|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 02:40 PM EST |
Article link.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 05:33 PM EST |
Interesting breakdown...
Those in white are relatively well known as democracys.
Those in color are known dictatorships.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM EST |
Lauren Weinstein
fears the ITU's pet Godzilla has gone off for a nap and
will be back. Part of
the problem is he was here before, and nobody noticed. In the
Final Acts [pdf] of the Plenary Session the word
internet
appears nine times, on only one page,
RESOLUTION PLEN/3 (DUBAI,
2012)
To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the
Internet
The World Conference on International Telecommunications (Dubai,
2012),
recognizing
c) the importance of broadband capacity to
facilitate the delivery of a broader range of services and applications, promote
investment
and provide Internet access at affordable prices to both existing
and new users;
e) that, as stated in the WSIS outcomes, all governments
should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet
governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the
existing Internet and its future development and of the future
internet, and
that the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation
with all stakeholders is also recognized;
f) Resolutions 101, 102 and 133
(Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) of the Plenipotentiary Conference,
resolves
to invite Member States
1 to elaborate on their respective positions on
international Internet-related technical, development and public-policy issues
within
the mandate of ITU at various ITU forums including, inter alia, the
World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum, the Broadband
Commission for Digital
Development and ITU study groups;
2 to engage with all their stakeholders in
this regard,
instructs the Secretary-General
1 to continue to
take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the
development of broadband and the
multistakeholder model of the Internet as
expressed in § 35 of the Tunis Agenda;
2 to support the
participation of Member States and all other stakeholders, as applicable, in the
activities of ITU in this regard.
a) the outcome documents of the Geneva
(2003) and Tunis (2005) phases of the World
Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS);
b) that the Internet is a central element of the
infrastructure of the information society,
which has evolved from a research and
academic facility into a global facility available to the
public;
d) the
valuable contribution of all stakeholder groups in their respective roles,
as
recognized in § 35 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, to the
evolution, functioning
and development of the Internet; [emphasis
added]
Note that this resolution has the backing of previous
determinations of the ITU or its associates. If anybody has those docs at their
fingertips it
would save me some e-shoe-leather. And yes, the strange para.
labels indicate on the fly editing. The
leaked list (pdf) of Declarations and Reservations could
also be
problematic, it contains declarations from those who signed and those who did
not sign the Final Acts. The majority of the 84 statements appear
to say
(paraphrased) We reserve the right to do what we want. Couldn't the
non-signers have simply placed their dissidence in this
document?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 09:22 PM EST |
I wonder if the Tektronix solid ink printer technology would be prior art for
the 3D print head described. The solid ink print head has a liquidizer in the
print head and the ink cartridges have reciprocal shapes to align the ink to the
print head. The color version fuses one ink on top of another to create more
colors, while the 3D printer fuses one ink on top of another to build thickness
for the 3D object.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: symbolset on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 10:03 PM EST |
This is the real purpose of copyright extension: to deprive us of our cultural
heritage so that more new books might be sold. It is deliberate forgettery on a
grand scale, for profit.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ByteJuggler on Saturday, December 15 2012 @ 08:40 AM EST |
| Apple's been trying and so far failing to trademark the
work "Launchpad". I wonder what Canonical would have to say about this
given that they've already registered it as a trademark and
have been actively using the name in the tech space for one of their projects for many years... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Saturday, December 15 2012 @ 10:10 AM EST |
"When it comes to Apple's iOS versus Google's Android, there aren't many
fence sitters. Roger McNamee, an investor who's been analyzing the output of
Silicon Valley for 30 years, thinks Android is the "equivalent of having a
motor scooter at the Indianapolis 500."
See the rest at
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57558874-93/vc-roger-mcnamee-slams-androids-pro
fitless-prosperity/
Is McNamee losing it, completely? Android is the gate to ueber-hyper-super
rocket science. Think of Android as a gate to, no not Indianapolis 500, but
rather Forbes 500, www.top500.org, Linux and the brainiest nerds around the
globe, whereas iOS is the gate to, err ... Apple?
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kg on Sunday, December 16 2012 @ 04:06 PM EST |
Justice Kagan's remarks were very interesting. Yes, I agree
with PJ that she's probably managed to do some persuading,
but that's in the
nature of things. I've read a lot of
supreme court opinions (over a year's
worth, to be precise),
and found that the arguments they present are very well
thought through, whether writing for the court or
concurring/dissenting. So I
can definitely see why the
exchange and/or persuasion would occur. The way she
worded
it, though, seemed fairly closed-minded and egocentric. I
would have
expected better from her.
What surprised me more (and somewhat delighted
me, as a
linguist) was her praise for the increasing role of the text
in the
Supreme Court. This reflects a consistent
continuation of the court's trend
since 1803, when CJ
Marshall introduced written opinions. After all, common law
until then was based on the spirit of the decision, not the
letter.
From a patent/trademark law perspective, that's an
absolutely
necessary approach. We should require precise
wording rather than vague hints
and ambiguity. If software
patents aren't eliminated, they should at very least
be held
to the standards in other fields, such as bioscience.
Perhaps
we should lobby to have Congress pass a law that
vague and ambiguously worded
patents are automatically
invalidated. Imagine the panic. ---
IANAL
Linguist and Open Source Developer [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 16 2012 @ 07:50 PM EST |
PJ commented on this. She mentioned barracudas. Barracudas are too
tame in my opinion.
Try a cross between a T-1000 Terminator and a Great White Shark.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, December 16 2012 @ 11:36 PM EST |
Just what we need! More rights for lawyers to fight over!
Business needs FEWER legal costs, not MORE!!!! I know it's
about counterfeit products, but this is the wrong way to go.
It won't be long and no one will be able to market anything
and we'll all starve. That's where this is going. Patent none
sense! Kill it now before it gets bigger and harder to
kill!!!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, December 16 2012 @ 11:52 PM EST |
Link.
Pretty stupid article. The author doesn't understand the
subject matter. He is trying to write about an absurdity
without realizing it
is absurd.
He is investigating "Why the pursuit of Google has
proved
challenging for antitrust officials". That is the
source of the absurdity,
because Google hasn't committed any
offenses worthy of an antitrust
investigation. So then of
course it is challenging, but even more, they are
trying to
make dirt stick but they can't, because there isn't any
dirt. There
is only Microsoft generated innuendo.
I am still not making myself clear
here. That expression
used "a challenge", I mean, that tells you right
there it is absurd. If there was a challenge because Google
hid the books, or
hid evidence or killed the witnesses or
any of those things a thug will do to
hide his crimes, it
would be appropriate to call prosecuting him "a challenge",
implying thereby we need to put this guy out of action, but
he is obstructing
justice.
There certainly is no challenge like that in the case of
Google, when the FTC has requested and received tons of
documents from Google.
There is nothing hidden, everything
is an open book (well, except for
Microsoft's back room
dealings with the FTC of course). So calling prosecution
of
Google a "challenge" is an absurdity.
If Google was guilty, all the
evidence is readily
available, and if they are not, then just drop the
investigation. There is no challenge to it except the
challenge similar to
creative lawyering, employing smoke and
mirrors to try to make Google look bad.
That would be a
challenge.
Ms. Creighton hits two main
themes in
Google’s defense. The first is the consumer benefit of all
Google’s
free services. The second is that the cost to
consumers of switching to
Internet alternatives like
Microsoft’s Bing search engine, the Expedia travel
site or
Yelp local listings is "zero", she said. Or, as Google
repeatedly
says, competition is "just a click away."
In the Microsoft case, the
evidence showed that it had
bullied industry partners and had negotiated deals
to try to
thwart Netscape’s advance. The internal e-mail and witness
testimony
was damning, including an account of a meeting
with a Microsoft executive who
said its strategy was to "cut
off Netscape’s air
supply."
So in the end, the article couldn't point to
anything
Google is doing wrong. They quote the lawyer representing
this
coalition arrayed against Google...
Google, he says, is
unfairly using its
dominant search engine to favor the company’s offerings in
online shopping, travel and local listings and thus stifle
competition from
Web sites that rely on Google search for
traffic.
"From my perspective,
it’s an instant replay of the
Microsoft case", Mr. Reback said in a recent
interview,
though he would not comment for this article. "It's the same
playbook".
"An instant replay of the Microsoft case" ???
Com'on,
give me a break. There is no similarity at all, only
Microsoft
projecting their own behaviour on to Google. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 11:41 PM EST |
Instead of waste not-renowable energy and time wtriing this wonderful PDFs, why
Patrick Durusau don't call Weir by phone and say: Rob: just make this easier:
just fix this misunderstanding as men: i'll be waiting for you in and we will
solve this in a taekwondo fight: 4 rounds of 1 minute each. God will be our
witness and He will decide who won [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
