cheap enough to use packing material instead of structural accoustic foam - and the tour management for not verifying that all the documentation - fire inspection, permits, etc were in place prior to the show.
Depending on the pyrotechnician, he could have been anything from a flunky following a mapped show to a member of the design team. If he's a flunky placing things according to the diagram he has, blaming him is like blaming a building contractor for not knowing that an architects blueprints are not up to local earthquake specs - it's not his job, that should be done by the general contractor, the architect, and the office of the building inspector prior to the permit being issued.
My $.02 [shrug]
Um, they owe us because they were handed land through eminent domain in exchange for creating a public utility to serve the communities they received land in. They also owe us because they were granted regulated monopoly status in exchange for that utility service.
As it's been stated before, they didn't have to accept the regulations & oversight, but since they did, they now have to play by the rules. Even if they keep buying politicians to change the rules, they have to play by what is there now.
The biggest problem is with your last 2 statements. I suggest you do a bit of research on the internet.... it's and INTERconnected web of NETworks passing data back & forth using a common protocol (TCP/IP). I can vote with my wallet and move from AT&T to MOM & POP ISP. Problem is at some point MOM & POP have to peer with AT&T, and I gain nothing. Do a traceroute to any major site & check how many different chunks of backbone you head through. If any of them do tiered internet, I am subject to it - whether I pay them or not.
Um, buy a DVD lately. How about watch Comcast's on-demand - the 'free offerings' you pay for as part of your digital package... yeah they added commercials to the start of them and I don't recall the price of either coming down.
By the way, not once have I seen anything from a telco on 2 Tier internet where they are garaunteeing anything but best effort even if you pay. So technically, they can flag you high QoS priority at the peerpoint and ignore you after that. You pay them more, they give you a nifty flag on your packets that nobody sees.
No, because there are many legal uses for bittorrent but few legal uses for hookers.
[pulls out map of Nevada]
left onto... right onto.. go about 12 miles, big bunny sign, can't miss it.
Um, just to slap you around a bit, hookers are quite legal in many places. Nevada here in the US, and I believe prostitution is legal in Belgium and a few other European countries. Just because it's illegal where you live, doesn't mean it's illegal everywhere.
Hemp cannot be grown in the US because of the drug laws, but it's grown like cotton in other countries as a cash crop for the fibers. It's actually more profitable/acre than corn (as an industrial product - not a drug) from what I understand.
[subject change] Substantial Non-Infringing Uses means that there are a significant number of legitimate uses for something which do not infringe on copyrights. It does not mean that there are a significant number of people actively engaged in those uses. Way back in the day, the judges ruled that "Not everyone is a criminal, so people who are not can use this. If someone is, then take them to court."
Nowdays of course everyone is a horrible rotten pirate depriving the *AA of their profits, and no method of distributing any form of content should be allowed. Except the sneakernet distibution of their authorized product through the malls.
Can we take bets this time on whether or not the **AA paid some hacker to break into the PB systems & hide CW works on them?
"But tinkerghost, that would be illegal and immoral," you say.
My responce is, "and... 5:1 against for you then?"
In the US they can't charge you with copywrite infringement for hosting a torrent tracker. It's simple, there is nothing copywriten on you server. You have small text files that simply state what is available & some reference data.
So what they charge you with is conspiracy to commit, and accessory to - copywrite infringement.
Also, certainly remember that nothing so petty as laws can stop a DA in pursuit of publicity. I doubt it's any better in Sweden. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that someone with an agenda can't make it look illegal/immoral/unjust.
Telling people to go screw themselves because what they are doing is legal in their country might not have been the most PC thing for them to do. Then again, if the town miletant vegan showed up at my door and told me to stop grilling a steak, I would probably tell them the same thing.
Did the **AA have something to do with it - almost certainly. Like anyone else with an agenda, they shopped around until they found someone sympathetic to their view, and then pushed. Also, power in politics is concidered a zero sum game. In order for the Pirate Party to gain any seats & influence, someone else is going to have to loose it. I don't know of many politicians who are willing to loose power. Most would rather have a ringside seat to Armageddon than just a vote in Eden. So, we have huge money and politics coming together against a single entity.
Anyone still surprised they go raided? Big business feels their money is being threatened & politicians feel their power is threatened - did you really think something like a legal system is going to protect them? Both of these groups are used to getting what they want, and if they can't do it today, they change the rules so they can have it tomorrow. If they can't change the rules, they usually ignore them and apologize later - after they have what they want and a precident for getting it again next time without having to apologize.
Hmm, check how many bankruptcy filings there have been from members of congress. Then look at the number of failed businesses they have had....
A bunch of porn profiting pirates who are breaking even seem like a big improvement to me. At least they seem to understand that you have to have revenue in order to spend money.
QoS
No, they can impliment QoS correctly - providing traffic shaping by Protocol but not by source or destination. If a provider were to offer increase[d] VoIP performance, for instance, the bill would require such providers to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service "to all data of that type... without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhances quality of service."
NAT NAT is a network technique for hiding a collection of systems behind a single IP address. I really don't see how you identify that as blocking, impairing, discriminating, or interfering with a service. That's a lot like saying that AT&T can't route all of it's NYC traffic through a router under Times Square. Who cares where it goes as long as it gets to where it's going without impediment. NAT provides no impediment to outbound traffic, and none to authorized inbound traffic if properly configured.
Virus Scanning Possibly - in the sense that if they do internal virus scanning on peered traffic and refuse to forward it due to contamination they would be held accountable under this. If however they virus filter & purge email prior to posting it on their server for a customer to pick up, then it has nothing to do with net neutrality. Likewise if they filter & purge files on their web server. Unless, of course, your business is delivering those viruses I suppose - not sure I want to take that to court though....
But Judge, by not allowing me to infect & take control of thier customer's computers, thereby allowing me to use them to send spam, I have lost millions of dollors.. I petition for injunctive releaf...hey let go... owe that hurt... wait...ahhhh....
Spam Filtering Ditto - if it's peered traffic, then they can't do it. If it is filtering what they put on their server... yep that's fair.
Traffic Shaping Much more complex. Traffic shaping in the sense of routing different protocol packets over different paths to take advantage of latency variances [QoS], or Traffic shaping as in limiting bandwidth available to an entire protocol [torrent]. QoS type shaping where you are seeking to improve performance are not effected. Traffic shaping to restrict a protocol would be covered for public networks/utilities. The bill was slash.'d so I can't specifically tell, but private networks [public colleges do in fact have private networks] are not generally held to the same standard as a utility.
Pop-Up Blocking OK, I don't know of an ISP that's ever tried to block pop-ups in transmision, but I suppose you might try. Most of them provide tools for you to block them if you want - in no way effected by this law. Chant with me... AOL is not the internet.
Port Blocking Ahh here we go, yes you can in fact state that port blocking is inhibiting a service. In the sense that if they block ports [25 SMTP] from sources inside their network from exiting their network they are inhibiting you from making use of other services[SMTP hosts], likewise if they block port 666 for peered traffic. However, check your TOS you probably don't have the 'right' to host services. Most ISP's generally don't care, but most also have a TOS clause that your residential service is for residential entertainment usage an not for commercial use - running HTTP, SMTP, FTP, etc servers is identified as a commercial use & they will be happy to sell you that service. So this one is yes, and no. yes prohibiting you from using another service would be prevented, but prohibiting you from offering a service hosted on their network is a matter of contract.
OK out of 7 we have 5 Not affected, 1 depends on what you mean, and 1 it depends on what they are doing.
Please note that the assumption made in traffic shaping reguarding the bill applying only to the internet apply. What you do on your own computer, and your private network are your own business. If you are peering, then these rules would apply to you.
Even if they didn't know about the prior art, why should it affect the ruling if prior art was involved? Since they knew about prior art but didn't report it, they should be fined.
Why is it harder to get an invalidation ruling overturned after you failed to mention known prior art? Because every detail of your submission is gone over with a finetoothed comb and you never get the benifit of any doubt.
The rules for prior art are fairly clear, when you file your patent you have to include all of the related prior art you know about and defend why your patent is not covered by the disclosure therein - there are several rules including
timeframe - a published prior art must be dated 18mths prior to application date
relatedness - OK it looks similar but it's not really the same thing because....
progression - Yes A is prior art and B is prior art, but there is no prior art showing A can be linked directly to B. - IE the 'on the internet' loophole.
Groklaw has a writeup by an IP lawyer about what is & isn't useful prior art, but I can't find it at the moment.
When you get to relatedness and progression, there is a lot of subjectivity - and having knowingly failed to provide information relavent - all of this will be reviewed with some prejudice against you.
If you knew about a prior art, and did not file it with the patent, you have also done a bunch of things:
you committed purjury because you have to state you know of no additional prior art when you sign the patent application.
if the prior art would have been enough to invalidate your patent, you have committed fraud - obtaining services/goods under false pretense.
made more work for the USPTO. If you file prior art & the reason it's not enough to invalidate your patent, the patent office will blow off the first round of protests, using that prior art, as 'reviewed and deamed insufficient' meaning "we looked at it before we gave the patent & think you're grasping at straws". Puting most of the work on the person seeking to invalidate the patent not the USPTO. On the other hand, if you don't present the prior art, they have to completely review the whole patent.
So in a perfect world, if they failed to file known prior art, this would be a 'bad monkey - no patent for you' moment. They didn't play by the rules, therefore the whole patent and all information contained therein is transfered to the public domain. That's how you make a company play by the rules, you set it up so getting caught cheating not only hurts them, but helps their competition. Unfortunately we all know it's only a perfect world if you have the money to buy the legal system.
In this situation, where they have already received the patent and forced companies to pay on the patent, I think those companies might have a civil case for fraud based on the fraud perpetrated on the USPTO ($108M + triple damages isn't pocket change to anyone but MS & GM). Note that if it's just a bad patent and you didn't withhold any information, then there's no fraud, just incompetence on the USPTO's part.
IANAL but this is what I have gathered from Groklaw and a few other sources. If someone wants to correct me please feel free.
From what I understand, most of these ISP's are looking at actually implimenting the established QoS protocols - in their own twisted way.
Most systems right now ignore the QoS state of packets --- everything get's shipped down the pipe - no priority assigned - don't care if it's a WWW GET or a VOIP call - everything goes together as 'best effort'.
QoS was developed to resolve the issue that some protocols are latency sensative and others are not. In general it has NOT been implimented.
What I see here is that the ISPs are saying they are willing to impliment QoS for people who pay extra for it. I have seen a few comments comparing the tiered/open internet to FEDEX/USPS. That works in the sense that you pay extra to have FEDEX deliver something faster. The thing is, you actually pay for the company to DO something. In this case, you are paying the company to NOT do something.
If QoS is implimented as envisioned originally (RFC2386), every protocol has a priority, some like ftp, html, email, etc are best effort - it doesn't matter if it's delayed a few mSec or not - others like Streaming video and VOIP are high priority - latency kills there. The protocols for QoS are supposed to recognize the QoS state - either through a QoS value in the packet or through protocol recognition based on packet filtering - and route accordingly.
If an ISP is going to impliment QoS, it has to impliment QoS network wide - it's not a piecemeal item due to the fact it requires some advanced knowledge of 'best route' implimentations. In order to make the tiered internet being discussed, some form of packet filtering will have to be implimented to diferentiate the corperations sending the data and determining if they have in fact paid for QoS. This can be a peer point interface where the QoS is rewritten or a 'per hop' determination at the routers.
So what exactly are you paying the company for? They have implimented the QOS protocols already, you are paying for them to not filter out your QoS. Even better, since I can't see the ISP's paying each other for the service, you will probably have to pay every ISP to not filter you. It is after all a network. Just because Qwest shoves you through at high priority because you paid them to does not mean AT&T will unless you pay them also.
Let's move on to the next stage. This is what most people are quoting the Backbone providers as saying, "if you pay us, we will mark all all of your packets as priority QoS." OK, well that's spiffy, not only are you charging me more to run things through your network with no garantee that the next network will abide by your QoS, but you have just destroyed the whole purpose of QoS because now the VOIP and HTML are running at the same QoS again. You get more money to provide exactly the same service you just had.
What doesn't work:
Charging for QoS without making some arrangement to make sure that QoS will be honored throughout the network.
Implimenting QoS based on Source not Protocol
What will work:(assuming network wide honoring of QoS protocols.)
Charging more for raw bandwidth after Implimenting QoS.
Charging more for QoS rated bandwidth based on protocol.
In short, any implimentation of QoS or tiered internet that does not include a garanteed honoring of that QoS by every peer on the network is doomed - there will be no net gain in processing unless you pay every peer.
Basing a QoS system on Source and not Protocol is equally as doomed because it will fail to provide any advantage to the latency sensative protocols due to the high volume of non-sensative protocol trafic. Face it Bit-Torrent is not latency sensative. A dropped packet at a congested router is irrelivent in the scheme of things, it's a lot different for a VOIP call.
Remember, QoS should only come into play when there is a bottleneck at a router/peering point.
Just my.02 and I may be incorrect, so if you have more specific information, please correct me.
[analogy type=mediocre]
What we are looking at here is really the difference between thin & fat clients.
A traditional DVR has it's own hard drive & a full interface to do the recording. The new process is more like a thin client requesting information from a central repository. My issue with this is that the Media companies are saying fat clients have been upheld as legal already, but they want to bar the thin clients. That's nice, but both do exactly the same thing. If it's legal to do, it's legal to do. The courts have already upheld that using a remote system is the same as using a local one - the prosecutions on computer gambling - so what's the difference on where it's stored?
[/analogy]
As to the question of if it's re-broadcasting, check the definition of broadcasting - it's the same for TV/Radio as it is for TCP/IP. You transmit in the clear to anyone listening. Technically, cable isn't a broadcast medium, which is why it's not restricted by FCC regulations on 'decency'. This is more closely related to On-Demand.
Now there are things I don't know. It is legal to make a DVR/VCR recording of a TV show yourself, but is it legal to pay a friend a couple of bucks to record it for you?
Really the question should boil down to that. If I can pay someone to make a recording for me so I can timeshift a TV show, then I can pay Cablevision to do the same thing. If I can't pay someone to make the recording, then Comcast can rent me the box, but not charge me for the timeshifting service itself. Of course IANAL so I am sure some media weasle has some obtuse thought process to twist common sense into some unrecognizable shape.
Ummm, that FCC charge is a surcharge that goes directly into the pocket of the Telco.
It's there as part of the settlement that made everyone open their networks to competition. In exchange for that & loosing part of the very lucrative LD business (local/last-mile can be a loss leader in rural areas - which is covered under grants funded by the FUSF fee), the telcos get's to charge everyone the FCC charge.
So, no the FCC charge doesn't go to the FCC - stunned me to find that tidbit out.
This doesn't change the Prior Art requirement. To claim it invalid on Prior Art, you would still need to quote the source.
This strictly focuses on Novelty & Obviousness. It is Obvious to sort music in a hierarchal structure by Genre, Artist, Album, Song - but not nescesarilly done previously on a handheld device. The real advantage is if you can get those people 'reasonably skilled in the art' to agree if it is obvious or not. Auto starting a flash/active X component of a web page is Obvious to programmers - 95% of the time a web programmer would use onload='javascript:start_the_thing_now()' anyway - but perhaps not to a patent examiner.
I think that most physical patents are good in the sense that they narrowly define a single embodyment of a concept, you get 1 patent on 1 device(OK sometimes more than 1 patent). So you get the patent on the Widget Maker 5000, or you get the patent on Superdooper Widgets. You do not get to have a patent on all devices that could conceiveably perform the function of a Widget or on all methods of building a Widget. Wich is what a lot of the software and business method patents are.
because it attempts to classify content on the web (not DNS's purpose at all).
.edu - sites or domains maintained by & for educational institutions.
.com - commercial sites
.gov - sites for/by the US government
.mil - sites for/by the US Military
.org - sites for non profit Organizations.
.us - sites for/by US citizens / entities
.etc
so yes it is DNS's purpose to classify site contents. That's the whole purpose of the Heirarcal [sp?] domain scheme to begin with.
Now with that in mind, no there should not be a.xxx TLD. There should be a.ent (entertainment) TLD with a.xxx subdomain - WWW.PRONSITE.XXX.ENT - of course that's not how the world want's to see things so we won't.
FTA : "... but it doesn't criminalise those innocent of hacking attacks," said a Home Office spokeswoman. "[It] shifts the emphasis on to those intending to deliberately develop tools for criminal use."
FT Bill: "A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article --
(a) if your naughty (b) believing that it is likely to be so used."[emphasis mine]
Any tool that is useful for monitoring, filtering, or altering network traffic can/will be used for criminal activity.
Any tool that is useful for finding buffer overflows, sql errors, or any other type of software error can/will be used for criminal activity.
Any tool that identifies open ports/vectors of attack on a box, can/will be used for criminal activity.
Based on past history, any tool that can possibly be used to help identify vulnerabilities on a Admninistrators system so he/she can fix them will be used by hackers to find them & exploit them. Therefore, based on the wording in the bill as is - it would be illegal to make and/or distribute any security tool that identifies or reports security vulnerabilities. Evidently only software that identifies and automagicaly 'fixes' vulnerabilities (you can't identify them to a user, so the user of the software can't be advised of the issue & allowed to make a decision on how/if fixing it should be done) will be allowed.
Also on strict interpretation, a vulnerability in OSS code cannot be discussed. Since you cannot diseminate information on an unpatched vulnerability, it can never be fixed except by the person who finds it. In theory, the code would have to be sent to the maintainer with no explanation of what the change is for, since that would disclose the nature of an unpatched vulnerability.
[sarcasm]I love it when people with no clue run with an idea and tell everyone they know best. It's almost as fun as when they listen to people with agendas.
If I was attacked by a flock of angry fish-birds I would sure think twice about spamming.
I would be more concerned about who I just got my drugs from and if they were going to spike them again.
MS Patent
How do you pass the Novelty portion of a patent review when there is a product doing it on the market?
The inventors - Apple - gets denied a patent on their product because a competitor patented the process AFTER the product was on the market? What monkey do they have running the USPTO?
Just for the record I would rather have a SLR 2MP camera than a P&S 8MP. The difference in focal precision and lens quality more than makes up for the difference in resolution. Let's face it a web pic is 72dpi & that's where most of these images are going to end up - 1280X1024 is only 1.3MP for 32bit color depth full screen image. 2MP is what?... 4X6 at photographic resolution? So unless I want an 8X10 (rarely) I am wasting 75% of the data 90+% of the time.
I hear this all the time, oh this camera sucks because it's only a 3/4/5 MP one. I need to get the new X MP camera to take a good picture.... No you moron, you need to learn the basics of photograpy and get a decent camera. Pixel density has an upper limit where it is useful. After about 1MP for web work, and 2MP for general use, you're wasting your money. If you are a professional photographer or you do keep 8X10s of everything then you might need a 10MP, but if you do, you probably don't want a P&S anyway.
*SLR - Single Lens Reflex - what you see in the viewfinder is exactly what the iris of the camera will see - CMOS, CCD, film. The light comes from a lens - hits a prism & get's split to the iris & the viewfinder.
*P&S - Point & Shoot - seperate lenses for the iris & the viewfinder - usually fixed focal length for the viewfinder, and a guestimated focal distance based on image centering algorythms. Note the similarity between P&S and PoS.
I often though that the correct way to keep a key is to XOR watermark an image with the key data, then run a bit comparison against the origional.
OK here's my keys - [Dumps 10 gig of PRON backup on the desk]
From what I read in the article, first of all, there was a lot of thought put into how to do data abstraction to actually protect your privacy unless they had enough evidence to ask a court (OVERSITE) to let them look closer. Second, there was a crapload of monitoring/controlling of the data - IE you actually needed to be accountable for what you asked for & what you did with it (OVERSITE). The data filtering algorhithms actually were designed to look for specific types of interactions not just general social network mapping.
So given a choice of a secret program with no oversite, that just maps everything for everybody, and doesn't restrict access to the data, or a tightly controlled and monitored system that takes deliberate care to protect anonymity - I think I will take the Monitored one.
Oh, and just for the NSA - If you're doing something you can't tell your supervisor about - it's probably not something you should be doing. (If your project is so secret you can't tell the congressional subcommities on Intelligence, it's probably illegal - and certainly shouldn't be secret)
Does encoding things in DNA constitute encryption for the DCMA?
And does the govt get to bring the suit or does god have to show up in court personally? - I know he claims to, but I don't think Pat Robertson has the standing.......
"EG: a phone call, as others have noted"
As an RCN tech, I made several calls along the line of
Me: Hello, this is so & so calling from RCN. We have identified an issue with your internet connection. (usally some POS router not renewing DHCP IP addresses at expiration).
Customer 1: How dare you call me ?!@
Customer 2: Well fix it then [click]
Customer 3: That can't possibly be true because I am a MCSE & I would know ! ....
Eventually we just went for banning the MAC until they called in & we could get things reset.
I have to agree with someone earlier, people think of their PC more like thier stove or a lamp than anything else. Hell if their pet acted like thier PC, most people would be running to the vet daily. They really just don't want to know about 'bad things'.
Slashdot Mirror
When you keep going up to people & screaming HIT ME it's only a matter of time until someone does.
Yes they were asking for it, yes they are probably ready for it, and yes I can almost garauntee that the local equivalent of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) already has a gameplan for it.
As to your question - Is that the same as saying a woman wearing revealing clothing is "asking for it" IYHO? - no. But it is about the same as dressing in a skimpy outfit, standing on a seedy corner & asking everyone who stops at the light if they would like to have a good time - eventually someone's going to say yes - and you had better have a gameplan ready.
[notice type:fine-print] 'good time' is a registered trademark of amusements inc. Varying deffinitions of fun are employed with 'good time' advertising, and no single deffinition of fun should be implied to encompass all aspects of the 'good time' advertising campain.
- They were pyrotechnics not fireworks. Subtle but distinct difference. IIRC it was a couple of spark fountains and some flashpots.
- The club owner used that cheap crap eggcrate foam (extremely flamible & certainly not code) for sound damping on the ceiling & some walls after receiving noise complaints. He is serving time also.
- There is/was contention on whether or not the band had permission to use the pyrotechnics or not. There was certainly a request made, but whether permission was granted I do not recall. Either way, that was a contractual issue with the tour management, the people setting up the show do not go over the contracts, they just tweek the show for the venue according to what they are told by management. If management does not say no pyrotechnics, and they are a normal part of the show, they get used - because that's what they are supposed to do.
- It is not the pyrotechnicians job to verify that the foam & all other structures meet firecode. It is his job to make sure that the pyrotechnics are placed and implimented in such a way as to ensure their safe use - when the surrounding materials are what they are reported to be. If the spark fountain says maintain 4' of clearance from plaster walls and 9' of clearance from a wall w/ accoustic foam & I place it 9' from a wall which appears to have accoustic foam on it, I did my job. It's not my job to go test that the accoustic foam is really accoustic foam & not some cheap packing material - that is the job of the building owner & the fire marshal.
- Some of the emergency exits where chained closed - to prevent people from sneaking in.
- The club was at, I believe, double it's liscenced capacity.
Overall this was a huge tragedy, with more than enough blame to be passed around. Most of it should rest on the club owners - for being cheap enough to use packing material instead of structural accoustic foam - and the tour management for not verifying that all the documentation - fire inspection, permits, etc were in place prior to the show.Depending on the pyrotechnician, he could have been anything from a flunky following a mapped show to a member of the design team. If he's a flunky placing things according to the diagram he has, blaming him is like blaming a building contractor for not knowing that an architects blueprints are not up to local earthquake specs - it's not his job, that should be done by the general contractor, the architect, and the office of the building inspector prior to the permit being issued.
My $.02 [shrug]
Um, they owe us because they were handed land through eminent domain in exchange for creating a public utility to serve the communities they received land in. They also owe us because they were granted regulated monopoly status in exchange for that utility service. .... it's and INTERconnected web of NETworks passing data back & forth using a common protocol (TCP/IP). I can vote with my wallet and move from AT&T to MOM & POP ISP. Problem is at some point MOM & POP have to peer with AT&T, and I gain nothing. Do a traceroute to any major site & check how many different chunks of backbone you head through. If any of them do tiered internet, I am subject to it - whether I pay them or not.
As it's been stated before, they didn't have to accept the regulations & oversight, but since they did, they now have to play by the rules. Even if they keep buying politicians to change the rules, they have to play by what is there now.
The biggest problem is with your last 2 statements. I suggest you do a bit of research on the internet
Um, buy a DVD lately. How about watch Comcast's on-demand - the 'free offerings' you pay for as part of your digital package ... yeah they added commercials to the start of them and I don't recall the price of either coming down.
By the way, not once have I seen anything from a telco on 2 Tier internet where they are garaunteeing anything but best effort even if you pay. So technically, they can flag you high QoS priority at the peerpoint and ignore you after that. You pay them more, they give you a nifty flag on your packets that nobody sees.
No, because there are many legal uses for bittorrent but few legal uses for hookers. ... right onto .. go about 12 miles, big bunny sign, can't miss it.
[pulls out map of Nevada]
left onto
Um, just to slap you around a bit, hookers are quite legal in many places. Nevada here in the US, and I believe prostitution is legal in Belgium and a few other European countries. Just because it's illegal where you live, doesn't mean it's illegal everywhere.
Hemp cannot be grown in the US because of the drug laws, but it's grown like cotton in other countries as a cash crop for the fibers. It's actually more profitable/acre than corn (as an industrial product - not a drug) from what I understand.
[subject change]
Substantial Non-Infringing Uses means that there are a significant number of legitimate uses for something which do not infringe on copyrights. It does not mean that there are a significant number of people actively engaged in those uses. Way back in the day, the judges ruled that "Not everyone is a criminal, so people who are not can use this. If someone is, then take them to court."
Nowdays of course everyone is a horrible rotten pirate depriving the *AA of their profits, and no method of distributing any form of content should be allowed. Except the sneakernet distibution of their authorized product through the malls.
Can we take bets this time on whether or not the **AA paid some hacker to break into the PB systems & hide CW works on them? ... 5:1 against for you then?"
"But tinkerghost, that would be illegal and immoral," you say.
My responce is, "and
In the US they can't charge you with copywrite infringement for hosting a torrent tracker. It's simple, there is nothing copywriten on you server. You have small text files that simply state what is available & some reference data.
So what they charge you with is conspiracy to commit, and accessory to - copywrite infringement.
Also, certainly remember that nothing so petty as laws can stop a DA in pursuit of publicity. I doubt it's any better in Sweden. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that someone with an agenda can't make it look illegal/immoral/unjust.
Telling people to go screw themselves because what they are doing is legal in their country might not have been the most PC thing for them to do. Then again, if the town miletant vegan showed up at my door and told me to stop grilling a steak, I would probably tell them the same thing.
Did the **AA have something to do with it - almost certainly. Like anyone else with an agenda, they shopped around until they found someone sympathetic to their view, and then pushed. Also, power in politics is concidered a zero sum game. In order for the Pirate Party to gain any seats & influence, someone else is going to have to loose it. I don't know of many politicians who are willing to loose power. Most would rather have a ringside seat to Armageddon than just a vote in Eden. So, we have huge money and politics coming together against a single entity.
Anyone still surprised they go raided? Big business feels their money is being threatened & politicians feel their power is threatened - did you really think something like a legal system is going to protect them? Both of these groups are used to getting what they want, and if they can't do it today, they change the rules so they can have it tomorrow. If they can't change the rules, they usually ignore them and apologize later - after they have what they want and a precident for getting it again next time without having to apologize.
Hmm, check how many bankruptcy filings there have been from members of congress. Then look at the number of failed businesses they have had....
A bunch of porn profiting pirates who are breaking even seem like a big improvement to me. At least they seem to understand that you have to have revenue in order to spend money.
It was thank you for finding it :)
- QoS
- NAT
- Virus Scanning
- Spam Filtering
... yep that's fair.
- Traffic Shaping
- Pop-Up Blocking
... AOL is not the internet.
- Port Blocking
OK out of 7 we have 5 Not affected, 1 depends on what you mean, and 1 it depends on what they are doing.No, they can impliment QoS correctly - providing traffic shaping by Protocol but not by source or destination.
If a provider were to offer increase[d] VoIP performance, for instance, the bill would require such providers to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service "to all data of that type... without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhances quality of service."
NAT is a network technique for hiding a collection of systems behind a single IP address. I really don't see how you identify that as blocking, impairing, discriminating, or interfering with a service. That's a lot like saying that AT&T can't route all of it's NYC traffic through a router under Times Square. Who cares where it goes as long as it gets to where it's going without impediment. NAT provides no impediment to outbound traffic, and none to authorized inbound traffic if properly configured.
Possibly - in the sense that if they do internal virus scanning on peered traffic and refuse to forward it due to contamination they would be held accountable under this. If however they virus filter & purge email prior to posting it on their server for a customer to pick up, then it has nothing to do with net neutrality. Likewise if they filter & purge files on their web server. Unless, of course, your business is delivering those viruses I suppose - not sure I want to take that to court though....
But Judge, by not allowing me to infect & take control of thier customer's computers, thereby allowing me to use them to send spam, I have lost millions of dollors.. I petition for injunctive releaf...hey let go... owe that hurt... wait...ahhhh....
Ditto - if it's peered traffic, then they can't do it. If it is filtering what they put on their server
Much more complex. Traffic shaping in the sense of routing different protocol packets over different paths to take advantage of latency variances [QoS], or Traffic shaping as in limiting bandwidth available to an entire protocol [torrent]. QoS type shaping where you are seeking to improve performance are not effected. Traffic shaping to restrict a protocol would be covered for public networks/utilities. The bill was slash.'d so I can't specifically tell, but private networks [public colleges do in fact have private networks] are not generally held to the same standard as a utility.
OK, I don't know of an ISP that's ever tried to block pop-ups in transmision, but I suppose you might try. Most of them provide tools for you to block them if you want - in no way effected by this law. Chant with me
Ahh here we go, yes you can in fact state that port blocking is inhibiting a service. In the sense that if they block ports [25 SMTP] from sources inside their network from exiting their network they are inhibiting you from making use of other services[SMTP hosts], likewise if they block port 666 for peered traffic. However, check your TOS you probably don't have the 'right' to host services. Most ISP's generally don't care, but most also have a TOS clause that your residential service is for residential entertainment usage an not for commercial use - running HTTP, SMTP, FTP, etc servers is identified as a commercial use & they will be happy to sell you that service. So this one is yes, and no. yes prohibiting you from using another service would be prevented, but prohibiting you from offering a service hosted on their network is a matter of contract.
Please note that the assumption made in traffic shaping reguarding the bill applying only to the internet apply. What you do on your own computer, and your private network are your own business. If you are peering, then these rules would apply to you.
Why is it harder to get an invalidation ruling overturned after you failed to mention known prior art? Because every detail of your submission is gone over with a finetoothed comb and you never get the benifit of any doubt.
The rules for prior art are fairly clear, when you file your patent you have to include all of the related prior art you know about and defend why your patent is not covered by the disclosure therein - there are several rules including
- timeframe - a published prior art must be dated 18mths prior to application date
- relatedness - OK it looks similar but it's not really the same thing because....
- progression - Yes A is prior art and B is prior art, but there is no prior art showing A can be linked directly to B. - IE the 'on the internet' loophole.
Groklaw has a writeup by an IP lawyer about what is & isn't useful prior art, but I can't find it at the moment.When you get to relatedness and progression, there is a lot of subjectivity - and having knowingly failed to provide information relavent - all of this will be reviewed with some prejudice against you.
If you knew about a prior art, and did not file it with the patent, you have also done a bunch of things:
- you committed purjury because you have to state you know of no additional prior art when you sign the patent application.
- if the prior art would have been enough to invalidate your patent, you have committed fraud - obtaining services/goods under false pretense.
- made more work for the USPTO. If you file prior art & the reason it's not enough to invalidate your patent, the patent office will blow off the first round of protests, using that prior art, as 'reviewed and deamed insufficient' meaning "we looked at it before we gave the patent & think you're grasping at straws". Puting most of the work on the person seeking to invalidate the patent not the USPTO. On the other hand, if you don't present the prior art, they have to completely review the whole patent.
So in a perfect world, if they failed to file known prior art, this would be a 'bad monkey - no patent for you' moment. They didn't play by the rules, therefore the whole patent and all information contained therein is transfered to the public domain. That's how you make a company play by the rules, you set it up so getting caught cheating not only hurts them, but helps their competition. Unfortunately we all know it's only a perfect world if you have the money to buy the legal system.In this situation, where they have already received the patent and forced companies to pay on the patent, I think those companies might have a civil case for fraud based on the fraud perpetrated on the USPTO ($108M + triple damages isn't pocket change to anyone but MS & GM). Note that if it's just a bad patent and you didn't withhold any information, then there's no fraud, just incompetence on the USPTO's part.
IANAL but this is what I have gathered from Groklaw and a few other sources. If someone wants to correct me please feel free.
Most systems right now ignore the QoS state of packets --- everything get's shipped down the pipe - no priority assigned - don't care if it's a WWW GET or a VOIP call - everything goes together as 'best effort'.
QoS was developed to resolve the issue that some protocols are latency sensative and others are not. In general it has NOT been implimented.
What I see here is that the ISPs are saying they are willing to impliment QoS for people who pay extra for it. I have seen a few comments comparing the tiered/open internet to FEDEX/USPS. That works in the sense that you pay extra to have FEDEX deliver something faster. The thing is, you actually pay for the company to DO something. In this case, you are paying the company to NOT do something.
If QoS is implimented as envisioned originally (RFC2386), every protocol has a priority, some like ftp, html, email, etc are best effort - it doesn't matter if it's delayed a few mSec or not - others like Streaming video and VOIP are high priority - latency kills there. The protocols for QoS are supposed to recognize the QoS state - either through a QoS value in the packet or through protocol recognition based on packet filtering - and route accordingly.
If an ISP is going to impliment QoS, it has to impliment QoS network wide - it's not a piecemeal item due to the fact it requires some advanced knowledge of 'best route' implimentations. In order to make the tiered internet being discussed, some form of packet filtering will have to be implimented to diferentiate the corperations sending the data and determining if they have in fact paid for QoS. This can be a peer point interface where the QoS is rewritten or a 'per hop' determination at the routers.
So what exactly are you paying the company for? They have implimented the QOS protocols already, you are paying for them to not filter out your QoS. Even better, since I can't see the ISP's paying each other for the service, you will probably have to pay every ISP to not filter you. It is after all a network. Just because Qwest shoves you through at high priority because you paid them to does not mean AT&T will unless you pay them also.
Let's move on to the next stage. This is what most people are quoting the Backbone providers as saying, "if you pay us, we will mark all all of your packets as priority QoS." OK, well that's spiffy, not only are you charging me more to run things through your network with no garantee that the next network will abide by your QoS, but you have just destroyed the whole purpose of QoS because now the VOIP and HTML are running at the same QoS again. You get more money to provide exactly the same service you just had.
What doesn't work:
- Charging for QoS without making some arrangement to make sure that QoS will be honored throughout the network.
- Implimenting QoS based on Source not Protocol
What will work:(assuming network wide honoring of QoS protocols.)- Charging more for raw bandwidth after Implimenting QoS.
- Charging more for QoS rated bandwidth based on protocol.
In short, any implimentation of QoS or tiered internet that does not include a garanteed honoring of that QoS by every peer on the network is doomed - there will be no net gain in processing unless you pay every peer.Basing a QoS system on Source and not Protocol is equally as doomed because it will fail to provide any advantage to the latency sensative protocols due to the high volume of non-sensative protocol trafic. Face it Bit-Torrent is not latency sensative. A dropped packet at a congested router is irrelivent in the scheme of things, it's a lot different for a VOIP call.
Remember, QoS should only come into play when there is a bottleneck at a router/peering point.
Just my
[analogy type=mediocre]
What we are looking at here is really the difference between thin & fat clients.
A traditional DVR has it's own hard drive & a full interface to do the recording. The new process is more like a thin client requesting information from a central repository. My issue with this is that the Media companies are saying fat clients have been upheld as legal already, but they want to bar the thin clients. That's nice, but both do exactly the same thing. If it's legal to do, it's legal to do. The courts have already upheld that using a remote system is the same as using a local one - the prosecutions on computer gambling - so what's the difference on where it's stored?
[/analogy] As to the question of if it's re-broadcasting, check the definition of broadcasting - it's the same for TV/Radio as it is for TCP/IP. You transmit in the clear to anyone listening. Technically, cable isn't a broadcast medium, which is why it's not restricted by FCC regulations on 'decency'. This is more closely related to On-Demand.
Now there are things I don't know. It is legal to make a DVR/VCR recording of a TV show yourself, but is it legal to pay a friend a couple of bucks to record it for you?
Really the question should boil down to that. If I can pay someone to make a recording for me so I can timeshift a TV show, then I can pay Cablevision to do the same thing. If I can't pay someone to make the recording, then Comcast can rent me the box, but not charge me for the timeshifting service itself. Of course IANAL so I am sure some media weasle has some obtuse thought process to twist common sense into some unrecognizable shape.
Ummm, that FCC charge is a surcharge that goes directly into the pocket of the Telco.
It's there as part of the settlement that made everyone open their networks to competition. In exchange for that & loosing part of the very lucrative LD business (local/last-mile can be a loss leader in rural areas - which is covered under grants funded by the FUSF fee), the telcos get's to charge everyone the FCC charge.
So, no the FCC charge doesn't go to the FCC - stunned me to find that tidbit out.
This doesn't change the Prior Art requirement. To claim it invalid on Prior Art, you would still need to quote the source.
This strictly focuses on Novelty & Obviousness. It is Obvious to sort music in a hierarchal structure by Genre, Artist, Album, Song - but not nescesarilly done previously on a handheld device. The real advantage is if you can get those people 'reasonably skilled in the art' to agree if it is obvious or not. Auto starting a flash/active X component of a web page is Obvious to programmers - 95% of the time a web programmer would use onload='javascript:start_the_thing_now()' anyway - but perhaps not to a patent examiner.
I think that most physical patents are good in the sense that they narrowly define a single embodyment of a concept, you get 1 patent on 1 device(OK sometimes more than 1 patent). So you get the patent on the Widget Maker 5000, or you get the patent on Superdooper Widgets. You do not get to have a patent on all devices that could conceiveably perform the function of a Widget or on all methods of building a Widget. Wich is what a lot of the software and business method patents are.
.edu - sites or domains maintained by & for educational institutions. .com - commercial sites .gov - sites for/by the US government .mil - sites for/by the US Military .org - sites for non profit Organizations. .us - sites for/by US citizens / entities .etc
so yes it is DNS's purpose to classify site contents. That's the whole purpose of the Heirarcal [sp?] domain scheme to begin with.Now with that in mind, no there should not be a
FTA : " ... but it doesn't criminalise those innocent of hacking attacks," said a Home Office spokeswoman. "[It] shifts the emphasis on to those intending to deliberately develop tools for criminal use."
FT Bill: "A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article --
(a) if your naughty
(b) believing that it is likely to be so used."[emphasis mine]
Any tool that is useful for monitoring, filtering, or altering network traffic can/will be used for criminal activity.
Any tool that is useful for finding buffer overflows, sql errors, or any other type of software error can/will be used for criminal activity.
Any tool that identifies open ports/vectors of attack on a box, can/will be used for criminal activity.
Based on past history, any tool that can possibly be used to help identify vulnerabilities on a Admninistrators system so he/she can fix them will be used by hackers to find them & exploit them. Therefore, based on the wording in the bill as is - it would be illegal to make and/or distribute any security tool that identifies or reports security vulnerabilities. Evidently only software that identifies and automagicaly 'fixes' vulnerabilities (you can't identify them to a user, so the user of the software can't be advised of the issue & allowed to make a decision on how/if fixing it should be done) will be allowed.
Also on strict interpretation, a vulnerability in OSS code cannot be discussed. Since you cannot diseminate information on an unpatched vulnerability, it can never be fixed except by the person who finds it. In theory, the code would have to be sent to the maintainer with no explanation of what the change is for, since that would disclose the nature of an unpatched vulnerability.
[sarcasm]I love it when people with no clue run with an idea and tell everyone they know best. It's almost as fun as when they listen to people with agendas.
If I was attacked by a flock of angry fish-birds I would sure think twice about spamming.
I would be more concerned about who I just got my drugs from and if they were going to spike them again.
MS Patent
How do you pass the Novelty portion of a patent review when there is a product doing it on the market?
The inventors - Apple - gets denied a patent on their product because a competitor patented the process AFTER the product was on the market? What monkey do they have running the USPTO?
Just for the record I would rather have a SLR 2MP camera than a P&S 8MP. The difference in focal precision and lens quality more than makes up for the difference in resolution. Let's face it a web pic is 72dpi & that's where most of these images are going to end up - 1280X1024 is only 1.3MP for 32bit color depth full screen image. 2MP is what?... 4X6 at photographic resolution? So unless I want an 8X10 (rarely) I am wasting 75% of the data 90+% of the time.
I hear this all the time, oh this camera sucks because it's only a 3/4/5 MP one. I need to get the new X MP camera to take a good picture.... No you moron, you need to learn the basics of photograpy and get a decent camera. Pixel density has an upper limit where it is useful. After about 1MP for web work, and 2MP for general use, you're wasting your money. If you are a professional photographer or you do keep 8X10s of everything then you might need a 10MP, but if you do, you probably don't want a P&S anyway.
*SLR - Single Lens Reflex - what you see in the viewfinder is exactly what the iris of the camera will see - CMOS, CCD, film. The light comes from a lens - hits a prism & get's split to the iris & the viewfinder.
*P&S - Point & Shoot - seperate lenses for the iris & the viewfinder - usually fixed focal length for the viewfinder, and a guestimated focal distance based on image centering algorythms. Note the similarity between P&S and PoS.
I often though that the correct way to keep a key is to XOR watermark an image with the key data, then run a bit comparison against the origional.
OK here's my keys - [Dumps 10 gig of PRON backup on the desk]
From what I read in the article, first of all, there was a lot of thought put into how to do data abstraction to actually protect your privacy unless they had enough evidence to ask a court (OVERSITE) to let them look closer. Second, there was a crapload of monitoring/controlling of the data - IE you actually needed to be accountable for what you asked for & what you did with it (OVERSITE). The data filtering algorhithms actually were designed to look for specific types of interactions not just general social network mapping.
So given a choice of a secret program with no oversite, that just maps everything for everybody, and doesn't restrict access to the data, or a tightly controlled and monitored system that takes deliberate care to protect anonymity - I think I will take the Monitored one.
Oh, and just for the NSA - If you're doing something you can't tell your supervisor about - it's probably not something you should be doing. (If your project is so secret you can't tell the congressional subcommities on Intelligence, it's probably illegal - and certainly shouldn't be secret)
I said there was no text
Does encoding things in DNA constitute encryption for the DCMA?
And does the govt get to bring the suit or does god have to show up in court personally? - I know he claims to, but I don't think Pat Robertson has the standing.......
"EG: a phone call, as others have noted"
....
As an RCN tech, I made several calls along the line of
Me: Hello, this is so & so calling from RCN. We have identified an issue with your internet connection. (usally some POS router not renewing DHCP IP addresses at expiration).
Customer 1: How dare you call me ?!@
Customer 2: Well fix it then [click]
Customer 3: That can't possibly be true because I am a MCSE & I would know !
Eventually we just went for banning the MAC until they called in & we could get things reset.
I have to agree with someone earlier, people think of their PC more like thier stove or a lamp than anything else. Hell if their pet acted like thier PC, most people would be running to the vet daily. They really just don't want to know about 'bad things'.