If you look at the current state of data storage, the new trend is for *less* features and for more speed, concurrency, throughput and *eventual consistency*.
Speed, concurrency, throughput, distributability, scalability, etc. are all features. So its not "less features" but "a different mix of features".
And, actually, the trend of having new DBs that sacrifice ACID features for speed and performance features, which then evolve to have ACID features added in as people build bigger systems with them and realize the cost of not having ACID guarantees is not new -- the whole history of MySQL is an illustration of that.
Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb." Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches.
Why would Paul have denied that permission, even if he had the legal right to do so?
Which makes me wonder...we do have works that are out of copyright and most Bible translations fall under that.
The most popular translation (I think the KJV still has that honor) might be, but given how the pace of new translations seems to increase over time, I highly doubt that most translations are out of copyright.
So, how far into the past this is legally binding? Only current symbols, current Pope?
I'm not sure where anyone gets the idea that this statement asserts any claim of legal right, rather than internal Church policy, at all.
Where in the statement do you find any indication that the Holy See intends to seek enforcement of this policy through the courts or other government organs of any country?
Why is everyone referring to this as a copyright? It sounds more like the Vatican is protecting their trademark (the Pope).
This is neither trademark nor copyright, it is a statement of Church policy, and possibly a clarification of a particular application of a provision of Canon Law that deals more with the organizational integrity of the Catholic Church than anything else.
It has nothing really to do with copyright or trademark, but this is Slashdot, so things unrelated to IP law in general and copyright in particular get shoved into those frames anyway.
I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.
The statement is available from the Vatican web site, and doesn't appear to claim any particular kind of legal protection (at least not under any secular law), simply a policy statement. The groups it is directed at are probably largely Catholic groups that don't have any particular intent to challenge the Holy See and see what they are doing as consistent with the interests of the heirarchy, so a general statement of policy is probably as far as this is intended to go.
It might be viewed as a clarification of the way the Holy See views the applicability of the Code of Canon Law, specifically, Canon 312 Sec. 3 Para. 1, reserving the authority to erect "public associations of the Christian faithful" with "universal and international" scope to the Holy See.
And that all the law they proclaim are only effective inside Vatican...
(1) States often claim extraterritorial application of their laws (in fact, the US has many laws that apply only outside of the United States), and enforce them against alleged extraterritorial violators when they manage to bring them before the state's courts. (2) The Holy See is not, anyhow, the State of Vatican City, it is the ecclesiastical office of the Pope, of which the office of soveriegn over the State of Vatican City is but a component. The ecclesiastical laws of the Church are, in theory at least, binding on Catholics everywhere in the world, and are enforced not in courts specific to the State of Vatican City, but in the ecclesiastical courts of every Catholic diocese.
No, the secure repos are to make sure the packages are coming from where you think they are from
Funnily enough, a URL serves much the same purpose.
A URL doesn't really do that, since hijacking a URL is trivial for anyone that sits between you and the intended server. (URLs are, in fact, one piece of the architecture of repositories, but signing keys are also used to assure the provenance of the data.)
If Google pumped out their own service like this, built it into all their apps, I'm sure they could even be innovative and make it better than what Yelp has done.
Isn't that what Google does when they buy other online services? Restructure it to integrate with their other online offerings?
Seriously, put your dev team on it for a week and you'll have a bigger base than Yelp does by the end of the quarter, without having spent half a billion dollar.
Presumably, their dev team is already doing other things (and, in the real world, it would take more than a week.) If they buy Yelp, they: 1) Get a codebase and a team familiar with it that can improve it in directions Google directs, 2) Get Yelp's existing userbase, 3) Don't have to compete with Yelp with their own service.
Instead of reinventing the wheel, they just need to tweak and integrate.
Bad choice of numbers. Using the numbers in the article, it is only 57.5% on the way between 25 and 50. Calling that almost is a redefinition of the word almost.
I don't think so. 50% is the nearest approximation on that scale, and "almost" indicates that it is below that approximation.
All true but if they said almost 100% it would be completely invalid naturally whilst still valid by your reckoning.
Actually, there is no value n such that 100% is 6.3/16 rounded to the nearest n, so, no, it wouldn't. (Related to the nearest 100%, 6.3/16 is "just over 0%".)
Who is going to sit quietly with a headache for 90 minutes every time they want to watch a shitty action movie? Why is this 3D trend continuing despite the obvious uselessness?
Its continuing because: 1) It doesn't cause headaches for lots of people (it does for some others -- as does "shakycam" style filming with regular 2D movies, like District 9, Blair Witch, or Cloverfield.) 2) People actually enjoy it, so its not "useless" in an entertainment product, 3) Given that 3D visualization has been important for decades, 3D presentation capabilities clearly aren't useless in other contexts, either, 4) Its getting cheaper to display and generate 3D content, so (given the first three points) its becoming more common.
Yes, its almost 50% -- if you are, e.g., relating it to the nearest 25%. (Rounding it to the nearest 25% it would be just plain 50%, not "almost 50%".)
I would have called that "almost 40%".
Its also almost 40% -- if you are, e.g., relating it to the nearest 10% (or 5% or 2%). And, in fact, 6.3/16 is also "almost 39.5%" if you are relating it to nearest 0.5%, and "just over 39%" if you are relating it to the nearest 1%.
"Almost" means you are giving an approximation (and the direction the value differs from the approximation), not an exact figure. There are infinite number of possible approximations for any given exact value. That something could be described as "almost 40%" does not mean it cannot also be described as "almost 50%" without any "rounding error", since "almost" does not specify the precision of the approximation being used.
These are FEDERAL laws. They are the same everywhere in the US. There's no special federal law for Texas. In other words, the judges are legislating from the bench already by interpreting these laws as more favorable to the patent trolls under the guise of a pro-business conservative mentality.
There are several problems with this argument: (1) The fact that two judges would apply the same law differently even to cases with exactly identical fact patterns does not mean that one is "legislating from the bench" -- law is not so precise as to admit only one interpretation of how it applies to specific facts, (2) Additionally, there is different federal law in different federal districts, because case law is law, and which precedent is binding varies by district, and (3) Further, a district court or judge may be a more favorable venue for reasons other than the substantive legal rules it applies; procedure matters, and within certain bounds the processes and procedures applied in federal courts can --given the discretion granted to the district courts and individual judges under federal law -- vary, and (4) Finally, even if all the above wasn't true, and the difference in results had to indicate that some judge was "legislating from the bench", that doesn't meant the one whose results you like the least is the one doing that.
[...] especially given the interdependence of modern economies (and remember, that's not just money but the production and distribution of all kinds of goods) -- even without the global environmental effects, the major regional effects in North America would have fairly significant global consequences. It wouldn't be the end of the world, or even, most likely, of human civilization, but it would probably be the closest thing to it since there was civilization in the first place.
because I can't grow tomatoes in my underground hydroponic chambers without the explicit consent of some MBA in Ohio?
No, because you can't grow tomatoes in underground hydroponic gardens without a source for grow lamps, electricity or parts/fuel/etc. for your generator, fertilizer, etc.
And because, even if you could, being able to do subsistence-level food production and the ability to maintain a civilization aren't the same thing.
I don't get why your priority should be any other than FOOD and a somewhat a healthy shelter..
I don't get why you think that statement is even relevant to the post you are responding to.
Nevermind anyway, if humans FAIL to recover from that, I guess Darwin ideas will outlive his species
I don't think I said that humans would fail to recover. In fact, when I said that it probably wouldn't end civilization, but would probably be the closest thing to it since there has been a civilization to end, I would think that that strongly suggested that I thought humans would recover from it eventually, but that life would suck for pretty much everyone, everywhere for quite a while afterward.
How 'bout the fact that they CAN flip through notebooks which would seem to be a very similar type of non-container.
Using books, notebooks, and anything that is a bound set of pages, particularly with front-and-back covers, to conceal physical items, including weapons, is a well-attested practice in history.
A notebook is a physical container (not a "non-container"), which usually contains physical pages, and may also be used to conceal other physical items. It is also a data container. Because of the manner in which data is stored, inspecting the physical contents also exposes the data to view. This is rather different from the case with a phone, where, while one might conceivably be used to conceal physically dangerous items (e.g., within the shell of the phone), inspecting the physical contents of the phone for physically dangerous items will not expose the data, so the exception to the warrant requirement which allows as reasonable searches for physical objects in the control of the arrestee, even inside of closed containers, doesn't apply to searching the data of a cellphone, while it does apply to searching the physical content of a notebook, even though the latter will also expose the data content of the notebook.
It seems very reasonable that an officer could look through a person's purse or day-timer if they are arrested. Since phones and digital devices are often similar, it really is just another kind of day-timer.
The reason that this viewed as a "reasonable" search is to protect the physical safety of officers and the public, searching for information rather than physical hazards this way is really a violation of the purpose of the exception but since the exception makes anything found in the course of such a safety-related search admissible, so information found in the course of the search is allowed in evidence (the concept here is that if you made non-safety evidence found in the course of such a search inadmissible, you would create a conflict of incentives which would create avoidable hazards to law enforcement and the public.)
So an electronic device -- even one equivalent to a daytimer -- would be very different, since it can't conceal the same kind of physical hazard that justifies a warrantless search incident to arrest in the first place.
Seems quite plain to me that someone's address book is part of a person's "papers and effects", and therefore would require a warrant to search.
Read the text of the amendment which you posted: the guarantee regarding "papers and effects" is against unreasonable, not warrantless searches. The second clause governs the conditions in which warrants will be issued, but does not state that warrants are required. Warrants are (despite the absence of any express requirement) generally held to be presumptively required for reasonableness, but there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement (but these are not exceptions to the reasonableness requirement.) Search of the person and immediate vincinity of an arrestee incident to arrest -- including closed physical containers -- is one of those circumstances that has been established as an exception to the warrant requirement (largely, justified by public safety concerns with the possibility of physically dangerous objects, including those that might be concealed in a closed container.) This ruling is that that concern does not apply to data in a cellphone, so the phone can't be searched without a warrant.
The privacy advocate in me is thrilled. The critical thinking side of me feels the logic used to arrive at that ruling is asinine.
The logic used is that: (1) It is well-established federal case law (articulated by the US Supreme Court, whose decisions on federal questions are binding on the Ohio Supreme Court), in general, law enforcement searches without request require a warrant to be reasonable; (2) It is well-established federal case law (articulated by the US Supreme Court, whose decisions on federal questions are binding on the Ohio Supreme Court) that a search incident to arrest of the person arrested, including closed containers in their immediate control, is reasonable without a warrant because of the potential for such containers to contain objects which may pose a danger to the arresting officers or the public. (3) While a cellphone may "contain" data, the date it "contains" is not the same as physical contents of a container discussed in #2 in the manner which makes warrantless searches reasonable. (4) As a consequence of #3, in the absence of some other exception to the warrant requirement that would apply, the general rule in #1 applies, and a warrant is required.
If bits are at such a premium that "ultrashort" URLs are better than "sensible" ones, we need to lift the artificial restriction on the number of bits available.
Its not just bits, of course (though SMS and related technology restrict -- or, rather, make expensive -- bits) but also display environments, in some cases. Where a URL may need to be viewed (e.g., in a mechanism that supports text but not links) on a small screen (as, say, on a mobile phone), a long URL is undesirable even outside of transmission restrictions or costs.
How is an address book not "papers" as in the 4th ammendment's person, papers and effects?
It is. The basis on which they could be reviewed in a search incident to arrest is not that they are an exception to the reasonableness requirement (which admits to no exception), but an exception to the implied warrant requirement. You'll note that the language of the amendment doesn't ever explicitly requires warrants for searches, it requires reasonableness and it limits the conditions in which warrants can be issued.
They're a lot easier to read out over the phone, for one - especially if you're deep linking into a site.
Why would I want to read a URL over the phone? If I'm communicating a URL to someone for deep linking into a site, then the one thing I can be pretty sure of (since, if I wasn't, I'd have no reason to communicate the URL) is that the person has internet access. Given that, there are a lot better ways of getting them the URL then reading it to them--such as email. Even if I want to use the telephone to notify them, I can just describe what it is, and tell them I'm mailing them the link.
Yellowstone has gone off in the past and it didn't kill off all the large land animals, sure it screwed up North America for a whiel and lowered global temps several degrees, but it isn't the end of the world.
Heck, even killing off all the large land animals wouldn't be the end of the world.
OTOH -- especially given the interdependence of modern economies (and remember, that's not just money but the production and distribution of all kinds of goods) -- even without the global environmental effects, the major regional effects in North America would have fairly significant global consequences. It wouldn't be the end of the world, or even, most likely, of human civilization, but it would probably be the closest thing to it since there was civilization in the first place.
I thought the main benefit of "elasticity" was remove "peak usage" as a primary buying factor.
That's certainly a benefit.
If you have a routine that can run, well whenever, then is EC2 any cheaper than using whatever is sitting around unused in your shop already?
Possibly not, but if you've already built an infrastructure around EC2, you may not have stuff sitting around your shop intended for that use, and it may make more sense to leverage EC2 for the occasional task of this type, if Amazon provides pricing for it better than the "I need this to run right now" price.
Unless you make a habit of replacing all of your devices every year, the extended warranty is often useful, depending on the device.
The extended warranty will always be more expensive than the value of the services it provides times the likelihood of their use. If there is one particular item where the risk of failure is potentially very expensive but the warranty is affordable, it may make sense; it you regularly purchase them, you almost certainly would be better off taking the same money, and putting it in a savings account, and self-insuring against failures outside the standard warranty coverage across the whole set of products that you would otherwise have been buying extended warranties on.
Slashdot Mirror
Speed, concurrency, throughput, distributability, scalability, etc. are all features. So its not "less features" but "a different mix of features".
And, actually, the trend of having new DBs that sacrifice ACID features for speed and performance features, which then evolve to have ACID features added in as people build bigger systems with them and realize the cost of not having ACID guarantees is not new -- the whole history of MySQL is an illustration of that.
Why would Paul have denied that permission, even if he had the legal right to do so?
The most popular translation (I think the KJV still has that honor) might be, but given how the pace of new translations seems to increase over time, I highly doubt that most translations are out of copyright.
I'm not sure where anyone gets the idea that this statement asserts any claim of legal right, rather than internal Church policy, at all.
Where in the statement do you find any indication that the Holy See intends to seek enforcement of this policy through the courts or other government organs of any country?
This is neither trademark nor copyright, it is a statement of Church policy, and possibly a clarification of a particular application of a provision of Canon Law that deals more with the organizational integrity of the Catholic Church than anything else.
It has nothing really to do with copyright or trademark, but this is Slashdot, so things unrelated to IP law in general and copyright in particular get shoved into those frames anyway.
The statement is available from the Vatican web site, and doesn't appear to claim any particular kind of legal protection (at least not under any secular law), simply a policy statement. The groups it is directed at are probably largely Catholic groups that don't have any particular intent to challenge the Holy See and see what they are doing as consistent with the interests of the heirarchy, so a general statement of policy is probably as far as this is intended to go.
It might be viewed as a clarification of the way the Holy See views the applicability of the Code of Canon Law, specifically, Canon 312 Sec. 3 Para. 1, reserving the authority to erect "public associations of the Christian faithful" with "universal and international" scope to the Holy See.
(1) States often claim extraterritorial application of their laws (in fact, the US has many laws that apply only outside of the United States), and enforce them against alleged extraterritorial violators when they manage to bring them before the state's courts.
(2) The Holy See is not, anyhow, the State of Vatican City, it is the ecclesiastical office of the Pope, of which the office of soveriegn over the State of Vatican City is but a component. The ecclesiastical laws of the Church are, in theory at least, binding on Catholics everywhere in the world, and are enforced not in courts specific to the State of Vatican City, but in the ecclesiastical courts of every Catholic diocese.
A URL doesn't really do that, since hijacking a URL is trivial for anyone that sits between you and the intended server. (URLs are, in fact, one piece of the architecture of repositories, but signing keys are also used to assure the provenance of the data.)
Isn't that what Google does when they buy other online services? Restructure it to integrate with their other online offerings?
Presumably, their dev team is already doing other things (and, in the real world, it would take more than a week.) If they buy Yelp, they:
1) Get a codebase and a team familiar with it that can improve it in directions Google directs,
2) Get Yelp's existing userbase,
3) Don't have to compete with Yelp with their own service.
Instead of reinventing the wheel, they just need to tweak and integrate.
I don't think so. 50% is the nearest approximation on that scale, and "almost" indicates that it is below that approximation.
Actually, there is no value n such that 100% is 6.3/16 rounded to the nearest n, so, no, it wouldn't. (Related to the nearest 100%, 6.3/16 is "just over 0%".)
Its continuing because:
1) It doesn't cause headaches for lots of people (it does for some others -- as does "shakycam" style filming with regular 2D movies, like District 9, Blair Witch, or Cloverfield.)
2) People actually enjoy it, so its not "useless" in an entertainment product,
3) Given that 3D visualization has been important for decades, 3D presentation capabilities clearly aren't useless in other contexts, either,
4) Its getting cheaper to display and generate 3D content, so (given the first three points) its becoming more common.
Yes, its almost 50% -- if you are, e.g., relating it to the nearest 25%. (Rounding it to the nearest 25% it would be just plain 50%, not "almost 50%".)
Its also almost 40% -- if you are, e.g., relating it to the nearest 10% (or 5% or 2%). And, in fact, 6.3/16 is also "almost 39.5%" if you are relating it to nearest 0.5%, and "just over 39%" if you are relating it to the nearest 1%.
"Almost" means you are giving an approximation (and the direction the value differs from the approximation), not an exact figure. There are infinite number of possible approximations for any given exact value. That something could be described as "almost 40%" does not mean it cannot also be described as "almost 50%" without any "rounding error", since "almost" does not specify the precision of the approximation being used.
There are several problems with this argument:
(1) The fact that two judges would apply the same law differently even to cases with exactly identical fact patterns does not mean that one is "legislating from the bench" -- law is not so precise as to admit only one interpretation of how it applies to specific facts,
(2) Additionally, there is different federal law in different federal districts, because case law is law, and which precedent is binding varies by district, and
(3) Further, a district court or judge may be a more favorable venue for reasons other than the substantive legal rules it applies; procedure matters, and within certain bounds the processes and procedures applied in federal courts can --given the discretion granted to the district courts and individual judges under federal law -- vary, and
(4) Finally, even if all the above wasn't true, and the difference in results had to indicate that some judge was "legislating from the bench", that doesn't meant the one whose results you like the least is the one doing that.
No, because you can't grow tomatoes in underground hydroponic gardens without a source for grow lamps, electricity or parts/fuel/etc. for your generator, fertilizer, etc.
And because, even if you could, being able to do subsistence-level food production and the ability to maintain a civilization aren't the same thing.
I don't get why you think that statement is even relevant to the post you are responding to.
I don't think I said that humans would fail to recover. In fact, when I said that it probably wouldn't end civilization, but would probably be the closest thing to it since there has been a civilization to end, I would think that that strongly suggested that I thought humans would recover from it eventually, but that life would suck for pretty much everyone, everywhere for quite a while afterward.
Using books, notebooks, and anything that is a bound set of pages, particularly with front-and-back covers, to conceal physical items, including weapons, is a well-attested practice in history.
A notebook is a physical container (not a "non-container"), which usually contains physical pages, and may also be used to conceal other physical items. It is also a data container. Because of the manner in which data is stored, inspecting the physical contents also exposes the data to view. This is rather different from the case with a phone, where, while one might conceivably be used to conceal physically dangerous items (e.g., within the shell of the phone), inspecting the physical contents of the phone for physically dangerous items will not expose the data, so the exception to the warrant requirement which allows as reasonable searches for physical objects in the control of the arrestee, even inside of closed containers, doesn't apply to searching the data of a cellphone, while it does apply to searching the physical content of a notebook, even though the latter will also expose the data content of the notebook.
The reason that this viewed as a "reasonable" search is to protect the physical safety of officers and the public, searching for information rather than physical hazards this way is really a violation of the purpose of the exception but since the exception makes anything found in the course of such a safety-related search admissible, so information found in the course of the search is allowed in evidence (the concept here is that if you made non-safety evidence found in the course of such a search inadmissible, you would create a conflict of incentives which would create avoidable hazards to law enforcement and the public.)
So an electronic device -- even one equivalent to a daytimer -- would be very different, since it can't conceal the same kind of physical hazard that justifies a warrantless search incident to arrest in the first place.
Read the text of the amendment which you posted: the guarantee regarding "papers and effects" is against unreasonable, not warrantless searches. The second clause governs the conditions in which warrants will be issued, but does not state that warrants are required. Warrants are (despite the absence of any express requirement) generally held to be presumptively required for reasonableness, but there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement (but these are not exceptions to the reasonableness requirement.) Search of the person and immediate vincinity of an arrestee incident to arrest -- including closed physical containers -- is one of those circumstances that has been established as an exception to the warrant requirement (largely, justified by public safety concerns with the possibility of physically dangerous objects, including those that might be concealed in a closed container.) This ruling is that that concern does not apply to data in a cellphone, so the phone can't be searched without a warrant.
The logic used is that:
(1) It is well-established federal case law (articulated by the US Supreme Court, whose decisions on federal questions are binding on the Ohio Supreme Court), in general, law enforcement searches without request require a warrant to be reasonable;
(2) It is well-established federal case law (articulated by the US Supreme Court, whose decisions on federal questions are binding on the Ohio Supreme Court) that a search incident to arrest of the person arrested, including closed containers in their immediate control, is reasonable without a warrant because of the potential for such containers to contain objects which may pose a danger to the arresting officers or the public.
(3) While a cellphone may "contain" data, the date it "contains" is not the same as physical contents of a container discussed in #2 in the manner which makes warrantless searches reasonable.
(4) As a consequence of #3, in the absence of some other exception to the warrant requirement that would apply, the general rule in #1 applies, and a warrant is required.
What part this reasoning do you object to?
Its not just bits, of course (though SMS and related technology restrict -- or, rather, make expensive -- bits) but also display environments, in some cases. Where a URL may need to be viewed (e.g., in a mechanism that supports text but not links) on a small screen (as, say, on a mobile phone), a long URL is undesirable even outside of transmission restrictions or costs.
It is. The basis on which they could be reviewed in a search incident to arrest is not that they are an exception to the reasonableness requirement (which admits to no exception), but an exception to the implied warrant requirement. You'll note that the language of the amendment doesn't ever explicitly requires warrants for searches, it requires reasonableness and it limits the conditions in which warrants can be issued.
Why would I want to read a URL over the phone? If I'm communicating a URL to someone for deep linking into a site, then the one thing I can be pretty sure of (since, if I wasn't, I'd have no reason to communicate the URL) is that the person has internet access. Given that, there are a lot better ways of getting them the URL then reading it to them--such as email. Even if I want to use the telephone to notify them, I can just describe what it is, and tell them I'm mailing them the link.
Heck, even killing off all the large land animals wouldn't be the end of the world.
OTOH -- especially given the interdependence of modern economies (and remember, that's not just money but the production and distribution of all kinds of goods) -- even without the global environmental effects, the major regional effects in North America would have fairly significant global consequences. It wouldn't be the end of the world, or even, most likely, of human civilization, but it would probably be the closest thing to it since there was civilization in the first place.
That's certainly a benefit.
Possibly not, but if you've already built an infrastructure around EC2, you may not have stuff sitting around your shop intended for that use, and it may make more sense to leverage EC2 for the occasional task of this type, if Amazon provides pricing for it better than the "I need this to run right now" price.
The extended warranty will always be more expensive than the value of the services it provides times the likelihood of their use. If there is one particular item where the risk of failure is potentially very expensive but the warranty is affordable, it may make sense; it you regularly purchase them, you almost certainly would be better off taking the same money, and putting it in a savings account, and self-insuring against failures outside the standard warranty coverage across the whole set of products that you would otherwise have been buying extended warranties on.