In the region where I live, there is an annual inspection required in Washington, D.C. and Virginia requires them. Maryland only requires an inspection when the vehicle is first registered or on transfer of registration, and the inspection is good for the life of the registration. If the vehicle is never sold, never moves to another state and is eventually junked without ever changing registration, in Maryland - and possibly other states - it will never see another inspection. Also, Virginia does not require re-inspection if the vehicle is not in Virginia. As it turned out my brother-in-law, who lived in Virginia, loaned me his car on a more-or-less permanent basis to use it to commute to work. I drove the car and paid for everything. But I could not buy insurance; I had to have him buy it, list me as an authorized user. And even though the vehicle was operated exclusively in and garaged in Maryland by a person with a Maryland license, where was the car required to registered and the tags issued by? Virginia, of course, where the owner resided.
It's the same rule with corporations. I lived in Virginia and started a corporation for my software company. Later I moved back to Maryland, and I had a choice, I could spend $120 to register a new corporation in Maryland or spend $100 to authorize my existing corporation to do business in Maryland. So I chose the latter. If the corporation is ever sued over its operations in Maryland where its only office and headquarters are located, what law will a state court in Maryland use to determine the corporate affairs of the corporation? Virginia, where the corporation is chartered.
To raise the cost of being able to forge a digital document beyond what an attacker is willing to pay the cost of legitimate use becomes greater than the benefit.
Exactly why we have spam. Make sending forged address and spammy e-mail require prepaid costs such that it was as expensive as snail mail and spam would drop from 90% of mail to less than 0.1%. It's only because it costs nearly nothing either directly for small quantities (like phishing scams) or via botnets to send huge quantities of spam (for bulk ads for fraudulent products including erectile disfunction drugs) that so much can be generated. We have some partial solutions but the entire solution requires better tools to manage the movement and transfer of email.
As for security of e-documents and other electronic transmissions, we need good tools to seamlessly handle authentication (proof the sender is who they claim they are) and non-repudiation (proof that you signed [or authorized] the document and that you are unable to claim you didn't - or the recipient has proof you did - authorize the document)
Repudiation is extremely critical to claim fraud or to stop a transaction, like when you claim a credit card charge is not authorized or the merchant stiffed you and you want a chargeback, or when you want to stop payment on a check. Non-repudiation is critical if you verified the recipient, provided the goods and services, and want to guarantee you get paid and the recipient can't falsely file a chargeback when they legitimately did receive the merch.
For ordinary transactions using paper documents we have notary publics who provide both and the notary affixes their seal and signature, essentially countersigning the signature for original signed documents or verifying certified copies of documents. Some organizations like stock certificate issuers require more, and so there is Medallion Signature Guarantee, where the authenticating official certifies the identity of the party to the document and agrees to cover any financial loss to the recipient of the document if the person who was guaranteed is not the correct individual (or agent if they're signing as attorney in fact or signing on behalf of an entity like a corporation or LLC.)
I am a notary public, licensed in two states. (A notary's license, or commission is, with minor exceptions only valid in the state of issue.) The jobs of a notary. in general, include the certification of documents, authentication of signatures, and taking oaths and affirmations (and some states don't include all of these or add special extras; notaries in Maryland can't certify copies of documents like contracts, while in Ohio, notaries have the power to issue subpoenas.). All done on paper and the job of a notary hasn't changed from essentially the way it was done 200 to 500 years ago. There are provisions for notaries to authenticate electronic documents but they're not uniform from state-to-state (some states don't even allow it or have the standards on how it is to be done) and the infrastructure to support it (including proper software and/or hardware for document certification and authentication) aren't there yet.
Until we have well-defined electronic equivalents like notaries public and guarantees like Medallion, we're going to continue to have a problem with those very issues of authentication and/or non-repudiation (plus security when the document must be kept private like certain contracts or secret like classified material.)
You don't even have to state the work is copyrighted; copyright notices became optional in the U.S. in 1988 when we became a member of the Berne Union. The only issue is that if you don't have a notice the person who is sued can claim 'innocent infringement' and reduce damages.
Also, the term 'all rights reserved' is completely deprecated. This notice gives special protection under the Buenos Aires Convention, a special copyright convention from around 1912. As of about 1990 every member of the Buenos Aires Convention was also a member of the Berne Union, which doesn't require copyright notices at all, therefore the term 'all rights reserved' is now completely superfluous. (There are very limited technical exceptions regarding when a copyright expires which doesn't apply for most people because copyrights last for life plus many years, either 50 or 70 depending on which country has stayed with the old version of the Berne Convention or the newer version.)
It doesn't matter what you want to put on your thesis, you university owns the copyrights to it.
I'd suggest you contact your Uni and put the same question to them, rather than 6 million/. Subscribers.
This is not correct. Unless you are an employee of the university and you are hired to do this sort of work, it is not the university's property. Even if you wrote the paper using university computers and university resources. You're paying the university and therefore you're entitled to use of the facilities.
This point is very clear that unless you are doing this as a 'work for hire' you own the work, and for it to be considered a work for hire means you either have to be a contract or salaried employee of the university to be considered creating a 'work for hire' for them to own the work. A student of the university is not an employee of the university and the university has no ownership right whatsoever.
This has been a standard rule since the U.S. became a member of the Berne Convention and eliminated copyright notices more than twenty years ago.
If you want attribution you cannot use Public Domain because you cannot impose any conditions at all, it is completely open.
You probably want Creative Commons share alike non-commercial, which means people can use or quote your work, but if they want to use it for commercial purposes such as resale then they have to get your permission.
Sounds like you probably want this one:
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC BY-NC-SA
This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
You don't have the right to not be photographed in public,
But the photo can't be used for commercial purposes.
You don't have the right to 'privacy' over something that can be viewed from public land or public right-of-way.
You don't have the right to stop people from saying bad things about you.
As long as what they say is true. If someone calls you a bastard pedophile, as long as they can prove your parents weren't married before you were born and you engage in unacceptable private meetings with kids, that's perfectly legal to say. Otherwise they can be held to damages.
Procter & Gamble, the soap manufacturer, had a big problem with people who were claiming the company supported Satanism and their 'Man In The Moon' logo was a Satanic symbol. (What this has to do with the quality of their products is beyond me.) One rumor was that the President of P&G appeared on a Saturday edition of Phil Donohue and admitted that the company supported Satanism, despite the fact that (1) He'd never appeared on the show; (2) Donohue did not do Saturday shows; (3) No such show ever happened. Apparently it was some Amway distributors who were trying to besmirch P&G's spotless reputation with libelous insults. P&G sued and got a large judgement.
You don't have the right to punish people who don't break any laws and can call you out with proof of what a huge lair, criminal adulterer pig cop you are.
Again, only if it's true. Libel is not only a civil offense - the party who has been defamed can sue - but it's also a crime. Usually not invoked unless you say something really bad about someone or you malign a dead person who has a good reputation. Claiming Mother Theresa died of a venereal disease or was a hooker, that George Washington was a coward, or that FDR was faking he was crippled because he was actually collaborating with the Nazis, are the sort of things that if you tried to claim were true, might be serious enough if some prosecutor was offended to get you tried for criminal libel and if convicted, jail time. Libeling dead people is considered very bad because they can't respond and if they have a good reputation it damages it. Now you can libel Saddam Hussein or Stalin or Hitler all you want, their reputation is so bad they basically are considered undefamable.
Sec. 16.06. UNLAWFUL INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE. (a) In this section:
(1) "Electronic or mechanical tracking device" means a device capable of emitting an electronic frequency or other signal that may be used by a person to identify, monitor, or record the location of another person or object.
(2) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 501.002, Transportation Code.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly installs an electronic or mechanical tracking device on a motor vehicle owned or leased by another person.
The car was owned by the person who installed the device, ergo this statute does not apply and it's legal in Texas. You can always put tracking equipment on vehicles you own. This was humorously treated in the cartoon King of the Hill (which coincidentally takes place in Texas) where the drivers got mad because Mr. Strickland, the owner of the propane company, had installed 'tattlers' on the trucks he owned to see where the drivers were taking the vehicles. Drivers didn't like it and complained, but the practice is perfectly legal. They're his trucks, he has every right to monitor them. If it's my car, I can monitor it if I choose to do so.
If it's my computer, I can install a keylogger to record all keystrokes, or spying software to determine what places were visited; it's not illegal and any evidence collected is legally admissible. Even the police do not need a warrant to install such things on their own computers. If it's my car - or I'm co-owner - I can install a 'bumper beeper', a tattler to determine where the vehicle went, or a GPS tracking device; it's not illegal and any evidence collected is legally admissible. Even when car rental companies did something similar to this a while ago, the only thing that was illegal about it was they couldn't use the information to impose a 'fine' on renters who drove vehicles faster than the speed limit.
As I noted on the original article (and expanded here) , if I give a hot dog vendor $3 for a hot dog and a soda, the vendor gets the whole $3. First, a vendor is not going to accept being charged 35c to process a $3 transaction. (Based on the typical transaction cost of 34c+3% of the transaction, which is what Google Payments or Paypal charges me, which would be a minimum of 35c) Get that down to 10-12c and it will probably be acceptable. Second, we need to have nationwide ubiquitous wireless internet to allow our prototypical hot-dog vendor to be able to handle transactions where they would need to handle it through some sort of system that doesn't charge a fee for message processing, unlike cellular networks who would ding the vendor for a text message fee to and from the charge processor. Third, the price to have the processing equipment has to come down, a hot dog vendor is not going to accept a minimum $30 per month service charge to be able to swipe credit cards when they can handle cash for free.
"I've read elsewhere that it's already below 50% on weekends"
That disparity is because China and Korea heavily use IE 6 and 7 which skew the numbers higher for IE. In North America IE had less than 50% marketshare for awhile. It is even lower in Europe.
Most machines in China are pirated and therefore do not get Windows Updates which mean they use IE. Korea is IE because all banks and e-commerce sites force users to use activeX controls due to the lack of SSL thanks to US export controls with encryption.
(1) Firefox supports SSL.
(2) The U.S. no longer has export controls upon COTS (commercial, off-the-shelf) applications. If it's sold or given away publicly it's not export controlled. This has been the case for at least four or five years. See the government's rule page at http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/question1.htm for more details.
Funny, I just installed the iBooks app today and expected all the prices to be $.99.
Why would you expect that though? At iTunes, you don't expect to get the new $MUSICAN album for 99 cents, do you? Individual songs, sure, but not the album. A song is not a novel, it's a chapter.
When did writers become the absolute bottom of society when it comes to value of their work? A musician gets $10 or $12 for an album (assuming it's actually worth buying all the songs from it),
Actually on the typical album the musician gets ZERO. First, the music label contract makes the recording a 'work for hire' of the record company so they own it, not the musician. Now the record company pays the musician an advance. The album is charged for all costs in its production. There is supposedly a percentage of the profit that comes back after it makes the costs. If it doesn't make back the advance and all costs to produce the album, the musican gets nothing from it. Also, the advance is against all royalties the performer's work generates. So it means if a performer gets $10,000 as an advance, the record costs $150,000 to produce, it sells 20,000 copies at $20 of which, say, half goes to the distributor and retail seller and the musician is supposed to get a 10% royalty, it means the record company made $200,000 of the $400,000 the record made. From that they take the $160,000 and now the record only made $40,000. 10% of that is $4,000 so the performer still owes the record company $6,000 since his advance wasn't recouped!
So the musician basically becomes a chattel slave of the record company. Most of them only make money from performing, not from their records. You either have to have the will to walk away unless you get a good contract or be a big star before you make any money. Or start your own record label. A&M Records, for example, stands for "(Herb) Albert and (Chuck) Mangione", who probably got sick of being screwed over by other record companies (and decided to do some screwing over!:).)
On the other hand, they can offer all of these. An inexpensive version you read on the Kindle. A more expensive printed version (because of the extra costs). A slightly more expensive audiobook. A more expensive enhanced printed edition, perhaps including the audiobook. Signed Limited Editions. There can be something for everyone.
1. Identify your target audience
2. Find out where they live
3. Shove your book down their throats
I wish I'd thought of it! This is much better than the typical Slashdotian satirical "1. do this. 2. do that. 3. Profit!" remark. I have been trying to figure out how to get people interested in the books I've written, I never thought of pricing them as low as it is possible to sell them and still get some money out of them. I think if I had known you could sell books on Kindle for 99c I might have done that myself. I think I will.
Average person on the street: Well great, guess we'll be seeing $5/gal gas shortly. Thank you Wikileaks, you could have at least waited until winter was over so I could actually afford to heat my house.
You ain't seen the 1/4 of it. There's a book - I haven't had the chance to read all of it - but just what to expect (real pain and serious problems plus a worsening of the infrastructure decay problems) when gasoline reaches $6 a gallon is interesting; you can guess what will initially happen when the first three words of this book's title comes true: $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better
Saying Canada has all the oil we need is kind of like saying that the ocean has all the drinking water we need.
Well, it does, it just costs three times as much to desalinate seawater as to use freshwater to begin with. But I've never really understood the issue. We're talking $3 per 1,000 gallons instead of $1; if we tripled the price of water in the west, the only people who would notice are large users. But then again, I suspect that's the whole point, in that most of the cost of processing water is to handle industrial and agricultural uses; residential and urban commercial use of water is probably not that significant and usually not that price sensitive. When your water bill runs $20 every three months, if it's now $60, you groan and pay it, but it's usually not a huge hardship. When your water bill goes from $2000 a month to $6000, you might just notice. I had a running gag with a dear friend, our next door neighbor mentioning how the water company had to raise prices and now water was costing us $0.0016 per gallon instead of $0.0012. That means for a household using, say, 100 gallons of water a day, the bill was going up by $4 a month.
Oil sands have to be processed so much that it's unlikely that they'll ever be a substitute for the pure thing.
When the real thing costs twice or three times as much as oil sands, then they will. Cost can be a big impetus for change. A number of places have gone to Open Source because of the upgrade treadmill, the excessive costs for licensing of proprietary software, and the lack of BSA audits if you aren't infested by the Microsoft disease. (This is the obligatory Microsoft bashing quote that by law has to appear somewhere in a Slashdot thread.)
The question, of course, is not how much oil Canada has, but how easy it is to extract and process.
I said this here in an AC posting because I didn't check that I was logged on, but it fits:
I read this years ago from some website that talked about "peak oil" and they didn't need Wikileaks to mention it; in fact it was interesting in that it might even have said basically the same thing, that Saudi Arabia is overstating its reserves by 40%. I'm not even an expert on oil, and in my own blog from more than three years ago, I wrote:
the amount of predicted reserves for some of the OPEC countries might simply be total fiction, accounting hocus-pocus where they count proven reserves as well as the net amount of oil that supposedly could be removed if all possible oil were obtainable. And as anyone who has ever tried to get the last drops of a milkshake by a straw out of a glass would realize, even I know that 100% recovery of all reserves isn't possible.
Maybe the question instead is, how soon does the U.S. decide Canada's oil is too valuable to let the Canucks keep it and propose some sort of arrangement where Canada becomes the next state or five states or something similar? If Quebec ever gets what it wants - what South Sudan just got, independence - I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a U.S./Canada merger.
The original Articles of Confederation, the founding document that was defacto replaced by the Constitution of the United States, gave Canada the automatic right to become a state if it wanted to.
If a company wants to say that there are limits on how you can use the service, or that certain services are not allowed, or the so-called unlimited Internet isn't and there are usage caps, then they should be required to be prominently disclosed such that the customer can know what will be restricted. It's the imposition of hidden rules, or of subtle throttling or packet interception or other unannounced service degradations that is the problem.
It's like some cell companies having really long-term contracts to lock customers in, with a high termination fee, then proposing to reduce the level of service, decrease the amount or quantity of services or raise prices despite the customer having a contract. But if the customer tries to change their contract or get out of it...
In the US, I understand both sender and receiver are charged for calls and texts on mobiles? So maybe there's a precedent for your telecoms providers double dipping.
Mobile phone service in the U.S. is moving toward unlimited usage per month and you can buy it that way. But in the case of cell service where you're charged for incoming and outgoing calls, you're charged the same rate no matter where in the world the call came from and outgoing calls anywhere in the U.S. (and possibly Canada) are charged at the same rate, whether it's local or long distance the rate is the same. I'm not charged extra to call a pizza place over calling an office nor is the pizza place charged extra because the pizza place sells something as part of the call and a call to an office doesn't. All traffic is treated the same and all traffic is charged that way, the quality or reason for the call doesn't affect its pricing.
The simplest argument against this is the rules against landlocking. If I own a piece of property and yours surrounds mine, you are required to grant me enough of an easement to be able to get off of my property and onto public land. One property owner cannot force another to be left in a state to where their property is landlocked.
Another reason is the common carrier rule: anyone who operates a public conveyance must take all comers who can pay within the service area (and are not a threat to your business); if you are allowed to operate a taxicab company you can't refuse to accept passengers who are white or indian, black or Jewish. You can't also refuse to pick up an employee or the owner of a competitor.
Now, it might be arguable these are private companies who are operating private networks, the only problem being that a non-customer or even competitor has no power to make a private company give access to their facilities if the provider decides not to do so; consider what it took to allow Microsoft to permit competitive web browsers as part of the system (but you still at least have the option to install a different browser if you want). If an ISP decides you can't run certain traffic - P2P networks or competitive video feeds for example - you probably can't. Maybe if there is enough outrage the ISP will back down, but maybe they won't. Plus in some cases there is either no choice or the only choice is a cable company or phone company, and if one provides really bad service and the other restricts your choice (traffic throttling) or refuses you ability outright, you may be completely denied access.
It's one thing for a company deciding not to carry something on its network for its own account, and it's another for them to decide whether you can obtain access to someone else's network and leaving you landlocked and either unable to reach it or restricted in the ability to access it.
It's all about money, here. People are using more bandwidth to do more things, and they can't raise prices on a linear basis like they used to be able to do, e.g. if you take a 40-tier of TV channels it used to be that it cost twice as much as the 20-tier. Well, they can't do the same thing with Internet access, a 100 mb connection isn't going to be able to be priced at anything near 10x a 10mb connection. Which it shouldn't, the increase in cost does justify a somewhat higher price until cost recoupment of the more expensive equipment to increase capacity has occurred, but it doesn't justify a straight-line increase. But that is the way data and voice services were sold back in the 20th Century.
It used to be that a T1, (1.5 megabits/sec.) which I think was the equivalent of 24 voice-grade circuits (56 kilobits/sec each), and cost 24 times as much as a voice-grade circuit. Now, basically, for 24x a voice-grade circuit (call a voice circuit about $25, so that's about $600 a month), you can get not 24 times as much, but 10,000 times as much, or 1/2 gigabit/second. (Hurricane Electric, for example, will sell you an interconnect at their colocation facility for a grand a month for 1 gigabit internet).
The Internet providers are compaining they don't want '1930s regulatory controls' placed over the Internet, however they do want to be able to charge that way, by the bit, practically. They want to be able to restrict how you can use the Internet unless someone pays more for 'expedited service' or 'using our pipes to reach our customers' or 'using more of our bandwidth than we think they should unless they pay more' (even though it's within the customer's service limits) It's hypocracy, pure and simple.
Bullshit! If you want the Internet to become as bad as cable tv is these days then buy into this bogus horseshit idea this guy is peddling.
Just because you disagree with the idea does not necessarily even come close to arguing the idea is invalid. There are a number of various reasons I can give right off the top of my head that can be used to logically argue against the idea. All you can do is throw insults; your ad-hominem screed actually weakens your attempt to heap scorn upon the flawed premises of the argument and ironically are more likely to bolster the argument, e,g. "it must be a really good idea because all this proponent can do is say he doesn't like it, he can't provide an actual reason it's wrong."
There's a choice quote at the end: 'Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently said Internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they have something to hide.'"
Perhaps we should ask Eric Schmidt for his ATM card number and pin. We all have things to hide. It's called privacy. More than that, it's necessary in a civilized society
When I hear someone say that you shouldn't be afraid to talk to the police unless you're guilty or that you shouldn't be afraid to let things known unless you're doing something wrong, or similar nonsense, I say, "tell that to Richard Jewell." In case you don't know, the late Richard Jewell was a security guard at the Atlanta Olympics who found a backpack bomb and got people out of the way and prevented certain injury to many people, possibly loss of life to some. In short, he did his job admirably. For which he got crucified by the press and the FBI, as rumors spread that the planted the device. He ended up suing a number of papers and got settlements. So for those that claim someone shouldn't be secretive or silent if they're not doing something wrong, I have a response for them.
On the subject, if you think talking to the police won't hurt you when you're innocent, spend 45 minutes watching these two videos, the first by a law professor and a police detective's rebuttal, who agrees with everything he said.
Over and over again, the need to scrounge for resources has shown to improve the quality of the product, from people bootlegging resources from their company (see Tracy Kidder's The Soul of a New Machine about how an underfunded and overworked group developed Data General's Eclipse 32-bit VAX competitor), to the reports in In Search of Excellence how excellent companies encourage scrounging and "borrowing" time and resources to work on new ideas.
One writer in a book about the show told a story how the original 1966 TV show Star Trek had to develop a special effect and there was only enough money in the budget for something like $562.00, which, given what it costs to develop things in television, was I think 1/3 of what it could expect to cost, and the guy didn't think he could do it, but he figured out a way.
Over and over again, it's the companies that have to scrounge and figure way to do things cost effectively and work with low amounts of money, that, long term, figure out how to survive and grow. Creative companies do more with less; it's the ones who have "too much" money that get in trouble.
moving to a location where the cell signal is very poor [ ] looking at wireless extenders [ ] Sprint charges monthly, Verizon $250 up front, AT&T.... well they are AT&T...
I think they're trying to rip you off. Use Google's product lookup service Froogle and do a search for "cell phone booster". There are many types of signal extenders for cell phones from the $20 ones you stick on the battery - and I have no idea if they actually work or are about as useless as Headon - to inexpensive signal retransmitters that plug into the USB port for about $90, to standalone models for maybe $110 all the way to $190 devices and lots of choices.
Nope - you didn't extend your wireless connection far enough.
For the poster - just get another cheap wireless router and use it as a wireless access point. The dlink 615 works fine and will cost you $50.00
Wrong item; he needs a cell phone booster, not a wi-fi booster, and they're about $100 to $200.
Slashdot Mirror
In the region where I live, there is an annual inspection required in Washington, D.C. and Virginia requires them. Maryland only requires an inspection when the vehicle is first registered or on transfer of registration, and the inspection is good for the life of the registration. If the vehicle is never sold, never moves to another state and is eventually junked without ever changing registration, in Maryland - and possibly other states - it will never see another inspection. Also, Virginia does not require re-inspection if the vehicle is not in Virginia. As it turned out my brother-in-law, who lived in Virginia, loaned me his car on a more-or-less permanent basis to use it to commute to work. I drove the car and paid for everything. But I could not buy insurance; I had to have him buy it, list me as an authorized user. And even though the vehicle was operated exclusively in and garaged in Maryland by a person with a Maryland license, where was the car required to registered and the tags issued by? Virginia, of course, where the owner resided.
It's the same rule with corporations. I lived in Virginia and started a corporation for my software company. Later I moved back to Maryland, and I had a choice, I could spend $120 to register a new corporation in Maryland or spend $100 to authorize my existing corporation to do business in Maryland. So I chose the latter. If the corporation is ever sued over its operations in Maryland where its only office and headquarters are located, what law will a state court in Maryland use to determine the corporate affairs of the corporation? Virginia, where the corporation is chartered.
To raise the cost of being able to forge a digital document beyond what an attacker is willing to pay the cost of legitimate use becomes greater than the benefit.
Exactly why we have spam. Make sending forged address and spammy e-mail require prepaid costs such that it was as expensive as snail mail and spam would drop from 90% of mail to less than 0.1%. It's only because it costs nearly nothing either directly for small quantities (like phishing scams) or via botnets to send huge quantities of spam (for bulk ads for fraudulent products including erectile disfunction drugs) that so much can be generated. We have some partial solutions but the entire solution requires better tools to manage the movement and transfer of email.
As for security of e-documents and other electronic transmissions, we need good tools to seamlessly handle authentication (proof the sender is who they claim they are) and non-repudiation (proof that you signed [or authorized] the document and that you are unable to claim you didn't - or the recipient has proof you did - authorize the document)
Repudiation is extremely critical to claim fraud or to stop a transaction, like when you claim a credit card charge is not authorized or the merchant stiffed you and you want a chargeback, or when you want to stop payment on a check. Non-repudiation is critical if you verified the recipient, provided the goods and services, and want to guarantee you get paid and the recipient can't falsely file a chargeback when they legitimately did receive the merch.
For ordinary transactions using paper documents we have notary publics who provide both and the notary affixes their seal and signature, essentially countersigning the signature for original signed documents or verifying certified copies of documents. Some organizations like stock certificate issuers require more, and so there is Medallion Signature Guarantee, where the authenticating official certifies the identity of the party to the document and agrees to cover any financial loss to the recipient of the document if the person who was guaranteed is not the correct individual (or agent if they're signing as attorney in fact or signing on behalf of an entity like a corporation or LLC.)
I am a notary public, licensed in two states. (A notary's license, or commission is, with minor exceptions only valid in the state of issue.) The jobs of a notary. in general, include the certification of documents, authentication of signatures, and taking oaths and affirmations (and some states don't include all of these or add special extras; notaries in Maryland can't certify copies of documents like contracts, while in Ohio, notaries have the power to issue subpoenas.). All done on paper and the job of a notary hasn't changed from essentially the way it was done 200 to 500 years ago. There are provisions for notaries to authenticate electronic documents but they're not uniform from state-to-state (some states don't even allow it or have the standards on how it is to be done) and the infrastructure to support it (including proper software and/or hardware for document certification and authentication) aren't there yet.
Until we have well-defined electronic equivalents like notaries public and guarantees like Medallion, we're going to continue to have a problem with those very issues of authentication and/or non-repudiation (plus security when the document must be kept private like certain contracts or secret like classified material.)
You don't even have to state the work is copyrighted; copyright notices became optional in the U.S. in 1988 when we became a member of the Berne Union. The only issue is that if you don't have a notice the person who is sued can claim 'innocent infringement' and reduce damages.
Also, the term 'all rights reserved' is completely deprecated. This notice gives special protection under the Buenos Aires Convention, a special copyright convention from around 1912. As of about 1990 every member of the Buenos Aires Convention was also a member of the Berne Union, which doesn't require copyright notices at all, therefore the term 'all rights reserved' is now completely superfluous. (There are very limited technical exceptions regarding when a copyright expires which doesn't apply for most people because copyrights last for life plus many years, either 50 or 70 depending on which country has stayed with the old version of the Berne Convention or the newer version.)
It doesn't matter what you want to put on your thesis, you university owns the copyrights to it.
I'd suggest you contact your Uni and put the same question to them, rather than 6 million /. Subscribers.
This is not correct. Unless you are an employee of the university and you are hired to do this sort of work, it is not the university's property. Even if you wrote the paper using university computers and university resources. You're paying the university and therefore you're entitled to use of the facilities. This point is very clear that unless you are doing this as a 'work for hire' you own the work, and for it to be considered a work for hire means you either have to be a contract or salaried employee of the university to be considered creating a 'work for hire' for them to own the work. A student of the university is not an employee of the university and the university has no ownership right whatsoever. This has been a standard rule since the U.S. became a member of the Berne Convention and eliminated copyright notices more than twenty years ago.
You don't have the right to not be photographed in public,
But the photo can't be used for commercial purposes.
You don't have the right to 'privacy' over something that can be viewed from public land or public right-of-way.
You don't have the right to stop people from saying bad things about you.
As long as what they say is true. If someone calls you a bastard pedophile, as long as they can prove your parents weren't married before you were born and you engage in unacceptable private meetings with kids, that's perfectly legal to say. Otherwise they can be held to damages.
Procter & Gamble, the soap manufacturer, had a big problem with people who were claiming the company supported Satanism and their 'Man In The Moon' logo was a Satanic symbol. (What this has to do with the quality of their products is beyond me.) One rumor was that the President of P&G appeared on a Saturday edition of Phil Donohue and admitted that the company supported Satanism, despite the fact that (1) He'd never appeared on the show; (2) Donohue did not do Saturday shows; (3) No such show ever happened. Apparently it was some Amway distributors who were trying to besmirch P&G's spotless reputation with libelous insults. P&G sued and got a large judgement.
You don't have the right to punish people who don't break any laws and can call you out with proof of what a huge lair, criminal adulterer pig cop you are.
Again, only if it's true. Libel is not only a civil offense - the party who has been defamed can sue - but it's also a crime. Usually not invoked unless you say something really bad about someone or you malign a dead person who has a good reputation. Claiming Mother Theresa died of a venereal disease or was a hooker, that George Washington was a coward, or that FDR was faking he was crippled because he was actually collaborating with the Nazis, are the sort of things that if you tried to claim were true, might be serious enough if some prosecutor was offended to get you tried for criminal libel and if convicted, jail time. Libeling dead people is considered very bad because they can't respond and if they have a good reputation it damages it. Now you can libel Saddam Hussein or Stalin or Hitler all you want, their reputation is so bad they basically are considered undefamable.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.16.htm#16.06
Sec. 16.06. UNLAWFUL INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE. (a) In this section:
(1) "Electronic or mechanical tracking device" means a device capable of emitting an electronic frequency or other signal that may be used by a person to identify, monitor, or record the location of another person or object.
(2) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 501.002, Transportation Code.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly installs an electronic or mechanical tracking device on a motor vehicle owned or leased by another person.
The car was owned by the person who installed the device, ergo this statute does not apply and it's legal in Texas. You can always put tracking equipment on vehicles you own. This was humorously treated in the cartoon King of the Hill (which coincidentally takes place in Texas) where the drivers got mad because Mr. Strickland, the owner of the propane company, had installed 'tattlers' on the trucks he owned to see where the drivers were taking the vehicles. Drivers didn't like it and complained, but the practice is perfectly legal. They're his trucks, he has every right to monitor them. If it's my car, I can monitor it if I choose to do so.
If it's my computer, I can install a keylogger to record all keystrokes, or spying software to determine what places were visited; it's not illegal and any evidence collected is legally admissible. Even the police do not need a warrant to install such things on their own computers. If it's my car - or I'm co-owner - I can install a 'bumper beeper', a tattler to determine where the vehicle went, or a GPS tracking device; it's not illegal and any evidence collected is legally admissible. Even when car rental companies did something similar to this a while ago, the only thing that was illegal about it was they couldn't use the information to impose a 'fine' on renters who drove vehicles faster than the speed limit.
As I noted on the original article (and expanded here) , if I give a hot dog vendor $3 for a hot dog and a soda, the vendor gets the whole $3. First, a vendor is not going to accept being charged 35c to process a $3 transaction. (Based on the typical transaction cost of 34c+3% of the transaction, which is what Google Payments or Paypal charges me, which would be a minimum of 35c) Get that down to 10-12c and it will probably be acceptable. Second, we need to have nationwide ubiquitous wireless internet to allow our prototypical hot-dog vendor to be able to handle transactions where they would need to handle it through some sort of system that doesn't charge a fee for message processing, unlike cellular networks who would ding the vendor for a text message fee to and from the charge processor. Third, the price to have the processing equipment has to come down, a hot dog vendor is not going to accept a minimum $30 per month service charge to be able to swipe credit cards when they can handle cash for free.
"I've read elsewhere that it's already below 50% on weekends"
That disparity is because China and Korea heavily use IE 6 and 7 which skew the numbers higher for IE. In North America IE had less than 50% marketshare for awhile. It is even lower in Europe.
Most machines in China are pirated and therefore do not get Windows Updates which mean they use IE. Korea is IE because all banks and e-commerce sites force users to use activeX controls due to the lack of SSL thanks to US export controls with encryption.
(1) Firefox supports SSL. (2) The U.S. no longer has export controls upon COTS (commercial, off-the-shelf) applications. If it's sold or given away publicly it's not export controlled. This has been the case for at least four or five years. See the government's rule page at http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/question1.htm for more details.
Cute, really cute.
Why would you expect that though? At iTunes, you don't expect to get the new $MUSICAN album for 99 cents, do you? Individual songs, sure, but not the album. A song is not a novel, it's a chapter.
When did writers become the absolute bottom of society when it comes to value of their work? A musician gets $10 or $12 for an album (assuming it's actually worth buying all the songs from it),
Actually on the typical album the musician gets ZERO. First, the music label contract makes the recording a 'work for hire' of the record company so they own it, not the musician. Now the record company pays the musician an advance. The album is charged for all costs in its production. There is supposedly a percentage of the profit that comes back after it makes the costs. If it doesn't make back the advance and all costs to produce the album, the musican gets nothing from it. Also, the advance is against all royalties the performer's work generates. So it means if a performer gets $10,000 as an advance, the record costs $150,000 to produce, it sells 20,000 copies at $20 of which, say, half goes to the distributor and retail seller and the musician is supposed to get a 10% royalty, it means the record company made $200,000 of the $400,000 the record made. From that they take the $160,000 and now the record only made $40,000. 10% of that is $4,000 so the performer still owes the record company $6,000 since his advance wasn't recouped!
So the musician basically becomes a chattel slave of the record company. Most of them only make money from performing, not from their records. You either have to have the will to walk away unless you get a good contract or be a big star before you make any money. Or start your own record label. A&M Records, for example, stands for "(Herb) Albert and (Chuck) Mangione", who probably got sick of being screwed over by other record companies (and decided to do some screwing over! :) .)
On the other hand, they can offer all of these. An inexpensive version you read on the Kindle. A more expensive printed version (because of the extra costs). A slightly more expensive audiobook. A more expensive enhanced printed edition, perhaps including the audiobook. Signed Limited Editions. There can be something for everyone.
I wish I'd thought of it! This is much better than the typical Slashdotian satirical "1. do this. 2. do that. 3. Profit!" remark. I have been trying to figure out how to get people interested in the books I've written, I never thought of pricing them as low as it is possible to sell them and still get some money out of them. I think if I had known you could sell books on Kindle for 99c I might have done that myself. I think I will.
Day Trader Speculators: PANIC!
Average person on the street: Well great, guess we'll be seeing $5/gal gas shortly. Thank you Wikileaks, you could have at least waited until winter was over so I could actually afford to heat my house.
You ain't seen the 1/4 of it. There's a book - I haven't had the chance to read all of it - but just what to expect (real pain and serious problems plus a worsening of the infrastructure decay problems) when gasoline reaches $6 a gallon is interesting; you can guess what will initially happen when the first three words of this book's title comes true: $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better
Saying Canada has all the oil we need is kind of like saying that the ocean has all the drinking water we need.
Well, it does, it just costs three times as much to desalinate seawater as to use freshwater to begin with. But I've never really understood the issue. We're talking $3 per 1,000 gallons instead of $1; if we tripled the price of water in the west, the only people who would notice are large users. But then again, I suspect that's the whole point, in that most of the cost of processing water is to handle industrial and agricultural uses; residential and urban commercial use of water is probably not that significant and usually not that price sensitive. When your water bill runs $20 every three months, if it's now $60, you groan and pay it, but it's usually not a huge hardship. When your water bill goes from $2000 a month to $6000, you might just notice. I had a running gag with a dear friend, our next door neighbor mentioning how the water company had to raise prices and now water was costing us $0.0016 per gallon instead of $0.0012. That means for a household using, say, 100 gallons of water a day, the bill was going up by $4 a month.
Oil sands have to be processed so much that it's unlikely that they'll ever be a substitute for the pure thing.
When the real thing costs twice or three times as much as oil sands, then they will. Cost can be a big impetus for change. A number of places have gone to Open Source because of the upgrade treadmill, the excessive costs for licensing of proprietary software, and the lack of BSA audits if you aren't infested by the Microsoft disease. (This is the obligatory Microsoft bashing quote that by law has to appear somewhere in a Slashdot thread.)
The question, of course, is not how much oil Canada has, but how easy it is to extract and process.
I said this here in an AC posting because I didn't check that I was logged on, but it fits:
I read this years ago from some website that talked about "peak oil" and they didn't need Wikileaks to mention it; in fact it was interesting in that it might even have said basically the same thing, that Saudi Arabia is overstating its reserves by 40%. I'm not even an expert on oil, and in my own blog from more than three years ago, I wrote:
Maybe the question instead is, how soon does the U.S. decide Canada's oil is too valuable to let the Canucks keep it and propose some sort of arrangement where Canada becomes the next state or five states or something similar? If Quebec ever gets what it wants - what South Sudan just got, independence - I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a U.S./Canada merger.
The original Articles of Confederation, the founding document that was defacto replaced by the Constitution of the United States, gave Canada the automatic right to become a state if it wanted to.
It's like some cell companies having really long-term contracts to lock customers in, with a high termination fee, then proposing to reduce the level of service, decrease the amount or quantity of services or raise prices despite the customer having a contract. But if the customer tries to change their contract or get out of it ...
In the US, I understand both sender and receiver are charged for calls and texts on mobiles? So maybe there's a precedent for your telecoms providers double dipping.
Mobile phone service in the U.S. is moving toward unlimited usage per month and you can buy it that way. But in the case of cell service where you're charged for incoming and outgoing calls, you're charged the same rate no matter where in the world the call came from and outgoing calls anywhere in the U.S. (and possibly Canada) are charged at the same rate, whether it's local or long distance the rate is the same. I'm not charged extra to call a pizza place over calling an office nor is the pizza place charged extra because the pizza place sells something as part of the call and a call to an office doesn't. All traffic is treated the same and all traffic is charged that way, the quality or reason for the call doesn't affect its pricing.
Another reason is the common carrier rule: anyone who operates a public conveyance must take all comers who can pay within the service area (and are not a threat to your business); if you are allowed to operate a taxicab company you can't refuse to accept passengers who are white or indian, black or Jewish. You can't also refuse to pick up an employee or the owner of a competitor.
Now, it might be arguable these are private companies who are operating private networks, the only problem being that a non-customer or even competitor has no power to make a private company give access to their facilities if the provider decides not to do so; consider what it took to allow Microsoft to permit competitive web browsers as part of the system (but you still at least have the option to install a different browser if you want). If an ISP decides you can't run certain traffic - P2P networks or competitive video feeds for example - you probably can't. Maybe if there is enough outrage the ISP will back down, but maybe they won't. Plus in some cases there is either no choice or the only choice is a cable company or phone company, and if one provides really bad service and the other restricts your choice (traffic throttling) or refuses you ability outright, you may be completely denied access.
It's one thing for a company deciding not to carry something on its network for its own account, and it's another for them to decide whether you can obtain access to someone else's network and leaving you landlocked and either unable to reach it or restricted in the ability to access it.
It's all about money, here. People are using more bandwidth to do more things, and they can't raise prices on a linear basis like they used to be able to do, e.g. if you take a 40-tier of TV channels it used to be that it cost twice as much as the 20-tier. Well, they can't do the same thing with Internet access, a 100 mb connection isn't going to be able to be priced at anything near 10x a 10mb connection. Which it shouldn't, the increase in cost does justify a somewhat higher price until cost recoupment of the more expensive equipment to increase capacity has occurred, but it doesn't justify a straight-line increase. But that is the way data and voice services were sold back in the 20th Century.
It used to be that a T1, (1.5 megabits/sec.) which I think was the equivalent of 24 voice-grade circuits (56 kilobits/sec each), and cost 24 times as much as a voice-grade circuit. Now, basically, for 24x a voice-grade circuit (call a voice circuit about $25, so that's about $600 a month), you can get not 24 times as much, but 10,000 times as much, or 1/2 gigabit/second. (Hurricane Electric, for example, will sell you an interconnect at their colocation facility for a grand a month for 1 gigabit internet).
The Internet providers are compaining they don't want '1930s regulatory controls' placed over the Internet, however they do want to be able to charge that way, by the bit, practically. They want to be able to restrict how you can use the Internet unless someone pays more for 'expedited service' or 'using our pipes to reach our customers' or 'using more of our bandwidth than we think they should unless they pay more' (even though it's within the customer's service limits) It's hypocracy, pure and simple.
Just because you disagree with the idea does not necessarily even come close to arguing the idea is invalid. There are a number of various reasons I can give right off the top of my head that can be used to logically argue against the idea. All you can do is throw insults; your ad-hominem screed actually weakens your attempt to heap scorn upon the flawed premises of the argument and ironically are more likely to bolster the argument, e,g. "it must be a really good idea because all this proponent can do is say he doesn't like it, he can't provide an actual reason it's wrong."
Perhaps we should ask Eric Schmidt for his ATM card number and pin. We all have things to hide. It's called privacy. More than that, it's necessary in a civilized society
When I hear someone say that you shouldn't be afraid to talk to the police unless you're guilty or that you shouldn't be afraid to let things known unless you're doing something wrong, or similar nonsense, I say, "tell that to Richard Jewell." In case you don't know, the late Richard Jewell was a security guard at the Atlanta Olympics who found a backpack bomb and got people out of the way and prevented certain injury to many people, possibly loss of life to some. In short, he did his job admirably. For which he got crucified by the press and the FBI, as rumors spread that the planted the device. He ended up suing a number of papers and got settlements. So for those that claim someone shouldn't be secretive or silent if they're not doing something wrong, I have a response for them.
On the subject, if you think talking to the police won't hurt you when you're innocent, spend 45 minutes watching these two videos, the first by a law professor and a police detective's rebuttal, who agrees with everything he said.
Over and over again, the need to scrounge for resources has shown to improve the quality of the product, from people bootlegging resources from their company (see Tracy Kidder's The Soul of a New Machine about how an underfunded and overworked group developed Data General's Eclipse 32-bit VAX competitor), to the reports in In Search of Excellence how excellent companies encourage scrounging and "borrowing" time and resources to work on new ideas.
One writer in a book about the show told a story how the original 1966 TV show Star Trek had to develop a special effect and there was only enough money in the budget for something like $562.00, which, given what it costs to develop things in television, was I think 1/3 of what it could expect to cost, and the guy didn't think he could do it, but he figured out a way.
Over and over again, it's the companies that have to scrounge and figure way to do things cost effectively and work with low amounts of money, that, long term, figure out how to survive and grow. Creative companies do more with less; it's the ones who have "too much" money that get in trouble.
moving to a location where the cell signal is very poor [ ] looking at wireless extenders [ ] Sprint charges monthly, Verizon $250 up front, AT&T.... well they are AT&T...
I think they're trying to rip you off. Use Google's product lookup service Froogle and do a search for "cell phone booster". There are many types of signal extenders for cell phones from the $20 ones you stick on the battery - and I have no idea if they actually work or are about as useless as Headon - to inexpensive signal retransmitters that plug into the USB port for about $90, to standalone models for maybe $110 all the way to $190 devices and lots of choices.
Nope - you didn't extend your wireless connection far enough.
For the poster - just get another cheap wireless router and use it as a wireless access point. The dlink 615 works fine and will cost you $50.00
Wrong item; he needs a cell phone booster, not a wi-fi booster, and they're about $100 to $200.