The issue is that the debtor can refuse creation of the debt. I have the right to refuse sale. That is how most places get past the issue of not accepting $100 bills.
There is a very clear difference between a technique and implementation. Fortunately for researchers they are only interested in the technique. Most encryption techniques are near flawless, but are ruined by poor or limited implementation by the user. Not to mention there are usually assumptions that are impractical or inconsistent in real world conditions.
Couldn't they just be disgruntled and work for Onstar. I get chills thinking why these abilities are required and wondering just how much authentication is in place to enable them.
What shouldn't happen is penalties for non-compliance. The most the courts should do is force the company to pay reasonable royalties consistent with the industry to the damaged party. Anything after that is simply abuse of the patent system. Making no benefit being a patent troll or developing company. One really obvious question, especially with software patents, that needs to be ask is how valid is the patent if multiple independent sources seem to develop it? Is it really that innovative?
I think your argument is very legitimate. I feel it should be that way too, but it can easily not be. The OEM version of windows is only licensed to be installed on a single computer irrespective of how you purchased it. It makes copyright licensing a funny business especially with music then as you don't know what the agreement is. It could easily be that you only have a license that allows you to have the music on that specific CD or make of that CD.
Meanwhile you call it stealing where in actuality it is copying. Maybe it could be stealing because your avoiding paying the label, but that is a very weak line of argument. I think the RIAA and MPAA like it this way as they remain steadfast in not defining the rights to the consumer to their product. I personally think that misrepresentation of their product should be illegal. I don't mind following rules, but I need to know clearly what they are.
They have dis invested themselves by making it open source. Futher, if they ensure an interface between anyone hosting a piece of the social network instead of relying on it being a single site then no single operator has absolute control. If someone starts abusing what the public give them then they can move to a better operator. That is the problem with facebook. I admit it would be tricky to implement and the security would be more complex. But then at least then it would be a step forward instead of a copy of every other social networking site.
Well no this is more of an abuse of significant digits. The calculation has a significance of two decimal places. Most day to day uses the theory doesn't matter but this is one of those cases..66 is the smaller of the two numbers so it is used to define what digits are not estimations. The 5 in the 135 is just that an estimation as the first two digits are absolutely correct. Not surprisingly if you use.666 then the number becomes about 137 so the ones becomes correct now too. Notice though that the decimal places are not correct. Which makes sense considering the digit significance.
Wasn't thinking it till you mentioned the DRM servers, but it would be hilarious if the company forgot to put the serial number in the case because it is usually in the manual. It is cross departmental so it is possible. Like when the last number was cut off on some serials for the pre-order of a game(can't remember the name myself). They recommended just to try all the possible last digits till it worked. Wouldn't work if they forgot the whole thing.
Maybe its like Starcraft were being able to run the game on almost any computer will always win. You have 1% of the market, but that market is hundreds of times larger then the market of high end rigs.
The issue is how the phone companies operate. You can only make what the consumer is willing to spend. 9 times out of 10 they have a monopoly in the area so why worry. No one can snatch you away from their service. They have no one to compete with and drive them to provide the best service possible. You probably won't see any change with consumer internet connections.
I don't think original content is a complete litmus test either. People have used no original content on fair use items. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo It will always be the unclear until tested by courts system thing it is.
It is the tired and true issue of running everything as an administrator. Why do you need those rights when accessing a webpage. Does not make any sense and yet windows often makes it necessary. UAC does fix it for the most part, but windows it self has trained users the easy path of running as a power user all the time so most people turn it off. I'm not sure if it is as much technology as it is users now a days.
Excited delirium is a controversial term used to explain deaths of individuals in police custody, in which the person being arrested or restrained shows some combination of agitation, violent or bizarre behavior, insensitivity to pain, elevated body temperature, or increased strength.
So your statistics are impossible because they must be in police custody for the term to apply. If you read the rest it is highly disputed because it does not apply to other situations where the person dies in restraints, like the hospital. I feel it kind of white washes what actually happened. If the person dies of a heart failure it should be attributed to that not the conditions in which death occurs.
I'm not sure it works that way. The wave length is a very specific determining factor for how much absorption occurs. What strikes me as odd is why the store lights are not burning her if the scanner does. They spit out pretty much all kinds of light. What would be needed is rigorous scientific experimentation to determine if the scanner is dangerous not a court system, but hey thats the breaks.
I think you missed something about this being about the CEO of the company. Of course he is in meeting for 75% of his schedule. He is hired to communicate the operations of the company to share holders and directions to the internal management. The other 25% is probably prep time for the presentations that he is making during the meetings. This is just a case of technology replacing the meeting because the CEO chooses to communicate through another medium then speech.
My Stats prof was complaining about something similar, but probably less obvious that the police here did. If you have 5 drinking related accidents one year in the town and the next year there are 3 drinking related accidents most people would say that the number of accidents decreased. Which is wonderful for the program that was started recently to target drinking and driving so they published in the local paper the success of the program. Now where my stats teacher gets annoyed is that the year with five drinking accidents could be an unnatural peak. The decrease proves nothing because it could be contributed to randomness in the data.
I think you are wrong. Life is simply to complex to state that all people can make choices. You lose understanding, interest, and willingness to knowledge when you make blanket statements like that. Suppose the hypothetical situation where you have a man that works every single day of his life. He makes all his choices correctly and is very successful. If he walked into a store and was shot by someone robbing the place. Who is at fault? He did have the choice to go to another store, but how can you reasonable expect getting shot. Maybe it was the robbers fault, but what if he needed to do that to survive? It is very hard to expect becoming homeless and its even harder to get back on your feet once your there. Like, you can get a job because you don't have a place to live and you can't get that loan because you have no place to work. Maybe it is society's fault for not supporting people that are trapped there.
I think bad things do happen to good people. We live with risks everyday. I don't think the mother expected getting sued when she took that risk. I don't think the son would have thought he would ever decide to sue his mother. Things like this just happen. They need to work it out. Get over it and move on with their lives. Us speculating on how terrible or worthless they must be is absurd.
No they shouldn't. You bring up some great points yet unintentionally. What is an EULA? I don't think it should be a legal document and neither should you. How often is it possible to read and understand the EULA. If the EULA generated usable law imagine the world you would be in. There was a case (while ago) where the EULA for myspace was considered law through the computer fraud for accessing a computer without authorization laws. I don't remembered how it ended, but this could be a criminal case then as well as civil. That leads into what is the robots.txt file? It has no legal meaning and that is probably where this guys defense fell apart. The file is an agreement to make ensure that sites won't combat spiders by respecting the site owners desires. It really is only a kind word of agreement between two parties.
And your point about Facebook using its data as best it can is spot on. No one provides a free service. It is a means to an end. And with facebook that is data mining. They tried a while back to even grab possession of the pictures you post. Even the apps on Facebook usually do some sort of active data mining to fund themselves. I think people need to really come to understand what is happening when they use these kinds of sites not just with privacy, but also with property rights. Facebook doesn't clearly explain what is happening in a legal sense when they upload data and often it is contrary to what the user would have reasonable expectations to occur.
It would be more fun if they were interspersed with actual articles so you never really know which are which. Thats usually part of the challenge for an April fools jokes. But then all the joke was way to realistic posts would disappear.
This is a wonderful thing. Amazing non the less. The proceedings will take years. That many people in a court room at once is never going to have order. This will send an important message. It doesn't matter what the laws are unless most people agree to abide by them. The courts will see a huge increase in trials. The MPAA survives only because people settle. I doubt they will be able to get a larger percentage to settle then the MPAA did.
I completely agree, but I think there is a due diligence issue here too. If I purchase the game new then I would assume that the person I resell it too will have access to the DLC that I received with it. By that not being clearly explained to the purchaser that it will only work once then it is obviously not tied freely to the product itself but is instead another product completely. If I could prove that a majority of people have this expectation of togetherness. Which the blacking out expectation would demonstrate then the publisher is also committing false advertising because I should be informed of the separation of the two products. Especially when they are combining a consumable to an investment, like this situation because the DLC is not resell able while the game is.
I like how he is complaining that it is not a stock option anymore. Maybe there was a time when every one wanted one and manufacturers replied with giving it to them. Why should the manufacturer include it when it is not important to peoples choice in computers. Its like floppy drives being phased out. Its not some CD cartel conspiracy. Just manufacturers responding to consumer interests. I have one on a computer I bought a year ago, but thats a media computer. Still I would say you can get one if you want to. Laptops are probably the least likely to have it because all parts are considered more carefully.
What would be smarter is to give the demo to all people that
pre-purchase the game. Add a couple bucks for early access. You could book most of your revenue before the game hits the stores plus it gets user input and you can fire a portion of the testing team. What they are doing will never fly at 10-15 dollars for most people, but the fanboys. Plus, most of the comments they will get won't represent the whole community.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is that the debtor can refuse creation of the debt. I have the right to refuse sale. That is how most places get past the issue of not accepting $100 bills.
There is a very clear difference between a technique and implementation. Fortunately for researchers they are only interested in the technique. Most encryption techniques are near flawless, but are ruined by poor or limited implementation by the user. Not to mention there are usually assumptions that are impractical or inconsistent in real world conditions.
Couldn't they just be disgruntled and work for Onstar. I get chills thinking why these abilities are required and wondering just how much authentication is in place to enable them.
What shouldn't happen is penalties for non-compliance. The most the courts should do is force the company to pay reasonable royalties consistent with the industry to the damaged party. Anything after that is simply abuse of the patent system. Making no benefit being a patent troll or developing company. One really obvious question, especially with software patents, that needs to be ask is how valid is the patent if multiple independent sources seem to develop it? Is it really that innovative?
I think your argument is very legitimate. I feel it should be that way too, but it can easily not be. The OEM version of windows is only licensed to be installed on a single computer irrespective of how you purchased it. It makes copyright licensing a funny business especially with music then as you don't know what the agreement is. It could easily be that you only have a license that allows you to have the music on that specific CD or make of that CD.
Meanwhile you call it stealing where in actuality it is copying. Maybe it could be stealing because your avoiding paying the label, but that is a very weak line of argument. I think the RIAA and MPAA like it this way as they remain steadfast in not defining the rights to the consumer to their product. I personally think that misrepresentation of their product should be illegal. I don't mind following rules, but I need to know clearly what they are.
They have dis invested themselves by making it open source. Futher, if they ensure an interface between anyone hosting a piece of the social network instead of relying on it being a single site then no single operator has absolute control. If someone starts abusing what the public give them then they can move to a better operator. That is the problem with facebook. I admit it would be tricky to implement and the security would be more complex. But then at least then it would be a step forward instead of a copy of every other social networking site.
I mean to say that because there are two lines doesn't mean anything to the phone company when they look at the viability of new business plans.
Well no this is more of an abuse of significant digits. The calculation has a significance of two decimal places. Most day to day uses the theory doesn't matter but this is one of those cases. .66 is the smaller of the two numbers so it is used to define what digits are not estimations. The 5 in the 135 is just that an estimation as the first two digits are absolutely correct. Not surprisingly if you use .666 then the number becomes about 137 so the ones becomes correct now too. Notice though that the decimal places are not correct. Which makes sense considering the digit significance.
Wasn't thinking it till you mentioned the DRM servers, but it would be hilarious if the company forgot to put the serial number in the case because it is usually in the manual. It is cross departmental so it is possible. Like when the last number was cut off on some serials for the pre-order of a game(can't remember the name myself). They recommended just to try all the possible last digits till it worked. Wouldn't work if they forgot the whole thing.
Maybe its like Starcraft were being able to run the game on almost any computer will always win. You have 1% of the market, but that market is hundreds of times larger then the market of high end rigs.
The issue is how the phone companies operate. You can only make what the consumer is willing to spend. 9 times out of 10 they have a monopoly in the area so why worry. No one can snatch you away from their service. They have no one to compete with and drive them to provide the best service possible. You probably won't see any change with consumer internet connections.
I don't think original content is a complete litmus test either. People have used no original content on fair use items. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo It will always be the unclear until tested by courts system thing it is.
It is the tired and true issue of running everything as an administrator. Why do you need those rights when accessing a webpage. Does not make any sense and yet windows often makes it necessary. UAC does fix it for the most part, but windows it self has trained users the easy path of running as a power user all the time so most people turn it off. I'm not sure if it is as much technology as it is users now a days.
Damn link didn't work. Okay no fancy stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium
Excited delirium is a controversial term used to explain deaths of individuals in police custody, in which the person being arrested or restrained shows some combination of agitation, violent or bizarre behavior, insensitivity to pain, elevated body temperature, or increased strength.
So your statistics are impossible because they must be in police custody for the term to apply. If you read the rest it is highly disputed because it does not apply to other situations where the person dies in restraints, like the hospital. I feel it kind of white washes what actually happened. If the person dies of a heart failure it should be attributed to that not the conditions in which death occurs.
I'm not sure it works that way. The wave length is a very specific determining factor for how much absorption occurs. What strikes me as odd is why the store lights are not burning her if the scanner does. They spit out pretty much all kinds of light. What would be needed is rigorous scientific experimentation to determine if the scanner is dangerous not a court system, but hey thats the breaks.
I think you missed something about this being about the CEO of the company. Of course he is in meeting for 75% of his schedule. He is hired to communicate the operations of the company to share holders and directions to the internal management. The other 25% is probably prep time for the presentations that he is making during the meetings. This is just a case of technology replacing the meeting because the CEO chooses to communicate through another medium then speech.
My Stats prof was complaining about something similar, but probably less obvious that the police here did. If you have 5 drinking related accidents one year in the town and the next year there are 3 drinking related accidents most people would say that the number of accidents decreased. Which is wonderful for the program that was started recently to target drinking and driving so they published in the local paper the success of the program. Now where my stats teacher gets annoyed is that the year with five drinking accidents could be an unnatural peak. The decrease proves nothing because it could be contributed to randomness in the data.
I think you are wrong. Life is simply to complex to state that all people can make choices. You lose understanding, interest, and willingness to knowledge when you make blanket statements like that. Suppose the hypothetical situation where you have a man that works every single day of his life. He makes all his choices correctly and is very successful. If he walked into a store and was shot by someone robbing the place. Who is at fault? He did have the choice to go to another store, but how can you reasonable expect getting shot. Maybe it was the robbers fault, but what if he needed to do that to survive? It is very hard to expect becoming homeless and its even harder to get back on your feet once your there. Like, you can get a job because you don't have a place to live and you can't get that loan because you have no place to work. Maybe it is society's fault for not supporting people that are trapped there.
I think bad things do happen to good people. We live with risks everyday. I don't think the mother expected getting sued when she took that risk. I don't think the son would have thought he would ever decide to sue his mother. Things like this just happen. They need to work it out. Get over it and move on with their lives. Us speculating on how terrible or worthless they must be is absurd.
No they shouldn't. You bring up some great points yet unintentionally. What is an EULA? I don't think it should be a legal document and neither should you. How often is it possible to read and understand the EULA. If the EULA generated usable law imagine the world you would be in. There was a case (while ago) where the EULA for myspace was considered law through the computer fraud for accessing a computer without authorization laws. I don't remembered how it ended, but this could be a criminal case then as well as civil. That leads into what is the robots.txt file? It has no legal meaning and that is probably where this guys defense fell apart. The file is an agreement to make ensure that sites won't combat spiders by respecting the site owners desires. It really is only a kind word of agreement between two parties.
And your point about Facebook using its data as best it can is spot on. No one provides a free service. It is a means to an end. And with facebook that is data mining. They tried a while back to even grab possession of the pictures you post. Even the apps on Facebook usually do some sort of active data mining to fund themselves. I think people need to really come to understand what is happening when they use these kinds of sites not just with privacy, but also with property rights. Facebook doesn't clearly explain what is happening in a legal sense when they upload data and often it is contrary to what the user would have reasonable expectations to occur.
It would be more fun if they were interspersed with actual articles so you never really know which are which. Thats usually part of the challenge for an April fools jokes. But then all the joke was way to realistic posts would disappear.
This is a wonderful thing. Amazing non the less. The proceedings will take years. That many people in a court room at once is never going to have order. This will send an important message. It doesn't matter what the laws are unless most people agree to abide by them. The courts will see a huge increase in trials. The MPAA survives only because people settle. I doubt they will be able to get a larger percentage to settle then the MPAA did.
I completely agree, but I think there is a due diligence issue here too. If I purchase the game new then I would assume that the person I resell it too will have access to the DLC that I received with it. By that not being clearly explained to the purchaser that it will only work once then it is obviously not tied freely to the product itself but is instead another product completely. If I could prove that a majority of people have this expectation of togetherness. Which the blacking out expectation would demonstrate then the publisher is also committing false advertising because I should be informed of the separation of the two products. Especially when they are combining a consumable to an investment, like this situation because the DLC is not resell able while the game is.
I like how he is complaining that it is not a stock option anymore. Maybe there was a time when every one wanted one and manufacturers replied with giving it to them. Why should the manufacturer include it when it is not important to peoples choice in computers. Its like floppy drives being phased out. Its not some CD cartel conspiracy. Just manufacturers responding to consumer interests. I have one on a computer I bought a year ago, but thats a media computer. Still I would say you can get one if you want to. Laptops are probably the least likely to have it because all parts are considered more carefully.
What would be smarter is to give the demo to all people that pre-purchase the game. Add a couple bucks for early access. You could book most of your revenue before the game hits the stores plus it gets user input and you can fire a portion of the testing team. What they are doing will never fly at 10-15 dollars for most people, but the fanboys. Plus, most of the comments they will get won't represent the whole community.