|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
It was late 1983 when I heard a radio interview with a man
who said, "I'm from
the generation of the Beatles. There
are millions of people my age who have
never heard of
Michael Jackson". I said to myself, "I've heard of Michael
Jackson. He's that British guy who wrote a book about
structured programming.
(here)"
But I had a nagging suspicion that there
was
another Michael Jackson. So I
found a friendly-looking
teenager and asked him, and was set straight.
Until
PJ mentioned it above, I still hadn't heard of the
song, "They Don't Care About
Us". Perhaps some of you
hadn't either. It's on Youtube, nearing 40
million views. It
was recorded in 1994. It appears that MJ, like his
father-
in-law Elvis before him, late in his short career turned to
social
activism in his songs. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Michael Jackson - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 02:56 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
This seems a really interesting case where the VLC developers
are trying to get the proper solution to enable reading BluRay
discs:
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2013/04/08/la-
hadopi-rend-son-avis-sur-la-lecture-des-blu-ray-par-
vlc_3156110_651865.html[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 03:11 PM EDT |
"In their joint complaint, Nokia Corp., NOK1V.HE +0.56% Microsoft Corp., MSFT
+3.86% Oracle Corp. ORCL +1.98% and over a dozen other companies accuse Google
of anticompetitive behavior because of the way it uses Android to promote its
own applications on smartphones"
"The complaint says
manufacturers of Android-powered smartphones who want to include Google apps
such as Maps, YouTube or Play are required to preload an entire suite of Google
mobile services and to give them prominent default placement on the phone".
link[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
There’s a report from the early 1950s (in this
PDF) of a one-ton
spill of the stuff. It burned its way
through a foot of concrete floor and
chewed up another meter
of sand and gravel beneath, completing a day that I'm
sure
no one involved ever forgot. That process, I should add,
would
necessarily have been accompanied by copious amounts
of horribly toxic and
corrosive by-products: it’s bad enough
when your reagent ignites wet sand, but
the clouds of hot
hydrofluoric acid are your special door prize if you’re
foolhardy enough to hang around and watch the fireworks.
link--- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Really, really, Off Topic - Sand Won't Save You This Time - chlorine trifluoride. - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- No Way, No How - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- Really, really, Off Topic - Sand Won't Save You This Time - chlorine trifluoride. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 06:21 PM EDT
- Not so Off Topic really - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 06:29 PM EDT
- Hot dog - I was looking for something that would burn Asbestos! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 10 2013 @ 06:19 AM EDT
- That's nasty! - Authored by: albert on Wednesday, April 10 2013 @ 03:07 PM EDT
- That's nasty! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 11 2013 @ 11:07 PM EDT
|
Authored by: macliam on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
I have put some time over the past few evenings working over material
relating to the forthcoming AMP v. Myriad case at the Supreme Court.
Oral argument is scheduled for next Monday, and the SCOTUSblog case page is here
The case has a dedicated Wikipedia page. Reference 6 of that page links to the
judgment of Judge Robert W. Sweet of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs
in a 152 page opinion available
from the New York Times website. The PDF file seems to have been scanned from
printed text. I have been working on getting some of it into HTML (43 pages so
far, starting at the legal argument discussing the patents). I plan to add a
comment here to attach what I have so far. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
The state of Internet access in Canada has been the subject of
considerable debate in recent years as consumers and businesses alike assess
whether Canadians have universal access to fast, affordable broadband that
compares favourably with other countries.
A new House of Commons study
currently being conducted by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and
Technology offers the chance to gain a better understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses of Canadian high-speed networks and what role the government might
play in addressing any shortcomings.
Michael
Geist, The Tyee[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 11:41 PM EDT |
Months after the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a stinging defeat
to
Access Copyright by ruling for an expansive approach to fair dealing and
the government passed copyright reforms that further expanded the scope
of fair
dealing, the copyright collective res
ponded
yesterday with what amounts to a desperate declaration of war
against
fair dealing.
In the aftermath of the court decisions and
legislative
reforms, a consensus
emerged
within the Canadian education community on the scope of fair
dealing. The fair
dealing policies used guidance from the Supreme Court
to establish clear limits
on copying and eliminate claims that the law
was now a free-for-all. In
developing those fair dealing policies,
however, many institutions no longer saw much value in the Access
Copyright licence.
Access Copyright has decided to fight the law -
along with governments,
educational institutions, teachers, librarians, and
taxpayers - on several fronts.
Michael Geist[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 10 2013 @ 06:47 AM EDT |
Comments on Q1 Mobile sales, with a snarky aside about Microsoft's tilting
at the anti-trust windmills once again.
Quick Thoughts -
Tomi Ahonen
When so many commenters look upon your anti-trust
complaint as a joke,
maybe, just maybe, you should try something else. Like
competing
perhaps?
Waynehttp://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 10 2013 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
Everyone knows the IRS is our nation’s tax collector, but it is also
a law enforcement organization tasked with investigating criminal violations of
the tax laws. New documents released to the ACLU under the Freedom of
Information Act reveal that the IRS Criminal Tax Division has long taken the
position that the IRS can read your emails without a warrant—a practice that one
appeals
court has said violates the Fourth Amendment (and we think most Americans
would agree).
Last year, the ACLU sent a FOIA request to the IRS seeking records regarding
whether it gets a warrant before reading people’s email, text messages and other
private electronic communications. The IRS has now responded by sending us 247 pages of records describing the policies
and practices of its criminal investigative arm when seeking the contents of
emails and other electronic communications.
So does the IRS always get a
warrant? Unfortunately, while the documents we have obtained do not answer this
question point blank, they suggest otherwise.
Nathan Freed Wessler, Staff
Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|