Comment Re:That's how today's voice recognition WORKS. (Score 1) 309
And that's why you cannot take such devices into a SCIF, or other secured location.
One's home, IMHO, should be a secured location.
And that's why you cannot take such devices into a SCIF, or other secured location.
One's home, IMHO, should be a secured location.
Yes, it means that you are paying good money to acquire devices that are not intended for your benefit.
Don't buy the blasted TV's - or, if you do, don't connect them to the Internet (and put some metallic tape over the camera).
It makes me feel like an old codger to say it, but I really don't understand why this is even an issue, or why anyone on the planet would want these "features," except maybe for use in prisons.
This would be a lot clearer if the USA had signed The Moon Treaty, but it seems quite clear that if Bigelow Airspace wants to land on the Moon and claim part of it for themselves then the USA would be responsible for their actions there and Bigelow would be unable to do anything that the government of the USA could not also do under the Outer Space Treaty.
The only loophole that I can see is the usual one, which is "I know I'm breaking the rules that we all agreed to, but you can't stop me."
No it would not. There is a reason why no major space-faring nation has adopted the Moon Treaty. It is gone for good, and it is good it is gone.
That's an incredibly ignorant comment. The Outer Space Treaty fairly explicitly recognizes the right for a nation to enforce the property and activity rights of its citizens in space. It's one of the primary reasons for the treaty existing at all. The FAA isn't saying Americans will own parts of the moon. It is saying that if I spend a billion dollars to build a mining company up there, it's not going to let someone else mine in the exact same place while my operations are actively going on, since it might damage my investment up there and discourage further exploration or development. And once I've pulled up stakes, anyone can move in there.
It's a pretty damn sensible approach, actually.
Correct. The OST gives nation states the power and the responsibility to apply their laws to the actions of their citizens in space.
Does the US own the moon? The British conquered half the world using the law of flags, so by rights, since the US is the only country with a flag up there...
The Chinese flag is definitely up there too.
I wasn't aware the US owned the Moon or the rights to it...
It doesn't, and the Outer Space Treaty is very clear on that.
The weakness in this FAA scheme (if it is something they would actually implement, which I doubt) is that it would apply to US companies only. I would argue that the '67 OST already gives a right to non-interferance to your operations on a celestial body, and that the FAA does not have the power to grant more than that, except within a purely US context.
At the Europa day on the Hill last summer, I ran into a 90 yr old Harry Finger (the former head of NERVA) who remains absolutely convinced that this technology (which was ready for flight tests back in the Apollo period) is essential for human travel to the planets, and needs to be revived.
Looking at the delta-V requirements for a human Mars mission, I can't say I disagree with him.
IANAL, but I believe that the actual rights-holders would need to go to court to establish their rights, and, yes, if they won a judge could invalidate promises made by the other parties. Likewise, I believe a judge could declare an actual rights-holder incompetent, and invalidate their grant of rights. A last-minute deathbed grant of rights into the PD might be subject to that kind of attack, if the heirs thought it wasn't proper, or the dying author / composer was no longer competent.
It's clearly illegal to do that with the intent of changing your mind later.
Did you RTFA? The whole point is that it IS legal to change your mind later, and no amount of promises, or guarantees, or written contracts can change that. You cannot give up, sell, or renounce, your right to change your mind, no matter what you do.
Just because some article says something doesn't make it so. If you want to play this game, I would strongly recommend you get competent legal advice.
(As it happens, I have received legal advice in this area, and it sure didn't agree with what you said.)
IANAL, this is not legal advice, but I agree with your argument.
The only ways out I see would be if your heirs tried to convince a judge you were not legally competent to make the PD assignment at the time you made it (or, of course, if someone came along and said they also had some rights in the work in question, say by being co-creators). So, there would always in practice be a little risk, but after 35 years? That seems like a stretch.
Specifically, the PK post highlights that thanks to the way copyright termination works, even someone who puts their works into the public domain could pull them back out of the public domain after 35 years.
Really?
So, I should infer that all of those "irrevocable" open source licenses are meaningless, because the grantor of the rights could just change their minds? Somebody sure should let RMS know.
IANAL and all that, and this is for sure not legal advice, but when I have gotten such advice, it was always along the lines of, be careful what you place in the public domain, because you won't be able to change your mind. I am sure I would not want to go in front of a judge and say something along the lines of, "yes, I told people this was public domain, but they were silly to think I actually meant it."
The Hydrogen line is at 1420 MHz (AKA 21 cm). That long wavelength is why this dish can be made of high tech chicken wire, instead of having a solid surface.
Not that you would know it from the summary, but they have revived the dish, not the Satellite. They are receiving natural radio waves, nothing from TIROS.
So, they have shown that they can mount a receiver on an existing radio telescope, and receive radio waves.
That's cool and all, but not exactly newsworthy.
Variables don't; constants aren't.