Ronald Katz, the lawyer representing Adderley and Brown, wrote in a filing Monday that allowing EA Sports to profit from the use of athletes' likenesses without their permission means "EA could use for free the identity of thousands of present and former collegiate and professional athletes, eliminating any legal reasons for EA to continue any licensing, and giving it a windfall worth hundreds of millions of dollars."
So if this stands, anyone else could produce their own sports titles to compete with EA? Sounds good. I suppose EA feels that the end of licensing fees will be more of a boon than any competition they face.
An 11-year old girl knew to pull her parents from their car when it had rolled by climbing out of a broken window because she knew from GTA that cars can catch fire when they roll upside down.
Unfortunately, that's almost exactly the wrong thing to do. Cars rarely catch fire. Rolling over isn't particularly likely to cause a fire, particularly compared to other forms of crash. If there are signs of fire, by all means, get the injured out immediately. But rollovers can cause very serious neck and spine injuries that can be exacerbated by some well meaning individual trying to move you. Leave that to the paramedics.
Note that Oregon isn't AFAIK claiming copyright over their laws. The text in question is not the laws, but rather a book to explain the law. However, they can be understood without it.
But isn't reliability an objective quantity? Percent downtime, for example, would be an obvious way to measure reliability. From the same wikipedia page you linked to, both cheapness and safety are listed as objective rather than subjective claims and therefor not puffery; this would seem to be the same.
Better would be to teach drivers to better cope with distractions including cell phone usage. If a pilot be required to be communicating on a radio while they land and take off - in a fast moving vehicle that falls out of the sky if not kept within parameters, at the edge of those parameters
I don't think your analogy is sound. Airplanes are unmanuverable when taking off and landing, and often have a hard time spotting one another. The distances and closing speeds are all greater, and the chaotic patchwork of ground structures common around airports makes it even harder to spot another aircraft (it essentially provides disruptive camouflage). Finally, the field of view of many aircraft is restricted, particularly when on the ground (and especially in many tail-dragger configurations). Without radio communication, it would be almost easy for two aircraft to find themselves on the same runway at the same time, and there are few options to recover from such a situation; even fewer result in the aircraft remaining undamaged. Radio communication is a valuable safety tool for pilots.
Automobiles, on the other hand, typically rely only on the alertness of the driver to avoid collisions. A conversation will not improve the safety of the car, unless perhaps it is with a dedicated spotter (as is used in difficult terrain when off-roading, and I imagine in many other motor-sports). Furthermore, the nature of cell-phone and air-traffic control (ATC) conversations will necessarily be different. ATC is aware of what the pilot is doing. Conversations are usually terse in my experience and should not draw the pilot's mind to anything unrelated to flying the plane safely.
Would I be held responsible for the actions of the robot?
Yes. Individuals have been held accountable for war crimes committed under their orders, e.g. Goring, Kaltenbrunner, Keitel. The last is particularly informative since he was a field marshal executed primarily for having ordered the execution of captured soldiers, rather than for participation in the Holocaust. You might be able to get away with writing the program for such a robot, but using one in war, or ordering one to be used in war, would be a crime.
As someone above asked, who enforces this anyway? Can't they just make 'killing people' and 'destroying stuff' war crimes?
They are enforced by nation which killed people most efficiently, often by killing more people.
Have you really? I think most media just use a generic blot created by the artist. Note in particular that the Rorschach blots are almost always portrayed as black on white, while many of the cards are actually colorful.
How about backups on heavy steel punch-cards sealed and stored in some sort of vault? No serious risk of erasure, and much more difficult to walk off with than any sort of digital backups.
The intent is basically censorship. The author wishes the material had never come to light, and wishes to punish the individuals who brought it to light. The proposed lawsuit for damages is basically an abuse of copyright law. Copyright is a limited monopoly granted to allow the author to benefit from the distribution of their work. It is not intended to allow them to suppress material.
I concede that the aforementioned benefit exists, but still think circumcising infants is unnecessary surgery. If the individual in question cares for the decreased risk, they can make the decision themselves to go in and get circumcised when they are old enough to give consent to such a medical procedure..
We wouldn't let parents give their children breast implants without the input of their children, would we? Do we allow parents to give their children tattoos? (I'm actually afraid of the answer to that). When surgery does not have a benefit (and circumcision does not until the individual is sexually active), parents should not be able to select it for their children.
If you did see those full page flash ads, and you had no chance to block them, would you still visit the page? Or would it not be worth the annoyance and you'd just turn away in disgust? Using adblock and noscript keeps their impressions up and thus keeps the pagemasters from learning that annoying the living hell out of your visitors isn't how you attract people.
People don't care. I find internet ads to be just as annoying as television ads, but most people keep using both without blocking them. Most of the time, when I use someone else's computer, they have no ad-blocking software at all. It's not just lack of knowledge. I just asked my sister if she wanted to block online ads. She said "It's fine. I don't want to mess with it. I really don't care at all." Ads are everywhere in our culture, and most people don't give a damn.
Yes, but then you include metal rounds as a class of objects that likely will be SUCKED INTO THE ENGINE. If my options for aspirating something are a bird versus a bullet, I think the plane would fair better ingesting a bird. Not to mention the hazard of turning one falling (suckable) objects into many falling (suckable) objects.
The larger problem would be firing thousands of rounds into inhabited areas around airports. That will kill somebody fairly quickly. The bullet isn't going to be sucked into the engine (it's moving too damn fast), short of some highly un-civilian maneuvers (A F-11 pilot managed to shoot himself down back in 1956!). The brass could be sucked in, but as long as it is ejected behind the mouth of the engine, it will fall clear just fine.
the computer refused to let the pilots power up and climb out at the end of the pass.
Citation needed. Jet Engines are typically slow to respond to power. I can't find any source that indicates it was a computer design flaw, rather than electrical or engine flaw. I've looked for OEB 19/1 "Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude," which would be relevant, but is apparently unavailable online.
The Pirate Party only has three issues on its agenda:
That's from their English information page. So yes, they virtually are. On the other hand, I don't think it really matters. They're not going to become a dominant party, but they may come to play a useful role in influencing legislation. But no, you probably wouldn't want to give them presidency of the parliament.
If we are actually noticed, the problem with the "freeze and play dead" suggestion is that it if it works, we risk convincing them that we are mostly harmless, unintelligent creatures. Earth then begins to look like a habitable, unoccupied planet ripe for colonizing.
While a display of martial might would serve to make the earth look less available, it also risks making us appear savage and again, unintelligent. It might make them feel justified in subjugating us and colonizing earth.
Safest is probably a policy of partial isolation. We should greet others firmly, while revealing little of our own cultures and history. Be respectful, and allow visitors to see a strictly controlled show. Given time, this can be relaxed. If they do seem interested in colonization, prepare for war. Demand commitments to peace and respect for our territory that, if broken deliberately, will give us moral high-ground in counterattacking. But if this should occur, act quickly to establish laws of war--display an aura of civility and discipline. Conversely, if they are interested in an exchange of knowledge, be open and willing--say nothing of atrocities and wars, and let the borders be opened slowly. Control their perception of us, so that we may appear to be a mixture of cultures that they could ally themselves with, rather than merely subjugate.
As I said, I'm not a lawyer. I do recall reading Sotomayor's opinion from Specht v. Netscape, that "[I]n circumstances such as these, where consumers are urged to download free software at the immediate click of a button, a reference to the existence of license terms on a submerged screen is not sufficient to place consumers on inquiry or constructive notice of those terms." A virtually identical argument could be made for a resource made available as website, rather than for download. No, it does not guarantee victory, but it is a quite reasonable argument.
The Indianapolis isn't at all the same. A Heavy Cruiser can stay at sea for months, while most planes need to land within a few days at most. Furthermore, it was sunk during wartime, and most sources I see claim it was traveling under radio silence. (Wikipedia claims otherwise, and links to an unsourced blog post as support). Thus they shouldn't have expected to hear from it. It could be a military craft if the military in question decided to cover up the incident, or the superior officers were incompetent. Possible, but unlikely.
It could have been a commercial cargo flight, also, if the operator chose to cover it up. This seems inadvisable, though, as most cargo airplanes that would be operating at this height are quite large--they can expect the plane to be identified as theirs.
IANAL, but as far as I understand, if you need a special add-on to ensure that you see their updates, their updates mean nothing. If you must see and click through a TOS to use the service, it is binding. If you need to take action to see the TOS, it is not. So don't install this, don't view their updates, and save a copy of the TOS that does apply to you.
That is highly unlikely. Any unregistered plane is unlikely to be flying at 35,000ft or in the weather reported. For that matter, anything capable of flying in these conditions would likely be either commercial or military, and so quickly noticed as missing.
Also, mid-air collisions simply aren't likely. There is a whole lot of airspace. Wikipedia reports only 3 civilian mid-air collisions between airplanes in the last 20 years.
...when you can simply open a site, offer them to "check them for security", and let them input them themselves!
It's not a website; it's a downloadable spreadsheet. It does not ask you to input passwords, but rather the parameters defined by your password policy. For example, the length, number of possible characters, and number of days between password changes.
The FTC is asking the court for Temporary Restraining Orders that would halt the illegal practices while the cases proceed, impose an asset freeze on all the defendants, and put two of the corporate defendants under the control of court-appointed receivers. The agency also is seeking a permanent injunction that would force the defendants to give up their ill-gotten gains so they can be used for consumer redress.
I doubt the resources for such a scheme are trivial. So yes, this could make it impossible for them to finance a brand new corporation doing exactly the same thing. Maybe some of the lawyers in the audience can tell me if the above actions actually matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Ronald Katz, the lawyer representing Adderley and Brown, wrote in a filing Monday that allowing EA Sports to profit from the use of athletes' likenesses without their permission means "EA could use for free the identity of thousands of present and former collegiate and professional athletes, eliminating any legal reasons for EA to continue any licensing, and giving it a windfall worth hundreds of millions of dollars."
So if this stands, anyone else could produce their own sports titles to compete with EA? Sounds good. I suppose EA feels that the end of licensing fees will be more of a boon than any competition they face.
An 11-year old girl knew to pull her parents from their car when it had rolled by climbing out of a broken window because she knew from GTA that cars can catch fire when they roll upside down.
Unfortunately, that's almost exactly the wrong thing to do. Cars rarely catch fire. Rolling over isn't particularly likely to cause a fire, particularly compared to other forms of crash. If there are signs of fire, by all means, get the injured out immediately. But rollovers can cause very serious neck and spine injuries that can be exacerbated by some well meaning individual trying to move you. Leave that to the paramedics.
Note that Oregon isn't AFAIK claiming copyright over their laws. The text in question is not the laws, but rather a book to explain the law. However, they can be understood without it.
Make up for it by making and selling bottomless parking cards.
But isn't reliability an objective quantity? Percent downtime, for example, would be an obvious way to measure reliability. From the same wikipedia page you linked to, both cheapness and safety are listed as objective rather than subjective claims and therefor not puffery; this would seem to be the same.
Better would be to teach drivers to better cope with distractions including cell phone usage. If a pilot be required to be communicating on a radio while they land and take off - in a fast moving vehicle that falls out of the sky if not kept within parameters, at the edge of those parameters
I don't think your analogy is sound. Airplanes are unmanuverable when taking off and landing, and often have a hard time spotting one another. The distances and closing speeds are all greater, and the chaotic patchwork of ground structures common around airports makes it even harder to spot another aircraft (it essentially provides disruptive camouflage). Finally, the field of view of many aircraft is restricted, particularly when on the ground (and especially in many tail-dragger configurations). Without radio communication, it would be almost easy for two aircraft to find themselves on the same runway at the same time, and there are few options to recover from such a situation; even fewer result in the aircraft remaining undamaged. Radio communication is a valuable safety tool for pilots.
Automobiles, on the other hand, typically rely only on the alertness of the driver to avoid collisions. A conversation will not improve the safety of the car, unless perhaps it is with a dedicated spotter (as is used in difficult terrain when off-roading, and I imagine in many other motor-sports). Furthermore, the nature of cell-phone and air-traffic control (ATC) conversations will necessarily be different. ATC is aware of what the pilot is doing. Conversations are usually terse in my experience and should not draw the pilot's mind to anything unrelated to flying the plane safely.
Would I be held responsible for the actions of the robot?
Yes. Individuals have been held accountable for war crimes committed under their orders, e.g. Goring, Kaltenbrunner, Keitel. The last is particularly informative since he was a field marshal executed primarily for having ordered the execution of captured soldiers, rather than for participation in the Holocaust. You might be able to get away with writing the program for such a robot, but using one in war, or ordering one to be used in war, would be a crime.
As someone above asked, who enforces this anyway? Can't they just make 'killing people' and 'destroying stuff' war crimes?
They are enforced by nation which killed people most efficiently, often by killing more people.
Have you really? I think most media just use a generic blot created by the artist. Note in particular that the Rorschach blots are almost always portrayed as black on white, while many of the cards are actually colorful.
How about backups on heavy steel punch-cards sealed and stored in some sort of vault? No serious risk of erasure, and much more difficult to walk off with than any sort of digital backups.
The intent is basically censorship. The author wishes the material had never come to light, and wishes to punish the individuals who brought it to light. The proposed lawsuit for damages is basically an abuse of copyright law. Copyright is a limited monopoly granted to allow the author to benefit from the distribution of their work. It is not intended to allow them to suppress material.
I concede that the aforementioned benefit exists, but still think circumcising infants is unnecessary surgery. If the individual in question cares for the decreased risk, they can make the decision themselves to go in and get circumcised when they are old enough to give consent to such a medical procedure..
We wouldn't let parents give their children breast implants without the input of their children, would we? Do we allow parents to give their children tattoos? (I'm actually afraid of the answer to that). When surgery does not have a benefit (and circumcision does not until the individual is sexually active), parents should not be able to select it for their children.
If you did see those full page flash ads, and you had no chance to block them, would you still visit the page? Or would it not be worth the annoyance and you'd just turn away in disgust? Using adblock and noscript keeps their impressions up and thus keeps the pagemasters from learning that annoying the living hell out of your visitors isn't how you attract people.
People don't care. I find internet ads to be just as annoying as television ads, but most people keep using both without blocking them. Most of the time, when I use someone else's computer, they have no ad-blocking software at all. It's not just lack of knowledge. I just asked my sister if she wanted to block online ads. She said "It's fine. I don't want to mess with it. I really don't care at all." Ads are everywhere in our culture, and most people don't give a damn.
Yes, but then you include metal rounds as a class of objects that likely will be SUCKED INTO THE ENGINE. If my options for aspirating something are a bird versus a bullet, I think the plane would fair better ingesting a bird. Not to mention the hazard of turning one falling (suckable) objects into many falling (suckable) objects.
The larger problem would be firing thousands of rounds into inhabited areas around airports. That will kill somebody fairly quickly. The bullet isn't going to be sucked into the engine (it's moving too damn fast), short of some highly un-civilian maneuvers (A F-11 pilot managed to shoot himself down back in 1956!). The brass could be sucked in, but as long as it is ejected behind the mouth of the engine, it will fall clear just fine.
the computer refused to let the pilots power up and climb out at the end of the pass.
Citation needed. Jet Engines are typically slow to respond to power. I can't find any source that indicates it was a computer design flaw, rather than electrical or engine flaw. I've looked for OEB 19/1 "Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude," which would be relevant, but is apparently unavailable online.
The Pirate Party only has three issues on its agenda:
That's from their English information page. So yes, they virtually are. On the other hand, I don't think it really matters. They're not going to become a dominant party, but they may come to play a useful role in influencing legislation. But no, you probably wouldn't want to give them presidency of the parliament.
If we are actually noticed, the problem with the "freeze and play dead" suggestion is that it if it works, we risk convincing them that we are mostly harmless, unintelligent creatures. Earth then begins to look like a habitable, unoccupied planet ripe for colonizing.
While a display of martial might would serve to make the earth look less available, it also risks making us appear savage and again, unintelligent. It might make them feel justified in subjugating us and colonizing earth.
Safest is probably a policy of partial isolation. We should greet others firmly, while revealing little of our own cultures and history. Be respectful, and allow visitors to see a strictly controlled show. Given time, this can be relaxed. If they do seem interested in colonization, prepare for war. Demand commitments to peace and respect for our territory that, if broken deliberately, will give us moral high-ground in counterattacking. But if this should occur, act quickly to establish laws of war--display an aura of civility and discipline. Conversely, if they are interested in an exchange of knowledge, be open and willing--say nothing of atrocities and wars, and let the borders be opened slowly. Control their perception of us, so that we may appear to be a mixture of cultures that they could ally themselves with, rather than merely subjugate.
As I said, I'm not a lawyer. I do recall reading Sotomayor's opinion from Specht v. Netscape, that "[I]n circumstances such as these, where consumers are urged to download free software at the immediate click of a button, a reference to the existence of license terms on a submerged screen is not sufficient to place consumers on inquiry or constructive notice of those terms." A virtually identical argument could be made for a resource made available as website, rather than for download. No, it does not guarantee victory, but it is a quite reasonable argument.
The Indianapolis isn't at all the same. A Heavy Cruiser can stay at sea for months, while most planes need to land within a few days at most. Furthermore, it was sunk during wartime, and most sources I see claim it was traveling under radio silence. (Wikipedia claims otherwise, and links to an unsourced blog post as support). Thus they shouldn't have expected to hear from it. It could be a military craft if the military in question decided to cover up the incident, or the superior officers were incompetent. Possible, but unlikely.
It could have been a commercial cargo flight, also, if the operator chose to cover it up. This seems inadvisable, though, as most cargo airplanes that would be operating at this height are quite large--they can expect the plane to be identified as theirs.
IANAL, but as far as I understand, if you need a special add-on to ensure that you see their updates, their updates mean nothing. If you must see and click through a TOS to use the service, it is binding. If you need to take action to see the TOS, it is not. So don't install this, don't view their updates, and save a copy of the TOS that does apply to you.
That is highly unlikely. Any unregistered plane is unlikely to be flying at 35,000ft or in the weather reported. For that matter, anything capable of flying in these conditions would likely be either commercial or military, and so quickly noticed as missing.
Also, mid-air collisions simply aren't likely. There is a whole lot of airspace. Wikipedia reports only 3 civilian mid-air collisions between airplanes in the last 20 years.
Off the top of my head, Diablo, Doom, GTA3, Myst, Rogue, Sim City, and the Sims were all on PCs.
Why do you feel the need to buy new games? Is L4D not fun? Will it not continue to be fun regardless of what other games are released?
...when you can simply open a site, offer them to "check them for security", and let them input them themselves!
It's not a website; it's a downloadable spreadsheet. It does not ask you to input passwords, but rather the parameters defined by your password policy. For example, the length, number of possible characters, and number of days between password changes.
The FTC is asking the court for Temporary Restraining Orders that would halt the illegal practices while the cases proceed, impose an asset freeze on all the defendants, and put two of the corporate defendants under the control of court-appointed receivers. The agency also is seeking a permanent injunction that would force the defendants to give up their ill-gotten gains so they can be used for consumer redress.
I doubt the resources for such a scheme are trivial. So yes, this could make it impossible for them to finance a brand new corporation doing exactly the same thing. Maybe some of the lawyers in the audience can tell me if the above actions actually matter.
Well then don't use their computers for piracy. Use your own.