"Akamai speeds the delivery of content and applications for customers through using automatic, intermediate, and temporary information storage to make the onward transmission of that information to other recipients more efficient."
[You agree] that you are responsible for paying all expenses that you may incur in connection with your access to and use of BBC iPlayer including your internet service provider charges and any excess charges to that provider if you have a cap on downloads and/or uploads and all costs of the equipment and software you need to connect to and use BBC iPlayer. BBC is not responsible if your equipment or software is not compatible with BBC iPlayer[.]
They would see this as part of the service, so I guess unless it's tested in court we'll just have to live with it.
"SirWangALot hits you with his 'Pendulous Apendage of Pendulousnous' for 2 bashing damage, and you are afflicted with 'Point and Laugh Hysterically!' for 10 seconds.
I only use the online iPlayer web applet. I don't need to download their content to my PC to view later... I'm at my PC now and can watch it now.
If it serupticiously steals (deprive of an asset or service without owners consent) my bandwidth to fund their network, they'll be getting an invoice from me.
A web page is typically a file held on a computer with appropriate software designed for serving that file (web server), and associated files, to another computer which requests that file using an appropriate client application.
In this case, a "shared file" (as i'll call it) is typically a file held on a computer with appropriate software designed for serving that file (file sharing software), and associated files, to another computer which requests that file using an appropriate client application.
I believe the analogy was valid, if unintentional. You don't put a file in a shared webserver folder if you don't intend to share it. What teh RIAA want to do is prove that it was put there on purpose. With webservers, this is easier, as they're not designed to automatically share any file you download.
If the RIAA were asking for $1 per song to cover a license from iTunes, I'd agree.
If the RIAA were asking for $5 to offer a token gesture of restitution for having done wrong, I'd agree.
If the RIAA were asking for $50 per song to offer a significant deterrant from offence by others, I'd agree.
The RIAA were asking for $150,000 per song which I cannot agree with on any level. They were awarded $9,250 by the jury in the original case, which again I cannot begin to comprehend.
You tell me how that is in any way just. The law is, after all, about justice.
I'm no lawyer (having only started my law degree a couple of months ago), but at least in the UK this is how legislation is ammended.
Identify a gap in legislation.
Draft legislation to cover the gap.
Hand it to Parliament to discuss.
Hand it back for re-drafting.
Hand it to the Lords to discuss (and go back a step if not acceptable).
Get the Queen to rubber-stamp it.
Maybe in America they just rely on leaving out of date law in place so it can be interpretted differently each time, huh? As I understand it, this is a civil case, so any verdict is non-binding in future cases (Again, UK law understand being applied).
The only reason that you need to make such large gestures is because current accelerometer technology (consumer grade, at least) isn't accurate enough to pick up the changes from making smaller gestures. Once the accuracy is improved, the app shouldn't need much more tuning.
Having read the story on The Register yesterday I can tell you that they are working on improving accuracy, and also improving recognition of full words (instead of one letter at a time, brief pauses in between) and possibly cursive text soon.
This is an app which uses the accelerometer in the iPhone and handwriting recognition to create notes on the phone itself. Nothing to do with writing letters in the air which are visible to other people.
I know this is slashdot, but you are expected to RTF'ing stub at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Your originality is surpassed only by your insight.
Hey, when you have direct access to the source of infection, you're almost guaranteed to produce the best cures...
Unless you're Microsoft.
Damn my correct spelling of English words! I suppose as a proper noun, I can forgive this slip up.
... and yet "Who was responsible for the World Trade Centre attacks?" returns no results...
[/tinfoilhat]
I just remembered... Prior art!
"Akamai speeds the delivery of content and applications for customers through using automatic, intermediate, and temporary information storage to make the onward transmission of that information to other recipients more efficient."
It also seems that the BBC cover themselves with iPlayer Terms and Conditions Section 12(2):
[You agree] that you are responsible for paying all expenses that you may incur in connection with your access to and use of BBC iPlayer including your internet service provider charges and any excess charges to that provider if you have a cap on downloads and/or uploads and all costs of the equipment and software you need to connect to and use BBC iPlayer. BBC is not responsible if your equipment or software is not compatible with BBC iPlayer[.]
They would see this as part of the service, so I guess unless it's tested in court we'll just have to live with it.
Martyr, anyone?
gesture recognition to make it so that your door only unlocks for people when they do the Truffle Shuffle!
Whatever turns you on, dude. I'm setting mine to "Big-Breasted Naked Lady with Case of Beer"
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/6/5/
"SirWangALot hits you with his 'Pendulous Apendage of Pendulousnous' for 2 bashing damage, and you are afflicted with 'Point and Laugh Hysterically!' for 10 seconds.
I only use the online iPlayer web applet. I don't need to download their content to my PC to view later... I'm at my PC now and can watch it now.
If it serupticiously steals (deprive of an asset or service without owners consent) my bandwidth to fund their network, they'll be getting an invoice from me.
Some companies do. You'll find them here
I've often suggested trashing local exchanges. Then I realised that I'd just end up in jail.
Boycott them financially instead. It makes more sense. Money is your weapon.
Why do you think there are so few TOR exit nodes in the US and mainland Europe?
A web page is typically a file held on a computer with appropriate software designed for serving that file (web server), and associated files, to another computer which requests that file using an appropriate client application.
In this case, a "shared file" (as i'll call it) is typically a file held on a computer with appropriate software designed for serving that file (file sharing software), and associated files, to another computer which requests that file using an appropriate client application.
I believe the analogy was valid, if unintentional. You don't put a file in a shared webserver folder if you don't intend to share it. What teh RIAA want to do is prove that it was put there on purpose. With webservers, this is easier, as they're not designed to automatically share any file you download.
You fight with the weapons available to you.
Our weapon is money. We don't give it to them. The only issue is some folk don't know the abbreviation TNSTAAFL. We should boycott, not break the law.
If the RIAA were asking for $1 per song to cover a license from iTunes, I'd agree.
If the RIAA were asking for $5 to offer a token gesture of restitution for having done wrong, I'd agree.
If the RIAA were asking for $50 per song to offer a significant deterrant from offence by others, I'd agree.
The RIAA were asking for $150,000 per song which I cannot agree with on any level. They were awarded $9,250 by the jury in the original case, which again I cannot begin to comprehend.
You tell me how that is in any way just. The law is, after all, about justice.
Maybe in America they just rely on leaving out of date law in place so it can be interpretted differently each time, huh? As I understand it, this is a civil case, so any verdict is non-binding in future cases (Again, UK law understand being applied).
The parent post was brought to you by the "Help the RIAA Build a Case from its Current Indefensible Position" fund, and the letter J.
Two! Two non-testifying witnesses! Haa haa haa!
"We oversold and can't cope with the costs. Subsidise us."
Well, fuck you BT. You made your bed; Lie in it.
It's mandated that it be sold with all new computers. It doesn't need to be installed, just supplied with the PC.
Think of it as an AOL Free Trial CD. You remember, the free coaster they shipped.
The only reason that you need to make such large gestures is because current accelerometer technology (consumer grade, at least) isn't accurate enough to pick up the changes from making smaller gestures. Once the accuracy is improved, the app shouldn't need much more tuning.
Having read the story on The Register yesterday I can tell you that they are working on improving accuracy, and also improving recognition of full words (instead of one letter at a time, brief pauses in between) and possibly cursive text soon.
$33m?
That's about 2.9e-4% of US national debt.
Sure, they have their priorities straight...
Level 30, with the Pacman ghosts.
Fail.
This is an app which uses the accelerometer in the iPhone and handwriting recognition to create notes on the phone itself. Nothing to do with writing letters in the air which are visible to other people.
I know this is slashdot, but you are expected to RTF'ing stub at least.
Why lower yourself to talking to some "president" when you can talk to a culture through the introduction of new memes?
So, what exactly was 4Chan's message with "Chocolate Rain" then?
+6 Insightful