This is not about creating a new remote for your TV. This is saying your TV is the "big remote display" of your phone (or iPad).
People already surf around with the iPad, they find a funny video of some guy feeding vegetables to his cat or whatever, then saying "Oh, watch this" and hand it to their friend. Now they'll just send it to the big screen.
The advantage is that the iPhone/iPad/Android interface is the one you're already very comfortable with. It's in your pocket 24x7. You already know how to use it and find things with it. The ugly 10-foot interface isn't important, because you look at the handheld to do everything.
The disadvantage is that the iPad isn't a great remote control device. It's made to be interacted with, not to be grabbed and clicked. When you're watching a show and the phone rings, you don't want to study the device to find the mute icon - you want to slide your thumb to the mute button and click. And it's fragile, you can't casually toss it to your friend.
So for everything up to the time when you start watching the show, the iPad is great. For everything after the show has started, current remotes are great.
I've not seen a 10 foot interface done well. Most are too much like the giant accessibility font versions of GUIs. They all look like I have a 420i display on a 19" TV that's 10' away. If I have a big screen with 1080p, please put more stuff on it! Paging down through a channel guide five lines at a time when I could easily be viewing 20 or more at a time is frustrating.
And navigating with a 4-way button isn't the greatest, either. I'm thinking that using the iPhone as a Wacom pad-like device operating as a remote mouse would be a lot easier than click-up-up-up-over-over-oops-too-far-back-OK.
IR remotes aren't the greatest, either. Without feedback, they have no way of ensuring the button pressed by the user makes it to the device.
Kinect has an interesting concept: reach to the widget and hold steady until it activates. Not sure I like it, but at least they're trying something new. Of course, it's not nearly "ready enough" to be a general purpose remote, at least not yet. It can't identify the average couch potato if they're not standing up.
The Sonos application on the iPhone is probably the kind of interface that works best. Use the local pad to browse and navigate, then once the selection is made, command the big screen to do it. Which is what the TFA is no doubt saying.
Ships do not rely only on GPS. In fact to get a license to navigate a ship you have to learn celestial navigation, among other things. Ships are also required to have an assortment of other navigation systems which are checked against one another.
You mean they rely on backup systems like LORAN-C? Just checking.
Yes, airplanes still have VOR beacons available, and they're still used for IFR flying in older aircraft. But ships, no, their backup is a compass, a clock, and a sextant, and possibly one or two old guys who can read the damn thing. And apparently even they are busy clumsily "falling into life rafts" when they should be captaining their ships.
Sure, but try doing it on any larger scale. The pocket-sized device probably won't get you caught, sure, but anything that seriously disrupts the signal over a nontrivial area would get you noticed.
The question comes up again: why? What would I need to jam on a large scale? Think of the (semi-)realistic scenarios where blocking GPS would benefit you.
The first scenario is to avoid tracking. Because I would need to be off the grid for an extended period of time to negotiate my secret dealings, I would need a long-term jammer that wouldn't attract attention. I would only need to jam just the GPS receivers that would be giving away my position. Ditching all cell phones would be the primary step, of course. If I suspected a lojack type of tracker was present on my clothing or in my car, I'd need the jammer to block only a 5-10 meter radius about me, and no more. If I actually knew where the hostile receiver's antenna was, a very low power jamming transmitter clipped to it would disable the device and probably not radiate beyond the vehicle at all. But if I didn't know, or just suspected there might be one stuck under the frame of the car, it would have to be a larger radius jammer, just to be sure. Even then, a lesson from the cellular technologies would help. Three low power jammers (one behind the front bumper, one behind the rear bumper, and one in the cab) would probably be more effective than a single higher power jammer in the cab.
If I were to go for the "Hollywood bank heist" kind of scenario that others have described above, such as blacking out a one kilometer radius to deny the police the ability to use GPS while my gang escapes via motorcycles hidden in a drainage pipe, sure a jammer that powerful would get noticed. But I wouldn't need it to work any longer than the amount of time required to execute the plan and get away. And if I were to get caught doing something that serious, jamming GPS would probably be among the lesser charges against me.
There doesn't seem to be a middle scenario where I need high-powered GPS jamming to go undetected for a long term. At least nothing profitable springs to mind. Perhaps blackmailing a sleepy town's cell provider, or attacking a data center hosting a finance system. But feel free to come up with a good crime to fit!:-)
But using someone else's property against their wishes is criminality, though. Just because you agree with it doesn't instantly mean it's fine.
There's a trucking practice called "bobtailing", which is when the driver disconnects the trailer at a dock or in a parking lot and drives just the tractor around town for personal use; to get lunch, find a motel, hit the bars, or whatever. Trucking companies often have some kind of policy banning or restricting bobtailing to just a few miles per stop, because trucks are pretty damn expensive to drive (fuel and insurance are not free.) With trackers in both the tractor and the trailer, a company can determine if a driver is bobtailing, and how much. Without a functioning tracking device, the trucking company doesn't really have a way to measure which miles were driven without the trailer.
Is it criminal to bobtail? Only if they don't return the truck! Otherwise, it's just a contractual or employment dispute between the truck owner and the driver. The firm I'm familiar with will fire a driver for excessive bobtailing. But they sure can't send the driver to jail for it.
Trucks have extra rules passenger cars don't have. One is that they must follow truck routes, so they aren't dragging giant trailers through clogged intersections causing more gridlock, hauling heavy loads over restricted bridges, or blocking narrow streets, causing safety issues or other traffic problems. A GPS tracker will record every road the trucker drives, and report on any violations.
When a shortcut over a narrow bridge through a residential area might save you 30 minutes, and the tracker is the only thing keeping you from taking that shortcut and delivering your load on time, well, it's hardly your fault if the bloody thing stops working, right?
Do you know what it's called? I could look it up in our databases, and see if we have it (in the botanic garden, or in the seedbank).
I wish I remembered. It was about 10 years ago, and my son's scout troop did a service project harvesting some geum triflorum (prairie smoke) seeds for the ranger. They were drying them out for distribution to prairie restoration projects. We stored them in a shed, and as we delivered the seeds he told us of this other nearby endangered flower that they had no success transplanting. It might have been "Frenchman's Bluff moonwort".
Look at OWASP and SANS. Every entry in their databases indicates someone who got smarter and figured out a new hole to exploit. And their databases are growing as attackers learn more and exploit more.
And yes, coders are still making mistakes that others have made. They have failed to learn, and that's what OWASP is trying to prevent. But there are certainly new attacks coming out. Why? Because as systems grow in complexity, unforeseen interactions between the components create vulnerabilities. And there's a background floor of people willing to enable internal attacks via social engineering.
And don't forget that as long as old attacks continue to work, attackers are often too busy exploiting the successful attacks to bother researching new ones.
What I'd conclude instead is that complexity enables attacks, the rate of attacks would follow that of the rate of increase in complexity. Since complexity seems to be on the increase, I would expect to see attacks on the increase.
You just described the plot of "The Invention of Lying", a clever Ricky Gervais movie about a society where trust is 100%, and he discovers he can abuse this by lying.
I absolutely agree with you that threatened plants should be preserved. There is a problem, though, and that is some plants are very adapted to a tiny environmental niche. By way of example, there are prairie flowers here in Minnesota that grow only on the south side of sandy glacial moraines in a few mile radius from Glendalough State Park. According to park rangers, efforts to plant them in cultivation elsewhere have failed, as have efforts to transplant them elsewhere in the state. It's something about the soil, the drainage, the natural fertilizers, the rain, the light, the humidity, the temperatures, the snowfall, the bugs, the freezing, all coming together so intricately that nobody knows which environmental cues are required to grow them.
Overall, this plant does not have great survival traits. And as such, I'd guess that such a plant isn't adding much to the ecosystem. But as often happens with wildflowers, there may be a certain pollinator that is finely adapted to it, meaning that if the plant dies, that specialized moth/fly/insect may die with it. So while the plant may not be directly critical to humans, it's still having some impact on its environment.
In terms of "what is the most important plant to save", this wouldn't be at the top of the list. And in terms of "if we have storage space to save only 100,000 different seeds, so let's save the ones we know we can grow back", it also won't make the cut. But in terms of "what plants are so threatened that we should preserve their seeds while a few still exist?" it might make that list.
Though, unless I'm mistaken, the reason the magazines are there is that they make everything go easier for the staff.
Based on my son's past experiences with the Urgent Care clinic we use, the magazines there are already filled with easy-going staph.
I almost want to snort their disinfecting foam after just walking through the place. The thought of even touching a waiting-room tablet makes my anti-bodies all tingly.
The number of people being able to afford one is irrelevant. There are always wealthy people who can afford something that the poor cannot.
The question about the savings of keeping less paper are perfectly on target. Assuming the paper is recycled (either after scanning or after you've kept it for the required seven years) that part's a wash. They still printed and mailed you the paper, and you still handled it and disposed of it. There is no savings one way or the other based on how long you keep it.
The only actual savings is incurred if you change residences. Not having to move seven boxes of old papers is perhaps worth a few cents of your time and some truck fuel.
The other "savings" claimed is convenience. Having a searchable back index of these pieces of paper might have some value, but only if you actually need to refer back to them. And that's the deal. I have a box of paper marked "2006" in the closet, filled with receipts, bills, tax forms, etc. How often do I go back to that? Never. So how often would I need to refer back to the electronic version of the same data? Never. It's a box of pre-recycling scrap paper that I store only because I may need it in case of a future tax audit. Otherwise, doing anything with it is a waste of my time and effort.
Next January, I'll spend an hour in front of the shredder getting rid of the contents of that box. Even that's no different than spending a minute a week shredding them after scanning them, really. Now, a scanner/shredder combination might be a lower-effort way of handling them, but that's not the product we're looking at. Plus, I shred in bulk, which is a lot faster than shredding a sheet at a time while scanning it.
So I completely agree with you. Overall, scanning these papers would be a step that delivers no benefit to me, yet costs me in terms of time and money.
That sounds exactly like the stuff. It was about 10-20 years ago that they were working on it. Very cool idea.
The thing is the forces exerted on boat hulls by the water are completely different than those on a helicopter rotor blade. A big slow moving boat in dense water is not at all like a blade spinning at near the speed of sound in thin air, being hit by sharpened grains of quartz. It would take a completely different materials technology to make it work.
I'm imagining bonding a sheet of saran wrap onto a helicopter blade, but I expect the centripetal forces and wind shear would throw the stuff off at the slightest bit of damage. If a large sheet peeled off one rotor but not the other my helicopter-flying friend assures me that he would not be interested in test piloting a recovery strategy.
Casting it into the surface during manufacture would probably work well, as would etching or cutting it afterward. But I don't see a coating technology being very compatible with helicopter blades. Even paint doesn't last all that long on rotor blades.
Actually, breaking up the surface is a well known technique for reducing drag. I know a company that makes a very finely etched plastic laminate for applying to the hulls of racing schooners specifically to reduce drag. It wasn't modeled on biomimetic material ( as far as I know) but it's the same idea.
Of course their current laminates wouldn't withstand dust. They're made for water.
Oh, and it might just indicate a judge who is trying to provoke each side to elicit a statement revealing hidden intentions. Someone carelessly uttering a "yeah, we knew this part was wrong, but...", or a "Fair Use doesn't apply to digital" kind of statement. I don't think either side of this case is being represented by Amateur Hour at the Bar, however, so that's unlikely to yield fruit.
Usually it means a well-informed judge, one who is taking a very active interest and is trying hard to understand the evidence. I would say it's a "good" thing because the ruling is likely to be based on a fair interpretation of both the law and facts. That doesn't mean it will weigh towards either the plaintiff or defendant, but that the ruling will be seen as solid.
We should let Capitol dismantle the first sale doctrine, and you know why? The movie and record industries are America's most important source of everything! They bring in billions of dollars, and movies like Transformers underpin the very heart of what it is to be America.
I see you got the form letter back from your Senator, too.
Regarding the rest of your post, mock threats against senators just aren't as funny as they used to be. Pick on crazy Asian dictators instead, they're still in style today.
What happened is the judge decided that "if the plaintiff keeps doing what they're doing, they are not doing so much damage that they will send Capitol Records into bankruptcy." This ruling only means they won't be taken down today.
If Redigi loses the case, though, the judge will still hold them liable for any actions for the entire time they've been operating.
It's a good sign for Redigi that the judge doesn't think the damages are so astronomically high that they would bankrupt Capitol. But it says nothing about the potential outcome of the suit.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a "tablet for remote control." It's changing your thinking so that your TV set is just a big-screen extension of your personal device.
This is not about creating a new remote for your TV. This is saying your TV is the "big remote display" of your phone (or iPad).
People already surf around with the iPad, they find a funny video of some guy feeding vegetables to his cat or whatever, then saying "Oh, watch this" and hand it to their friend. Now they'll just send it to the big screen.
The advantage is that the iPhone/iPad/Android interface is the one you're already very comfortable with. It's in your pocket 24x7. You already know how to use it and find things with it. The ugly 10-foot interface isn't important, because you look at the handheld to do everything.
The disadvantage is that the iPad isn't a great remote control device. It's made to be interacted with, not to be grabbed and clicked. When you're watching a show and the phone rings, you don't want to study the device to find the mute icon - you want to slide your thumb to the mute button and click. And it's fragile, you can't casually toss it to your friend.
So for everything up to the time when you start watching the show, the iPad is great. For everything after the show has started, current remotes are great.
I've not seen a 10 foot interface done well. Most are too much like the giant accessibility font versions of GUIs. They all look like I have a 420i display on a 19" TV that's 10' away. If I have a big screen with 1080p, please put more stuff on it! Paging down through a channel guide five lines at a time when I could easily be viewing 20 or more at a time is frustrating.
And navigating with a 4-way button isn't the greatest, either. I'm thinking that using the iPhone as a Wacom pad-like device operating as a remote mouse would be a lot easier than click-up-up-up-over-over-oops-too-far-back-OK.
IR remotes aren't the greatest, either. Without feedback, they have no way of ensuring the button pressed by the user makes it to the device.
Kinect has an interesting concept: reach to the widget and hold steady until it activates. Not sure I like it, but at least they're trying something new. Of course, it's not nearly "ready enough" to be a general purpose remote, at least not yet. It can't identify the average couch potato if they're not standing up.
The Sonos application on the iPhone is probably the kind of interface that works best. Use the local pad to browse and navigate, then once the selection is made, command the big screen to do it. Which is what the TFA is no doubt saying.
Because the photos in TFA are similar to the photos of the GPS jammers sold on DealExtreme's web site?
Ships do not rely only on GPS. In fact to get a license to navigate a ship you have to learn celestial navigation, among other things. Ships are also required to have an assortment of other navigation systems which are checked against one another.
You mean they rely on backup systems like LORAN-C? Just checking.
Yes, airplanes still have VOR beacons available, and they're still used for IFR flying in older aircraft. But ships, no, their backup is a compass, a clock, and a sextant, and possibly one or two old guys who can read the damn thing. And apparently even they are busy clumsily "falling into life rafts" when they should be captaining their ships.
Sure, but try doing it on any larger scale. The pocket-sized device probably won't get you caught, sure, but anything that seriously disrupts the signal over a nontrivial area would get you noticed.
The question comes up again: why? What would I need to jam on a large scale? Think of the (semi-)realistic scenarios where blocking GPS would benefit you.
The first scenario is to avoid tracking. Because I would need to be off the grid for an extended period of time to negotiate my secret dealings, I would need a long-term jammer that wouldn't attract attention. I would only need to jam just the GPS receivers that would be giving away my position. Ditching all cell phones would be the primary step, of course. If I suspected a lojack type of tracker was present on my clothing or in my car, I'd need the jammer to block only a 5-10 meter radius about me, and no more. If I actually knew where the hostile receiver's antenna was, a very low power jamming transmitter clipped to it would disable the device and probably not radiate beyond the vehicle at all. But if I didn't know, or just suspected there might be one stuck under the frame of the car, it would have to be a larger radius jammer, just to be sure. Even then, a lesson from the cellular technologies would help. Three low power jammers (one behind the front bumper, one behind the rear bumper, and one in the cab) would probably be more effective than a single higher power jammer in the cab.
If I were to go for the "Hollywood bank heist" kind of scenario that others have described above, such as blacking out a one kilometer radius to deny the police the ability to use GPS while my gang escapes via motorcycles hidden in a drainage pipe, sure a jammer that powerful would get noticed. But I wouldn't need it to work any longer than the amount of time required to execute the plan and get away. And if I were to get caught doing something that serious, jamming GPS would probably be among the lesser charges against me.
There doesn't seem to be a middle scenario where I need high-powered GPS jamming to go undetected for a long term. At least nothing profitable springs to mind. Perhaps blackmailing a sleepy town's cell provider, or attacking a data center hosting a finance system. But feel free to come up with a good crime to fit! :-)
But using someone else's property against their wishes is criminality, though. Just because you agree with it doesn't instantly mean it's fine.
There's a trucking practice called "bobtailing", which is when the driver disconnects the trailer at a dock or in a parking lot and drives just the tractor around town for personal use; to get lunch, find a motel, hit the bars, or whatever. Trucking companies often have some kind of policy banning or restricting bobtailing to just a few miles per stop, because trucks are pretty damn expensive to drive (fuel and insurance are not free.) With trackers in both the tractor and the trailer, a company can determine if a driver is bobtailing, and how much. Without a functioning tracking device, the trucking company doesn't really have a way to measure which miles were driven without the trailer.
Is it criminal to bobtail? Only if they don't return the truck! Otherwise, it's just a contractual or employment dispute between the truck owner and the driver. The firm I'm familiar with will fire a driver for excessive bobtailing. But they sure can't send the driver to jail for it.
Trucks have extra rules passenger cars don't have. One is that they must follow truck routes, so they aren't dragging giant trailers through clogged intersections causing more gridlock, hauling heavy loads over restricted bridges, or blocking narrow streets, causing safety issues or other traffic problems. A GPS tracker will record every road the trucker drives, and report on any violations.
When a shortcut over a narrow bridge through a residential area might save you 30 minutes, and the tracker is the only thing keeping you from taking that shortcut and delivering your load on time, well, it's hardly your fault if the bloody thing stops working, right?
You may think TV Detector Vans a) exist
But I know they exist! I saw one on Monty Python! Or was that The Young Ones? (Yes, we have a bloody video!)
No, that was a Cat Detector Van.
Look, it's people like you what cause unrest!
Do you know what it's called? I could look it up in our databases, and see if we have it (in the botanic garden, or in the seedbank).
I wish I remembered. It was about 10 years ago, and my son's scout troop did a service project harvesting some geum triflorum (prairie smoke) seeds for the ranger. They were drying them out for distribution to prairie restoration projects. We stored them in a shed, and as we delivered the seeds he told us of this other nearby endangered flower that they had no success transplanting. It might have been "Frenchman's Bluff moonwort".
Look at OWASP and SANS. Every entry in their databases indicates someone who got smarter and figured out a new hole to exploit. And their databases are growing as attackers learn more and exploit more.
And yes, coders are still making mistakes that others have made. They have failed to learn, and that's what OWASP is trying to prevent. But there are certainly new attacks coming out. Why? Because as systems grow in complexity, unforeseen interactions between the components create vulnerabilities. And there's a background floor of people willing to enable internal attacks via social engineering.
And don't forget that as long as old attacks continue to work, attackers are often too busy exploiting the successful attacks to bother researching new ones.
What I'd conclude instead is that complexity enables attacks, the rate of attacks would follow that of the rate of increase in complexity. Since complexity seems to be on the increase, I would expect to see attacks on the increase.
You just described the plot of "The Invention of Lying", a clever Ricky Gervais movie about a society where trust is 100%, and he discovers he can abuse this by lying.
You don't need to run fast, just faster then the next person...
In this case, you just have to outrun the plant.
I absolutely agree with you that threatened plants should be preserved. There is a problem, though, and that is some plants are very adapted to a tiny environmental niche. By way of example, there are prairie flowers here in Minnesota that grow only on the south side of sandy glacial moraines in a few mile radius from Glendalough State Park. According to park rangers, efforts to plant them in cultivation elsewhere have failed, as have efforts to transplant them elsewhere in the state. It's something about the soil, the drainage, the natural fertilizers, the rain, the light, the humidity, the temperatures, the snowfall, the bugs, the freezing, all coming together so intricately that nobody knows which environmental cues are required to grow them.
Overall, this plant does not have great survival traits. And as such, I'd guess that such a plant isn't adding much to the ecosystem. But as often happens with wildflowers, there may be a certain pollinator that is finely adapted to it, meaning that if the plant dies, that specialized moth/fly/insect may die with it. So while the plant may not be directly critical to humans, it's still having some impact on its environment.
In terms of "what is the most important plant to save", this wouldn't be at the top of the list. And in terms of "if we have storage space to save only 100,000 different seeds, so let's save the ones we know we can grow back", it also won't make the cut. But in terms of "what plants are so threatened that we should preserve their seeds while a few still exist?" it might make that list.
Though, unless I'm mistaken, the reason the magazines are there is that they make everything go easier for the staff.
Based on my son's past experiences with the Urgent Care clinic we use, the magazines there are already filled with easy-going staph.
I almost want to snort their disinfecting foam after just walking through the place. The thought of even touching a waiting-room tablet makes my anti-bodies all tingly.
I'm going to start a fundraising campaign to assassinate every world leader.
In other news: Crowdtilt was just shut down.
Art Bell, is that you?
The number of people being able to afford one is irrelevant. There are always wealthy people who can afford something that the poor cannot.
The question about the savings of keeping less paper are perfectly on target. Assuming the paper is recycled (either after scanning or after you've kept it for the required seven years) that part's a wash. They still printed and mailed you the paper, and you still handled it and disposed of it. There is no savings one way or the other based on how long you keep it.
The only actual savings is incurred if you change residences. Not having to move seven boxes of old papers is perhaps worth a few cents of your time and some truck fuel.
The other "savings" claimed is convenience. Having a searchable back index of these pieces of paper might have some value, but only if you actually need to refer back to them. And that's the deal. I have a box of paper marked "2006" in the closet, filled with receipts, bills, tax forms, etc. How often do I go back to that? Never. So how often would I need to refer back to the electronic version of the same data? Never. It's a box of pre-recycling scrap paper that I store only because I may need it in case of a future tax audit. Otherwise, doing anything with it is a waste of my time and effort.
Next January, I'll spend an hour in front of the shredder getting rid of the contents of that box. Even that's no different than spending a minute a week shredding them after scanning them, really. Now, a scanner/shredder combination might be a lower-effort way of handling them, but that's not the product we're looking at. Plus, I shred in bulk, which is a lot faster than shredding a sheet at a time while scanning it.
So I completely agree with you. Overall, scanning these papers would be a step that delivers no benefit to me, yet costs me in terms of time and money.
That sounds exactly like the stuff. It was about 10-20 years ago that they were working on it. Very cool idea.
The thing is the forces exerted on boat hulls by the water are completely different than those on a helicopter rotor blade. A big slow moving boat in dense water is not at all like a blade spinning at near the speed of sound in thin air, being hit by sharpened grains of quartz. It would take a completely different materials technology to make it work.
I'm imagining bonding a sheet of saran wrap onto a helicopter blade, but I expect the centripetal forces and wind shear would throw the stuff off at the slightest bit of damage. If a large sheet peeled off one rotor but not the other my helicopter-flying friend assures me that he would not be interested in test piloting a recovery strategy.
Casting it into the surface during manufacture would probably work well, as would etching or cutting it afterward. But I don't see a coating technology being very compatible with helicopter blades. Even paint doesn't last all that long on rotor blades.
Actually, breaking up the surface is a well known technique for reducing drag. I know a company that makes a very finely etched plastic laminate for applying to the hulls of racing schooners specifically to reduce drag. It wasn't modeled on biomimetic material ( as far as I know) but it's the same idea.
Of course their current laminates wouldn't withstand dust. They're made for water.
To quote Vizzini from The Princess Bride, "You'd like to think that, wouldn't you!?!"
Oh, and it might just indicate a judge who is trying to provoke each side to elicit a statement revealing hidden intentions. Someone carelessly uttering a "yeah, we knew this part was wrong, but ...", or a "Fair Use doesn't apply to digital" kind of statement. I don't think either side of this case is being represented by Amateur Hour at the Bar, however, so that's unlikely to yield fruit.
Usually it means a well-informed judge, one who is taking a very active interest and is trying hard to understand the evidence. I would say it's a "good" thing because the ruling is likely to be based on a fair interpretation of both the law and facts. That doesn't mean it will weigh towards either the plaintiff or defendant, but that the ruling will be seen as solid.
We should let Capitol dismantle the first sale doctrine, and you know why? The movie and record industries are America's most important source of everything! They bring in billions of dollars, and movies like Transformers underpin the very heart of what it is to be America.
I see you got the form letter back from your Senator, too.
Regarding the rest of your post, mock threats against senators just aren't as funny as they used to be. Pick on crazy Asian dictators instead, they're still in style today.
A hot bench is when the judge has a lot of questions for the lawyers.
What happened is the judge decided that "if the plaintiff keeps doing what they're doing, they are not doing so much damage that they will send Capitol Records into bankruptcy." This ruling only means they won't be taken down today.
If Redigi loses the case, though, the judge will still hold them liable for any actions for the entire time they've been operating.
It's a good sign for Redigi that the judge doesn't think the damages are so astronomically high that they would bankrupt Capitol. But it says nothing about the potential outcome of the suit.