If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.
The provider didn't seem to take steps to ensure that their streams couldn't be gotten at by unpaid subscribers--I'd guess that a party so inclined could probably brute-forced URL attempts if they even had a blink at the structure, and gotten in--and got bitten a little bit. Honestly, more their fault, than his.
This begs a second question...was the party who brought suit merely someone who had license to broadcast, or the rights holder for the broadcast? If the former, then I would think this just a farce, because the rights-holder could come around on the license-holder for being incompetent...if the latter, then this is a problem of their own creation; if he found a URL, without ever having been made aware of the Terms of Service or whatnot, it's innocent infringment...in my opinion.
What about multiple, simultaneous lasers in a lower power range focused on a target? Individually, the risk of harm is rather low (though I suppose there would be some area where all would come together and be dangerous), but if they're all hitting the same target...end result, I imagine (no scientist here), would be comparable at least.
It's not necessarily the most efficient solution, but where safety is concerned, it seems feasible on a basic level.
Beats the hell out of a) Skynet and b) Zombie Apocalypse; you can at least lay out big chunks of cheddar with embedded IEDs and solve the problem with rats.
Whichever way you put it, someone gets screwed, in other words, but with property sales like this...there's really no other way you can do it. If you let the title/deed go to the purchaser, yeah, the person whose property was sold is out of a dwelling; but if you kick the purchaser out and return title to the rightful owner, well, what happens if the purchaser sold their old dwelling at the same time? They're out of a dwelling as well. It's a no-win situation as long as the system can be engineered.
Not likely agent will be able to recognise the voice being wrong
That really depends. If the agent has few contacts, and talks to this landowner infrequently, then it's possible; but, if they're busy enough to talk to many people (but not so busy that they have to delegate), his/her ear will key in on a certain tonality and cadence with a familiar contact. To wit, if you have a set of family members that you talk to with some regularity, and one calls you with a stuffy nose, you would notice it fairly quickly, no?
does he make a claim on his insurance for a stolen house (and land)?
I would be amazed if such a clause or coverage existed in a homeowner's policy.
At the same time, I think I hear insurance companies pounding away on their keyboards getting ready to introduce it as a $120/year extra...or whatever would be reasonable, never owned a home to know what the costs and whatnot are.
And this is a concern, because the morphology of a print doesn't vary between ages under 10, and those over 10? Unless this was done in High School, the prints would bear resemblance only after modification...as you grow, the prints change, and the proportions aren't even.
I'd love for the police to fingerprint my child(ren) in elementary school and then try and use those prints later on to make a connection. I'd have at least a badge (maybe a couple) and an overzealous prosecutor's law degree hanging on my mantle.
Besides, everyone who watches TV knows you use a untraceable "burner" phone, right?
Street cred. If your phone ain't blang you ain't da realz shizzle for shizzle, dizzle, yo.
Translation: There's a segment of the criminal populace that are more worried about being in-style while doing their thing, than getting away with it. So what if a big guy whose name might be Bubba takes a few liberties in the communal shower? At least I carjacked Joe Schmoe with an iPhone in the pocket that hovers between my knee and calf, depending on when I hitched my pants up last.
Like, this whole AC bit has one or possibly more people that are a few fries short of a happy meal? That isn't/aren't the sharpest block(s) of cheese? A die short of a game of Yahtzee? A bun short of a Big Mac?
I could go on, but really...I don't want carpal tunnel by 25.
Yes, unless you are already sterile for whatever reason; you can otherwise accidentally knock someone up (or be knocked up), or, if you're of the same-sex persuasion, donate sperm/eggs (reproduction by proxy)--you're still in the gene pool, in essence, though an unlikely source for propagation.
Is the only solution to force them to feel exactly like their victims?
This would generally make them feel like a victim, and tend to escalation of their attacks; because to a degree, they will see it as being retaliation; for example, the person who runs around mugging people for months ends up mugged himself; from there on, he'll continue mugging people, but he'll debiliate them in one way or another--knocking them out from behind, breaking a few bones, possibly killing them (though this would require a quite robust catalyst)--to prevent retaliation.
This whole goddam thing has gotten out of hand. The U.S. has become far too litigious--it's not even a matter of suing for stuff you made anymore; suing for something that someone else made (wrote, in this case), and being able to do so simply because you gave them a few bucks for the rights to it...just ridiculous.
Honestly, if there's anyone who really, truly believes--on their own, not because a few pushy groups with money to finance campaigns--that the current system is the way things should be, then this country has really gone tits-up. Are there ways that some of these abuses could be curbed? Sure, there are; but it should not be, by any stretch of the imagination, be necessary. There is no way anyone with a hand in copyright law before this generation would have wanted this type of bullshit.
To summarize, the extent of copyright should be to protect your work from other people making a profit off of it; if no one else is making money (DIRECTLY) off of it, then STFU, you're not losing anything you wouldn't have already not gotten already; if they are, then you get a) a nice injuction, and b) the sum total of what they made off of it (that you should have)...and maybe attorney's fees. And if you didn't make it, but you acquired the rights to it later, then STFU about anyone having used it before you had the rights; if the original owners didn't care, then you shouldn't either.
I'd say it more likely signals intent; they want the chips to be addictingly good.
See also, Frito-Lay's slightly less incriminating 'Betcha Can't Eat Just One' tagline.
I'll reference the many, continuing, 'It only does everything' ads that Sony runs repeatedly through primetime, with no disclaimer text...at least here in the States. While this could count as puffery for some things (i.e., being, say, a nuclear device, a flying car, and so on), a function for which it has been determined capable (i.e., running an alternate operating system) and later prevented from doing would certainly nullify that sort of defense.
Did Sony, initially, advertise falsely? Not at the start, within reason. But did they continue an advertising campaign that they had rendered false? Yep. In that regard, they've done wrong. Anything else from there, material breach of agreement and whatnot, is quite a bit more murky.
Concievably, the methods used by these researchers could be examined within their particular community (meaning, in this case, other research labs/firms seeking to eliminate these sorts of threats), and with greater analysis and numbers behind the existing data, adaption and use of this research could be utilised--in an accelerated timeline--against other botnets.
That said, will the war ever truly be won? Very likely not; hackers, malware authors, and the like will continue to get more ingenious, which will prevent real-time analysis and extermination of C&Cs for botnets (and there's nothing to say that, even with 100% elimination of one botnet's C&Cs, that it could not be revived at some later point if needed, with newly planted/created C&Cs); but should a better picture of how to manage and mitigate these threats become evident and applicable with any reliable speed, it will become more of a war of attrition than a lost cause.
I hate to say it, but you're more or less on the nose here. The populace is less inclined to vote because a vote means little, and the votes that do come in are financed by big business and their ability to push advertisement.
Democracy, in concept, is a fabulous idea; but when it gets diluted not to the number of votes but to the number of precincts/states/electoral votes won, well, it's no surprise that we are where we are in the US. A vote should be a vote, not a vote to try and determine how someone else should vote (as is the case in electoral balloting), or how your particular group of votes ends up summed; the less targeted a financier is able to be without being able to be accused of buying votes, the better--and if each vote were counted truly for what it is, a decision of a person, not some group hierarchically above them, purchase of desired candidates would be harder, and (over time, at this point) the will of the people would be heard; the DMCA, for example, would be abolished, the recording/movie industries would be left clutching their testicles, yet artistic progress would still ensue; this is but one example. In all, the effects of pissing off 10% of the populace would be felt by the incumbent, and this would be known, and thinking would (hopefully) change. The power of the lobbies would be diminished (they could never really be abolsihed, but they will still try), and a closer modicum of democracy would prevail, and possibly an infusion of common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.
The provider didn't seem to take steps to ensure that their streams couldn't be gotten at by unpaid subscribers--I'd guess that a party so inclined could probably brute-forced URL attempts if they even had a blink at the structure, and gotten in--and got bitten a little bit. Honestly, more their fault, than his.
This begs a second question...was the party who brought suit merely someone who had license to broadcast, or the rights holder for the broadcast? If the former, then I would think this just a farce, because the rights-holder could come around on the license-holder for being incompetent...if the latter, then this is a problem of their own creation; if he found a URL, without ever having been made aware of the Terms of Service or whatnot, it's innocent infringment...in my opinion.
...Dr. Evil is with the DoD?
THEY'RE POWERING SHIT WITH LASERS.
So...THEY CHARGIN' WIT' LAZ0RZ?
(Memes have to change with the times...)
What about multiple, simultaneous lasers in a lower power range focused on a target? Individually, the risk of harm is rather low (though I suppose there would be some area where all would come together and be dangerous), but if they're all hitting the same target...end result, I imagine (no scientist here), would be comparable at least.
It's not necessarily the most efficient solution, but where safety is concerned, it seems feasible on a basic level.
You forgot about the shark, there has to be a shark involved for this to really work.
There's only a shark involved when it's been jumped.
Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy....
...Induced Autism in Mice/Rats?
It's FORTY-FUCKING-TWO
Beats the hell out of a) Skynet and b) Zombie Apocalypse; you can at least lay out big chunks of cheddar with embedded IEDs and solve the problem with rats.
Whichever way you put it, someone gets screwed, in other words, but with property sales like this...there's really no other way you can do it. If you let the title/deed go to the purchaser, yeah, the person whose property was sold is out of a dwelling; but if you kick the purchaser out and return title to the rightful owner, well, what happens if the purchaser sold their old dwelling at the same time? They're out of a dwelling as well. It's a no-win situation as long as the system can be engineered.
Not likely agent will be able to recognise the voice being wrong
That really depends. If the agent has few contacts, and talks to this landowner infrequently, then it's possible; but, if they're busy enough to talk to many people (but not so busy that they have to delegate), his/her ear will key in on a certain tonality and cadence with a familiar contact. To wit, if you have a set of family members that you talk to with some regularity, and one calls you with a stuffy nose, you would notice it fairly quickly, no?
does he make a claim on his insurance for a stolen house (and land)?
I would be amazed if such a clause or coverage existed in a homeowner's policy.
At the same time, I think I hear insurance companies pounding away on their keyboards getting ready to introduce it as a $120/year extra...or whatever would be reasonable, never owned a home to know what the costs and whatnot are.
And this is a concern, because the morphology of a print doesn't vary between ages under 10, and those over 10? Unless this was done in High School, the prints would bear resemblance only after modification...as you grow, the prints change, and the proportions aren't even.
I'd love for the police to fingerprint my child(ren) in elementary school and then try and use those prints later on to make a connection. I'd have at least a badge (maybe a couple) and an overzealous prosecutor's law degree hanging on my mantle.
how to deal with it before it becomes evidence.
Detonation or thermite. Pretty easy solution if you must be encumbered by an electronic device.
Personally, I like the Thermite, because it's fun to watch...but not always practical.
Besides, everyone who watches TV knows you use a untraceable "burner" phone, right?
Street cred. If your phone ain't blang you ain't da realz shizzle for shizzle, dizzle, yo.
Translation: There's a segment of the criminal populace that are more worried about being in-style while doing their thing, than getting away with it. So what if a big guy whose name might be Bubba takes a few liberties in the communal shower? At least I carjacked Joe Schmoe with an iPhone in the pocket that hovers between my knee and calf, depending on when I hitched my pants up last.
Like, this whole AC bit has one or possibly more people that are a few fries short of a happy meal? That isn't/aren't the sharpest block(s) of cheese? A die short of a game of Yahtzee? A bun short of a Big Mac?
I could go on, but really...I don't want carpal tunnel by 25.
Every wackjob has to start somewhere--zealotry takes some time to develop, after all.
"Hey man, I got more points on my license! I'm ahead of you!" - American Teen
Five more and I get a free room for 30 days, with meals and a nifty jumpsuit included!
Yes, unless you are already sterile for whatever reason; you can otherwise accidentally knock someone up (or be knocked up), or, if you're of the same-sex persuasion, donate sperm/eggs (reproduction by proxy)--you're still in the gene pool, in essence, though an unlikely source for propagation.
A year or two ago, he was responsible for 90% of complaints against TV ads, especially car ads. He is a fruit loop who likes to cause trouble
Oh, kind of like Jack Thompson?
Is the only solution to force them to feel exactly like their victims?
This would generally make them feel like a victim, and tend to escalation of their attacks; because to a degree, they will see it as being retaliation; for example, the person who runs around mugging people for months ends up mugged himself; from there on, he'll continue mugging people, but he'll debiliate them in one way or another--knocking them out from behind, breaking a few bones, possibly killing them (though this would require a quite robust catalyst)--to prevent retaliation.
This whole goddam thing has gotten out of hand. The U.S. has become far too litigious--it's not even a matter of suing for stuff you made anymore; suing for something that someone else made (wrote, in this case), and being able to do so simply because you gave them a few bucks for the rights to it...just ridiculous.
Honestly, if there's anyone who really, truly believes--on their own, not because a few pushy groups with money to finance campaigns--that the current system is the way things should be, then this country has really gone tits-up. Are there ways that some of these abuses could be curbed? Sure, there are; but it should not be, by any stretch of the imagination, be necessary. There is no way anyone with a hand in copyright law before this generation would have wanted this type of bullshit.
To summarize, the extent of copyright should be to protect your work from other people making a profit off of it; if no one else is making money (DIRECTLY) off of it, then STFU, you're not losing anything you wouldn't have already not gotten already; if they are, then you get a) a nice injuction, and b) the sum total of what they made off of it (that you should have)...and maybe attorney's fees. And if you didn't make it, but you acquired the rights to it later, then STFU about anyone having used it before you had the rights; if the original owners didn't care, then you shouldn't either.
I'd say it more likely signals intent; they want the chips to be addictingly good. See also, Frito-Lay's slightly less incriminating 'Betcha Can't Eat Just One' tagline.
I'll reference the many, continuing, 'It only does everything' ads that Sony runs repeatedly through primetime, with no disclaimer text...at least here in the States. While this could count as puffery for some things (i.e., being, say, a nuclear device, a flying car, and so on), a function for which it has been determined capable (i.e., running an alternate operating system) and later prevented from doing would certainly nullify that sort of defense.
Did Sony, initially, advertise falsely? Not at the start, within reason. But did they continue an advertising campaign that they had rendered false? Yep. In that regard, they've done wrong. Anything else from there, material breach of agreement and whatnot, is quite a bit more murky.
Concievably, the methods used by these researchers could be examined within their particular community (meaning, in this case, other research labs/firms seeking to eliminate these sorts of threats), and with greater analysis and numbers behind the existing data, adaption and use of this research could be utilised--in an accelerated timeline--against other botnets.
That said, will the war ever truly be won? Very likely not; hackers, malware authors, and the like will continue to get more ingenious, which will prevent real-time analysis and extermination of C&Cs for botnets (and there's nothing to say that, even with 100% elimination of one botnet's C&Cs, that it could not be revived at some later point if needed, with newly planted/created C&Cs); but should a better picture of how to manage and mitigate these threats become evident and applicable with any reliable speed, it will become more of a war of attrition than a lost cause.
I hate to say it, but you're more or less on the nose here. The populace is less inclined to vote because a vote means little, and the votes that do come in are financed by big business and their ability to push advertisement.
Democracy, in concept, is a fabulous idea; but when it gets diluted not to the number of votes but to the number of precincts/states/electoral votes won, well, it's no surprise that we are where we are in the US. A vote should be a vote, not a vote to try and determine how someone else should vote (as is the case in electoral balloting), or how your particular group of votes ends up summed; the less targeted a financier is able to be without being able to be accused of buying votes, the better--and if each vote were counted truly for what it is, a decision of a person, not some group hierarchically above them, purchase of desired candidates would be harder, and (over time, at this point) the will of the people would be heard; the DMCA, for example, would be abolished, the recording/movie industries would be left clutching their testicles, yet artistic progress would still ensue; this is but one example. In all, the effects of pissing off 10% of the populace would be felt by the incumbent, and this would be known, and thinking would (hopefully) change. The power of the lobbies would be diminished (they could never really be abolsihed, but they will still try), and a closer modicum of democracy would prevail, and possibly an infusion of common sense.