.... then I probably wouldn't want to get the movie particularly early anyways.
So, no.
I have a home theatre setup at my place... large screen, an old-fashioned popcorn maker, comfortable seating and I *STILL* prefer going to the theatre for certain movies.
While that may (or may not) be a defense against having to actually *pay* damages, being awarded damages for being sued for piracy does not depend on whether or not you are innocent of the accusation, or even that it only *may* have been you who had done it, but only because it is unreasonable for the accuser to conclude that you may have done it in the first place because you do not actually live there.
My point being that the bar for getting awarded damages for the accused is actually pretty high... at least it will, however, ensure that the studios are suing somebody who lives at the right address.
That wasn't what happened, however. The court determined that it was unreasonable for the studio to continue to pursue litigation when they knew that the person did not live there (irrespective of whether or not he was innocent), and that is why he was awarded damages.
The standard for showing that the person was falsely accused is pretty high, however... if he had resided at the location in question instead of simply being the operator of the facility, it probably wouldn't have gone the way it did.
Technically nothing, but bragging about it is nothing less than highly juvenile, and while Trump has since apologized for those particular statements, his general behavior and attitude today does not convince me that he has since acquired any great amount of maturity since the time that he made the remark. So as far as I can tell, the USA has basically elected someone with the maturity of a 14 year old as their president, and the next 4 years could be... uhmm... very interesting.
Maryam Monsef, Trudeau's cabinet minister in question, was quite young when her family went to Afghanistan from Iran, and as she grew older, she had forgotten about the relocation and believed that Afghanistan was where she was originally from. Her parents did not correct this matter when she filled in "Afghanistan" as her place of birth on her application form for refugee status, and at the time, this was true to the best of her knowledge. When her mother since admitted to her that she was actually born in Iran, it would certainly have invalidated her otherwise legitimate status as a refugee on a technicality, since there was false information declared on the application form. Trudeau, however, saw the matter differently, saying that people should conflate this situation with "very deliberate acts of omission or dishonesty in trying to get Canadian citizenship through fraudulent declarations or attestations." Monsef could be considered extraordinarily lucky in this regard, however, because it is certainly the case that some people's citizenship has been revoked for the exact same reasons.... and it is inarguably unfair to those other people in that regard, but by all standards in Canada, Monsef herself is *not* an illegal immigrant.
So, unfair, most certainly... but not against the law. If being unfair were actually illegal, the world would be extraordinarily different from what it is.
Every other report that I can find of this news anywhere on the web links back to Sammobile, who says that they can somehow "exclusively confirm" this, but does not mention *how*, exactly, that they were able to confirm it... The only reasons that I can imagine that they would not give this information are if they had acquired it by doing something of questionable legality and almost certainly unethical, or else they are just making shit up.
Maybe it's bullshit, and maybe not... but something's definitely not right here, and I think it's socially irresponsible to propagate this kind of story when it can't be confirmed.
... posting hyperlinks to pirated copies of material is only legal provided it is done without knowledge that they are unauthorized versions
How is a someone who has been taken to court over this but never knew that the content they linked to was infringing supposed to prove that they didn't know that the content was unauthorized?
Or, assuming that they are treated as innocent until proven guilty, how is the court supposed to prove that a person knew that the content they wanted to link to was unauthorized to get a conviction?
While I honestly do admire the apparent theoretical intent of this kind of this law, because there's no way to know what goes on inside anyone else's head, I can't see how this sort of thing can hope to work as its wording might suggest.
Uh. No. legit access stops as soon as he is terminated. Still having an old house key to a place that you used to live does not entitle you to go into that house uninvited at your own discretion
Although no official statements (to the best of my knowledge) to the effect that Slackware will never have systemd have been made, it's a pretty safe bet that if Slackware ever does start using systemd, Bob will be leaving Slackware and forking it into another systemd-free distro so fast that I expect nobody else will be able to tell which was the cause and which was the effect.
I actually don't favor government surveillance nor a lack of privacy... I just don't automatically assume that the mere possibility of such in a cashless society would necessarily result in either. By similar reasoning, I don't assume that the fact I might be enabling the chance I could get hit by a car on my way to work by walking to the bus stop that is 5 blocks away and having to cross a very busy road on the way is necessarily going to result in my getting hit by a car either.
My point, however, remains... that the original assumption that I was trying to address about who would favor a cashless society is incorrect, as I neither work for the bank or government, nor do I have any incentive to see either achieve any particular gain through a cashless society.
Of course, it's probably so much simpler to just throw labels around at people that you disagree with rather than to realize that a motivation in someone else might be driven by factors that are not so trivially categorized.
Actually, because of collimation, you don't have to shift your focus to read a HUD if it has been properly designed, so the argument about having to change focal distances between outside and inside is generally a moot.
... stuff onto the road because it will only distract and confuse other people. On a closed course, that might be fine, but when you are sharing the road with other drivers, there is just way too much that can go wrong with this (with potentially fatal consequences).
If you want to help the motorist with tech like this, put a HUD inside of the car that will show the necessary info on the windshield to the driver, because there is no reason for anyone outside of the car to see that shit.
It makes perfect sense when you realize that if someone steals cash, the thief receives an effective reward for their behavior, but if all they steal are cards that require a PIN to utilize, then the perpetrator has nothing of value that they can use, along with an increased chance of getting caught if they were to ever *try* and use the cards compared to spending cash. As carrying no cash becomes increasingly common, it leads to the actual reduction of such crimes, because the risk/reward ratio is raised to to much higher levels, resulting in safer streets, at all times of day, for everyone. Rather than making things safer through increased policing, which would be characteristic of fascism, it makes things safer by reducing the availability of the incentive to commit those types of crimes in the first place.
My point being that not everyone who would like a cashless society is necessarily working for the bank or government.
It is further my own perception that much of the paranoia regarding such a system is unfounded... While one may theoretically be more trackable, but in general, you, I, and most other people are simply not important enough for anyone else to want to pay attention to - a metaphorical needle in a haystack, as it were... the average law abiding person is going to fall so far below the radar of being interesting enough for anyone to even *want* to investigate that it will simply never be an issue in their lifetime.
Why would I pay to download episodes on itunes or whatnot of the same TV shows that I can stream entirely legally for a week following the broadcast from the tv station's website? While I do have to put up with commercials, the online ads seem to be nowhere near as insufferably long or as frequent as the ads seem to be on television these days (although they are unarguably more repetitive).
Okay, I was curious... I am dubious of anyone who presumes to know my political leanings unless they do personally know me. For what it's worth, neither "liberal" nor "conservative" would apply to me.
Slashdot Mirror
So, no.
I have a home theatre setup at my place... large screen, an old-fashioned popcorn maker, comfortable seating and I *STILL* prefer going to the theatre for certain movies.
While that may (or may not) be a defense against having to actually *pay* damages, being awarded damages for being sued for piracy does not depend on whether or not you are innocent of the accusation, or even that it only *may* have been you who had done it, but only because it is unreasonable for the accuser to conclude that you may have done it in the first place because you do not actually live there.
My point being that the bar for getting awarded damages for the accused is actually pretty high... at least it will, however, ensure that the studios are suing somebody who lives at the right address.
So saying by March 2017 isn't really that out of sync.
That wasn't what happened, however. The court determined that it was unreasonable for the studio to continue to pursue litigation when they knew that the person did not live there (irrespective of whether or not he was innocent), and that is why he was awarded damages.
The standard for showing that the person was falsely accused is pretty high, however... if he had resided at the location in question instead of simply being the operator of the facility, it probably wouldn't have gone the way it did.
Considering how low the bar was set with Harper, that does not say much.
Technically nothing, but bragging about it is nothing less than highly juvenile, and while Trump has since apologized for those particular statements, his general behavior and attitude today does not convince me that he has since acquired any great amount of maturity since the time that he made the remark. So as far as I can tell, the USA has basically elected someone with the maturity of a 14 year old as their president, and the next 4 years could be... uhmm... very interesting.
Maryam Monsef, Trudeau's cabinet minister in question, was quite young when her family went to Afghanistan from Iran, and as she grew older, she had forgotten about the relocation and believed that Afghanistan was where she was originally from. Her parents did not correct this matter when she filled in "Afghanistan" as her place of birth on her application form for refugee status, and at the time, this was true to the best of her knowledge. When her mother since admitted to her that she was actually born in Iran, it would certainly have invalidated her otherwise legitimate status as a refugee on a technicality, since there was false information declared on the application form. Trudeau, however, saw the matter differently, saying that people should conflate this situation with "very deliberate acts of omission or dishonesty in trying to get Canadian citizenship through fraudulent declarations or attestations." Monsef could be considered extraordinarily lucky in this regard, however, because it is certainly the case that some people's citizenship has been revoked for the exact same reasons.... and it is inarguably unfair to those other people in that regard, but by all standards in Canada, Monsef herself is *not* an illegal immigrant.
So, unfair, most certainly... but not against the law. If being unfair were actually illegal, the world would be extraordinarily different from what it is.
I see what you did there. :)
Every other report that I can find of this news anywhere on the web links back to Sammobile, who says that they can somehow "exclusively confirm" this, but does not mention *how*, exactly, that they were able to confirm it... The only reasons that I can imagine that they would not give this information are if they had acquired it by doing something of questionable legality and almost certainly unethical, or else they are just making shit up.
Maybe it's bullshit, and maybe not... but something's definitely not right here, and I think it's socially irresponsible to propagate this kind of story when it can't be confirmed.
... that a recent court decision had determined that Samsung was *NOT* really copying Apple. I guess this clears that up.
That depends on whether the defendant is in a civil or criminal case.
How is a someone who has been taken to court over this but never knew that the content they linked to was infringing supposed to prove that they didn't know that the content was unauthorized?
Or, assuming that they are treated as innocent until proven guilty, how is the court supposed to prove that a person knew that the content they wanted to link to was unauthorized to get a conviction?
While I honestly do admire the apparent theoretical intent of this kind of this law, because there's no way to know what goes on inside anyone else's head, I can't see how this sort of thing can hope to work as its wording might suggest.
Uh. No. legit access stops as soon as he is terminated. Still having an old house key to a place that you used to live does not entitle you to go into that house uninvited at your own discretion
That could be easily exploited to DOS a credit card
Although no official statements (to the best of my knowledge) to the effect that Slackware will never have systemd have been made, it's a pretty safe bet that if Slackware ever does start using systemd, Bob will be leaving Slackware and forking it into another systemd-free distro so fast that I expect nobody else will be able to tell which was the cause and which was the effect.
I actually don't favor government surveillance nor a lack of privacy... I just don't automatically assume that the mere possibility of such in a cashless society would necessarily result in either. By similar reasoning, I don't assume that the fact I might be enabling the chance I could get hit by a car on my way to work by walking to the bus stop that is 5 blocks away and having to cross a very busy road on the way is necessarily going to result in my getting hit by a car either.
My point, however, remains... that the original assumption that I was trying to address about who would favor a cashless society is incorrect, as I neither work for the bank or government, nor do I have any incentive to see either achieve any particular gain through a cashless society.
Of course, it's probably so much simpler to just throw labels around at people that you disagree with rather than to realize that a motivation in someone else might be driven by factors that are not so trivially categorized.
... the difference between innocent content and encrypted content that uses steganography to appear innocent?
Thanks.
Apparently.... so we'll leave it there.
Actually, because of collimation, you don't have to shift your focus to read a HUD if it has been properly designed, so the argument about having to change focal distances between outside and inside is generally a moot.
If you want to help the motorist with tech like this, put a HUD inside of the car that will show the necessary info on the windshield to the driver, because there is no reason for anyone outside of the car to see that shit.
It makes perfect sense when you realize that if someone steals cash, the thief receives an effective reward for their behavior, but if all they steal are cards that require a PIN to utilize, then the perpetrator has nothing of value that they can use, along with an increased chance of getting caught if they were to ever *try* and use the cards compared to spending cash. As carrying no cash becomes increasingly common, it leads to the actual reduction of such crimes, because the risk/reward ratio is raised to to much higher levels, resulting in safer streets, at all times of day, for everyone. Rather than making things safer through increased policing, which would be characteristic of fascism, it makes things safer by reducing the availability of the incentive to commit those types of crimes in the first place.
My point being that not everyone who would like a cashless society is necessarily working for the bank or government.
It is further my own perception that much of the paranoia regarding such a system is unfounded... While one may theoretically be more trackable, but in general, you, I, and most other people are simply not important enough for anyone else to want to pay attention to - a metaphorical needle in a haystack, as it were... the average law abiding person is going to fall so far below the radar of being interesting enough for anyone to even *want* to investigate that it will simply never be an issue in their lifetime.
All I can say is *DUH*.
Why would I pay to download episodes on itunes or whatnot of the same TV shows that I can stream entirely legally for a week following the broadcast from the tv station's website? While I do have to put up with commercials, the online ads seem to be nowhere near as insufferably long or as frequent as the ads seem to be on television these days (although they are unarguably more repetitive).
Okay, I was curious... I am dubious of anyone who presumes to know my political leanings unless they do personally know me. For what it's worth, neither "liberal" nor "conservative" would apply to me.
"liberal"???