Re: Re: Re: Re: Me, I'm waiting for the commentators to start citing the US Consitutition to rebut this case....
You're the commenter who drug the US Constitution underneath an article about a court case in Iceland
No, I was expecting other commentators to start citing US law when 'explaining' why the judge might or might not be wrong. I see this kind of behaviour all the time. I was trying reverse psychology so that this wouldn't happen. Obviously, I failed.
I knew full well that this was an Icelandic case and court. And it's a good decision, mostly, IMHO, for the reason I stated: banks are not businesses like other businesses are.
He address Toews proposed legislattion. One line from a preview (I'm quoting from memory) is "almost all people, if they knew they were going to die in five minutes ... would take a minute or two and go to their computer and erase the hard drive..".. Heh.
At 'official' Canadian Museums, you ARE allowed to take photographs of anything that is part of their permanent collections - since, as Canadian citizens, we own the works. Bonus: permanent collections are usually free to visit, for the same reason.
However, there is a strict "No Flash" policy, as this might/will degrade some of the dyes. Flash output is brighter than sunlight.
Re: Re: Not copyfraud... @ "Paul Renault": Think "MC" on the graphic
In Canada, in French (I'm not sure about France), "MC" means 'marque de commerce'. It's how you say 'trademark' in French.
(MC) = (TM) Clear enough?
It's just the same as if the NYT had an article about french (sorry, "american") fries and there was a picture of a bottle of ketchup and the bottle's label had (TM) next to the word "Heinz". In this case, the NYT wouldn't be claiming copyright of the bottle label, no?
I read the reddit comments by the installer. To sum up: bigger hotels have to install more equipment than smaller hotels because they have more rooms, so their installations cost more.
OK, fine...but they also have more rooms! So they have more income! The better question to ask: do larger hotels have to have more equipment per room than smaller hotels? I'll skirt the obvious observation that larger hotels tend to charge more per room.
(It's like the argument about why you can't have people hand-counting votes in the USA like we do in Canada. Yes, the USA has ten times the population so there are more votes to count. But the USA has ten times the population, so there are more people which can count the votes.)(Complicated-er ballots notwithstanding, eh.)
Next thing you know, they'll claim that they have to charge extra for the bed sheets - because they have to have more washers and dryers than small hotels.
Besides: 20 switches to service 120 access points? What am I missing? Maybe they need to stop buying their equipment at Staples or Best Buy and get switches with more than eight ports.
While I'm not a network installer, my customers have moderately-complicated LANs which I have to work on sometimes. They'll often have 120 computers hard-wired in and two wifi access points. Three or four switches, two routers, a dial-up modem and a phone, data backup equipment, file servers, a monitor and keyboard, and two UPSes. It all fits in a cabinet 3ftx3ftx7ft.
Large hotels only need: a router, three or four switches spread out throughout the hotel (to reduce cabling), some small UPSes, high-power wifi access points, and proper antennas.
The reddit commenter mentionned $300/night. At that rate, I'd demand that Internet access be included in the room rate, just like at a Howard Johnson, instead of gouging the customers.
Mike Masnick: "He certainly is not arguing that the web would have been better off -- just that it's possible that CERN and its investments in basic research would have been better off.
Well, point taken. But isn't copyright's raison d'être is that society as a whole benefits?
So, the Occam's Razor question: If CERN had been paid modest contribution[s] [from] everyone for this wonderful innovation, would the enormous investment[s] [which] in turn further[ed] basic research, would the world have been better off than what we have now?