How do you know? People could be downloading their email locally but maintaining the copy on the server as backup.
But this one was not. From the linked article in the linked article:
Two Justices -- Justice Hearn, joined by Justice Kittredge -- argued that the Yahoo! e-mails were not in electronic storage because there was no evidence that Jennings had ever downloaded any other copies. Because there were no other copies, the copy stored with Yahoo! could not logically be a backup, as the word âoebackupâ presupposes the existence of another copy.
We know because the lawyers never made the argument despite the large red flag that was the Theofel v. Farey-Jones decision.
So, if I download my email via POP3 or IMAP, and leave a copy on the server, which is the backup?
According to the Ninth Circuit, the server copy.
Defendants point to these cases and argue that messages remaining on an ISP's server after delivery no longer fall within the Act's coverage. But, even if such messages are not within the purview of subsection (A), they do fit comfortably within subsection (B). There is no dispute that messages remaining on NetGate's server after delivery are stored "by an electronic communication service" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510(17)(B). Cf. DoubleClick, 154 F.Supp.2d at 511 (holding that subsection (B) did not apply because the communications at issue were not being stored by an electronic communication service). The only issue, then, is whether the messages are stored "for purposes of backup protection." 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510(17)(B). We think that, within the ordinary meaning of those terms, they are.
An obvious purpose for storing a message on an ISP's server after delivery is to provide a second copy of the message in the event that the user needs to download it again -- if, for example, the message is accidentally erased from the user's own computer. The ISP copy of the message functions as a "backup" for the user. Notably, nothing in the Act requires that the backup protection be for the benefit of the ISP rather than the user. Storage under these circumstances thus literally falls within the statutory definition.
Of course, in the present case, the user did not download email by POP3 or IMAP, but used the system purely as webmail.
What a stupid law to distinguish between backups and original copies!
Which, as I pointed out in the GP post, is not something that the court is permitted to fix.
The ECPA refers to a defintion of "electronic storage" contained in the Wiretap Act (18 USC 2510, item (17)) which was never intended to encompass cloud email:
(17) "electronic storage" means--
(A) any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof; and
(B) any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication;
The court logically concluded that if the only copy of the received email is stored in a cloud email account, that copy is not stored for purposes of backup protection of such communication.
If you are one of those individuals who joyfully cries "RAID is not a backup," then you essentially agree with this court.
A court, even a Supreme Court, is not empowered to fix "bad statutes" by rewriting them. That pesky separation of powers doctrine requires that Congress pass legistlation to fix the defect, and the President sign that legislation, and no amount of wailing about the illogic of what the law "should be" versus what it is will change that requirement.
And I'd be really fucking pissed off if my Linux PC required a user present at the console to reboot. Seriously, how is this a fix?
Because it is a fix for those who cannot or will not use the alternative of entering their own list of acceptable signing keys into the UEFI, which would not require a user present but draws a great hue and cry that it is "too complex" for the average Linux user to accomplish.
1. Enter your keys into the UEFI key list, walk away; or 2. Have a user present to acknowledge that they want to boot unsigned/signed-but-not-entered code; or 3. Don't use a UEFI PC; but not 4. Prevent the rest of the world from having access to a secure boot chain because you refuse to lift a finger yourself
You don't even need to focus on the derivative work aspect in this instance. "Linking" to an API allegedly creates a derivative work, but I don't recall "linking" ever having been ruled to fall outside of 17 USC 117(a). I especially don't recall an instance of "linking" or otherwise inserting a hardware driver ever having been ruled to fall outside of 17 USC 117(a).
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.
(emphasis added)
If you look back to the CONTU report that resulted in the addition of this exception back in in 1978, you'll find this little gem:
Because of a lack of complete standardization among programming languages and hardware in the computer industry, one who rightfully acquires a copy of a program frequently cannot use it without adapting it to that limited extent which will allow its use in the possessorâ(TM)s computer. The copyright law, which grants to copyright proprietors the exclusive right to prepare translations, transformations, and adaptations of their work, should no more prevent such use than it should prevent rightful possessors from loading programs into their computers. Thus, a right to make those changes necessary to enable the use for which it was both sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion of a program from one higher-level language to another to facilitate use would fall within this right, as would the right to add features to the program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition.
CONTU Final Report, Chapter 1 (emphasis added).
Between this provision and the clear uncopyrightability of simple names such as the symbol name used for this API call, I think that Cox's belief is based only upon propaganda and wishful thinking.
More seriously, though, China has its own spy satellites and certainly has detailed aerial imagery of Taiwan probably in excess of the quality available to commercial imaging satellites. This information being known to the public isn't really going to change anything -- it's not like the average person is going to be able to do anything to a radar installation on a military base.
There is quite a leap from protester (or militant) with access to low resolution imagery and state military with access to state-launched spy satellite high resolution imagery. For instance, the state military is unlikely to launch an attack unless the leadership of that country has decided instigate a de facto war. The "average person," on the other hand, has little other means for obtaining details concerning internal security fences, obscured lines of sight, illuminated and non-illuminated areas, etc. The sort of information that you'd need to plan an infiltration in advance.
There is quite a difference, but you either fail to appreciate it or do not care. Military personnel both appreciate the difference and care. Most people with a passing knowledge of military history apprecite the difference and care.
And don't get me started on Santa Claus. How does he deliver toys to over a billion homes in one night? Science offers no plausible explanation for that.
Relative velocity time dilation has been understood for years. Please leave your geek card at the door on the way out.
Reltive velocity time dilation only theoretically solves the time aspect of the problem, and only if you neglect the fact that at least the delivered presents have to STOP in my frame of reference..
I don't care how damn amazing a Wii U is supposed to be, when 1.5 kg of mass rips to a halt under my Christmas tree from, let's be generous here, 0.9c, the resulting vaporization of my house (k.e. ~ 0.5mv^2, or 1.09*10^17 joules, or 26.06 Mt of TNT) is going to result in a very unhappy Christmas.
I've just been scrolling through the "what's the point" posts and all I can say is get the fuck over yourselves. If this thing were built in America you'd be calling it the greatest thing since the outside toilet. Same as how you pissed on Concorde, one of the greatest technical achievements of the 20th century, after you didn't get your act together with your own SST projects. Same s how you defend your suckiness at soccer by claiming "oh but we don't care about that game anyway."
Actually, I wouldn't. Rocket and jet engines capable of powering objects to 1,000 mph are commonplace and a routine aerospace product. Jet planes and rocket planes capable of traveling at sustained 1,000 mph speeds are unusual and more specialized, but still not a breakthrough.
A car design which which is capable of traveling at sustained 1,000 mph speeds other than as a jet plane or rocket plane, i.e., without becoming airborne, and by actually supporting at least its own weight on the ground surface (I certainly won't exclude downforce-utilizing designs), would be the greatest thing since the outside toilet from a technological perspective. That's neither been tested nor proven here. So piss off yourself.
Perhaps this is an unduly pithy response, but I'm compelled to say "citation needed."
It is often said that driving is a privilege, and not a right. However, that particularly pithy remark has only been offered when someone wishes to operate a vehicle -- not merely to ride in a vehicle, and certainly not merely to ride in licensed commercial passenger vehicles.
Your ordinary air traveler is not a pilot, and is not demanding the "right" to operate the aircraft. Nor is the government operating the aircraft and merely reserving the "right" to offer its services to whom it chooses. The government is exercising a police power to regulate, and potentially negate, travel arrangements made between two private parties.
Finally, you may wish to review the actual "rules of the road" as set forth by the governing bodies. 49 USC 40103 states that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace," and complements that pesky thing referred to as the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."). While reasonable restrictions are permitted (as in all aspects of even enumerated rights under U.S. Constitution), freedom of movement is not merely a privilege subject to the whim of the soverign.
Quit whining and just go through it.
The battle cry of the authoritarian. You shall not challenge the rules; no reasonable person would have an opinion different than mine; I will not abuse the rules despite them giving me and my agents a clear opportunity to do so.
No, the GPL doesn't work like this. Having violated the GPL on this code, Twin Peaks are no longer licensed. They cannot reacquire a license simply by coming back into compliance. They need to explicitly be relicensed by the copyright holder (Red Hat), who are not likely to do so in this case.
That is only under GPL v3. GPL v2 contains nothing which precludes becoming relicensed by coming into compliance and obtaining another 'downstream' license. Nor does the copyright holder have the right to terminate any license obtained by an entity that was formerly not in compliance. You'll notice that the procedure you describe is very explicit in the v3 license. The v2 mentions termination only twice, in section 4, and section 6 is quite clear that the recipient is automatically granted a license.
Licenses are to be construed strictly against the drafter, and so forth...
Posting the trademark symbol next to the word WikiTravel on August 18th, 2012, is illegal and it's a finable offense. The filing of the trademark only occurred on August 22nd, 2012, coincidentally just four days after the alleged incident. And no, pay no attention to "FIRST USE: 20030724. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 2003072", that part won't help them.
Playing lawyer when you're not is a finable offense as well.
Anyone can apply the "TM" symbol to something that they claim is a trademark at any time. You cannot use the "(R)" symbol until a trademark registration has been granted.
The claimed first use in commerce is actually quite significant. Assuming that they can back that up, someone would have to have been using the trademark prior to that date to qualify as a senior user. It also establishes the application as a 1(a) application (based on use) rather than a 1(b) application (intent to use).
That being said, I'm not a lawyer, and this is only my layman opinion regarding the reported Trademark claim made in the parent post.
Of course if don't believe that laws require a rational basis or that enacting a law that majorities will ignore as a matter of reasoned choice is a bad idea, then you likely won't give a damn. And you have a promising future as an insurance industry spokesperson.
'If you're looking at an 85 mph speed limit, we could possibly see drivers going 95 up to 100 miles per hour,' says Sandra Helin, president of the Southwestern Insurance Information Service. 'When you get to those speeds, your accidents are going to be a lot worse. You're going to have a lot more fatalities.'"
The design ideal for a speed limit is to set it at the 85th percentile of the speeds typical drivers drive in average conditions. That means that 15 percent of drivers will likely exceed the empirical design speed limit.
The typical speeder drives 5-15 mph over the speed limit because they would otherwise be within the top 15 percent, and because it does not make them so obtrusive that they are likely to get caught.
Ms. Helin and her ilk (every speed limit change or recommendation brings one crawling out of the woodwork) would have the speed limit set so that the people otherwise traveling at 5-15mph over the speed limit (otherwise within the 15 percent) are traveling at what would approximately be the 85th percentile speed, effectively compressing the high tail of the statistical distribution due to the aforementioned effect of law enforcement.
This means (following their proscription) that the actual speed limit must be set well below the 85th percentile speed, such as... let's pick the 50th percentile because it makes for very easy reference and math later on... are the 35 percent, otherwise in the 50th-85th percentile speed range, from a design perspective only, unreasonably dangerous for traveling at their preferred speed? Of course, from a legal perspective they are 'lawbreakers.'
Most importantly, the difference between the 50th percentile and the 85th percentile, if you have a gaussian distribution of speeds, is 1 standard deviation. The difference between the 85th and 95th percentile is another whole standard deviation. The difference between the 95th percentile and the 99th percentile is yet another standard deviation. Who is your 15 mph speeder? Are they traveling at the 95th percentile speed... the 99th percentile speed?
Very roughtly, since the distribution shape will of course change and not be gaussian with speed enforcement, if it ever was to begin with:
To restrain that second standard deviation -- 10 percent -- by artifically lowering the speed limit, are you willing to make 35 percent of people drive below their preferred speed?
To restrain that third standard deviation -- 14 percent in total -- by artificially lowering the speed limit, are you willing to make b>70 percent of people drive below their preferred speed?
Of course this all depends upon how those 5-15mph speeders fit within the tail of the distribution. But in general, the insurance instrustry says "Yes!." And this is why you (with varying but non-trivial probability) are a lawbreaker.
Here, there seems to be a greater emphasis on the aspect of transparency, and the publication of something which, for many, probably amounts to a trade secret.
Conversely, could one argue that this is the licensing of a trade secret? Potentially a tough argument, on the basis that it would seem to flaunt one of the core tenets of secrecy, given that it is published.
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (not itself a law, but a model law which has been adopted by many states with minor modifications): "'Trade secret' means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
(i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and
(ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
It is no longer a trade secret. Period. None of the obligations of the CC licence impose a secrecy obligation, therefore the recipe lost whatever claim it had to trade secret protection. It is readily ascertainable by proper means, and not subect to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.
So long as you don't use this particular copy of the recipie to manufacture your commercial beer, you're free to use the ingredients and process to manufacture your commercial beer. Reduce the recipie to a bare list of ingredients and a minimal description of the process, remaining as objectively factual as possible. Avoid quoting anything that you absolutely do not need to. Then go about your business.
The law concerning recipies is clear and settled. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 is your friend.
Why did anyone mod you up? When someone abandons a copyrighted property of any sort then it should enter the public domain. If the book, dvd, or whatever goes out of print then you should lose the copyright. If a game is no longer available for purchase or play then you should lose the copyright.
Well then, fair is fair. http://mymindblewup.com/ is down, and looks to have been down since March 2009. Fortunately, the internet archive has copies from January 2009 and earlier. Thank you for surrending the copyright to everything that you placed on it, and for permitting me to use this material in any way that I please... such as content for an ad-link farm.
If you care so little about the product then you lose rights to the product. I can't imagine any reasonable argument against this.
At the end of the 19th century there were a total of about 650,000 patents granted. Now there are over 8,000,000.
The majority of which have expired. You neglect the fact that patents will expire appx. 5, 9, or 13 years after grant due to non-payment of maintenance fees, and 17 years after grant or 20 years after filing even with full payment of the maintenance fees. Pretty much any patent with a number below appx. 5,300,000 has expired.
There's a bit of a difference.
Yes. The number of different areas of technology and manufacture have increased. Your implied point that any one engineer 'must' consider vastly more patents remains to be proven.
And while that's not to say that _never_ happened a hundred years ago (because occasionally it did), these days it's standard operating procedure. I have to side with the OP. This is a different world.
Then put your backup NAS in the garage or a garden shed, only power the NAS while needed and yank out the network cable if you have to.
Attached garages burn and get broken into. Tenth floor condominiums don't have garden sheds. I can knock down any alternative that you propose just as easily as you can ignore the fact that while alternatives are nice, the Ask Slashdot request was for a solution to a particular problem, not a general method of backing up data.
External HDDs means USB, and USB 2.0 is not fast (30-35 MB/s, faced with 24 TB source storage this is very slow, GBit/s Ethernet can give you 80 MB/s to 110 MB/s).
External HDDs means USB or eSATA, and USB3.0 is as fast as any 1-3 HDDs. Hence the Seagate GoFlex 3 TB USB3 drives that I purchased for $99 each at Best Buy last Black Friday.
RAID5/6 and lvm2 (zfs if you like an are already familiar with it) and you're done in an easy and maintainable way
Except that any two or three drive failures, such as caused by a lightning strike, can eliminate all that data. Particularly if your NAS and your backup NAS are in the same location. My 'NAS' is already RAID6. Fat lot of good it'll do me if the house burns down.
Dealing with ~10 external disks guarantees just one thing, that you'll never actually do the backup.
No, it guarantees that you won't have a current backup of frequently changing data. If your NAS has a large quantity of stale but online data (because you want the availability, or it's a media collection, or it's 5 years of home movies from a camera-head), frequency may be almost a non-issue.
External HDDs have a number of advantages that the "insane" may desire:
1. If it's not hooked up to power, it can't be hacked and can't be fried except by EMP.
2. If its not bundled together in a RAID, nothing short of complete failure will cause complete data loss.
3. External HDDs are very easy to haul between home/office and a remote site.
4. (becuase other comments keep raising this issue) If you buy the same model eHDDs, you're only managing as many power supplies as you need simultaneous connections. The aforementioned Seagate drives also use essentially the same power supply as my prior FreeAgent 750GB USB2/eSATA/FW400 drives.
Organizing your storage so that the live and changing data is well segregated from the live and stale data eliminates much of this problem. For example, a live data drive with operating system, client computer backups, user profiles, and other live data could be automatically backed up to an identical eHDD or -- crazy, I know, -- iHDD installed in a hotswap dock. A stale data section of a NAS could be manually backed up on eHDDs. The stale data backups, and any live backup that you happen to have at the time, can be dropped off in your saftety deposit box -- which for most normal people will not fit a NAS.
So... there is a sane option in answering the stated problem rather than proposing your own defective solution based on your own priorities and parameters. You simply don't know a relevant answer and choose to attack the question instead. Grade: C-.
What your attemting isn't easy, it's actually difficult. Buy a cheap and big refurbished workstation or rackmount server, install a few extra SATA controllers and maybe a new power supply, hook up 12 2TB drives, install Debian, check out LVM and your all set.
Messing around with 12 - 24 external HDDs and their power supplys is a big hassle and asking for trouble. Don't do it. Do seriously go through the possibilty of building your own NAS. You'll be thankfull in the end and it won't take much longer, it might even go faster and be cheaper if you can get the parts fast.
Way to redefine the problem instead of working within the specifications.
Perhaps: 1. The poster ALREADY has a NAS and wants to have airgapped or even offsite/offline backup.
2. External HDDs are fast, common, reasonably cheap, and do not have a single point of failure (e.g., the tape backup drive in many suggested alternatives)
I'm interested in this question. I use this general setup, but on a smaller scale. I cannot put a NAS in a safety deposit box. I cannot ensure that my "backup" NAS would not be drowned in a flood, burned in a fire, fried by a lightning strike...
Let's pretend the poster is not an idiot, and answer the actual question. If he has 24TB of data, IT'S ALREADY ON DAS/NAS. Geesh.
We are helping someone back up his music and audio collection, aren't we?
Well, actually you're not helping someone do anything. You're just vomiting up speculative accusations.
And they won't be pirated, will they?
See above. Then ignore children, CD rot, and every other legitimate reason for backing up the optical media that you've spent your hard-earned money on.
Now run along and sue everyone who's provided actual, helpful advice. However, you may want to look up the standard for "contributory infringement" first...
It would be nice if the fuel and the reason why was specified in the summary. I can only image that it has something to do with expansion rations versus LH2, although I'm not sure how liquid methane (thankfully called-out in the linked Morpheus page) represents a vast improvement. If you can use kerosene, you can use alcohols, which are much much more biodegradable and don't have nearly the greenhouse gas power of methane.
If 8 million humans were slaughtered, we would call it a Holocaust. If 8 million chickens were slaughtered, we would call it......well nothing, we wouldn't even blink an eyelid at the thought.
One is sentient, the other is pretty decidedly not sentient. One is not-food (for almost all), the other is pretty decidedly food (for almost all). One has a total population of about 7 billion, one has a population birth rate of about 50 billion per year.
You don't complain about the bacterial holocaust that you wreak when you bathe (and I hope that you do bathe)... so where do you propose to draw the line?
Chickens: class aves, descended from distant ancestors that ate our distant ancestors. Class also includes hawks, falcons, and other aves that are blase at killing aves and mammals. Humans: class mammalia, demonstrated to have raised and eaten chicken for the past round-about 8000 years. Class also includes canines, felines, and other mammals that are blase about killing mammals and aves.
So long as they were slaughtered using reasonable practices, I neither feel amazed nor disturbed.
That would be some incentive for them to look into and resolve problems quickly.
Because losing the claimed refund amount (which anecdotally appears to be in the high 4 figures, greater than the typical refund) somehow costs less than the interest and penalties that would be reversed on the actual refund amount due?
Nevermind that the IRS doesn't lose the money and wouldn't pay those amounts, but the general treasury does and would.
Just look to the mortgage crisis, where the party in control (the mortgage broker) has no financial stake and the party bearing the losses (the bundled security buyer) bears the loss, to predict the behavior in this instance.
Slashdot Mirror
But this one was not. From the linked article in the linked article:
We know because the lawyers never made the argument despite the large red flag that was the Theofel v. Farey-Jones decision.
On what grounds?
Authority -- commerce clause; email is predominantly interstate.
Equal protection -- who does it discriminate against and how does the disparate effect relate to a protected class?
Other?
"Unconstitutional" is not a card you can whip out the moment that you disagree with a law...
According to the Ninth Circuit, the server copy.
Of course, in the present case, the user did not download email by POP3 or IMAP, but used the system purely as webmail.
Which, as I pointed out in the GP post, is not something that the court is permitted to fix.
The ECPA refers to a defintion of "electronic storage" contained in the Wiretap Act (18 USC 2510, item (17)) which was never intended to encompass cloud email:
(17) "electronic storage" means--
(A) any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof; and
(B) any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication;
The court logically concluded that if the only copy of the received email is stored in a cloud email account, that copy is not stored for purposes of backup protection of such communication.
If you are one of those individuals who joyfully cries "RAID is not a backup," then you essentially agree with this court.
A court, even a Supreme Court, is not empowered to fix "bad statutes" by rewriting them. That pesky separation of powers doctrine requires that Congress pass legistlation to fix the defect, and the President sign that legislation, and no amount of wailing about the illogic of what the law "should be" versus what it is will change that requirement.
Because it is a fix for those who cannot or will not use the alternative of entering their own list of acceptable signing keys into the UEFI, which would not require a user present but draws a great hue and cry that it is "too complex" for the average Linux user to accomplish.
1. Enter your keys into the UEFI key list, walk away; or
2. Have a user present to acknowledge that they want to boot unsigned/signed-but-not-entered code; or
3. Don't use a UEFI PC; but not
4. Prevent the rest of the world from having access to a secure boot chain because you refuse to lift a finger yourself
You don't even need to focus on the derivative work aspect in this instance. "Linking" to an API allegedly creates a derivative work, but I don't recall "linking" ever having been ruled to fall outside of 17 USC 117(a). I especially don't recall an instance of "linking" or otherwise inserting a hardware driver ever having been ruled to fall outside of 17 USC 117(a).
(emphasis added)
If you look back to the CONTU report that resulted in the addition of this exception back in in 1978, you'll find this little gem:
CONTU Final Report, Chapter 1 (emphasis added).
Between this provision and the clear uncopyrightability of simple names such as the symbol name used for this API call, I think that Cox's belief is based only upon propaganda and wishful thinking.
You don't say?
How about an above average militant?
There is quite a leap from protester (or militant) with access to low resolution imagery and state military with access to state-launched spy satellite high resolution imagery. For instance, the state military is unlikely to launch an attack unless the leadership of that country has decided instigate a de facto war. The "average person," on the other hand, has little other means for obtaining details concerning internal security fences, obscured lines of sight, illuminated and non-illuminated areas, etc. The sort of information that you'd need to plan an infiltration in advance.
There is quite a difference, but you either fail to appreciate it or do not care. Military personnel both appreciate the difference and care. Most people with a passing knowledge of military history apprecite the difference and care.
So... no.
Reltive velocity time dilation only theoretically solves the time aspect of the problem, and only if you neglect the fact that at least the delivered presents have to STOP in my frame of reference..
I don't care how damn amazing a Wii U is supposed to be, when 1.5 kg of mass rips to a halt under my Christmas tree from, let's be generous here, 0.9c, the resulting vaporization of my house (k.e. ~ 0.5mv^2, or 1.09*10^17 joules, or 26.06 Mt of TNT) is going to result in a very unhappy Christmas.
FYI, to the moderator deeming my response flamebait:
Considering the GP was even more inflammatory and off topic in the quoted text, aren't your standards just a wee bit inconsistent?
Actually, I wouldn't. Rocket and jet engines capable of powering objects to 1,000 mph are commonplace and a routine aerospace product.
Jet planes and rocket planes capable of traveling at sustained 1,000 mph speeds are unusual and more specialized, but still not a breakthrough.
A car design which which is capable of traveling at sustained 1,000 mph speeds other than as a jet plane or rocket plane, i.e., without becoming airborne, and by actually supporting at least its own weight on the ground surface (I certainly won't exclude downforce-utilizing designs), would be the greatest thing since the outside toilet from a technological perspective. That's neither been tested nor proven here. So piss off yourself.
Perhaps this is an unduly pithy response, but I'm compelled to say "citation needed."
It is often said that driving is a privilege, and not a right. However, that particularly pithy remark has only been offered when someone wishes to operate a vehicle -- not merely to ride in a vehicle, and certainly not merely to ride in licensed commercial passenger vehicles.
Your ordinary air traveler is not a pilot, and is not demanding the "right" to operate the aircraft. Nor is the government operating the aircraft and merely reserving the "right" to offer its services to whom it chooses. The government is exercising a police power to regulate, and potentially negate, travel arrangements made between two private parties.
Finally, you may wish to review the actual "rules of the road" as set forth by the governing bodies. 49 USC 40103 states that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace," and complements that pesky thing referred to as the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."). While reasonable restrictions are permitted (as in all aspects of even enumerated rights under U.S. Constitution), freedom of movement is not merely a privilege subject to the whim of the soverign.
The battle cry of the authoritarian. You shall not challenge the rules; no reasonable person would have an opinion different than mine; I will not abuse the rules despite them giving me and my agents a clear opportunity to do so.
That is only under GPL v3. GPL v2 contains nothing which precludes becoming relicensed by coming into compliance and obtaining another 'downstream' license. Nor does the copyright holder have the right to terminate any license obtained by an entity that was formerly not in compliance. You'll notice that the procedure you describe is very explicit in the v3 license. The v2 mentions termination only twice, in section 4, and section 6 is quite clear that the recipient is automatically granted a license.
Licenses are to be construed strictly against the drafter, and so forth...
Playing lawyer when you're not is a finable offense as well.
Anyone can apply the "TM" symbol to something that they claim is a trademark at any time. You cannot use the "(R)" symbol until a trademark registration has been granted.
The claimed first use in commerce is actually quite significant. Assuming that they can back that up, someone would have to have been using the trademark prior to that date to qualify as a senior user. It also establishes the application as a 1(a) application (based on use) rather than a 1(b) application (intent to use).
Who would've guessed...
The Texas Department of Transportation, among others. Also, many other state governments, city governments, and civil engineers.
Of course if don't believe that laws require a rational basis or that enacting a law that majorities will ignore as a matter of reasoned choice is a bad idea, then you likely won't give a damn. And you have a promising future as an insurance industry spokesperson.
The design ideal for a speed limit is to set it at the 85th percentile of the speeds typical drivers drive in average conditions. That means that 15 percent of drivers will likely exceed the empirical design speed limit.
The typical speeder drives 5-15 mph over the speed limit because they would otherwise be within the top 15 percent, and because it does not make them so obtrusive that they are likely to get caught.
Ms. Helin and her ilk (every speed limit change or recommendation brings one crawling out of the woodwork) would have the speed limit set so that the people otherwise traveling at 5-15mph over the speed limit (otherwise within the 15 percent) are traveling at what would approximately be the 85th percentile speed, effectively compressing the high tail of the statistical distribution due to the aforementioned effect of law enforcement.
This means (following their proscription) that the actual speed limit must be set well below the 85th percentile speed, such as... let's pick the 50th percentile because it makes for very easy reference and math later on... are the 35 percent, otherwise in the 50th-85th percentile speed range, from a design perspective only, unreasonably dangerous for traveling at their preferred speed? Of course, from a legal perspective they are 'lawbreakers.'
Most importantly, the difference between the 50th percentile and the 85th percentile, if you have a gaussian distribution of speeds, is 1 standard deviation. The difference between the 85th and 95th percentile is another whole standard deviation.
The difference between the 95th percentile and the 99th percentile is yet another standard deviation.
Who is your 15 mph speeder? Are they traveling at the 95th percentile speed... the 99th percentile speed?
Very roughtly, since the distribution shape will of course change and not be gaussian with speed enforcement, if it ever was to begin with:
To restrain that second standard deviation -- 10 percent -- by artifically lowering the speed limit, are you willing to make 35 percent of people drive below their preferred speed?
To restrain that third standard deviation -- 14 percent in total -- by artificially lowering the speed limit, are you willing to make b>70 percent of people drive below their preferred speed?
Of course this all depends upon how those 5-15mph speeders fit within the tail of the distribution. But in general, the insurance instrustry says "Yes!." And this is why you (with varying but non-trivial probability) are a lawbreaker.
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (not itself a law, but a model law which has been adopted by many states with minor modifications):
"'Trade secret' means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
(i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and
(ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
It is no longer a trade secret. Period. None of the obligations of the CC licence impose a secrecy obligation, therefore the recipe lost whatever claim it had to trade secret protection. It is readily ascertainable by proper means, and not subect to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.
So long as you don't use this particular copy of the recipie to manufacture your commercial beer, you're free to use the ingredients and process to manufacture your commercial beer. Reduce the recipie to a bare list of ingredients and a minimal description of the process, remaining as objectively factual as possible. Avoid quoting anything that you absolutely do not need to. Then go about your business.
The law concerning recipies is clear and settled. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 is your friend.
Well then, fair is fair. http://mymindblewup.com/ is down, and looks to have been down since March 2009. Fortunately, the internet archive has copies from January 2009 and earlier. Thank you for surrending the copyright to everything that you placed on it, and for permitting me to use this material in any way that I please... such as content for an ad-link farm.
Q.E.D.
The majority of which have expired. You neglect the fact that patents will expire appx. 5, 9, or 13 years after grant due to non-payment of maintenance fees, and 17 years after grant or 20 years after filing even with full payment of the maintenance fees. Pretty much any patent with a number below appx. 5,300,000 has expired.
Yes. The number of different areas of technology and manufacture have increased. Your implied point that any one engineer 'must' consider vastly more patents remains to be proven.
I beg to differ.
Attached garages burn and get broken into. Tenth floor condominiums don't have garden sheds. I can knock down any alternative that you propose just as easily as you can ignore the fact that while alternatives are nice, the Ask Slashdot request was for a solution to a particular problem, not a general method of backing up data.
External HDDs means USB or eSATA, and USB3.0 is as fast as any 1-3 HDDs. Hence the Seagate GoFlex 3 TB USB3 drives that I purchased for $99 each at Best Buy last Black Friday.
Except that any two or three drive failures, such as caused by a lightning strike, can eliminate all that data. Particularly if your NAS and your backup NAS are in the same location. My 'NAS' is already RAID6. Fat lot of good it'll do me if the house burns down.
No, it guarantees that you won't have a current backup of frequently changing data. If your NAS has a large quantity of stale but online data (because you want the availability, or it's a media collection, or it's 5 years of home movies from a camera-head), frequency may be almost a non-issue.
External HDDs have a number of advantages that the "insane" may desire:
1. If it's not hooked up to power, it can't be hacked and can't be fried except by EMP.
2. If its not bundled together in a RAID, nothing short of complete failure will cause complete data loss.
3. External HDDs are very easy to haul between home/office and a remote site.
4. (becuase other comments keep raising this issue) If you buy the same model eHDDs, you're only managing as many power supplies as you need simultaneous connections. The aforementioned Seagate drives also use essentially the same power supply as my prior FreeAgent 750GB USB2/eSATA/FW400 drives.
Organizing your storage so that the live and changing data is well segregated from the live and stale data eliminates much of this problem. For example, a live data drive with operating system, client computer backups, user profiles, and other live data could be automatically backed up to an identical eHDD or -- crazy, I know, -- iHDD installed in a hotswap dock. A stale data section of a NAS could be manually backed up on eHDDs. The stale data backups, and any live backup that you happen to have at the time, can be dropped off in your saftety deposit box -- which for most normal people will not fit a NAS.
So... there is a sane option in answering the stated problem rather than proposing your own defective solution based on your own priorities and parameters. You simply don't know a relevant answer and choose to attack the question instead.
Grade: C-.
Way to redefine the problem instead of working within the specifications.
Perhaps:
1. The poster ALREADY has a NAS and wants to have airgapped or even offsite/offline backup.
2. External HDDs are fast, common, reasonably cheap, and do not have a single point of failure (e.g., the tape backup drive in many suggested alternatives)
I'm interested in this question. I use this general setup, but on a smaller scale. I cannot put a NAS in a safety deposit box. I cannot ensure that my "backup" NAS would not be drowned in a flood, burned in a fire, fried by a lightning strike...
Let's pretend the poster is not an idiot, and answer the actual question. If he has 24TB of data, IT'S ALREADY ON DAS/NAS. Geesh.
Well, actually you're not helping someone do anything. You're just vomiting up speculative accusations.
See above. Then ignore children, CD rot, and every other legitimate reason for backing up the optical media that you've spent your hard-earned money on.
Now run along and sue everyone who's provided actual, helpful advice. However, you may want to look up the standard for "contributory infringement" first...
Such as, LOX/LH2?
It would be nice if the fuel and the reason why was specified in the summary. I can only image that it has something to do with expansion rations versus LH2, although I'm not sure how liquid methane (thankfully called-out in the linked Morpheus page) represents a vast improvement. If you can use kerosene, you can use alcohols, which are much much more biodegradable and don't have nearly the greenhouse gas power of methane.
You're correct. I was using the bastardized sci-fi meaning of the term, and didn't check to see whether there was a different scientific meaning.
One is sentient, the other is pretty decidedly not sentient. One is not-food (for almost all), the other is pretty decidedly food (for almost all). One has a total population of about 7 billion, one has a population birth rate of about 50 billion per year.
You don't complain about the bacterial holocaust that you wreak when you bathe (and I hope that you do bathe)... so where do you propose to draw the line?
Chickens: class aves, descended from distant ancestors that ate our distant ancestors. Class also includes hawks, falcons, and other aves that are blase at killing aves and mammals. Humans: class mammalia, demonstrated to have raised and eaten chicken for the past round-about 8000 years. Class also includes canines, felines, and other mammals that are blase about killing mammals and aves.
So long as they were slaughtered using reasonable practices, I neither feel amazed nor disturbed.
Because losing the claimed refund amount (which anecdotally appears to be in the high 4 figures, greater than the typical refund) somehow costs less than the interest and penalties that would be reversed on the actual refund amount due?
Nevermind that the IRS doesn't lose the money and wouldn't pay those amounts, but the general treasury does and would.
Just look to the mortgage crisis, where the party in control (the mortgage broker) has no financial stake and the party bearing the losses (the bundled security buyer) bears the loss, to predict the behavior in this instance.