Comment Re:Mod parent up. Legal point for case against Son (Score 1) 306
... making further distribution by Sony
or their agents (i.e. YouTube, with Sony still on the hook for the money)
subject to the $150,000 statutory damages penalty.
... making further distribution by Sony
or their agents (i.e. YouTube, with Sony still on the hook for the money)
subject to the $150,000 statutory damages penalty.
That is an explicit claim associated with Sony Pictures Movies & Shows. To get that, Sony had to upload content to the YouTube content system saying "I own this content. Anyone matching it is in copyright violation."
This is a very important legal argument to make in court. By submitting content to the system - or to YouTube in a way that would be interpreted as being "Copyright Sony, rights reserved" by the system - Sony knowingly made a claim of ownership.
This both disparaged BlenderFoudation's title and voided their license to distribute the content, making further distribution by Sony subject to the $150,000 statutory damages penalty.
And I've heard a LOT of REALLY BAD ideas.
Most of what has gotten worse in Unix/Linux over the last couple decades has been the progressive hiding of the system admimistration mechanisms - previously built on human-readable text configuratin files - behind GUI configuration interfaces and excessive complexity. (See upstart and systemd for examples of the latter.)
Now they want to bury the kernel error messages in a QR code? That REALLY takes the cake.
"...We recommend that Microsoft Access be used solely for development purposes and not for production." - Microsoft
I do not see why TCP and IP could not have been created as single layer.
That was one of the major divergences from other networking schemes of the time that gave TCP/IP an advantage.
IP is a lower layer than TCP. It's about getting the packet from router to router, and is as deep into the packet that core routers have to look to do their jobs. Core routers are supposed to be "as dumb as rocks", putting as little effort as practical into forwarding each packet, in order to get as many of these "hot potatoes" moved on as quickly as possible and keep the cost of the routers down (and to drop any given packet if there's any problem forwarding it).
TCP is one of several choices for the next layer up. It runs only at the endpoints of a link. It does several things, which are all about building a reliable, persistent, end-to-end connection out of the UNreliable, "best effort", IP transport mechanism. Among these things are:
- Breaking a stream up into packet-sized chunks.
- Creating reliability by hanging error detection on packets and saving a copy of the data until the far end acknowledges successful reception, retransmitting if necessary to replace lost or corrupted packets.
- Scheduling the launching of the packets so that the available bandwidth at bottlenecks is fairly divided among many TCP sessions, while as much of it is used as practical.
- Adding an out-of-band "urgent data", channel to the connection (for things like sending interrupts and control information).
Some other networking schemes of the time did this on a hop-by-hop basis, requiring much more work by the routers. TCP put it at the endpoints only.
If TCP/IP had included crypto, we'd all be using IPX now days...
The reason TCP/IP proliferated was because it was light-weight and easy to implement. Crypto would have killed that.
There would have been more resistance to adopting it, too.
As it was, there was substantial resistance among people and institutions sited outside the US, because the Internet was a DARPA project, i.e. U.S. Military. Other countries, organizations within them, and even some people in the US, were concerned about things like what the US might be building in - like interception and backdoors for espionage and sabotage - or just because "Military! Bad!". Including encryption from the then officially nonexistent, deepest secret, communications spy agency would have boosted that resistance substantially.
.... the only group I can actively imagine making use of [2nd amendment] against the government is also the group I least want to see use it against the government.
Then perhaps you should read a little history and see who has actually used privately-owned guns against their own govrernments - and what has happened when privately owned weapons were banned and confiscated.
You should also consider that privately owned guns are "used" against governments by simply being there, rather than fired.
Example: Richard Nixon is on record, during the Vietnam conflict, as having asked a think tank what would happen if the elections were canceled and being told that this would be a likely trigger for an armed uprising to overthrow him.
You should also know that there is a certain amount of posturing involved. With using nukes to prevent nuclear war via the Mutually Assured Distruction doctrine, Presidents had to put on a show of being just crazy enough to actually USE them - whether they were or not. In the case of individuals with small arms it may not be "crazy" (as in "blow up the world") - just "dedicated". But for the threat to be effective at averting conflict it must appear to be real.
Think of gun in private hands as paying an insurance premium.
Also:
- Give him a title that would go for $40k and actual job responsibilities that would go for $130k.
- See what's on his resume and write a req that requires ALL of it and NOTHING ELSE, regardless of what the job actually entails.
They can start with the CEO's, who are the most globally uncompetitive.
With US CDOs you're not paying for work. You're paying for being politically connected. This is mainly connections to financing sources - the closer to the FED, the more financing you can get and the less you pay for it. But it's also about being able to influence governnent policy and lawmaking. There's also being able to recruit people for other executive suite positions. Then there's managing news coverage: Setting stock market expectations so you can continually exceed them, not getting smeared, getting publicity that encoruages people to buy the product rather than trash the company, and so on.
Actually running the company comes in maybe fourth or lower.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.