That's technically hard to do with modern baby monitors. Sure DECT has been broken, but I'm sure it's non-trivial to insert something into the audio stream
I don't know about other people's baby monitor, but my digital baby monitor sounds an alarm if it loses signal (for example, you can't just switch off the base unit without an alarm sounding on the remote unit.) It also automatically switches bands if it detects interference.
My baby monitor doesn't stop me getting full rated speed out of my 802.11n network between the Airport Extreme and MacBook Pro. YMMV with other models however.
In the UK The Human Rights Act declares that people have a right to privacy. It also requires that previous legislation be read in a way that is compatible with it, thus meaning any right to wander should be probably interpreted as a right to wander in situations where it does not interfere with people's right to privacy.
(This is not legal advice)
The other thing I've always been frustrated by is that history keeps track of when you open a page, rather than when you close it. This makes it really hard to find "the thing I got round to reading at 5pm yesterday" when I originally opened the tab some days before.
Surely a spammer pays for 50% of the cost of the bandwidth, since they pay their ISP just as you do.
What they don't pay for is 50% of the cost of running the mailserver, or the 50% of the cost of the bandwidth between your mailserver and your computer.
This, of course, is ignoring the fact that most spammers don't pay for anything - the actual spam is sent via a botnet, that a great number of people who aren't the spammer are paying to keep on the internet.
Because you bought the HD disk to play on your HD TV, and you don't want to have to buy another copy so you can play it on your laptop.
Insert argument here about HD-DVD disks being able to be played on normal DVD players.
In the UK you have to give law enforcement officials the keys on request, by law, to decrypt anything that they have collected which they suspect may contain evidence of a crime. This is called the "RIP act".
No, but you should have a screensaver that won't let you use the computer unless you enter a password.
Normally this wouldn't offer complete protection - you could just reboot from a system disk and access the filesystem, but with truecrypt (or FileVault, or any of the other encrypted file system solutions) they can't do this.
Er, no. Contract law only exists between the parties directly involved (or it does in the UK, anyway.)
As far as I understand it this means if someone (say Alice) breaches your contract by reproducing something you've sold them under contract and giving it another individual (say Bob) then you can sue them under contract law. You can't however sue the other person (Bob) when they give a copy to another person (Carl) because you don't have a contract with them (Carl). You can only sue the original person (Alice) for further damages they've caused beacuse they let the other people (Bob, Carl, et, al) harm you. Which is great, and all...but if the person's (Alice's) copy ends up all over the net you're not going to recover all your losses by suing one person.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, not do I have a law degree. I'm waiting for someone with better knowledge to shoot my argument down in a style similar to Good Will Hunting. Any takers?
I write my blog in the tube quite often (and then post it when I get to an internet connection.) I'm sure some of the important bloggers do the same...
The law of slander in the UK is such that you can sue someone who makes statements that cause harm to you or your company. While truth remains a defense against slander, in the UK the onus of proof is on the person who made the statements.
For example, if I said in a public forum in the UK "Your company conducts illegal acts" I could be sued for loss of reputation (which has a monetary value) unless I could prove what I said was true. The company suing me would not be required to prove that it did not conduct illegal acts - the fact that I couldn't prove it did would be considered damning enough.
Slander (and libel) have 'fair comment' clauses, but a particular allegation such as IP infringement would not exercise them.
(Nope, not a lawyer, but like the rest of the internet, I play one on Slashdot)
So, how about instead of blurring people's faces in Canada Google replace them all with someone's face. The Google founders seem like a good idea, but John Malkovich would be even funnier.
The problem as I see it is not really sending back different *web* content, but sending back different *executable* content designed for the phone.
Mobile phone sites use UserAgent to determine what wallpaper or ringtones the device that they're sending supports and send something back that is in the right format / the right size.
It's like when I go to "getfirefox.com" the site knows that I'm on a mac and offers me the Mac version first.
The CC explicitly doesn't make any representations about rights you don't own. If you read the source you'll see:
Unless otherwise mutally agreed to by the parties in writing, licensor offers the work as-is and only to the extent of any rights held in the licensed work by the licensor. The licensor makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the work...
The first nuclear reactor undergoing a chain reaction was built by Enrico Fermi (et. al.), and was completed on 2nd December 1942.
The idea of nuclear fission was proposed by Otto Robert Frisch and Lise Meitner rather than by Einstein.
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook is basically "put everything in one place" and that doesn't seem to be doing that badly.
That's technically hard to do with modern baby monitors. Sure DECT has been broken, but I'm sure it's non-trivial to insert something into the audio stream
I don't know about other people's baby monitor, but my digital baby monitor sounds an alarm if it loses signal (for example, you can't just switch off the base unit without an alarm sounding on the remote unit.) It also automatically switches bands if it detects interference.
My baby monitor doesn't stop me getting full rated speed out of my 802.11n network between the Airport Extreme and MacBook Pro. YMMV with other models however.
In the UK The Human Rights Act declares that people have a right to privacy. It also requires that previous legislation be read in a way that is compatible with it, thus meaning any right to wander should be probably interpreted as a right to wander in situations where it does not interfere with people's right to privacy. (This is not legal advice)
Where's your flying car? If you're going by Back To The Future, about seven years away...
The other thing I've always been frustrated by is that history keeps track of when you open a page, rather than when you close it. This makes it really hard to find "the thing I got round to reading at 5pm yesterday" when I originally opened the tab some days before.
COLLABORATE AND LISTEN
Surely a spammer pays for 50% of the cost of the bandwidth, since they pay their ISP just as you do.
What they don't pay for is 50% of the cost of running the mailserver, or the 50% of the cost of the bandwidth between your mailserver and your computer.
This, of course, is ignoring the fact that most spammers don't pay for anything - the actual spam is sent via a botnet, that a great number of people who aren't the spammer are paying to keep on the internet.
Wait till we get to producing orbiting data storage for lower latency no-wires networks. The potential in the space space space is huge.
Because you bought the HD disk to play on your HD TV, and you don't want to have to buy another copy so you can play it on your laptop. Insert argument here about HD-DVD disks being able to be played on normal DVD players.
In the UK you have to give law enforcement officials the keys on request, by law, to decrypt anything that they have collected which they suspect may contain evidence of a crime. This is called the "RIP act".
Normally this wouldn't offer complete protection - you could just reboot from a system disk and access the filesystem, but with truecrypt (or FileVault, or any of the other encrypted file system solutions) they can't do this.
Er, no. Contract law only exists between the parties directly involved (or it does in the UK, anyway.) As far as I understand it this means if someone (say Alice) breaches your contract by reproducing something you've sold them under contract and giving it another individual (say Bob) then you can sue them under contract law. You can't however sue the other person (Bob) when they give a copy to another person (Carl) because you don't have a contract with them (Carl). You can only sue the original person (Alice) for further damages they've caused beacuse they let the other people (Bob, Carl, et, al) harm you. Which is great, and all...but if the person's (Alice's) copy ends up all over the net you're not going to recover all your losses by suing one person. DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, not do I have a law degree. I'm waiting for someone with better knowledge to shoot my argument down in a style similar to Good Will Hunting. Any takers?
You're missing an important point. Scottish Law is totally different from English law, therefore you don't really talk about "UK Law".
I write my blog in the tube quite often (and then post it when I get to an internet connection.) I'm sure some of the important bloggers do the same...
The law of slander in the UK is such that you can sue someone who makes statements that cause harm to you or your company. While truth remains a defense against slander, in the UK the onus of proof is on the person who made the statements.
For example, if I said in a public forum in the UK "Your company conducts illegal acts" I could be sued for loss of reputation (which has a monetary value) unless I could prove what I said was true. The company suing me would not be required to prove that it did not conduct illegal acts - the fact that I couldn't prove it did would be considered damning enough.
Slander (and libel) have 'fair comment' clauses, but a particular allegation such as IP infringement would not exercise them.
(Nope, not a lawyer, but like the rest of the internet, I play one on Slashdot)
So, how about instead of blurring people's faces in Canada Google replace them all with someone's face. The Google founders seem like a good idea, but John Malkovich would be even funnier.
What about CSI and Numb3rs?
The problem as I see it is not really sending back different *web* content, but sending back different *executable* content designed for the phone.
Mobile phone sites use UserAgent to determine what wallpaper or ringtones the device that they're sending supports and send something back that is in the right format / the right size.
It's like when I go to "getfirefox.com" the site knows that I'm on a mac and offers me the Mac version first.
The CC explicitly doesn't make any representations about rights you don't own. If you read the source you'll see:
This is actually explained in the FAQ
The first nuclear reactor undergoing a chain reaction was built by Enrico Fermi (et. al.), and was completed on 2nd December 1942. The idea of nuclear fission was proposed by Otto Robert Frisch and Lise Meitner rather than by Einstein.
Just out of curiosity, how does this work? Did they get someone else to hold the phone for them, or can ASL work with only one hand?
1) We can. It's just not necessarly economic to pull it out.
2) Plutonium is a by-product of a uranium nuclear reactor. It doesn't really occur naturally.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm the seer, and that guy over there, he's a werewolf...