I'm not sure what Nintendo's exact legal claim is (of course they'd rather not specify it!), but to this armchair lawyer is seems odd.
Since these videos are derivative works of the games, they are probably legal because they are fair use of the games (they display graphics from the game but aren't a substitute for the game etc). I guess Nintendo is claiming that "fair use" doesn't apply if your source is an infringing copy of the work. This is not impossible, though I don't see why it should be relevant. More importantly, I think that the custom ROMs involve fair use of Nintendo's ROMs, especially since Nintendo isn't offering new ROMs for sale.
In general relativity (our theory of classical gravity, without quantum effects), there are several "no hair" theorems, saying that several types of black holes are completely determined by a few overall parameters (say mass, charge and angular momentum) and without regard to their history.
We don't yet have a theory of quantum gravity, so we don't know if the quantum state of a black hole does retain information. It probably has to, but this is not understood. By the way, in any case classical GR would be an excellent approximation except in the case of very small black holes, so any information retained will not be actually accessible.
The "Intel Active Management" (a governor that runs on a secondary CPU independent of the primary one, with cryptographically signed firmware and autonomous access to LAN, WiFi, Memory etc) is also quite disconcerting, but in fact only inclued on certain chipsets (see the tables for Broadwell and Skylake). Unless you are a large institution you probably don't want remote management capabilities.
It's hard to find which chipsets will feature this DSP but quite possibly some won't. Pay attention when you buy your motherboard and all will be well.
Certainly Xerox can manufacture whatever products they like. We have the right not to buy them (and, say, buy from the competition). Two remarks anyway:
1. Doing this in secret is underhanded, and they should be upfront, Despite the negative reaction by some members of the public ("it's unfair that I'm paying more than X"), there is nothing wrong with a company trying for market segmentation. They should tell the complainers to grow up
2. Everyone should own whatever they own. So, if I own a printer or a toner cartridge, I should have the right to modify and reprogram them however I like (say, to report a different zone or to ignore zonal coding). Courts have rebuffed Xerox and Lexmark as they attempted to use the DMCA to protect their business strategies, but the DMCA (US), Bill C-11 (Canada) and their worldwide clones still apply to DVD-players, for example. That should stop.
I actually think you should start with the ownership.
I believe that, like the research results themselves, all the underlying data of publicly funded research belong to the general public. The researchers must have a right to keep their data secret for a while so they get first dibs to produce results from it, but eventually everybody else should get to try their hand at the data.
Several different agents should work on this. The granting agencies should insist all research data is properly curated and hosted for posterity – as a benefit to the public who paid. This should include the raw data, intermediate products like scripts and code, and the final processed data. The journals should insist on the same thing, this time for the benefit of science (allowing others to verify the results). In all cases there should be an appropriate embargo period, depending on the field.
By the way, I think of your code as falling under "research results" (you developed a method of handling the data) more than "research data".
The issue is a general one with research. Who owns the research project and the grants – the institution (UCSD) or the researchers (Prof. Aisen and his team). [disclosure: I'm a university professor myself]
To me it seems clear that Prof. Aisen's research is his, and if he moves universities he takes his project with him (especially the data). It's true that formally the university administers the grant (the granting agency write them a check, equipment bought with the money is university property etc). But the project itself is an intangible concept, which runs with the people and not with the university.
Since grants are formally made to institutions, of course approval of the granting agency is needed to move the grant, but this should generally be routine. It's not like USC lacks the ability to administer this research. In particular, I'm quite troubled by the idea that "the original grantee institution [may] not wish to relinquish the grant". Grant-making decisions are primarily based on scientific criteria -- the potential contributions of the researchers -- not on the identity of their home institution, so this rule seems preposterous to me. "UCSD wants to resume its management of the study" -- but I doubt anyone from UCSD other than the research team actually managed the study – by definition the PIs manage the study. UCSD provided administrative services (financial oversight, for example) and facilities (for which the grant is charged overhead), but this is not a unique contribution of UCSD.
Some grants are political (Congressional earmarks) and then it may make sense not to move them if the researcher moves, but NIH grants shouldn't work like that (and in any case these earmarks are illegitimate).
It could, of course, be that they reviewed the benefits and risks and drew their own conclusions which sometimes match the consensus and sometimes don't.
That's exactly what they're doing. But this shows that they don't really believe that scientific consensus is by itself a reason to select a course of action.
I'm always amused by the way science is suborned to political expediency.
Some people strongly tout the consensus regarding global warming/climate change. They commonly disparage and dismiss those who don't fully subscribe as politically-motivated ignoramuses who are anti-science. The doubters view themselves simply as more cautious, unwilling to risk large costs when it is not clear that science can clearly predict there will be benefits.
Other people strongly tout the consensus regarding the safety of GM foods. The opposition claims to be simply cautious, unwilling to risk any unknown dangers of these foods despite the enormous benefits they could provide.
Interestingly enough, very often it's the same people who support massive reductions in CO2 emissions based on a scientific consensus and despite the economic costs and the uncertain climate benefits, and yet would prefer to avoid the benefits of GM foods due to fear of unknown bad results, despite the scientific consensus.
So what's your stance on RSA, one of the early software patents, which is still used everywhere?
I didn't try to articulate every problem with software patents, merely those illustrated by the just-overturned patent covering SSL using RC4. Note that RC4 itself is about 30 years old, and was developed by RSA security.
In any case, regarding the RSA cryptosystem itself, it was developed by several academics (independent of its previous, secret, invention GCHQ), and clearly it would have been developed and published even without the extra bonus of patent protection. It's important to remember that patents are a means to an end ("promot[ion] of Progress of Science and useful Arts") -- which is not to make money for inventors but to provide them an incentive to invent for the public good. In other words, a Patent is a way for the public to give up something (the natural possibility of making use of an invention you hear about) in return for a different advantage (getting the invention made in the first place). If inventors would invent even without the extra incentive, there is not need for the incentive.
Since practically all the value of inventiveness in the software business can be captured simply by writing the software (and, in cryptography especially, by ordinary academic incentives such as promotion, tenure and professional recognition), software patents don't help. Instead they hinder.
For a salient example consider the LZW patent. The algorithm was designed by two academics (Lempel and Ziv of the Technion). The main effect of the patent was to end the widespread use of
PS: It is likely that the LZW patent was invalid (patenting an abstract algorithm), but nobody wanted to take the legal risk of going to course to invalidate it. This obnoxious patent has since expired.
It's worth noting that there are known attacks against RC4 (especially SSL using RC4). While these aren't quite practical yet, it is clear that RC4 is obsolete, and that current programmers should choose other stream cyphers (AES). Even supposing the patent was legitimate, the technology it covers has become obsolete well within its lifetime.
This illustrates one of the key reasons software (that is, algorithms) shouldn't be patentable: the field moves so fast that 20-year patent protection isn't useful. Even supposing the authors of software need patent protection to recoup their "investment" in inventing the algorithm, 20-year protection is effectively an infinite term, since by the time the protection ends, the technology is obsolete.
As an aside, note that patenting a protocol (such as RC4) automatically ends its usefulness. Protocols are only useful if the other party to the communication can participate, and interoperability is very important in software. Patents are ill-suited for this. Copyright, on the other hand, works well: the code you write is protected, but anyone else can write their own code to implement the protocol and communicate with you.
Accessing an open WiFi connection using a repeater would not violate the CFAA -- the connection is open and your device would log on to it. You'd be using it the way it was intended. Of course, The DOJ claims that simply violating terms of service can make you a federal felon, but that's wrong. Read Prof. Orin Kerr's work for more on this
On the other hand, the FCC allows anyone to use the 900MHz band but tightly regulates what can be done there (for example, no "retransmission of
I agree with practically everything you say except the last bit.
First, the Greek wages-to-productivity ratio must fall, by a combination of (1) Government-sector wage cuts (already started); (2) productivity increases in the government sector by (a) insisting that government workers actually do their job (b) firing redundant government workers and (c) privatization and (3) wage reduction and productivity increases in the private sector – made possible by freeing labour laws.
However, raising taxes makes the wages-to-productivity ratio worse, because it increases the cost of hiring the worker without a corresponding cost to productivity, or equivalently increases deadweight losses. Instead, wage cuts in the private sector should be achieved by freeing the labour market (which is currently among the most restricted in Europe). In fact, workers need to be compensated for the wage cuts by tax cuts.
As an aside, tax cuts would also increase compliance, which is the key problem with the Tax system (far more important than the rates).
Regarding the source of problems, clearly they all stem from the behaviour of Greece (both the country and its people) and not of the creditors. Greece cooked its books before joining the Eurozone, and the Greek voters had ample opportunity to vote for free-market, better-government and smaller-government reforms in the years since.
That said, the original creditors (eurozone banks) who lend to Greece until 2010 knew all this full well and decided to extend the credit anyway. The earned the interest rates they demanded, and should now have to eat the losses when, following the crisis and resulting economic contraction, Greece can't pay back. These banks may have had to suffer, but lending to sovereigns carries default risk (just like lending to private entities carries bankruptcy risk).
What you are ignoring, however, is that the people of Europe were not creditors before their governments decided to take on the debt in 2010 (giving the banks a 50% haircut). Since the governments of Europe voluntarily decided to make public what previously was debt to private entities, they shouldn't now be able to turn around and claim that the taxpayers of Europe will suffer unfairly if the debt isn't paid. If the taxpayers were concerned about non-payments and didn't want to go into the debt vulture hedge-fund business they could have left the bad loans with the banks who made them originally.
I personally thing that. beyond being against the EU treaties, the bailouts of Greece, Spain and Italy were also ill-conceived and morally wrong. But having gone into the sovereign loans business the EU can't complain about facing default risk.
Indeed, whether Syriza would implement the reforms is the most important question. Varoufakis was very vocal about the need for the reforms, but he has been forced out (by the EU !). The left-left wing of Syriza is opposed. It's not clear what the majority would do, and like you I would have preferred to see some reforms passed in February and March while the negotiations were ongoing.
However, some of the reforms Germany is asking for (higher taxes, pension cuts) cause me to doubt their bona fides here. The main problem is taxes in Greece is non-payment and the informal economy. Raising taxes is likely to exacerbate this problem by increasing the motivation to evade the higher taxes. Lowering taxes and simplifying the tax system is far more likely to raise more revenue.
Similarly, the main problem with government pensions is early retirement. The solution should therefore be to raise the retirement age for those currently working, which in the long term resolve the problems without creating short-term pain. The German solution (cut pensions now) means asking current pensioners who have no prospect of other sources of income and cannot choose to go back to the jobs they retired from to help repay the national debt.
You've been Berkeley'ed!