Amazing how you neglect to mention documented arrests where people just standing on a corner waiting to cross the street were "swept up" in orange nets.
That is a pretty foolish statement. Media, like any other organization, is comprised of people, and despite your apparent beliefs regarding human nature, people generally have enough compassion not to want to see people suffering, particularly when it can be themselves or those who are close to them suffering.
From a business perspective it wouldn't make much sense either. Aside from the fact that there is no shortage of news to report, a pandemic that shuts down travel would not be good for business.
Re:"at war with my parents over who is in control"
on
Bringing Up Bill
·
· Score: 0
Basically, the same idea as a bus lane but for cabs. It would be impossible and impractical to do this on every street, but very feasible on certain avenues particularly ones that intersect with bridge and tunnel exits and entrances. Similar to bus lanes, these lanes would be designated for taxis only during certain hours.
Also, designate specific parts of the street for taxi drop offs and pickups, where these points are out of the way of the main flow of traffic.
Not very high tech, but if it improves the overall flow of traffic in the city then it could go a long way in improving emissions in the city.
I get the impression that TiVo is fighting a losing battle. At their prime a few years ago, most cable and satellite TV providers weren't offering a comparable DVR service. Now, almost everyone offers DVR as a service, and unless TiVo has lowered the price of their devices or service, its cheaper to go through the cable company.
I have Time Warner, and I find their dvr service in many ways superior to TiVo. I don't have to have an extra box that requires an IR transmitter that i have to stick on my existing cable box. Not only that, but my DVR box (and I gather most others as well) has two tuners, allowing me to record and watch to separate programs. It seems like it is something Tivo is going to have a hard time competing with.
It might be limited to the device/location. I have an iphone in NYC and to say I find the internet connection disappointing would be an understatement.
The Amiga OS was great back in the day, and a lot of companies believe it or not used them (the LIRR for example), and used that OS long after the Amigas were being produced.
Gives Apple's history of pricing their products far more than what they are worth, I imagine the cost of their netbook would be about the same as a low end PC laptop.
I am a netflix subscriber, and their streaming video is a nice add-on, but far from a replacement to their dvd selection. They do have some excellent movies available for streaming, but far too few, and from the limited selection they offer 90% of it is crap. I don't see them having a selection large enough to warrant having a streaming only subscription in the next year.
All they need are a couple of solar panels and a bunch of extension cords. I don't know about the solar panels, but home depot has 50ft extension cords that look pretty sturdy for only $20, and for the 20,000 of them or so that you would need I'm sure they could work in a discount.
If it works just as well as their current file sharing, then count me in. It's a good excuse for a 10 minute coffee break while you wait for it just to connect to another machine.
No lawyer worth his salt would advise his client to give an interview like this pretrial. For whatever is motivating him, he probably did it against all legal advise. With that said, I don't believe Childs at all. It just doesn't make much sense, and it seems much more likely he is trying to cover illegal activity.
Absolutely. I put this on the same level as politician receiving bribes to pass a piece of legislation. It is the willful corruption of a fundamental cornerstone of American government, and IMO should be given life. If I were a judge I would be pretty pissed that another judge was threatening the legitimacy of my job. While their might be some backlash, I don't think it would be on the level of an officer breaking the blue wall of silence.
They don't backroom you anymore, that would be one of the dumbest things a casino would do today. They ban you, and distribute your photo to every other casino, and you are effectively banned from every casino.
1. Copyright infringement by itself is a civil wrong, not a crime. (Many jurisdictions have criminalized things like distributing pirated DVDs or bypassing access controls, but still it is not usually a crime to put a file on a server.) So you cannot be an accessory to a crime here.
Incorrect, copyright infringement is often a crime. Infringement on TPB is very often a crime, as people downloading are often seeding afterward, which qualifies as redistribution. There are plenty of things available to be downloaded which exceed $1000 as well.
3. What is legal in one jurisdiction may be infringing copyright in another.
I'm speaking within the scope of US law, but the above link alone is federal law, which is applied regardless of where you live within the US.
4. The site is not linking to content they 'know' is illegal. The process is fully automatic and the computer does not know what is illegal and what isn't. The people who 'know' are those who upload the links in the first place.
With respect to TPB not knowing that the content is illegal, bullshit. The name they choose for their site, and the content they allow, makes their intent very clear (granted they do allow perfectly legal content to be linked as well).
TPB isn't an instance of a search engine that covers a scope of the internet so broad that it is impossible for some illegal content to make its way in. Rather, it is a search engine that caters to a niche market of making mostly illegal content easily accessible. I don't think anyone reasonably believes that the vast majority of the users of that site are doing anything other than trying to download something that they would otherwise have to pay for.
And while this is in know way an endorsement of the RIAA (a cabal of scumbags), or of US copyright law (which is seriously flawed in many respects), people do have a right to profit from their intellectual property. I think the vast majority of people also believe that defending the practice of pirating because their are flaws in the system or because the RIAA is an evil entity is utter bullshit; they simply want something without having to pay for it. Worse yet, it makes it more difficult for the small fraction of people who want to distribute their own content legally.
For those who truly believe that there is a problem that needs to be fixed, there are far better (and legal) alternatives to using a torrent client in an attempt to fix them. Software is too expensive? Don't buy it and try to find an open source alternative. Don't want to support the recording industry? Don't buy the media, try listening to it on the radio, watching it on tv, accessing it through the publisher on the internet, etc. Think copyright law is fucked? Petition your community and congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Only the criminals will have paintball guns.
Not all that venomous and generally leave people alone. Now if they were funnel web spiders, that would be interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_funnel-web_spider.
The judge should have at least have an expert of the defense choosing to audit the examination with a recording of the activity.
There are plenty more I'm sure but don't have the time or energy to look more than this right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1007-06.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-06-nyc-protesters_x.htm http://www.nyclu.org/node/1137
Amazing how you neglect to mention documented arrests where people just standing on a corner waiting to cross the street were "swept up" in orange nets.
That is a pretty foolish statement. Media, like any other organization, is comprised of people, and despite your apparent beliefs regarding human nature, people generally have enough compassion not to want to see people suffering, particularly when it can be themselves or those who are close to them suffering. From a business perspective it wouldn't make much sense either. Aside from the fact that there is no shortage of news to report, a pandemic that shuts down travel would not be good for business.
Leave Clippy out of this.
Basically, the same idea as a bus lane but for cabs. It would be impossible and impractical to do this on every street, but very feasible on certain avenues particularly ones that intersect with bridge and tunnel exits and entrances. Similar to bus lanes, these lanes would be designated for taxis only during certain hours. Also, designate specific parts of the street for taxi drop offs and pickups, where these points are out of the way of the main flow of traffic. Not very high tech, but if it improves the overall flow of traffic in the city then it could go a long way in improving emissions in the city.
I get the impression that TiVo is fighting a losing battle. At their prime a few years ago, most cable and satellite TV providers weren't offering a comparable DVR service. Now, almost everyone offers DVR as a service, and unless TiVo has lowered the price of their devices or service, its cheaper to go through the cable company. I have Time Warner, and I find their dvr service in many ways superior to TiVo. I don't have to have an extra box that requires an IR transmitter that i have to stick on my existing cable box. Not only that, but my DVR box (and I gather most others as well) has two tuners, allowing me to record and watch to separate programs. It seems like it is something Tivo is going to have a hard time competing with.
It might be limited to the device/location. I have an iphone in NYC and to say I find the internet connection disappointing would be an understatement.
Given my 3G experience with AT&T, I don't think Skype would work very well over their wireless network anyway.
The Amiga OS was great back in the day, and a lot of companies believe it or not used them (the LIRR for example), and used that OS long after the Amigas were being produced.
Gives Apple's history of pricing their products far more than what they are worth, I imagine the cost of their netbook would be about the same as a low end PC laptop.
I am a netflix subscriber, and their streaming video is a nice add-on, but far from a replacement to their dvd selection. They do have some excellent movies available for streaming, but far too few, and from the limited selection they offer 90% of it is crap. I don't see them having a selection large enough to warrant having a streaming only subscription in the next year.
All they need are a couple of solar panels and a bunch of extension cords. I don't know about the solar panels, but home depot has 50ft extension cords that look pretty sturdy for only $20, and for the 20,000 of them or so that you would need I'm sure they could work in a discount.
Why the hell did Dell have to be the voice of reason here?
If it works just as well as their current file sharing, then count me in. It's a good excuse for a 10 minute coffee break while you wait for it just to connect to another machine.
No lawyer worth his salt would advise his client to give an interview like this pretrial. For whatever is motivating him, he probably did it against all legal advise. With that said, I don't believe Childs at all. It just doesn't make much sense, and it seems much more likely he is trying to cover illegal activity.
Absolutely. I put this on the same level as politician receiving bribes to pass a piece of legislation. It is the willful corruption of a fundamental cornerstone of American government, and IMO should be given life. If I were a judge I would be pretty pissed that another judge was threatening the legitimacy of my job. While their might be some backlash, I don't think it would be on the level of an officer breaking the blue wall of silence.
They don't backroom you anymore, that would be one of the dumbest things a casino would do today. They ban you, and distribute your photo to every other casino, and you are effectively banned from every casino.
Little over 7 years seems hardly enough considering the scope of their crimes.
USA! USA!
How about a polish submarine to demonstrate buoyancy?
TPB is as much a politcal party as the church of scientology is a church.
1. Copyright infringement by itself is a civil wrong, not a crime. (Many jurisdictions have criminalized things like distributing pirated DVDs or bypassing access controls, but still it is not usually a crime to put a file on a server.) So you cannot be an accessory to a crime here.
Incorrect, copyright infringement is often a crime. Infringement on TPB is very often a crime, as people downloading are often seeding afterward, which qualifies as redistribution. There are plenty of things available to be downloaded which exceed $1000 as well.
3. What is legal in one jurisdiction may be infringing copyright in another.
I'm speaking within the scope of US law, but the above link alone is federal law, which is applied regardless of where you live within the US.
4. The site is not linking to content they 'know' is illegal. The process is fully automatic and the computer does not know what is illegal and what isn't. The people who 'know' are those who upload the links in the first place.
With respect to TPB not knowing that the content is illegal, bullshit. The name they choose for their site, and the content they allow, makes their intent very clear (granted they do allow perfectly legal content to be linked as well).
TPB isn't an instance of a search engine that covers a scope of the internet so broad that it is impossible for some illegal content to make its way in. Rather, it is a search engine that caters to a niche market of making mostly illegal content easily accessible. I don't think anyone reasonably believes that the vast majority of the users of that site are doing anything other than trying to download something that they would otherwise have to pay for.
And while this is in know way an endorsement of the RIAA (a cabal of scumbags), or of US copyright law (which is seriously flawed in many respects), people do have a right to profit from their intellectual property. I think the vast majority of people also believe that defending the practice of pirating because their are flaws in the system or because the RIAA is an evil entity is utter bullshit; they simply want something without having to pay for it. Worse yet, it makes it more difficult for the small fraction of people who want to distribute their own content legally.
For those who truly believe that there is a problem that needs to be fixed, there are far better (and legal) alternatives to using a torrent client in an attempt to fix them. Software is too expensive? Don't buy it and try to find an open source alternative. Don't want to support the recording industry? Don't buy the media, try listening to it on the radio, watching it on tv, accessing it through the publisher on the internet, etc. Think copyright law is fucked? Petition your community and congress.