I have a friend who has an iPod instead of an iPhone. She is almost always in range of free wifi, and uses two apps that provide free phone (including dial in) and free texting. Cheaper than an iPhone and lighter too.
I found the article incredibly repetative and wishy washy and I think the author needs to go back to critical thinking class. It seems boil down to anybody who wants NC,ND is mistaken and doesn't understand creative commons. Other than pointing out the ambiguities on NC, it really doesn't justify the point of view other than "I'm right, you are wrong" with vague references to "outdated business models". More importantly, the author of the articl never attempts to address the uses cases intended by these clauses. One use case is that an owner of copyright wants to make it available to others, but does not want it modified (ND). If I put a photo up of my nephew and I want my family and friends (and family friends) to be able to share it amonst themselves, including with friends I don't know, CC makes a lot of sense. ND means that you don't get to use my nephews photo in your latest LOLimage and NC means some company doesn't get to use it in the ad campaign. And if you follow some of the groups on flickr, you find that photos are being routinely appriated for advertising use.
In the end, if the ND and NC clauses are struck from CCv4.0, people like me will simply stay with CCv3.0, or fork a new CC2v4.0
As a pilot, I really really really hope this never happens! Most people are BARELY able to keep in control of their vehicles in 2D, and are entirely unsuited for 3D. Keep them away from the skies, so that those of us who passed the difficult tests and demonstrated our ability to handle an aircraft safely can continue to be safe and remain not in danger of idiots cutting us off, not following rules, etc...
If you're too scared of using the phone number auth, just use the Android or iPhone authenticator app. Setup is quick, it's not too invasive and it just works.
Myth #7 - The google authenticator app does not require your phone number and SMS messages.
Fact - You cannot set up the authenticator app unless you ahve given your phone number to Google and first authenticated using SMS
My cell phone number is known only to 10 of my friends and 2 companies (one of which is the provider). I have no intention of giving it to Google. Also, I only use gmail for personal non-financial/business mail. I have an email account that is protected by stronger privacy laws than exist in the US for my regular business.
I have a close friend who is a retired reporter and does not own a cell phone. But she does own a 4th Gen iPod Touch. Surely she should be able to use google authenticator? The short answer is no she can't.
I can't arrest someone with the same leeway given to cops
In the state whose laws I know best (Utah) the only additional arrest power given to police is the authority to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect. Other than that, it's identical.
The main difference is that you had better be right if you arrest someone. The police enjoy limited immunity when making an arrest. You have no such protection.
The problem with your augment is that you are assuming that the words are randomly chosen. They are not. While your comment about introducing a spelling error is valid, the problem is that most people will not go to that effort. Instead, they will use a sentence from common lore. The first line or title of their favourite pop song at the moment. Standard phrases from popular movies. I did a thought experiment in my operating systems class where I explained the concept of a phrase password and had all of the students write something down. With only 28 students in the class you would have thought that they would have all chosen different pass phrases. There were 2 collisions. As pass phrases become more common, then they will be part of the standard dictionary attack, by including the most common phrases from popular culture. People who do take the effort to include a spelling error or non-standard phrase will be secure, the vast majority of people who choose this approach will actually be weaker.
Its like police with radar guns on the side of the highway stopping everybody going under the speed limit to remind them about the penalty for speeding.
You can't lift the camera to take a picture over a 7 foot fence. There is an expectation of privacy in a fenced-in backyard. A drone overhead is looking inside the fence.
While you are correct about anything that can normally be seen from a public space (And I fully support the recording of police in a public place), a UAV sees many things that are not normally seen from a public space.
In the earlier appeal decision (a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf">pdf) on the motion to dismiss, page 24, the final two sentences are
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court's order denying appellants' claim of qualified immunity.
So ordered.
The defendents are the city of Boston and the three officers involved. The city may have chosen to shoulder the costs, but several cities in the first circuit have specifically sent out warnings to thier police officers that they may be personally held liable for false arrests arising from public recording
If you mean "go the distance" as in set a precedent, then this case already did.
Early in the trial, the city attempted a motion to dismiss on the ground of limited immunity(i.e. can't sue police for doing thier job in good faith). The Citiy's argument was that the wiretap law says you "can't record in secret" and since it wasn't clear that the phone was recording audio, then the audio part of the recording was secret, and therefore the was probable cause for the arrest, and thus limited immunity applied. The appeals court handed down a decision(pdf) in 2011 that drew on over 10 years of precedents that said in no uncertain terms that it wasn't a secret recording, that Mr Glik had the right to record police in public and that any resonable person would have known this. Therefore the police cannot claim llimited immunity.
Faced with such a strong appeals court ruling on the motion to dismiss, it was clear any trial would be lost by the City. So they settled.
The 2011 dismissal appeal decision is a precedent, and has already been used as binding precedent in 1st circut, and as non-binding precedent in all of the other circuits on similar cases. There is one case, I have misplaced the link, where the lawsuit is for an incident that happened before the 2011 glik decision and the police are claiming that since the incident happened before the glik decision, they couldn't know that it was a civil rights violation to arrest someone for this. As far as I can tell, they aren't getting anywhere with that argument. The language of the glik decision makes it clear that it has always been a civil rights violation to arrest someone for openly recording the police in a public space.
The guy is a family court lawyer. The settlement is $50,000 + lawyers fees (he was represented by the ACLU). The case is decisive in that Boston attempted to have the case dismissed base on limited immunity(i.e. can't sue police for doing their job). The trial court ruled against them (i..e. lawsuit can go ahead). The ruling was appealed and the appeal court handed down a ruling (pdf) that left little doubt how the rest of the trial would go. The appeal court ruling said, in no uncertain terms, that the recording was legal, that it was not secret and Mr. Gliks rights were violated. Given that ruling on a motion to dismiss, there is no way the city would go ahead with a lower trial that would just confirm what the appeals court already said, so they settled.
Except that the only way you can share a picture is using the Lytrol server and flash application, and their T&C rules out posting porn on their website. Since one major hypothesis is that porn drives technology, the Lytrol is probably DOA.
Tried it out, and the only problem is that there are no serif fonts for the pdf versions. While I can understand sans-serif for screen use, paper really needs a serif font.
Actually, the Hubble mirror isn't supposed to be flat, its shape is a particular function. It was actually manufactured exactly to spec, but the spec was wrong.
Actually,the hubble was spec'd to be a conic constant of p=-.0023, but was polished only to p=-.0139 (i.e. over hyperbolic). The error was due to a problem with the tester. The null reference element was out of position by just over a millimeter. The interesting thing is two other testers reported that the mirror was wrong, but they were ignored because they were not the 'primary' testing instrument. You are correct that it wasn't supposed to be flat, but it definitely wan't built to spec.
One of the controversies I was thinking about is the BC case (although not the one that lost the contract). My understanding about the BC MSP case is that EDS had to create a Canadian Subsidiery (EDS Advanced Solutions) which had to have Canadian Citizens as directors and set up a data center in Canada. Futhermore, the province had specific powers of attorney. So while EDS US would end up with the money from the contract (a different issue), the data would remain in Canada under Canadian legal jurisdiction.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a friend who has an iPod instead of an iPhone. She is almost always in range of free wifi, and uses two apps that provide free phone (including dial in) and free texting. Cheaper than an iPhone and lighter too.
Citation is fair use or equivalent in every jurisdiction. No way you are going to get that one through.
I found the article incredibly repetative and wishy washy and I think the author needs to go back to critical thinking class. It seems boil down to anybody who wants NC,ND is mistaken and doesn't understand creative commons. Other than pointing out the ambiguities on NC, it really doesn't justify the point of view other than "I'm right, you are wrong" with vague references to "outdated business models". More importantly, the author of the articl never attempts to address the uses cases intended by these clauses. One use case is that an owner of copyright wants to make it available to others, but does not want it modified (ND). If I put a photo up of my nephew and I want my family and friends (and family friends) to be able to share it amonst themselves, including with friends I don't know, CC makes a lot of sense. ND means that you don't get to use my nephews photo in your latest LOLimage and NC means some company doesn't get to use it in the ad campaign. And if you follow some of the groups on flickr, you find that photos are being routinely appriated for advertising use.
In the end, if the ND and NC clauses are struck from CCv4.0, people like me will simply stay with CCv3.0, or fork a new CC2v4.0
As a pilot, I really really really hope this never happens! Most people are BARELY able to keep in control of their vehicles in 2D, and are entirely unsuited for 3D. Keep them away from the skies, so that those of us who passed the difficult tests and demonstrated our ability to handle an aircraft safely can continue to be safe and remain not in danger of idiots cutting us off, not following rules, etc...
Yet the difficult tests and demonstrated ability to handle an aircraft safely doesn't stop one from cell phones and texting while flying: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/14/plane-crash-caused-by-cellphone-report
If you're too scared of using the phone number auth, just use the Android or iPhone authenticator app. Setup is quick, it's not too invasive and it just works.
Myth #7 - The google authenticator app does not require your phone number and SMS messages.
Fact - You cannot set up the authenticator app unless you ahve given your phone number to Google and first authenticated using SMS
My cell phone number is known only to 10 of my friends and 2 companies (one of which is the provider). I have no intention of giving it to Google. Also, I only use gmail for personal non-financial/business mail. I have an email account that is protected by stronger privacy laws than exist in the US for my regular business.
I have a close friend who is a retired reporter and does not own a cell phone. But she does own a 4th Gen iPod Touch. Surely she should be able to use google authenticator? The short answer is no she can't.
I can't arrest someone with the same leeway given to cops
In the state whose laws I know best (Utah) the only additional arrest power given to police is the authority to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect. Other than that, it's identical.
The main difference is that you had better be right if you arrest someone. The police enjoy limited immunity when making an arrest. You have no such protection.
Whoosh!!!
Now they need to go after them for secure boot UEFI
The problem with your augment is that you are assuming that the words are randomly chosen. They are not. While your comment about introducing a spelling error is valid, the problem is that most people will not go to that effort. Instead, they will use a sentence from common lore. The first line or title of their favourite pop song at the moment. Standard phrases from popular movies. I did a thought experiment in my operating systems class where I explained the concept of a phrase password and had all of the students write something down. With only 28 students in the class you would have thought that they would have all chosen different pass phrases. There were 2 collisions. As pass phrases become more common, then they will be part of the standard dictionary attack, by including the most common phrases from popular culture. People who do take the effort to include a spelling error or non-standard phrase will be secure, the vast majority of people who choose this approach will actually be weaker.
Did you just try to compare dealing drugs such as cocaine and heroin to copyright infringment? Seriously?
I'll turn your own question back on you:
Are you trying to look stupid, or just REALLY good at it?
The case of the green jelly beans.. http://xkcd.com/882/
Impact factors are also misleading. They consider positive and negative references the exact same. They also don't measure industry impact.
Its like police with radar guns on the side of the highway stopping everybody going under the speed limit to remind them about the penalty for speeding.
The outside is a public setting. Always has been.
You can't lift the camera to take a picture over a 7 foot fence. There is an expectation of privacy in a fenced-in backyard. A drone overhead is looking inside the fence.
While you are correct about anything that can normally be seen from a public space (And I fully support the recording of police in a public place), a UAV sees many things that are not normally seen from a public space.
In the earlier appeal decision (a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf">pdf) on the motion to dismiss, page 24, the final two sentences are
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court's order denying appellants' claim of qualified immunity. So ordered.
The defendents are the city of Boston and the three officers involved. The city may have chosen to shoulder the costs, but several cities in the first circuit have specifically sent out warnings to thier police officers that they may be personally held liable for false arrests arising from public recording
If you mean "go the distance" as in set a precedent, then this case already did.
Early in the trial, the city attempted a motion to dismiss on the ground of limited immunity(i.e. can't sue police for doing thier job in good faith). The Citiy's argument was that the wiretap law says you "can't record in secret" and since it wasn't clear that the phone was recording audio, then the audio part of the recording was secret, and therefore the was probable cause for the arrest, and thus limited immunity applied. The appeals court handed down a decision(pdf) in 2011 that drew on over 10 years of precedents that said in no uncertain terms that it wasn't a secret recording, that Mr Glik had the right to record police in public and that any resonable person would have known this. Therefore the police cannot claim llimited immunity.
Faced with such a strong appeals court ruling on the motion to dismiss, it was clear any trial would be lost by the City. So they settled.
The 2011 dismissal appeal decision is a precedent, and has already been used as binding precedent in 1st circut, and as non-binding precedent in all of the other circuits on similar cases. There is one case, I have misplaced the link, where the lawsuit is for an incident that happened before the 2011 glik decision and the police are claiming that since the incident happened before the glik decision, they couldn't know that it was a civil rights violation to arrest someone for this. As far as I can tell, they aren't getting anywhere with that argument. The language of the glik decision makes it clear that it has always been a civil rights violation to arrest someone for openly recording the police in a public space.
The guy is a family court lawyer. The settlement is $50,000 + lawyers fees (he was represented by the ACLU). The case is decisive in that Boston attempted to have the case dismissed base on limited immunity(i.e. can't sue police for doing their job). The trial court ruled against them (i..e. lawsuit can go ahead). The ruling was appealed and the appeal court handed down a ruling (pdf) that left little doubt how the rest of the trial would go. The appeal court ruling said, in no uncertain terms, that the recording was legal, that it was not secret and Mr. Gliks rights were violated. Given that ruling on a motion to dismiss, there is no way the city would go ahead with a lower trial that would just confirm what the appeals court already said, so they settled.
Except that the only way you can share a picture is using the Lytrol server and flash application, and their T&C rules out posting porn on their website. Since one major hypothesis is that porn drives technology, the Lytrol is probably DOA.
Tried it out, and the only problem is that there are no serif fonts for the pdf versions. While I can understand sans-serif for screen use, paper really needs a serif font.
Don't know about the states, but it was prominent here in Canda (I gave one of the interviews on the news).
http://www.dominic-deegan.com/ http://www.egscomics.com/ http://www.questionablecontent.net/
Actually, the Hubble mirror isn't supposed to be flat, its shape is a particular function. It was actually manufactured exactly to spec, but the spec was wrong.
Actually,the hubble was spec'd to be a conic constant of p=-.0023, but was polished only to p=-.0139 (i.e. over hyperbolic). The error was due to a problem with the tester. The null reference element was out of position by just over a millimeter. The interesting thing is two other testers reported that the mirror was wrong, but they were ignored because they were not the 'primary' testing instrument. You are correct that it wasn't supposed to be flat, but it definitely wan't built to spec.
Sorry my last statement was out of context. I was referring to teachers and police, not doctors and lawyers in reference to having to be a member.
Sorry my last statement was out of context. I was referring to teachers and police, not doctors and lawyers.
One of the controversies I was thinking about is the BC case (although not the one that lost the contract). My understanding about the BC MSP case is that EDS had to create a Canadian Subsidiery (EDS Advanced Solutions) which had to have Canadian Citizens as directors and set up a data center in Canada. Futhermore, the province had specific powers of attorney. So while EDS US would end up with the money from the contract (a different issue), the data would remain in Canada under Canadian legal jurisdiction.