Then I would use the opportunity to distribute the subpoenas for the raft of civil suits I was going to launch for the mental anguish and libel against my son. Not to mention the bills for the tutor home schooling him after I got hime out of juvie. ("Alternative Education Center" my fat hairy butt.) Then I'd leave without another word. There was no threat made to any student, there were no real weapons found. There's no history of problems with this student. There was no attempt to even determine if a threat existed.
Speaking as a parent, I'd want someone's head for this.
if you look for patterns in any data you will find them
The accuracy of any interpretation of a cipher needs to be done on something outside the cipher. For example, once you have a hypothetical way of deciphering a text, does it yield meaningful words or gibberish? The ciphers have two independent verifications. First of all, they had two-hundred and thirteen patterns, but all of them could be reproduced at specific pitches. Secondly, if you look at the video, a separate carving (the "staff angel") points to the starting notes of the encryption. This isn't just picking out a number and finding it. It's a matter of postulating a hypothesis and coming up with verification.
Is it really hard to believe that someone building a chapel would carve a hymn into the walls?
As I understand it, the RIAA ADMITS to having entered Ms.Andersen's computer without her consent.
That's what Andersen's lawyer alleges, but I can't find anywhere that the RIAA says so. My understanding is that the RIAA simply tracks IP addresses and then sues whoever was using the address at that time. It was the Settlement Support Center that made it look like they had more than that. Their arm twisting tactics certainly made it sound like the RIAA had broken into Ms. Andersen's computer. But, if they had done that, they would have known she wasn't downloading any files.
What seems to be going on here is that the lawyer is taking the RIAA at their word and leveling the charge based on what the RIAA -- or rather, the Settlement Support Center acting as their agent -- actually said. They claimed to have "seen" her downloading and "knew" the files were on her computer. Really? Well, how did they know that? MediaSentry has never disclosed their methods of information gathering, so there's no information coming from that quarter. They must have broken into her home computer to obtain those sorts of files, right?
This puts the RIAA between a rock and a hard place. Either they can admit that they broke into her home computer, or they can admit that they were lying about that bit. Of course, if they admit they never really had any evidence in the first place, that strengthens the other claims against them.
Are they going to be exposed to unreliable sources of information out in the real world? If the answer is "yes" then simply excluding Wikipedia means that you're failing to teach them how to deal with the real world. My wife is a teacher and in her school they tell the students that they can use Wikipedia, but they cannot cite it as a source. That's a balanced way to deal with a potentially unreliable source; use it as starting point, but assume that what it says requires confirmation.
It sounds like this is exactly the sort of patent that Pubpat was formed to combat. From their About page:
The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") is a not-for-profit legal services organization that represents the public's interests against the harms caused by the patent system, particularly the harms caused by undeserved patents and unsound patent policy. PUBPAT provides the general public and specific persons or entities otherwise deprived of access to the system governing patents with representation, education and advocacy.
It sounds like this patent has already been proven invalid and is being actively enforced. What more do you need?
from what I understand of US law free speech does not extend to those involved in a legal case being able to comment on that case
It's the parties involved in the case that aren's supposed to talk to the press. The goal is to keep the case from being tried in the press rather than the court and to keep confidential matters confidential. PJ is not a party to the case; at worst she might become a deponent. Unless the judge specifically orders otherwise, she'll still be free to express her own opinion about the case. In one of her
comments she says there is more to the story, but she won't discuss it until she is "lawyered up". Presumably two of the things she's making sure of is that she can continue to publish Groklaw and that she won't be exposed to the same sort of abusive interrogation SCO used on Otis Wilson
I wouldn't worry about PJ in a courtroom; our girl can take care of herself.
Yeah, there are a lot of idiot lawsuits out there. But how many have gone on for four years, cost this kind of money and involved this many people? SCO sent threatening letters went to 1500 companies, sued two of their own clients and three of their former business partners. And, as is becoming increasingly clear, they really didn't have any real evidence to start with.
Maybe you could find a suit based on a stupider premise, but I don't think anyone can beat SCO for the sheer scale of their stupidity.
anybody who said burning hydrogen has to leave the room
There is that. Actually, I was more concerned of those who were following the clueless politicians who seem to be saying we can get hydrogen from electricity which we get from hydrogen. As Babbage once said (on a different subject), "I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
Well, if you're going to be producing electricity a better storage medium would be the battery. Battery technology has greatly improved in recent years and the efficiency is much better than hydrogen. For cars the main problem with batteries is that it takes too long to recharge, but that problem can be addressed by moving to plug-in hybrids.
At least for automotive purposes, the best solution available with current technology seems to be using efficient batteries to store electricity (from renewable resources) in a plug-in hybrid, backed up by an internal combustion engine using a biofuel.
Hydrogen has two big problems. The first question is; where are we going to get all that hydrogen? If you said "electrolysis" I'm afraid you are going to have to go to the back of the class. Converting water to hydrogen by electrolysis and then pumping it through a fuel cell to get energy out again results in massive losses of energy. Like over half. And since you're pouring massive amounts of electricity into creating hydrogen, where are you getting the electricity from? Anyone who said "hydrogen" must leave the room immediately.
The other problem is that there is currently no (nada, zilch, zip) infrastructure for supporting hydrogen energy. Converting a gas station into an ethanol station isn't hard. Brazil already requires new cars to be "dual fuel" and capable of using ethanol or gasoline. Biodiesel is even easier since virtually every diesel vehicle actually runs better on biodiesel.
Hydrogen has a whole raft of other hurdles to cross as well but, until it crosses those two, it's not even really a serious contender.
This isn't a new observation. If food is used to power vehicles, the increased demand is going to force up the price of food. On top of that, food products generally require arable land, which is in limited supply. In addition to making the morally indefensible decision to starve the poor to feed an energy habit, even committing all arable land to the project will still not answer the energy problem. To make biofuel in the amounts required means that you need to tap a source which can cheaply be grown in quantity without cutting into the food supply.
Which might not be as hard as it sounds. The University of New Hampshire did a study in 2004 where they concluded that biodiesel from algae could -- at least theoritically -- supply all the nation's fuel supply without require food oil (like soy or palm) to be used at all. On the ethanol front, cellulosic ethanol can be produced from high-cellulose plant products, like sawgrass or wood chips, without cutting into the corn crop. Some of cellulosic plants are beginning to approach commercial volumes of production.
It's not that biofuels are a bad idea, but not all implementations of those ideas are equally valid.
But why on earth aren't they "planning to offer" the bare hardware with no OS pre-loaded at all?
Once a computer is built, it's run through a process called burn in where the computer is run through its paces using an automated test. To do that, you need to load at least a rudimentary operating system, so why not load the whole thing? If it's Linux, it's not like you're going to have to pay for the copy. And the number of folks who really want a "bare" box is very small. Even if they don't want the version of Linux offered, it's better to at least have the opportunity to determine if the hardware works before you overwrite it with the distro of your choice.
The RIAA doesn't win many lawsuits, it just threatens people into settling for $3750. It's very much a poker bluff, they have no hand to play
Exactly. And every poker player knows the problem with bluffing; the other guy might call your bluff. And that's exactly what happened with the Merchant case. If you read the letter, you will find that the attorney didn't just suggest everyone go home. He told the RIAA that they would need to cough up $6,880.25 immediately, but only if they also apologized profusely and dropped the case. You will also notice that he threatened the lawyers as well with a malicious prosecution case against them personally. Even schoolyard bullies are in trouble when the principal shows up.
To me this looks like a pretty good tactic with the clearly innocent. As long as there is clear evidence that the prosecution is misguided (like the Merchant's squeaky clean hard drive), a similar letter would probably lead to an immediate dismissal. I'm curious if lawyers would possibly take such a case "on spec" taking a cut of the settlement when (if?) the RIAA settles. Any legal eagles know what the problems might be for such a course of action?
Of course, the only way to call a bluff is to put more money into the kitty. Following this route could get expensive real quick, if you're sitting in a dorm room surrounded by CDs labeled with a Sharpie and a copy of Kaazaa on your hard drive.
So in both cases it would be necessary to negotiate this clearance (performance right and master-recording right) with every separate record label
So why don't the indie labels and/or artists form a co-op to negotiate pricing as a group? The big labels dominate the RIAA and the agenda of killing off internet radio is certainly not beneficial to the smaller labels. And labels drop out of the RIAA all the time because they differ from the RIAA on policy. So why not form a competitor and let each label choose which one they want to belong to?
Forgive me for keeping posting on this same topic, but I'm honestly baffled. I'm just an old businessman and I can't understand why a manufacturer (i.e., musicians) would accept the sort of odious conditions this particular wholesaler (i.e., the RIAA) treats them when there is another obvious and more direct route to consumers interested in their products.
The actual title on the spreadsheet is "cost of energy". There is a disclaimer that says "Cost per energy unit IS NOT part of this evaluation, only the amount of energy necessary." That raises the question of how they compared the energy in, for example, an acetylene torch used in production to a gallon of gas used in day-to-day operation. Also, if you browse through the (458 page!) Word document, it's obvious that they're using some questionable numbers. For example, the expected lifespan of a Prius is only 109,000 miles, while that of a Hummer is a whopping 379,000 miles. That's going to give the high production cost of a Prius a disproportionately high impact on the final results.
How many vehicles have you seen with nearly 400,000 miles on the odometer?
it's about who has to pay SoundExchange either way, which is everyone unless they have a written contract from some entity granting them music.
How about Fat Chuck, AzOz, Artist Direct, Go-Kart or EarBuzz? I'm sure these (and other) "entities" would be happy to have their portfolios of artists played on internet radio. Chasing down artists in ones and twos is not required.
While the RIAA controls a lot of music, I would contend that they don't control the best or even the most, only the best known. Many formerly popular groups have retrieved their music, which the RIAA has been neglecting in favor of the more profitable new groups. Classic music scores are, generally, public domain and can be performed by any competent orchestra. Do you honestly believe that RIAA artists are inherently "better" than the huge number of non-RIAA artists? The only real problem is one of filtration. As covered previously the question is, how do you filter out the huge number of wannabees from the genuine talent? IMHO, a rec system could be put in place which would allow the listeners willing to rate tracks to winnow out the pretenders and provide a list of talent better than anything the RIAA offers.
Remember, the RIAA makes more profit when there are fewer artists selling more copies of the same songs to more buyers. Therefore, it is in their best interest to reduce the amount of music available. In turn, this means that the bulk of those with real talent out there do not have a contract with a major label. The RIAA is opposed not only to the rights of artists and fans, but to music itself.
To someone who contends that the RIAA controls the best, I would ask, "How much non-RIAA music have you listened to?"
If you're not sure who your congress critters are or how to contact them, go to congress.org and type in your zip code. Remember that paper letters count for more points than email and reasoned arguments count more than rants. Note that the same site has a Soapbox where you can urge your fellow citizens to get involved as well.
There is a lot of music out there which is not controlled by the RIAA. While it would mean skipping the "hottest new songs" (i.e., tuneless dreck) it would mean that the music could be streamed (or podcast) without any royalty payments at all. The 'casters could also make a side business selling their own music mixes with a percentage of sales going straight to the artists. And it direct competition to the RIAA hegemony.
Okay, so a good tool isn't nearly as sexy as a GPS. But, if your GPS breaks, what are you going to fix it with? As a result, my personal favorite gadget is the Leatherman Wave. However, I've been told that it's foolish (and possibly illegal) to roam around France without a corkscrew. If that's the case, you may want to consider one of the Juice models that include that particular widget.
Since if you roll out a SuSE based Linux machine several of the others would just say "Meh, I'll order it however and flatten it once I get it" you have a much smaller target audience who would actually buy it.
But, given the choice between a less-desirable Linux distro and Windows, wouldn't you rather get Linux? Replace it if you want, but at least you know it works with Linux and has the necessary drivers without having to guess where MS wants you to go today. And you didn't send any cash to Redmond for the privilege.
Face it, demanding a broad spectrum of distros will just mean replacing the Microsoft tax (having to pay monopoly prices) with a Linux tax (having to support multiple distros). And having no OS isn't an improvement. Manufacturers need to install something just to go through the pre-shipping burn in, so why not pick a Linux distro? There are even some people, like myself, who don't have deep-seated convictions on which distro to use. I'd rather have to deal with minor system variants than have to deal with installing a new OS after having paid for another one.
And if Dell doesn't support your preferred version, so what? Which major manufacturers support it now?
The NY Times has a policy of not using his quotes in stories.
Enderle wasn't boycotted; the Times just changed it editorial policy because of him. According to this article the NYT found out that Enderle had ties to Microsoft. As a result, "the paper ceased quoting technology analysts in stories, if the analysts do business with the vendors mentioned in the articles." A policy, the article goes on to say, that the Times often fails to follow. There was no outright ban on Enderle personally.
Apple Newton. With a form factor too big to fit comfortably into a pocket, just one of the (many) reasons Newton never really caught on.
The cramped keyboard. Lots of failed products had these; pick one. Squeeze the keyboard too narrow and it makes for uncomfortable typing.
IBM Thinkpad 701. Getting past the cramped keyboard, IBM made a laptop with a butterfly keyboard. But it turned out that customers were more concerned about the narrow little screen that went with their narrow little keyboard. Sort of like the narrow little screen on this thing.
The bottom line is that he's trying to market a device that crams into the space between the laptop and PDA. And the market for that is just too small to squeeze in Allen's "next small thing."
Slashdot Mirror
Then I would use the opportunity to distribute the subpoenas for the raft of civil suits I was going to launch for the mental anguish and libel against my son. Not to mention the bills for the tutor home schooling him after I got hime out of juvie. ("Alternative Education Center" my fat hairy butt.) Then I'd leave without another word. There was no threat made to any student, there were no real weapons found. There's no history of problems with this student. There was no attempt to even determine if a threat existed.
Speaking as a parent, I'd want someone's head for this.
Is it really hard to believe that someone building a chapel would carve a hymn into the walls?
What seems to be going on here is that the lawyer is taking the RIAA at their word and leveling the charge based on what the RIAA -- or rather, the Settlement Support Center acting as their agent -- actually said. They claimed to have "seen" her downloading and "knew" the files were on her computer. Really? Well, how did they know that? MediaSentry has never disclosed their methods of information gathering, so there's no information coming from that quarter. They must have broken into her home computer to obtain those sorts of files, right?
This puts the RIAA between a rock and a hard place. Either they can admit that they broke into her home computer, or they can admit that they were lying about that bit. Of course, if they admit they never really had any evidence in the first place, that strengthens the other claims against them.
No wonder they want the counterclaim dismissed.
Are they going to be exposed to unreliable sources of information out in the real world? If the answer is "yes" then simply excluding Wikipedia means that you're failing to teach them how to deal with the real world. My wife is a teacher and in her school they tell the students that they can use Wikipedia, but they cannot cite it as a source. That's a balanced way to deal with a potentially unreliable source; use it as starting point, but assume that what it says requires confirmation.
I wouldn't worry about PJ in a courtroom; our girl can take care of herself.
SCO's CEO has made a point of telling the press that he carries a gun. So he's got lawyers and guns, but he's running out of money.
Yeah, there are a lot of idiot lawsuits out there. But how many have gone on for four years, cost this kind of money and involved this many people? SCO sent threatening letters went to 1500 companies, sued two of their own clients and three of their former business partners. And, as is becoming increasingly clear, they really didn't have any real evidence to start with.
Maybe you could find a suit based on a stupider premise, but I don't think anyone can beat SCO for the sheer scale of their stupidity.
At least for automotive purposes, the best solution available with current technology seems to be using efficient batteries to store electricity (from renewable resources) in a plug-in hybrid, backed up by an internal combustion engine using a biofuel.
The other problem is that there is currently no (nada, zilch, zip) infrastructure for supporting hydrogen energy. Converting a gas station into an ethanol station isn't hard. Brazil already requires new cars to be "dual fuel" and capable of using ethanol or gasoline. Biodiesel is even easier since virtually every diesel vehicle actually runs better on biodiesel.
Hydrogen has a whole raft of other hurdles to cross as well but, until it crosses those two, it's not even really a serious contender.
Which might not be as hard as it sounds. The University of New Hampshire did a study in 2004 where they concluded that biodiesel from algae could -- at least theoritically -- supply all the nation's fuel supply without require food oil (like soy or palm) to be used at all. On the ethanol front, cellulosic ethanol can be produced from high-cellulose plant products, like sawgrass or wood chips, without cutting into the corn crop. Some of cellulosic plants are beginning to approach commercial volumes of production.
It's not that biofuels are a bad idea, but not all implementations of those ideas are equally valid.
To me this looks like a pretty good tactic with the clearly innocent. As long as there is clear evidence that the prosecution is misguided (like the Merchant's squeaky clean hard drive), a similar letter would probably lead to an immediate dismissal. I'm curious if lawyers would possibly take such a case "on spec" taking a cut of the settlement when (if?) the RIAA settles. Any legal eagles know what the problems might be for such a course of action?
Of course, the only way to call a bluff is to put more money into the kitty. Following this route could get expensive real quick, if you're sitting in a dorm room surrounded by CDs labeled with a Sharpie and a copy of Kaazaa on your hard drive.
Forgive me for keeping posting on this same topic, but I'm honestly baffled. I'm just an old businessman and I can't understand why a manufacturer (i.e., musicians) would accept the sort of odious conditions this particular wholesaler (i.e., the RIAA) treats them when there is another obvious and more direct route to consumers interested in their products.
How many vehicles have you seen with nearly 400,000 miles on the odometer?
While the RIAA controls a lot of music, I would contend that they don't control the best or even the most, only the best known. Many formerly popular groups have retrieved their music, which the RIAA has been neglecting in favor of the more profitable new groups. Classic music scores are, generally, public domain and can be performed by any competent orchestra. Do you honestly believe that RIAA artists are inherently "better" than the huge number of non-RIAA artists? The only real problem is one of filtration. As covered previously the question is, how do you filter out the huge number of wannabees from the genuine talent? IMHO, a rec system could be put in place which would allow the listeners willing to rate tracks to winnow out the pretenders and provide a list of talent better than anything the RIAA offers.
Remember, the RIAA makes more profit when there are fewer artists selling more copies of the same songs to more buyers. Therefore, it is in their best interest to reduce the amount of music available. In turn, this means that the bulk of those with real talent out there do not have a contract with a major label. The RIAA is opposed not only to the rights of artists and fans, but to music itself.
To someone who contends that the RIAA controls the best, I would ask, "How much non-RIAA music have you listened to?"
If you're not sure who your congress critters are or how to contact them, go to congress.org and type in your zip code. Remember that paper letters count for more points than email and reasoned arguments count more than rants. Note that the same site has a Soapbox where you can urge your fellow citizens to get involved as well.
Anybody see a reason why this wouldn't work?
Okay, so a good tool isn't nearly as sexy as a GPS. But, if your GPS breaks, what are you going to fix it with? As a result, my personal favorite gadget is the Leatherman Wave. However, I've been told that it's foolish (and possibly illegal) to roam around France without a corkscrew. If that's the case, you may want to consider one of the Juice models that include that particular widget.
Face it, demanding a broad spectrum of distros will just mean replacing the Microsoft tax (having to pay monopoly prices) with a Linux tax (having to support multiple distros). And having no OS isn't an improvement. Manufacturers need to install something just to go through the pre-shipping burn in, so why not pick a Linux distro? There are even some people, like myself, who don't have deep-seated convictions on which distro to use. I'd rather have to deal with minor system variants than have to deal with installing a new OS after having paid for another one.
And if Dell doesn't support your preferred version, so what? Which major manufacturers support it now?
- Apple Newton. With a form factor too big to fit comfortably into a pocket, just one of the (many) reasons Newton never really caught on.
- The cramped keyboard. Lots of failed products had these; pick one. Squeeze the keyboard too narrow and it makes for uncomfortable typing.
- IBM Thinkpad 701. Getting past the cramped keyboard, IBM made a laptop with a butterfly keyboard. But it turned out that customers were more concerned about the narrow little screen that went with their narrow little keyboard. Sort of like the narrow little screen on this thing.
The bottom line is that he's trying to market a device that crams into the space between the laptop and PDA. And the market for that is just too small to squeeze in Allen's "next small thing."