As always, there are rumbles of discontent from the scientific community with regard to global warming. This article (vile email registration required) from R. Timothy Patterson, professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, lays the overriding mechanism of climate change squarely at the feet of the various solar cycles. In the article, he explains that solar energy impacting the earth is part of the mechanism, while the sun's solar wind drives cloud formation in a complementary cycle that enhances the effect of the actual heat input. But that's not the kicker. The interesting part is he is predicting global cooling, rather than warming.

But wait; there's more. This months Discover Magazine (print version also) has a lengthy article about this same mechanism, that is, cloud formation driving the climate and the sun driving cloud formation by way of modulating the effect cosmic rays have, by Henrik Svensmark, the 49-year-old director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen.

Svensmark says that we are in a warming trend, so his conclusions are at odds with those of Patterson; but they both agree that CO2 isn't nearly the looming threat that it has been made out to be with regard to climate change.

Recently, Montana legislators made news when they passed legislation outlawing Real-ID, calling it a threat to privacy and liberty. Now, legislation making the taking of property by eminent domain for the purposes of increasing tax revenues illegal has been passed and signed into law by Montana's governor. For more on why this is a serious issue, check out the Supreme Court's "Kelo" decision, named after a Connecticut woman who (unsuccessfully) fought to keep her home from city plans to arbitrarily take it and subsequently turn it over to private developers with the objective of collecting higher tax revenues from the property.

Montana has a 2% unemployment rate at present, and maintains a balanced budget, something the feds might want to give some consideration to. I have to say that although I am typically very cynical about government, and although Montana has made some very serious mis-steps in terms of liberties in the last few decades, the state seems more interested in doing the right thing than the wrong thing at this point in time, and I am feeling very pleased with my representatives right now as a long-time resident.

The RIAA's challenges to Judge Lee R. West's order (pdf) awarding the defendant attorneys fees in Capitol v. Foster and to the "reasonableness" of Ms. Foster's attorneys' fees have not only forced the RIAA to disclose its own attorneys fees, and caused the judge to issue a second decision labeling them as "disingenuous", their motives "questionable", and their factual statements "not true", but have now caused the amount of the fees to more than double, from $55,000 to $114,000, as evidenced by Ms. Foster's supplemental fee application (pdf's).

In SONY v. Arellanes, an RIAA case in Sherman, Texas, the Court entered a protective order (pdf), which spells out the following procedure for the RIAA's examination of the defendant's hard drive: (1) RIAA imaging specialist makes mirror image of hard drive; (2) mutually acceptable computer forensics expert makes make 2 verified bit images, and creates an MD5 or equivalent hash code; (3) one mirror image is held in escrow by the expert, the other given to defendant's lawyer for a 'privilege review'; (4) defendant's lawyer provides plaintiffs' lawyer with a "privilege log" (list of privileged files); (5) after privilege questions are resolved, the escrowed image -- with privileged files deleted -- will be turned over to RIAA lawyers, to be held for 'lawyers' eyes only'. The order differs from the earlier order (pdf) entered in the case, in that it (a) permits the RIAA's own imaging person to make the initial mirror image and (b) spells out the details of the method for safeguarding privilege and privacy.

With the recent news about cellphone activity allegedly being the underlying cause for the sudden loss of large numbers of bees, an insect that forges an absolutely critical and irreplaceable part of the food chain, is Apple's iPhone doomed to enter the market just as cell phones face severe clampdowns, or even wholesale replacement?

Cell phones operate at microwave frequencies for a pretty good reason; basically, microwaves enable small equipment. They also do a decent job of penetrating many types of structures, if not through the walls, then at least through the windows. However, there are other frequencies available, lower frequencies that have been busy for many decades without any significant observed effect on bees or other life. People already understand how useful cell phones are, and there are manufacturers with significant experience in VHF radio, to name one technically possible replacement band — so an interesting market shake-up is certainly feasible. Excellent VHF transceivers are marketed by amateur radio manufacturers, for example.

Normally, we would assume that an established, profitable market similar to the cellphone market would be stable and have a long, healthy life expectancy based on the functionality offered to the market. However, if the bees go, we will too - and that, ladies and gentleman, is an outcome that not even Steve Job's legendary reality distortion field can deal with.

Perhaps Apple should get back to working on OSX, and forget the iPhone. I have this nagging feeling that the iPhone is going to be this year's "politically incorrect" device. I know I've stopped using my cellphone for anything but emergency calls; how about you? Seen any bees lately?

Simple tasks like switching between Firefox and Thunderbird are driving the load on my machine up over 4, and if I'm trying to run Amarok at the same time, it drives it up to 8. In fact, my machine frequently climbs up into the 7-9 range, bringing my apps to a crawl and frustrating the hell out of me.

So I've decided it's time to buy a new computer. I'm going to replace my aging Sony Vaio desktop machine (which runs Linux) with something newer that has more RAM, a faster processor, and a bigger hard drive.

The thing is, I'm not entirely sure where to start looking. A quick walk through Circuit City a month or so ago lead me to believe I can get a rather "big" computer for as low as five hundred bucks, which further leads me to believe that if I were to buy something online, I can get a huge pile of RAM, a fast processor, and a big honkin' hard drive for even less.

I run Kubuntu, and use KDE as my desktop (though I occasionally switch to Gnome when I get bored) and I mostly use Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, Amarok, and run PokerStars in wine. I'm looking for something that can do all of that without slowing my machine to a crawl.

Anyone have any suggestions on where to start looking?

Edit: I don't think I have the patience to build my own machine out of individual parts. I also don't have any real loyalty to any particular company or architecture. New Egg has lots of machines with AMD processors, and though I've always had Intel processors because more things seemed to run on x86, that's not as much of an issue as it once was, right?

In an Oklahoma case, Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster, the Court has granted the defendant's motion for attorneys fees to be imposed against the RIAA, holding that Ms. Foster is to receive her "reasonable attorney's fees". Judge Lee R. West, in his 9-page decision(pdf), did not specify the amount to be awarded, held that the RIAA can have "discovery" on the reasonableness issue, and also ruled that Ms. Foster can also later supplement her application for additional fees. Her initial application was for approximately $55,000 in legal fees and disbursements. This is the case in which the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the ACLU Oklahoma Foundation, all filed an amicus brief on Ms. Foster's behalf, arguing to the judge that a substantial attorneys fee award was needed to discourage the RIAA's "driftnet" litigation strategy.

I bought my daily-driver Mac, a mini, pretty much when the PowerPC mini was released. I was tempted beyond belief by that form factor, and the price. I loaded it; a gig of ram, bluetooth, wifi, modem, big drive (for the day), the superdrive, and so forth. I bought every option because the more that was jammed into the box, the more I liked the form factor. I know it's a little weird, but there you have it.

Since then, I've used the little box daily, for just about everything. It's been powered up since I bought it (thanks to a UPS.) This year, a couple of months ago, I bought a Mac laptop - a top of the line 17" Mac Pro - but I still use the mini every day. I've rebooted the mini many times, almost always in response to an Apple upgrade or security modification, once when I went from 10.3 to 10.4, never as an attempt to fix a problem. I've never had any problems of that kind, frankly.

Today, without any particular warning, my Mac dimmed the screen, locked my mouse and keyboard, popped a black rectangle up which informed me in no uncertain terms that I needed to reboot. Now. I lost a long post I had been writing for Kuro5hin.org, and I failed to even reach the level of being annoyed about that because it was just so astonishing to me that the mini had actually - gulp - crashed.

I just want to say that I hadn't even realized that my expectations had been silently and sneakily leveraged to be so astonishingly high. After years of being screwed with, and over, by Microsoft operating systems, I no longer expect that an OS should, or will, crash. Massive kudos to Apple.

...and my little PPC mini came right back up, and yes, I'm using it right now, and I still don't expect it to crash. :) I was using a beta version of a web browser and my guess is it was just a little too beta.

The RIAA is seeking to drop its case against Patti Santangelo, Elektra v. Santangelo, in White Plains, New York. This is the case against a single mom, and mother of five, which received a great deal of press attention in 2005. The case was discussed on Slashdot here, here, and here, was on national television here and here, and received a lot of other press coverage as well. See sampling of articles collected here and see Associated Press coverage here. The RIAA's motion seeks dismissal "without prejudice", which means that they could sue her again for the same thing. Their reason is no doubt to try to insulate themselves from liability for attorney's fees, since a dismissal "with prejudice" would make Ms. Santangelo a "prevailing party" under the Copyright Act, hence eligible for an attorneys fees award. See Capitol v. Foster July 13, 2006, Order Dismissing Case and Finding Defendant to be Eligible for Attorneys Fees.

A recently obtained English translation of the opinion of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal in Foundation v. UPC Nederland, agrees with the lower court decision that the MediaSentry investigation by Tom Mizzone was an insufficiently reliable basis to warrant directing Dutch ISP's to turn over confidential customer information to the RIAA's Netherlands counterpart: "neither the affidavits nor the cross-examination of Mr. Millin pro[...]vide clear and comprehensive evidence as to how the pseudonyms of the KaAaA or iMesh users were linked to the IP addresses identified by MediaSentry. No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service." The appeals court agreed with the independent experts report of Prof. Henk Sips and Dr. Johan Pouwelse of the Parallel and Distributed Systems research group at Delft University of Technology that MediaSentry's Tom Mizzone had not taken the "necessary precautions" in conducting his 'investigation' and that his investigation was 'limited' and 'simplistic', failing to "resolve... relevant technical problems such as superpeer hopping, NAT translation, and firewall relaying....[failing to implement] "actual complete file transfer....simply [taking] filenames at face value and ...[failing to make] any correction for pollution on Kazaa [despite] [p]ollution levels [on Kazaa which] can be as high as 90% for some files....[not being aware of] the limitations of Kazaa in file searching. Not many of the 2,499,121 users online would be able to see the mentioned 736 files. Reliable global searching in P2P file sharing networks is still an unsolved problem. Only users connected to the same Kazaa Superpeer are guaranteed to see these files when Kazaa operates properly (roughly 100 to 150 users as measured by Prof. Keith Ross)....[failing to take] computer hygiene precautions ..... The collected evidence of the spacemansam@KaZaA alias [query] contains multi-peer downloading contamination. Therefore, it is difficult to establish the contribution of the various IP-addresses. It is possible that some IP-addresses contributed 0 Bytes to an actual download, thus there was only involvement and no actual contribution". The Netherlands litigation recently came to the fore recently in UMG v. Lindor, a United States case, in which the RIAA is trying to prevent Ms. Lindor's attorneys from seeing the MediaSentry agreements spelling out the "instructions", "parameters", and "processes" of Mr. Mizzone's investigation, and Ms. Lindor's attorneys argue that the agreements are necessary for a proper deposition and cross-examination of Mr. Mizzone.

I just signed up with youtube and put up a few videos. (Under a CC BY-SA license.)

I searched for copyleft to see what other copyleft works were on there and found a lot of works tagged or otherwise marked as copyleft but with explanations indicating that they were not actually copyleft.

I am going to try and document Free, Open, and Copyleft confusions as I find them out in the wild. I invite you to join in if you wish.

-----
Copyleft explained:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

-----
Youtube examples:

Found with a copyleft search on youtube but this is not copyleft:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qItNmoBl5lE (
Copyleft - Creative Commons Deed:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0/
The NC here makes this not copyleft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJIG5OjKcVU
"Multiracial Alliance Building Peace Conference and is 100% copyleft and
non-copyrighted so we encourage people to duplicate it and circulate it around
the world!"
Claims to be copyleft and non-copyrighted at the same time. If it is public domain, it can't be copyleft. What is really meant?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q2HFkAIbjo
Tggged: copyleft.
site: http://www.cincinman.info/index.html
"Cin Cin Man" was COPYRIGHTED and promptly COPYLEFTED (anybody is free to use it, improve, change, mutilate, but with NO commercial purposes/ www.creativecommons.org).
No commercial purposes means this is not copyleft.

-----

drew

According to court papers by Henk Sips and Johan Powelse of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, submitted recently in a United States RIAA v. consumer case, UMG v. Lindor, MediaSentry's 'investigations' of copyright infringers using Kazaa p2p file sharing software are flawed, having failed to resolve "relevant technical problems such as superpeer hopping, NAT translation, and firewall relaying by Kazaa". Professor Sips and Dr. Pouwelse work in the university's "Parallel and Distributed Systems" research group.

In Elektra v. Schwartz, an RIAA case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis who indicates that she had never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came knocking on her door, the judge held that Ms. Schwartz's summary judgment request for dismissal was premature because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL "confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed....". (Copy of order)(pdf) When her lawyers got a copy of the actual AOL letter they saw that it had no such statement in it, and asked the judge to reconsider.

In Chicago, Illinois, a Kazaa customer has filed a class action against Kazaa, Lewan v. Sharman, U.S.Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill 06-cv-6736. The lead plaintiff, Catherine Lewan, was a Kazaa customer who was sued by the RIAA for her use of Kazaa, and paid a settlement to the RIAA, and she sues on behalf of others who have been sued by the RIAA for her Kazaa use. In her complaint(pdf) she alleges, among other things, that Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing "free downloads" (Complaint, par. 30); it designed the software in such a manner as to create a shared files folder and make that folder available to anyone using Kazaa, while at the same time failing to make the user aware that it had done so (Complaint, par. 36-37); and it surreptitiously installed "spyware" on users' computers which made the shared files folder accessible to the Kazaa network even after the user had removed the Kazaa software from his or her computer (Complaint, par. 42-45). Ms. Lewan and the class are represented by Charles Lee Mudd, Jr., of Chicago.

In Elektra v. Schwartz, an RIAA case against a Queens woman with Multiple Sclerosis who indicates that she had never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came knocking on her door, the judge held that Ms. Schwartz's request for summary judgment dismissing the case was premature because the RIAA said it had a letter from AOL "confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed...."(pdf). Do they really have such a letter?