The subscriber to the Internet service is responsible for preventing unlawful acts using that service. That doesn't necessarily mean securing it in a way that no-one else can gain access to it.
It seems no lawyers involved; it was a police tribunal - some tribunal that handles minor offences.
So there's another major difference between US and France in dealing with such copyright violations: the fines are on a much more reasonable level, and it's considered a minor issue handled by a small tribunal instead of going through the major courts, wasting judge's and jury's time for years.
According to the article, his wife admitted to downloading the two songs, and even gave the court (a police tribunal actually) a written statement saying so.
Article focuses on real-world tests more than on the numbers Apple gives. As always when it comes to battery time, the numbers a manufacturer gives are ideal-situation, best case scenario results.
Future Weapons just fuels the fantasies although some of it is actually pretty interesting from a mechanical level.
True, which is why I watched it. The military is doing a lot of research and development, new materials and technologies, that often trickle down to more wholesome uses.
Oftentimes, though, the show felt more like an advertisement vehicle for new shit.
I am still learning the intricacies of Newspeak. But never mind I just hear the chocolate ratios have been increased again so I'll just go watching the news about our latest victory in the war against Oceania. Or was it Eurasia? My memory fails me.
Those thrillers and spy stories are at least sold as fiction. And James Bond's actions and adversaries are often so over-the-top that they can not be considered realistic.
Now how about shows like Future Weapons that glorify actual death and destruction? They like to demonstrate all kinds of modern weaponry showing off how well it destroys objects, and discussing on how efficient it is in killing people.
Actually the porn/arousal part was the last on my mind when I read the headline.
The first thing I thought is, how are we going to record any actual child abuse? How about social workers detailing such events, are they falling foul of the law with their reports?
Probably there will be some exception there.
For the rest, from the face of it, this suggestion sounds a bit like "let's bury it, then it doesn't exist any more". Like how the Party tried to introduce Newspeak, key of which was not so much a "simplification" of the language but the absence of certain words (like "democracy") so people would have no way to think about or discuss those concepts.
They may say "twice the Exxon Valdez in a year" which may very well be true, but there are two giant differences:
1) both the Exxon Valdez and this Deep Water Horizon spills spilled their vast quantities of oil in hours or days, not spread over a year. They both caused a huge spike in oil concentrations, well over the naturally occuring spills.
2) the Exxon Valdez was at the surface, so the oil directly contaminated large parts of shoreline where the natural seep usually doesn't get to as it's all eaten by bacteria or dissolved in the water before it can reach the shore.
The reason there are natural spills all the time will certainly have helped in the clean-up of the Deep Water Horizon spill, as there is an existing ecosystem of oil-eating bacteria present. But to say "oh it doesn't matter as nature spills more" is false. Nature has a huge capacity when it comes to cleaning up our mess, given enough time, but that doesn't mean we should just allow it to happen.
These effects on fisheries can very well be because of the remaining 40% of the oil. That's still a lot of oil, and many lifeforms perish quickly when there is oil in the water.
Spoken like someone who's never tried to write a research paper on a tablet/smartphone.
I think a conservative estimate would be that some 95% of the general population has never written a research paper in their life, and will never do so.
Currently I'm looking for a new netbook - I regularly find myself having spare time, which I would like to use to do some work, which is mostly e-mail and simple document editing. I know people do that on a tablet, but as many people here will argue it misses a keyboard.
Now browsing some web sites on info on current netbooks, which by now are far evolved from the underpowered EEPC 701 to include 250GB or more hard disks and high-res screens, I see quite some sites that claim "netbooks are a dying breed". I really wonder if that's so. Isn't there a market for laptops that don't break your back when carrying them around, that are reasonably sturdy, and fit in a smallish bag?
Loser being liable for cost doesn't mean there will actually be money coming from loser. Not many individuals can pay a half a million dollar bill (statutory damages + lawyer's fees) - not even when spread over ten or even twenty years.
So if loser is not paying but is bankrupted instead, the lawyers lose out? Which effectively could mean that both side's lawyers, particularly winner's lawyers, have worked for free? Or will at least winner's lawyers simply claim their expenses from the winner of the suit, making the winner heavily out of pocket as well?
Just curious.
In this case, if this were the end (and even if they continue I don't see much chance of her winning and then the RIAA not appealing), it would mean a total liability of $0.5-1 mln for Jammie Thomas. That'd mean near certain bankruptcy for her (assuming she's not one of the super rich, and there's nothing in this case that points to that), unless she can manage to get a profitable book deal or something like that to pay for it.
These models indeed "predicted" certain issues after they happened. They were probably fitted to make the correct predictions, like most economical prediction models and so (for predicting stock prices). They work great on past data, usually not so great on future data.
There may be a "food price threshold" but who knows whether we'll actually break that? Maybe the economic crisis will cause food prices to collapse?
It is just like the ramblings of Nostradamus. He is said to have predicted everything, including wars, but all those predictions have been fitting against his writings in retrospect only. What will happen tomorrow? No-one can predict with any reasonable accuracy. Even the weather can't seem to be predicted with any reasonable accuracy.
It has totally nothing to do with whether users would be paying for a book could be found elsewhere for free. Kindle books can be published as free download, too, and I assume that this was the intention of this submission.
As the summary (have you read it?) correctly states: Amazon has worries about the publisher actually owning publishing rights to the work. They found the same (or very similar) text to be available for download on external web sites, and that is a red flag to them. The submitter could very well have pulled the text from those sites, altered it a bit or maybe not at all, and then submit it to the Kindle Store for resale while they don't have the rights to it.
The solution to get it on the Kindle store: pull the free downloads from other web sites, and resubmit it. That's how Amazon works. They're simply very strict on that matter, as they want to have some certainty that you, submitter, are the one that actually has the rights to publish the work.
Accessory manufacturers (particularly case manufacturers) burnt all their bridges with Apple long ago.
Interesting. How so?
Also I'm not aware of Apple (or any other manufacturer using proprietary connectors) to release them to third-party manufacturers well in advance of releasing their product. It's kinda against the whole idea of using a proprietary connector, instead of some standard (such as micro USB).
Slashdot Mirror
The subscriber to the Internet service is responsible for preventing unlawful acts using that service. That doesn't necessarily mean securing it in a way that no-one else can gain access to it.
It seems no lawyers involved; it was a police tribunal - some tribunal that handles minor offences.
So there's another major difference between US and France in dealing with such copyright violations: the fines are on a much more reasonable level, and it's considered a minor issue handled by a small tribunal instead of going through the major courts, wasting judge's and jury's time for years.
According to the article, his wife admitted to downloading the two songs, and even gave the court (a police tribunal actually) a written statement saying so.
Of course. And don't forget to mention that the chocolate rations will be increased by then as well.
Article focuses on real-world tests more than on the numbers Apple gives. As always when it comes to battery time, the numbers a manufacturer gives are ideal-situation, best case scenario results.
Then the disclaimer should of course be "based on a true story".
Future Weapons just fuels the fantasies although some of it is actually pretty interesting from a mechanical level.
True, which is why I watched it. The military is doing a lot of research and development, new materials and technologies, that often trickle down to more wholesome uses.
Oftentimes, though, the show felt more like an advertisement vehicle for new shit.
Which is why I stopped watching it :-)
Did you ever read 1984?
I am still learning the intricacies of Newspeak. But never mind I just hear the chocolate ratios have been increased again so I'll just go watching the news about our latest victory in the war against Oceania. Or was it Eurasia? My memory fails me.
Those thrillers and spy stories are at least sold as fiction. And James Bond's actions and adversaries are often so over-the-top that they can not be considered realistic.
Now how about shows like Future Weapons that glorify actual death and destruction? They like to demonstrate all kinds of modern weaponry showing off how well it destroys objects, and discussing on how efficient it is in killing people.
Actually the porn/arousal part was the last on my mind when I read the headline.
The first thing I thought is, how are we going to record any actual child abuse? How about social workers detailing such events, are they falling foul of the law with their reports?
Probably there will be some exception there.
For the rest, from the face of it, this suggestion sounds a bit like "let's bury it, then it doesn't exist any more". Like how the Party tried to introduce Newspeak, key of which was not so much a "simplification" of the language but the absence of certain words (like "democracy") so people would have no way to think about or discuss those concepts.
Or the rest are Kindle-type e-readers that while tablets are used to read books,not for surfing the web.
Now that's an idea!
clickety clickety
(submitting to App Store)
REJECTED
Damn :-(
They may say "twice the Exxon Valdez in a year" which may very well be true, but there are two giant differences:
1) both the Exxon Valdez and this Deep Water Horizon spills spilled their vast quantities of oil in hours or days, not spread over a year. They both caused a huge spike in oil concentrations, well over the naturally occuring spills.
2) the Exxon Valdez was at the surface, so the oil directly contaminated large parts of shoreline where the natural seep usually doesn't get to as it's all eaten by bacteria or dissolved in the water before it can reach the shore.
The reason there are natural spills all the time will certainly have helped in the clean-up of the Deep Water Horizon spill, as there is an existing ecosystem of oil-eating bacteria present. But to say "oh it doesn't matter as nature spills more" is false. Nature has a huge capacity when it comes to cleaning up our mess, given enough time, but that doesn't mean we should just allow it to happen.
These effects on fisheries can very well be because of the remaining 40% of the oil. That's still a lot of oil, and many lifeforms perish quickly when there is oil in the water.
Pee is mostly water, containing a small fraction of contaminants.
Oil on the other hand, is 100% concentrated contaminant.
Can't compare the two so easily.
I also know quite some people who do everything with their iPads. I just can't imagine it to work better than a sturdy netbook.
Spoken like someone who's never tried to write a research paper on a tablet/smartphone.
I think a conservative estimate would be that some 95% of the general population has never written a research paper in their life, and will never do so.
Currently I'm looking for a new netbook - I regularly find myself having spare time, which I would like to use to do some work, which is mostly e-mail and simple document editing. I know people do that on a tablet, but as many people here will argue it misses a keyboard.
Now browsing some web sites on info on current netbooks, which by now are far evolved from the underpowered EEPC 701 to include 250GB or more hard disks and high-res screens, I see quite some sites that claim "netbooks are a dying breed". I really wonder if that's so. Isn't there a market for laptops that don't break your back when carrying them around, that are reasonably sturdy, and fit in a smallish bag?
Loser being liable for cost doesn't mean there will actually be money coming from loser. Not many individuals can pay a half a million dollar bill (statutory damages + lawyer's fees) - not even when spread over ten or even twenty years.
So if loser is not paying but is bankrupted instead, the lawyers lose out? Which effectively could mean that both side's lawyers, particularly winner's lawyers, have worked for free? Or will at least winner's lawyers simply claim their expenses from the winner of the suit, making the winner heavily out of pocket as well?
Just curious.
In this case, if this were the end (and even if they continue I don't see much chance of her winning and then the RIAA not appealing), it would mean a total liability of $0.5-1 mln for Jammie Thomas. That'd mean near certain bankruptcy for her (assuming she's not one of the super rich, and there's nothing in this case that points to that), unless she can manage to get a profitable book deal or something like that to pay for it.
I wonder how much they had to pay their lawyers that were involved in this case.
Same for Thomas of course.
That're likely to be the real winners in this case, and winning more every time it moves to yet another court.
These models indeed "predicted" certain issues after they happened. They were probably fitted to make the correct predictions, like most economical prediction models and so (for predicting stock prices). They work great on past data, usually not so great on future data.
There may be a "food price threshold" but who knows whether we'll actually break that? Maybe the economic crisis will cause food prices to collapse?
It is just like the ramblings of Nostradamus. He is said to have predicted everything, including wars, but all those predictions have been fitting against his writings in retrospect only. What will happen tomorrow? No-one can predict with any reasonable accuracy. Even the weather can't seem to be predicted with any reasonable accuracy.
It has totally nothing to do with whether users would be paying for a book could be found elsewhere for free. Kindle books can be published as free download, too, and I assume that this was the intention of this submission.
As the summary (have you read it?) correctly states: Amazon has worries about the publisher actually owning publishing rights to the work. They found the same (or very similar) text to be available for download on external web sites, and that is a red flag to them. The submitter could very well have pulled the text from those sites, altered it a bit or maybe not at all, and then submit it to the Kindle Store for resale while they don't have the rights to it.
The solution to get it on the Kindle store: pull the free downloads from other web sites, and resubmit it. That's how Amazon works. They're simply very strict on that matter, as they want to have some certainty that you, submitter, are the one that actually has the rights to publish the work.
You really want to? I'd rather have them dismissed and sent home than having to fuck them. But then uniforms are not my fetish.
Accessory manufacturers (particularly case manufacturers) burnt all their bridges with Apple long ago.
Interesting. How so?
Also I'm not aware of Apple (or any other manufacturer using proprietary connectors) to release them to third-party manufacturers well in advance of releasing their product. It's kinda against the whole idea of using a proprietary connector, instead of some standard (such as micro USB).