Ah, so news on/. is like a Red Top then? If it isn't completely sensationalised and argued over vehemently by people with no clue, or if it isn't pr0n with teh sxy b00bies then it isn't interesting.
I summon all of my current arguing power and spit for the retort: Meh:P:D
This is why you don't let anyone related to legal anywhere near technology:
unless they escape by canceling their domain names
Perhaps, but it's overkill. Just change your email address and remove the catch-all. Once you've done that, don't publish in plain text.
or changing their Internet protocol addresses.
WTF? that won't even help since the domain will be looked up and converted to the IP address.
I think what is more accurate (assuming the software only shares what you tell it) is "you're giving criminals keys to get into a single room where everything that you left in there cannot be stolen but can be copied indefinitely". I guess that doesn't have the same media punch as "user was dumb enough to share entire disk drive and not check what was specifically shared".
I have used Opera, but it was back around 6.0 or 7.0 and I preferred Firebird (as it was then - about v0.6) and stuck with it since. At the time it was the adverts, now I still use it to check website design but still don't like the interface. It's all down to personal preference, though.
I'm not attempting to spin the article at all (hence "Opera is probably a bit faster than Firefox in page rendering as well"), I'm trying to de-spin the summary which just takes the fact of "Ars Technica does JavaScript test and Opera is fastest" and converts that to "Extra! Extra! Opera is fastest browser of all".
It's kinda like seeing an article about how a politician told the truth and then posting the headline "Politicians tell the truth". While it might be true in some cases, the article gives one specific instance but the headline and/. article stretch that instance beyond what the source provides facts for.
Again, that isn't to say that Opera isn't faster overall, just that the article only talks about JavaScript.
Okay, so Opera is probably a bit faster than Firefox in page rendering as well if they're faster at JavaScript, but the actual quote (emphasis mine) is:
When running various JavaScript speed tests, Opera 9.5 scored slightly higher (281ms) than the previous released version, 9.23 (546ms)
So Opera is much faster than FF when running JavaScript tests, according to Ars Technica.
Personally I think it's a huge shame that I can't walk up to the Prime Minister and argue with him about his policies.
I think there's an issue of practicality there, though. If we could walk up to our leaders (without having to pretend to be Canadians in a motorcade) then there'd be too many people crammed around them all trying to argue about dozens of different things!
If only politicians could do what the people want, rather than what the people need.
(I'll leave it up to the reader as to whether the previous sentence is sincere or sarcastic, as best suits their PoV)
Going one further than NASA, I can also reveal that the rover only ended up getting power equivalent to lighting one 100-watt bulb for 1.28 hours, or 128 1-watt bulbs for an hour, or one 1-watt bulb for 128 hours.
Not that anyone is likely to read back this far, but the BBC have a relevant updated.
Locked cellphones have become common in North America as carriers claim that they sell "subsidised" phones in return for an exclusive commitment and long-term contract from consumers.
This approach is standard in Europe and Asia, where consumers would not tolerate a market comprised solely of locked cellphones.
So, according to the BBC (who are generally more reliable than ITV or any other news service I can think of in the UK) then Europe does have unlocked phones where as the Americans are stuck with restricted freedoms of locked phones.
And I criticised that one comparison, saying that Christianity wasn't remotely similar to that practice.
It may not be now in the majority of modern churches, but that isn't to say that it wasn't the practice previously or in some areas of the church.
Plenty of people do get to be deacons or ministers who shouldn't, which is one of the reasons the church in a lot of places is in a bit of a mess.
And as you said, theory and practice often differ, which is what I was simply pointing out. Members of the church should exercise better moral behaviour that those outside and leaders should be chosen who are known to be committed to this, but in practice this doesn't always happen and there is no cast iron guarantee that they will be more moral and indeed any teaching within historic, orthodox Christianity that you should hand over your possessions to more moral members for safekeeping. Such teachings would raise eyebrows and be regarded as cultish within the church, rather than as Christian.
No, it doesn't always happen, but because that's the way that it should happen then that's the way that people will expect it will happen, and so they will have faith in the fact that the person who is a Deacon or whatever is a suitably devout person. In a more 'enlightened' western church then maybe that's correct, but what about in a developing church in the rest of the world?
Also, slightly off-topic, but I always find it strangely amusing how those who believe so strongly in a religion believe that there's very little way to be truly moral without having that religion. As a non-believer then I'm quite happy with my moral code, which is very close to the Christian moral code but with my own (and my parents', and so on) logical reasoning behind it. Yes, it probably once had a basis in Christian morals but it all makes sense in its own right without the religious aspect.
Given that our standing before God is down to the righteousness of Jesus Christ, rather than any individual level of morality (which would be far below God's acceptability), superior moral conduct (actual or implied) can never make any Christian 'better' in the sight of God than any other. Every Christian possesses the highest standing they can because they all gain their standing from the same source - Jesus Christ. This is the historic and orthodox teaching of Christianity and anyone who teaches otherwise would be regarded as foolishly mistaken at the least and heretical or cultish at the worst, rather than Christian.
Assuming you (and millions/billions of other Christians) are correct and that God exists, and that myself and the millions/billions of other religions and atheists are incorrect.
Personally, I doubt that all Christians have such a high standing based purely on the fact that they purport to follow a religion. You would either need to follow it strictly at which point you get a high moral standing through working to that high standard, or else you get the corruption and issues that you see in the church now because not all Christians have such high morals.
As I said, they did teach the whole "equality before God" thing in church at primary school, but TBH I don't think too many of us cared that much. We were happy that the clergy believed we were all equal, but would much rather not personally believe in some superior being.
I will just point out that there's normally a big difference between the style of Christianity you seem to have (staunch American Christianity), the general "we're Christian because we believe and pray" of British Christians and the "we're kinda Christian because we feel we should be and we go to church for the important church events" that probably covers a larger majority of the population (especially children at C of E schools, which are not religious schools in the normal sense, but are schools with an associated church).
The Church of England was founded to oppose the Catholic church in some of the ways it taught Christianity (such as only using Latin in services and bibles, which distanced the religion from the general populace of Britain in the 1500s), not the reason it existed. If it was opposing the reason it existed (the worship and belief in the God, Jesus and the teachings of the bible) then it wouldn't be a branch of Christianity.
Also, surely trusting the CofE is more like leaving Windows because Linux says that Windows is unstable (B talking about A and making statements about the detail of A), while trusting the Catholic church on Catholic matters is like staying with Windows because Microsoft say Windows is the most stable (A talking about A and making statements about the detail of A).
You said "'God' used to levy taxes. They were called tithes." Now, given that the Bible contains God's words, it was quite reasonable to assume that that was what you were referring to.
I also said it in inverted commas since it wasn't God directly (if he does exist and so can directly command something) but people operating in his name (i.e. the church and the clergy).
You alleged certain things about the practices of the church and compared what Christians do to what cults teach, so it seemed relevant to talk about what churches actually believe and teach.
No, I compared one practice that I was taught about (of taking worldly possessions away from the layman) to one of the practices of many a campus cult (of taking worldly possessions away from the new 'recruit'). I did not say or imply that Christianity was entirely the same as those cults, only that the one practice was similar.
Also, no matter what the religion then there's generally a difference between what is taught and what is practiced. Just look at the many branches of Christianity to see how many interpretations there are of words, never mind actions.
The Bible exhorts leaders to a high standard, but makes no guarantees about them achieving it by virtue of their position.
No, but you wouldn't get into the position of being a Deacon or whatever without having some degree of piousness and devoutness above that of a normal person.
It's a bit like saying everyone knows something about politics and so politicians aren't more politically astute than the normal person on the street. They don't have to (and I guess with some politicians then it's arguable whether they do or not) but because they're in the job that they're in then it's generally a given that they are more politically astute.
Faithful churches would teach this.
Luckily my teaching was from a school, not a church. I attended a C of E Primary School, so we went to church once a week for half an hour or so. There was the "everyone is equal before God" but when you're in a school of several hundred children, most of whom are only vaguely Christian (generally by default of feeling they should be, and because that's where they went for marriages etc) then there's a definite separation between clergy and congregation in terms of devoutness.
Who said anything about what was in the bible? I sure didn't. The word 'bible' was never used once in my post, and neither were the tenets mentioned.
I can't remember it exactly (it was about fifteen years ago I think, when I would have been somewhere around eight or nine years old in Primary School) but we compared Church of England/Protestants and Catholicism and the differences in the church etc. I'm fairly sure that one of the reasons Catholic churches were so opulent was the money they acquired through tithes. Back then the Catholics were all for keeping the bible in Latin as well, so it didn't matter whether it was in the bible or not as most people stood no chance of reading it anyway. Yes, C of E probably still took tithes, but their churches were never so flamboyant with it (which is why going to the Vatican was impressive but the C of E equivalent, while still big and architecturally amazing, isn't as artistically impressive).
As for being stronger, religious leaders generally have a degree of "pious and devout" that says they are less likely to give in to temptation than a normal worshipper. That pious and devout translates to "able to do what our god/being of a higher power wants as opposed to what human tendency ends up doing". It works the same for any religion (which is how the cults indoctrinate and steal possessions so well).
I have an issue with one part however, it reads "...and the once lucrative album market has been overshadowed by downloaded singles, which mainly benefits Apple" and here I thought Apple made most of their money with their hardware sales and a pittance on each track, giving the majority to the producer.
From the producer's point of view then it does benefit Apple. If Apple take a cut of profits, no matter how small, then that's money that the producers/publishers aren't seeing. Add to that the fact that people can now get individual tracks rather than whole albums for the sake of a couple of good songs and the producers are severely disadvantaged (compared to their previous lifestyle).
Not that I particularly care if they are, but I'm guessing that's where they're coming from;)
'God' used to levy taxes. They were called tithes. Part of it was religious reasoning, but if I remember my schooling correctly then there was also a degree of taking away some of your worldly possessions so that the church could protect you from their evil influences (since the church members are, of course, stronger in this kind of thing than your normal person).
Hang on, that last bit sounds like something Scientologists and strange cults do - "Here, join us and give up your worldly possessions. No, it's okay, we'll be kind and look after them for you so that you no longer have to burden yourself with them":D
You can't really expect Americans to do that, can you? That'd involve them also having to pay that terrible TV tax that we call the "TV License".
Yes, it's so terrible to pay a little over £100 per year to be able to watch Heroes and other good quality TV without adverts or interruptions (because Heroes in the UK is on BBC and our license fees fund the BBC and their no-adverts content, in case people didn't know).
Now if only BBC could get the Formula 1 back on so we didn't have ad breaks in the middle of that as well...
Apple is thought to have rejected NBC's demands for more restrictive DRM and the introduction of flexible pricing.
Now, assuming I bothered to buy these things and not just do without or wait until they are out on DVD, those are some mixed offerings.
More restrictive DRM would have been bad and caused more issues for legitimate customers (but this is Slashdot and we know that already).
Flexible pricing could have been a good thing, though, assuming it wasn't "we want the ability to flex the price so most episodes are the price they are now but the most recent ones start going up in increments to double the price for the most recent one".
I was thinking the same thing. Surely it would also penalise you if you didn't take a sufficiently approved writing style and it was re-written, including the same facts but different words, or if the article was restructured and that caused some rewording.
I guess it's a start, but pure longevity of content isn't the best metric for trustworthiness.
Not everything modern is garbage, but the majority of the mainstream in the UK is. It's not even as if it's some "music was better in my day when punks had only just started" or something, as I'm only 23. It's just a general dislike of all of the manufactured pop that gets churned out.
It still depends on how you argue it, though. A commentary over a snippet of a show may be fair use, but is posting it on YouTube? If the person posting it comments on their blog then their blog uses it for fair use but their posting of it on YouTube has no intrinsic link to the commentary and hence isn't necessarily fair use.
It's a bit like posting a full episode of The Simpsons on YouTube then having an MP3 of your commentary on your site and telling people to play them side-by-side. Yes, your blog with its commentary audio is fair use, but the copyrighted content is still available on its own outside of the fair use context.
Someone in another thread complained about the White Album being $45 - how about £31 from HMV UK for both the anniversary edition and the normal edition? That's around US$60 at the moment!
Bob Marley is a bit more reasonable with some albums at £8 each (~US$16) but they're the cheap ones. U2 are quite similar, with most albums around the £7 mark (if they're on special offer) but some from the 80s and 90s still up at £12 (well over US$20)
See my post above - I don't think I've heard of a single case like the USA has. They may have cracked down on some of the people who sell pirated disks at markets, car boot sales and similar, but they've not done anything that I know of against the lower-level piracy of MP3s from P2P.
We've stemmed the tide of illegal downloads in the UK with laws? Really? Based on the majority of people I know, I think they're misinformed.
Having said that, HMV in the UK almost always seems to be having some sale or other that cuts huge amounts off a variety of CDs, and that's generally one of the few times I'll ever buy it (or some less mainstream album in Fopp that's £15+ as an import in HMV and £6 in Fopp).
Good to see that the Canadians have the sense that people aren't willing to pay over the odds for their music. Also, it's good to see that includes the older bands with the good back catalogue, and not just the modern garbage that's overly manufactured and over priced.
Re:solar powered hovering wireless routers
on
Solar Powered Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 1
I'd have thought they might have had a problem with floating off. Either that or you tether them to something, at which point people will pull it in by the tether or else you're tethering it to something tall like a utility post, which you might as well have stuck it on top of in the first place;)
One of the oddities of British copyright was that it was always defined as a "substantial part". What we were told in University was that substantial was subjective. Copying five pages of a 100 page book may not be substantial, but copying a total of four pages that gave away key points of the plot and ending (e.g. that photo of the highlighted deaths in the latest Harry Potter) would be substantial.
Either way you look at it, though, the full amount of something can't really be fair use or else you could annotate the entire book and resell it under fair use (which is a bit more excessive than first and last page, but closer to a standard film/video commentary).
While they're not innocent of infringing the creator's copyright, by posting the show (or a snippet of it) on YouTube then you would legally be infringing their copyright on the show.
Unfortunately that's the difference between people and corporations - people see fair re-use that spreads the material and thinks "cool, I did that and someone else found it", corporations see 'fair re-use' that spreads the material and thinks "Hang on, we own that and anything even remotely connected to it".
The other "unfortunately" is that they have far more money to throw at lawyers, so even if you hadn't been so kind as to not complain when they first used it then you still might not end up in a reasonable position.
Exactly what I thought. It's complete scare-mongering if you take it as it is written. It either reads as "if hackers can access the Internet then they can get to anything" which is scare-mongering over what hackers can do, or "if these cameras have a link to the Internet then the cameras can get to anything", which is complete garbage.
What he really means is that "if the cameras have a an insecure link to the Internet then people can exploit them, just like how if a house has an insecure link to the street (e.g. an unlocked door, or a door with the keys in, or a door that needs a standard allen key to open) then the house can be entered and exploited/robbed/used".
Ahhh, the many joys of getting technology anywhere near law enforcement and the government!
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, so news on /. is like a Red Top then? If it isn't completely sensationalised and argued over vehemently by people with no clue, or if it isn't pr0n with teh sxy b00bies then it isn't interesting.
:P :D
I summon all of my current arguing power and spit for the retort: Meh
Perhaps, but it's overkill. Just change your email address and remove the catch-all. Once you've done that, don't publish in plain text.
WTF? that won't even help since the domain will be looked up and converted to the IP address.
I think what is more accurate (assuming the software only shares what you tell it) is "you're giving criminals keys to get into a single room where everything that you left in there cannot be stolen but can be copied indefinitely". I guess that doesn't have the same media punch as "user was dumb enough to share entire disk drive and not check what was specifically shared".
I have used Opera, but it was back around 6.0 or 7.0 and I preferred Firebird (as it was then - about v0.6) and stuck with it since. At the time it was the adverts, now I still use it to check website design but still don't like the interface. It's all down to personal preference, though.
/. article stretch that instance beyond what the source provides facts for.
I'm not attempting to spin the article at all (hence "Opera is probably a bit faster than Firefox in page rendering as well"), I'm trying to de-spin the summary which just takes the fact of "Ars Technica does JavaScript test and Opera is fastest" and converts that to "Extra! Extra! Opera is fastest browser of all".
It's kinda like seeing an article about how a politician told the truth and then posting the headline "Politicians tell the truth". While it might be true in some cases, the article gives one specific instance but the headline and
Again, that isn't to say that Opera isn't faster overall, just that the article only talks about JavaScript.
So Opera is much faster than FF when running JavaScript tests, according to Ars Technica.
Numbers are meaningless without context
I think there's an issue of practicality there, though. If we could walk up to our leaders (without having to pretend to be Canadians in a motorcade) then there'd be too many people crammed around them all trying to argue about dozens of different things!
If only politicians could do what the people want, rather than what the people need.
(I'll leave it up to the reader as to whether the previous sentence is sincere or sarcastic, as best suits their PoV)
Going one further than NASA, I can also reveal that the rover only ended up getting power equivalent to lighting one 100-watt bulb for 1.28 hours, or 128 1-watt bulbs for an hour, or one 1-watt bulb for 128 hours.
Who would have guessed?
So, according to the BBC (who are generally more reliable than ITV or any other news service I can think of in the UK) then Europe does have unlocked phones where as the Americans are stuck with restricted freedoms of locked phones.
It may not be now in the majority of modern churches, but that isn't to say that it wasn't the practice previously or in some areas of the church.
No, it doesn't always happen, but because that's the way that it should happen then that's the way that people will expect it will happen, and so they will have faith in the fact that the person who is a Deacon or whatever is a suitably devout person. In a more 'enlightened' western church then maybe that's correct, but what about in a developing church in the rest of the world?
Also, slightly off-topic, but I always find it strangely amusing how those who believe so strongly in a religion believe that there's very little way to be truly moral without having that religion. As a non-believer then I'm quite happy with my moral code, which is very close to the Christian moral code but with my own (and my parents', and so on) logical reasoning behind it. Yes, it probably once had a basis in Christian morals but it all makes sense in its own right without the religious aspect.
Assuming you (and millions/billions of other Christians) are correct and that God exists, and that myself and the millions/billions of other religions and atheists are incorrect.
Personally, I doubt that all Christians have such a high standing based purely on the fact that they purport to follow a religion. You would either need to follow it strictly at which point you get a high moral standing through working to that high standard, or else you get the corruption and issues that you see in the church now because not all Christians have such high morals.
As I said, they did teach the whole "equality before God" thing in church at primary school, but TBH I don't think too many of us cared that much. We were happy that the clergy believed we were all equal, but would much rather not personally believe in some superior being.
I will just point out that there's normally a big difference between the style of Christianity you seem to have (staunch American Christianity), the general "we're Christian because we believe and pray" of British Christians and the "we're kinda Christian because we feel we should be and we go to church for the important church events" that probably covers a larger majority of the population (especially children at C of E schools, which are not religious schools in the normal sense, but are schools with an associated church).
The Church of England was founded to oppose the Catholic church in some of the ways it taught Christianity (such as only using Latin in services and bibles, which distanced the religion from the general populace of Britain in the 1500s), not the reason it existed. If it was opposing the reason it existed (the worship and belief in the God, Jesus and the teachings of the bible) then it wouldn't be a branch of Christianity.
Also, surely trusting the CofE is more like leaving Windows because Linux says that Windows is unstable (B talking about A and making statements about the detail of A), while trusting the Catholic church on Catholic matters is like staying with Windows because Microsoft say Windows is the most stable (A talking about A and making statements about the detail of A).
I also said it in inverted commas since it wasn't God directly (if he does exist and so can directly command something) but people operating in his name (i.e. the church and the clergy).
No, I compared one practice that I was taught about (of taking worldly possessions away from the layman) to one of the practices of many a campus cult (of taking worldly possessions away from the new 'recruit'). I did not say or imply that Christianity was entirely the same as those cults, only that the one practice was similar.
Also, no matter what the religion then there's generally a difference between what is taught and what is practiced. Just look at the many branches of Christianity to see how many interpretations there are of words, never mind actions.
No, but you wouldn't get into the position of being a Deacon or whatever without having some degree of piousness and devoutness above that of a normal person.
It's a bit like saying everyone knows something about politics and so politicians aren't more politically astute than the normal person on the street. They don't have to (and I guess with some politicians then it's arguable whether they do or not) but because they're in the job that they're in then it's generally a given that they are more politically astute.
Luckily my teaching was from a school, not a church. I attended a C of E Primary School, so we went to church once a week for half an hour or so. There was the "everyone is equal before God" but when you're in a school of several hundred children, most of whom are only vaguely Christian (generally by default of feeling they should be, and because that's where they went for marriages etc) then there's a definite separation between clergy and congregation in terms of devoutness.
Who said anything about what was in the bible? I sure didn't. The word 'bible' was never used once in my post, and neither were the tenets mentioned.
I can't remember it exactly (it was about fifteen years ago I think, when I would have been somewhere around eight or nine years old in Primary School) but we compared Church of England/Protestants and Catholicism and the differences in the church etc. I'm fairly sure that one of the reasons Catholic churches were so opulent was the money they acquired through tithes. Back then the Catholics were all for keeping the bible in Latin as well, so it didn't matter whether it was in the bible or not as most people stood no chance of reading it anyway. Yes, C of E probably still took tithes, but their churches were never so flamboyant with it (which is why going to the Vatican was impressive but the C of E equivalent, while still big and architecturally amazing, isn't as artistically impressive).
As for being stronger, religious leaders generally have a degree of "pious and devout" that says they are less likely to give in to temptation than a normal worshipper. That pious and devout translates to "able to do what our god/being of a higher power wants as opposed to what human tendency ends up doing". It works the same for any religion (which is how the cults indoctrinate and steal possessions so well).
From the producer's point of view then it does benefit Apple. If Apple take a cut of profits, no matter how small, then that's money that the producers/publishers aren't seeing. Add to that the fact that people can now get individual tracks rather than whole albums for the sake of a couple of good songs and the producers are severely disadvantaged (compared to their previous lifestyle).
Not that I particularly care if they are, but I'm guessing that's where they're coming from
'God' used to levy taxes. They were called tithes. Part of it was religious reasoning, but if I remember my schooling correctly then there was also a degree of taking away some of your worldly possessions so that the church could protect you from their evil influences (since the church members are, of course, stronger in this kind of thing than your normal person).
:D
Hang on, that last bit sounds like something Scientologists and strange cults do - "Here, join us and give up your worldly possessions. No, it's okay, we'll be kind and look after them for you so that you no longer have to burden yourself with them"
You can't really expect Americans to do that, can you? That'd involve them also having to pay that terrible TV tax that we call the "TV License".
Yes, it's so terrible to pay a little over £100 per year to be able to watch Heroes and other good quality TV without adverts or interruptions (because Heroes in the UK is on BBC and our license fees fund the BBC and their no-adverts content, in case people didn't know).
Now if only BBC could get the Formula 1 back on so we didn't have ad breaks in the middle of that as well...
Now, assuming I bothered to buy these things and not just do without or wait until they are out on DVD, those are some mixed offerings.
More restrictive DRM would have been bad and caused more issues for legitimate customers (but this is Slashdot and we know that already).
Flexible pricing could have been a good thing, though, assuming it wasn't "we want the ability to flex the price so most episodes are the price they are now but the most recent ones start going up in increments to double the price for the most recent one".
I was thinking the same thing. Surely it would also penalise you if you didn't take a sufficiently approved writing style and it was re-written, including the same facts but different words, or if the article was restructured and that caused some rewording.
I guess it's a start, but pure longevity of content isn't the best metric for trustworthiness.
Not everything modern is garbage, but the majority of the mainstream in the UK is. It's not even as if it's some "music was better in my day when punks had only just started" or something, as I'm only 23. It's just a general dislike of all of the manufactured pop that gets churned out.
It still depends on how you argue it, though. A commentary over a snippet of a show may be fair use, but is posting it on YouTube? If the person posting it comments on their blog then their blog uses it for fair use but their posting of it on YouTube has no intrinsic link to the commentary and hence isn't necessarily fair use.
It's a bit like posting a full episode of The Simpsons on YouTube then having an MP3 of your commentary on your site and telling people to play them side-by-side. Yes, your blog with its commentary audio is fair use, but the copyrighted content is still available on its own outside of the fair use context.
$18 for a normal CD? I wish!
Someone in another thread complained about the White Album being $45 - how about £31 from HMV UK for both the anniversary edition and the normal edition? That's around US$60 at the moment!
Bob Marley is a bit more reasonable with some albums at £8 each (~US$16) but they're the cheap ones. U2 are quite similar, with most albums around the £7 mark (if they're on special offer) but some from the 80s and 90s still up at £12 (well over US$20)
See my post above - I don't think I've heard of a single case like the USA has. They may have cracked down on some of the people who sell pirated disks at markets, car boot sales and similar, but they've not done anything that I know of against the lower-level piracy of MP3s from P2P.
We've stemmed the tide of illegal downloads in the UK with laws? Really? Based on the majority of people I know, I think they're misinformed.
Having said that, HMV in the UK almost always seems to be having some sale or other that cuts huge amounts off a variety of CDs, and that's generally one of the few times I'll ever buy it (or some less mainstream album in Fopp that's £15+ as an import in HMV and £6 in Fopp).
Good to see that the Canadians have the sense that people aren't willing to pay over the odds for their music. Also, it's good to see that includes the older bands with the good back catalogue, and not just the modern garbage that's overly manufactured and over priced.
I'd have thought they might have had a problem with floating off. Either that or you tether them to something, at which point people will pull it in by the tether or else you're tethering it to something tall like a utility post, which you might as well have stuck it on top of in the first place ;)
One of the oddities of British copyright was that it was always defined as a "substantial part". What we were told in University was that substantial was subjective. Copying five pages of a 100 page book may not be substantial, but copying a total of four pages that gave away key points of the plot and ending (e.g. that photo of the highlighted deaths in the latest Harry Potter) would be substantial.
Either way you look at it, though, the full amount of something can't really be fair use or else you could annotate the entire book and resell it under fair use (which is a bit more excessive than first and last page, but closer to a standard film/video commentary).
While they're not innocent of infringing the creator's copyright, by posting the show (or a snippet of it) on YouTube then you would legally be infringing their copyright on the show.
Unfortunately that's the difference between people and corporations - people see fair re-use that spreads the material and thinks "cool, I did that and someone else found it", corporations see 'fair re-use' that spreads the material and thinks "Hang on, we own that and anything even remotely connected to it".
The other "unfortunately" is that they have far more money to throw at lawyers, so even if you hadn't been so kind as to not complain when they first used it then you still might not end up in a reasonable position.
Exactly what I thought. It's complete scare-mongering if you take it as it is written. It either reads as "if hackers can access the Internet then they can get to anything" which is scare-mongering over what hackers can do, or "if these cameras have a link to the Internet then the cameras can get to anything", which is complete garbage.
What he really means is that "if the cameras have a an insecure link to the Internet then people can exploit them, just like how if a house has an insecure link to the street (e.g. an unlocked door, or a door with the keys in, or a door that needs a standard allen key to open) then the house can be entered and exploited/robbed/used".
Ahhh, the many joys of getting technology anywhere near law enforcement and the government!