Keep in mind that there's a difference between "the arts" of literature, music, and visual art, and the "liberal arts" or "soft sciences".
Things like writing fiction, music, and painting depend more on talent than on university education. I knew plenty of music majors in college, but most of them were doing music education. For the music performance majors, you had to already be a good musician to get into the program, and it was more about the practice time and opportunity to get lessons from a trained, more experienced musician. Professional writers, musicians, and artists would probably be just as good at their jobs with 2-3 years of focused training as they are with a 4-year college degree.
Other "liberal arts" are more like physical sciences and engineering, where natural talent certainly helps, but you typically need the education to be more than below average at your job. Some of these fields are far more important than Slashdot-types recognize. Considering politics in most countries these days, we could use more education in history. With the large number of people suffering from mental health issues, we need more psychologists and social workers. These are the kinds of fields that shouldn't just be for the idle rich, but are necessary for a modern society to not suck.
I'll happily go the Happy Hippie Jesus was a socialist route, if you agree that the highest tax is 10% (the Tithe), which only paid for widows and orphans and Levites (Priestly class) who couldn't own property. Deal?
And leaving parts of your field unharvested so that the poor can take it for food. And giving interest-free loans to the poor, even though you have to forgive the loan after at most 7 years.
Some racing video games had this feature where when you changed lanes, the car would start to signal in that direction. There is a game on the Google Play store right now that does this.
Or is prior art negated because it is virtual and doesn't send the actual CANBUS command to trigger the turn signal?
It's only prior art if it covers every element of the claim. If the video game just did "player turns steering wheel -> turn on signal", then it would only be prior art if that's all that's in a claim in Tesla's patent application. I looked at the patent application very briefly, and Claim 1 requires four different data sources, two of which are used to determine if there's another vehicle nearby.
Well the indicator should only go on after mirrors have been checked and if it is safe.
I learned that you turn on the turn signal before checking your mirrors. Of course, when I learned to drive, it was because the driver in the lane next to you might be polite enough to slow down a bit to let you change lanes.
So basically, the issue is that a crime that occurs entirely within a single state is outside their jurisdiction, which makes sense. States can pass their own version of the CFAA, prosecute anyone that violates the state law, and probably ask the FBI for assistance if the FBI has specialized tools or experts that the state doesn't have.
The Republicans in SCOTUS backed the cake shop not because of the Constitution (which backed the claimant) but to back their own.
Take a look at the Court's decision. They actually refused to rule on the merits of the original case. The Court only decided that the state commission acted like jerks during the hearing about whether or not the baker violated state law, and that such open bias goes against the First Amendment.
Clearly there are plenty of judges, including on the Supreme Court, who believe that the Establishment of Religion clause of the First Amendment gives people blanket ability to break any law that they want (the Hobby Lobby case already showed that), but this particular decision didn't do that.
There have been so many jokes about David Pecker's name, that the Enquirer sent out a request to the news media to please stop snickering when talking about him. The request was written by the Enquirer's head of public relations, Fanny Goblincock.
Would Trump actually admit under oath that he had been tricked by an internet video and hadn't bothered to do the most superficial bit of research to confirm if it was true or not? I think more likely he would just settle for a few million rather than lose face.
Would Google accept a settlement like that? They don't need the relatively small amount of money, and they could reasonably argue that the only way to fully recover their public image is a clear finding by a court that the allegations were false.
Not if you use something like @example.com which is reserved specifically for example emails.
Just to expand a bit, "example.com" is a reserved domain that you can use for any examples, not just email. If I remember correctly, "example" is also a reserved name in any TLD.
Now ask yourself, if the cops said my car ran someone over, would any criminal judge or appeals panel in their right minds believe that "the bare allegation that defendant owns the car is insufficient to support criminal charges"?
Yes, they would. Rather, the police and district attorney's office would never end an investigation at finding out who owns the car. Being the owner of the car is certainly enough for the investigators to interview you, but if you tell the police (and they verify) that you were on vacation that week, they would be crazy to file criminal charges at that point.
The person that wrote the article is strongly implying that it's a difficult task that discourages companies from writing software for Linux. If the need for a few hours of work by a single developer (maybe with the help of a sysadmin) is what convinces a company not to support an operating system, then I have serious doubts about the competency of that company.
Dropbox has a daemon component for file syncing so startup scripts are going to be involved.
If I can figure out how to put together a systemd unit file in my spare time, I'm sure there's at least one person who works for Dropbox that can figure it out during the work day.
If Alphabet, FB, and Amazon were really serious about Net Neutrality, they would form an ISP partnership to compete against the cable and telecommunications.
Running wires to every home in a city is a rather large barrier to entry. It's why free market theory doesn't fit very well when it comes to things like utilities.
Is this markedly different from AT&T or Verizon offering free calls to other AT&T or Verizon customers? That was a thing back when people used cell phones to call people.
The main difference is that it's using AT&T's position in one market (ISP) to reduce competition in a different market (video content), which is the problem that Net Neutrality is meant to address. Free calls to other customers on the same provider might also be considered anticompetitive, but it only involved a single market.
Not yet, because the people running the ISPs are smart enough to wait until it isn't obvious that that's what they're doing. You can, however, find plenty of examples from before 2015, which are what prompted the FCC's action at the time.
If you read the article (I know, I know), you'll find:
The brief calls the FCC’s decision “unreasoned and unreasonable” and says its “flawed analysis runs counter to the record and departs from the (FCC’s) previous factual findings without explanation.”
There are defined (by Congress) rules for new regulations or changes to existing regulations. Among them is the rule that federal agencies must provide a factual basis for their actions, so that regulations aren't changed purely by political whim with every new administration. As far as I can tell, the lawsuit is challenging the FCC action for not having the required factual basis.
In the pure meaning of the word, Net Neutrality means: The Net is just a carrier, and it carries whatever you throw at it, each packet the same as the next. It is totally agnostic to any special properties of the packet as long as the packet is syntactically and logically correct.
That definition would eliminate legitimate Quality of Service concerns, such as prioritizing real-time communications over bulk file copying, which don't have the problem of being anticompetitive.
I'm sure plenty of Slashdot readers have donated money to the EFF, and I'm sure several people who work for the EFF read Slashdot at least occasionally. Does the EFF call anyone who donates money a member? The probability of a randomly selected Slashdot user being employed by or volunteering significant time to the EFF is extremely low. The probability of a randomly selected Slashdot user having donated money to the EFF is higher, but I would guess it's still unlikely.
If you specifically select a Slashdot user because they work for the EFF, then your selection isn't random. Bruce is not, with any reasonable probability, a "random Slashdot reader".
What makes you think there are no EFF members randomly reading Slashdot?
I would think that any EFF member who is reading Slashdot intended to come here. Do they typically have their computers select random web sites to visit?
The friend turns out to be a lawyer working for EFF. This is the raison d'etre for EFF, this is precisely how they get donations and entertain themselves.
No complaints from me. I'm perfectly happy to see crap licenses get struck down by a court. It's also much better for an organization such as the EFF to do it, since they're well-prepared for the fight, instead of some random Slashdot reader.
Intel is highly unlikely to go as far as a subpoena or any other such wankery, it would be highly embarrassing for them.
True, but I try not to underestimate how far some companies will go with the wankery (Oracle comes to mind). Sometimes they don't realize how embarrassing it might be, and sometimes they just don't care because they know they won't lose any business over it (Oracle again comes to mind).
To emphasize, I agree that this license provision is crap. I just wanted to try to correct a couple points.
OK, so a friend runs the benchmarks and EFF publishes them. EFF notifies Intel that they have done so and that their third party software license stipulation is unenforceable.
Intel asks a judge to subpoena someone from the EFF and ask them who the friend is that violated the license. Whether or not it's worth it for Intel to push to find out who it was, that's a separate question.
Hilarity ensues.
For those of us watching at home, hopefully yes. Still a pain in the ass for anyone who has to waste time and money defending themselves in court.
So Intel is saying if you want to benchmark to decide if you want to join the class action, you can't provide a detailed reason that you're joining the class? Lawsuits are a matter of public record - a judge is going to laugh at that kind of restriction. How does Intel expect it's going to enforce this?
In general, if you need to provide to the court some document or information that should not be revealed to the public, it would be filed under seal. That isn't to say that a judge wouldn't (or shouldn't) laugh at Intel for this, I'm just pointing out that it isn't an impossible situation.
How can any processor maker control what somebody does with their computer?
They aren't. The license doesn't say that you can't run any benchmark tests, it only says that you can't tell anyone else the results. Of course, it's still stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that there's a difference between "the arts" of literature, music, and visual art, and the "liberal arts" or "soft sciences".
Things like writing fiction, music, and painting depend more on talent than on university education. I knew plenty of music majors in college, but most of them were doing music education. For the music performance majors, you had to already be a good musician to get into the program, and it was more about the practice time and opportunity to get lessons from a trained, more experienced musician. Professional writers, musicians, and artists would probably be just as good at their jobs with 2-3 years of focused training as they are with a 4-year college degree.
Other "liberal arts" are more like physical sciences and engineering, where natural talent certainly helps, but you typically need the education to be more than below average at your job. Some of these fields are far more important than Slashdot-types recognize. Considering politics in most countries these days, we could use more education in history. With the large number of people suffering from mental health issues, we need more psychologists and social workers. These are the kinds of fields that shouldn't just be for the idle rich, but are necessary for a modern society to not suck.
And yet liberal arts majors are the first to peer down their noses with intellectual superiority.
You must be new here.
I'll happily go the Happy Hippie Jesus was a socialist route, if you agree that the highest tax is 10% (the Tithe), which only paid for widows and orphans and Levites (Priestly class) who couldn't own property. Deal?
And leaving parts of your field unharvested so that the poor can take it for food. And giving interest-free loans to the poor, even though you have to forgive the loan after at most 7 years.
Some racing video games had this feature where when you changed lanes, the car would start to signal in that direction. There is a game on the Google Play store right now that does this.
Or is prior art negated because it is virtual and doesn't send the actual CANBUS command to trigger the turn signal?
It's only prior art if it covers every element of the claim. If the video game just did "player turns steering wheel -> turn on signal", then it would only be prior art if that's all that's in a claim in Tesla's patent application. I looked at the patent application very briefly, and Claim 1 requires four different data sources, two of which are used to determine if there's another vehicle nearby.
Well the indicator should only go on after mirrors have been checked and if it is safe.
I learned that you turn on the turn signal before checking your mirrors. Of course, when I learned to drive, it was because the driver in the lane next to you might be polite enough to slow down a bit to let you change lanes.
So basically, the issue is that a crime that occurs entirely within a single state is outside their jurisdiction, which makes sense. States can pass their own version of the CFAA, prosecute anyone that violates the state law, and probably ask the FBI for assistance if the FBI has specialized tools or experts that the state doesn't have.
The Republicans in SCOTUS backed the cake shop not because of the Constitution (which backed the claimant) but to back their own.
Take a look at the Court's decision. They actually refused to rule on the merits of the original case. The Court only decided that the state commission acted like jerks during the hearing about whether or not the baker violated state law, and that such open bias goes against the First Amendment.
Clearly there are plenty of judges, including on the Supreme Court, who believe that the Establishment of Religion clause of the First Amendment gives people blanket ability to break any law that they want (the Hobby Lobby case already showed that), but this particular decision didn't do that.
There have been so many jokes about David Pecker's name, that the Enquirer sent out a request to the news media to please stop snickering when talking about him. The request was written by the Enquirer's head of public relations, Fanny Goblincock.
What's so funny about Bigus Dickus?
Would Trump actually admit under oath that he had been tricked by an internet video and hadn't bothered to do the most superficial bit of research to confirm if it was true or not? I think more likely he would just settle for a few million rather than lose face.
Would Google accept a settlement like that? They don't need the relatively small amount of money, and they could reasonably argue that the only way to fully recover their public image is a clear finding by a court that the allegations were false.
I think the current factless atmosphere on the right (and so a smaller extent on the left) is a phase.
It's a phase that's lasted for at least 15 years now. It's exactly why The Colbert Report talked about truthiness in the very first episode in 2005.
Government can now declare fruit is a vegetable
Intelligence is knowing that the tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put one in a fruit salad.
Not if you use something like @example.com which is reserved specifically for example emails.
Just to expand a bit, "example.com" is a reserved domain that you can use for any examples, not just email. If I remember correctly, "example" is also a reserved name in any TLD.
Now ask yourself, if the cops said my car ran someone over, would any criminal judge or appeals panel in their right minds believe that "the bare allegation that defendant owns the car is insufficient to support criminal charges"?
Yes, they would. Rather, the police and district attorney's office would never end an investigation at finding out who owns the car. Being the owner of the car is certainly enough for the investigators to interview you, but if you tell the police (and they verify) that you were on vacation that week, they would be crazy to file criminal charges at that point.
The person that wrote the article is strongly implying that it's a difficult task that discourages companies from writing software for Linux. If the need for a few hours of work by a single developer (maybe with the help of a sysadmin) is what convinces a company not to support an operating system, then I have serious doubts about the competency of that company.
Dropbox has a daemon component for file syncing so startup scripts are going to be involved.
If I can figure out how to put together a systemd unit file in my spare time, I'm sure there's at least one person who works for Dropbox that can figure it out during the work day.
If Alphabet, FB, and Amazon were really serious about Net Neutrality, they would form an ISP partnership to compete against the cable and telecommunications.
Running wires to every home in a city is a rather large barrier to entry. It's why free market theory doesn't fit very well when it comes to things like utilities.
Is this markedly different from AT&T or Verizon offering free calls to other AT&T or Verizon customers? That was a thing back when people used cell phones to call people.
The main difference is that it's using AT&T's position in one market (ISP) to reduce competition in a different market (video content), which is the problem that Net Neutrality is meant to address. Free calls to other customers on the same provider might also be considered anticompetitive, but it only involved a single market.
Not yet, because the people running the ISPs are smart enough to wait until it isn't obvious that that's what they're doing. You can, however, find plenty of examples from before 2015, which are what prompted the FCC's action at the time.
On what legal basis, exactly?
If you read the article (I know, I know), you'll find:
The brief calls the FCC’s decision “unreasoned and unreasonable” and says its “flawed analysis runs counter to the record and departs from the (FCC’s) previous factual findings without explanation.”
There are defined (by Congress) rules for new regulations or changes to existing regulations. Among them is the rule that federal agencies must provide a factual basis for their actions, so that regulations aren't changed purely by political whim with every new administration. As far as I can tell, the lawsuit is challenging the FCC action for not having the required factual basis.
In the pure meaning of the word, Net Neutrality means: The Net is just a carrier, and it carries whatever you throw at it, each packet the same as the next. It is totally agnostic to any special properties of the packet as long as the packet is syntactically and logically correct.
That definition would eliminate legitimate Quality of Service concerns, such as prioritizing real-time communications over bulk file copying, which don't have the problem of being anticompetitive.
If you specifically select a Slashdot user because they work for the EFF, then your selection isn't random. Bruce is not, with any reasonable probability, a "random Slashdot reader".
What makes you think there are no EFF members randomly reading Slashdot?
I would think that any EFF member who is reading Slashdot intended to come here. Do they typically have their computers select random web sites to visit?
The friend turns out to be a lawyer working for EFF. This is the raison d'etre for EFF, this is precisely how they get donations and entertain themselves.
No complaints from me. I'm perfectly happy to see crap licenses get struck down by a court. It's also much better for an organization such as the EFF to do it, since they're well-prepared for the fight, instead of some random Slashdot reader.
Intel is highly unlikely to go as far as a subpoena or any other such wankery, it would be highly embarrassing for them.
True, but I try not to underestimate how far some companies will go with the wankery (Oracle comes to mind). Sometimes they don't realize how embarrassing it might be, and sometimes they just don't care because they know they won't lose any business over it (Oracle again comes to mind).
To emphasize, I agree that this license provision is crap. I just wanted to try to correct a couple points.
OK, so a friend runs the benchmarks and EFF publishes them. EFF notifies Intel that they have done so and that their third party software license stipulation is unenforceable.
Intel asks a judge to subpoena someone from the EFF and ask them who the friend is that violated the license. Whether or not it's worth it for Intel to push to find out who it was, that's a separate question.
Hilarity ensues.
For those of us watching at home, hopefully yes. Still a pain in the ass for anyone who has to waste time and money defending themselves in court.
So Intel is saying if you want to benchmark to decide if you want to join the class action, you can't provide a detailed reason that you're joining the class? Lawsuits are a matter of public record - a judge is going to laugh at that kind of restriction. How does Intel expect it's going to enforce this?
In general, if you need to provide to the court some document or information that should not be revealed to the public, it would be filed under seal. That isn't to say that a judge wouldn't (or shouldn't) laugh at Intel for this, I'm just pointing out that it isn't an impossible situation.
How can any processor maker control what somebody does with their computer?
They aren't. The license doesn't say that you can't run any benchmark tests, it only says that you can't tell anyone else the results. Of course, it's still stupid.