If I take a DVD that is mine and I read it into my PC's memory and in memory I encrypt using a key that is unknown to me, and then store the resulting output on a disk, is that copying, under law?
If I do that, but use a key unknown to me that is so short that I could then brute force it at a later date, have I broken the law?
Genuinely interested in whether the law denies me this ability to process my own DVD.
I emailed them about this and they said no such thing to me. I requested that I get a discussion that formally applied in the same way as the upgrade T'S&C's so that if I agree to their new contract I know where I stand.
Their answer to me was that they are going to measure the progress of the upgrades and then set the limits. Furthermore, the official webpages state that the slow down of connection is 9am-10pm not 9-5 as you post.
I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt because customer services indicated to me that I would not be subject to a new minimum term contract, so I can leave immediately if the service provision degrades.
However, I must say I'm unhappy with the "open" contract they expect me to subject myself to and now am actively taking action to be able to switch trivially at my whim (i.e. switching away from using any of their services apart from TCP/IP access).
Specifically, the report says:
"However, even if we were to double our
existing nuclear capacity, this would bring an
8% cut on total carbon emissions from 1990
levels by 2035, and would contribute little
before 2020."
Note that 1990 thing....
The report stinks of bias.
Yes. Look at how the ad hominem gets modded to 5, for crying out loud, yet your most pertinent link is stuck at 1.
Moderators... this parent needs visibility.
Read this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Think about it:
"... no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
To have a law requiring speakers be identified is _a_ law, and Congress shall make no such law.
Under the current law in the UK, the police can only require you to identify yourself if arresting you and they can only arrest you if you have committed a crime.
Tesco don't know what I buy since I pay cash. I also can choose to buy my toothpaste elsewhere. I am not compelled to shop traceably with anyone.
You don't have to pay for a TV license, only if you want a TV. You don't have to drive, you can walk, take the bus, take a taxi. You can use private health care.
It is wrong, it does give the state more authority (requiring me to behave in a manner I don't want to). They will have a DB that monitors all my transactions with them, and the problem isn't David Blunkett, the problem is the infrastucture will be abusable by someone who is worse.
I respect your freedom to choose to ID yourself to the state. Do you respect my freedom to not do so. No, I didn't think so.
Or, more suitable, the Robot will request access to the feed being received by the person and on getting permission, will then understand the "environment" being experienced.
Slashdot Mirror
Demon user discussions I've seen can be found at: http://groups.google.com/group/demon.service and http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist.php?Cat=&Boar d=demon
If I take a DVD that is mine and I read it into my PC's memory and in memory I encrypt using a key that is unknown to me, and then store the resulting output on a disk, is that copying, under law? If I do that, but use a key unknown to me that is so short that I could then brute force it at a later date, have I broken the law? Genuinely interested in whether the law denies me this ability to process my own DVD.
I emailed them about this and they said no such thing to me. I requested that I get a discussion that formally applied in the same way as the upgrade T'S&C's so that if I agree to their new contract I know where I stand. Their answer to me was that they are going to measure the progress of the upgrades and then set the limits. Furthermore, the official webpages state that the slow down of connection is 9am-10pm not 9-5 as you post. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt because customer services indicated to me that I would not be subject to a new minimum term contract, so I can leave immediately if the service provision degrades. However, I must say I'm unhappy with the "open" contract they expect me to subject myself to and now am actively taking action to be able to switch trivially at my whim (i.e. switching away from using any of their services apart from TCP/IP access).
Specifically, the report says: "However, even if we were to double our existing nuclear capacity, this would bring an 8% cut on total carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2035, and would contribute little before 2020." Note that 1990 thing.... The report stinks of bias.
Yes. Look at how the ad hominem gets modded to 5, for crying out loud, yet your most pertinent link is stuck at 1. Moderators... this parent needs visibility.
Read this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Think about it: "... no law... abridging the freedom of speech." To have a law requiring speakers be identified is _a_ law, and Congress shall make no such law.
Under the current law in the UK, the police can only require you to identify yourself if arresting you and they can only arrest you if you have committed a crime.
Tesco don't know what I buy since I pay cash. I also can choose to buy my toothpaste elsewhere. I am not compelled to shop traceably with anyone.
You don't have to pay for a TV license, only if you want a TV. You don't have to drive, you can walk, take the bus, take a taxi. You can use private health care.
It is wrong, it does give the state more authority (requiring me to behave in a manner I don't want to). They will have a DB that monitors all my transactions with them, and the problem isn't David Blunkett, the problem is the infrastucture will be abusable by someone who is worse.
I respect your freedom to choose to ID yourself to the state. Do you respect my freedom to not do so. No, I didn't think so.
You're the one choosing the side of tyranny.
Or, more suitable, the Robot will request access to the feed being received by the person and on getting permission, will then understand the "environment" being experienced.
Ask her if it's ok to record all her emails/phone calls, just in case you ever need to divorce her because she cheated on you.
If she says yes, divorce her. She's an idiot.