Frankly I wouldn't trust anything Microsoft says when promoting their products:
I don't think I'll ever forgive them for claiming IE8 supports all of CSS 2.1 and some things that aren't in the standard, since IE8 doesn't understand max-height.
It's somewhat like telling someone something personal that is relevant to the conversation at hand, on their guarantee that they tell no one else. Then 6 months later they sell the story to a newspaper without your consent.
But would the fine still be for each individual violation? The difference between 5 million Euros and 50 thousand is unimportant when you can't even afford the lower rate.
Sorry, as soon as you said "unencumbered by DRM" I remembered Sony's Spiderman soundtrack (as well as a few other albums at the time, e.g. Depeche Mode's Playing The Angel) and stopped reading.
I greatly look forward to every car company, bank and lock manufacturer investing huge amounts of money into this.
I also greatly look forward to being mugged for my phone, and realising that not only do I need a new phone and phone number, but to replace the locks to my house, car and office, as well as re-registering with the bank.
I also await with great enthusiasm the moment that Apple sues every manufacturer of competing products, essentially taking over the entire planet's security.
Besides that, will I still be allowed to watch porn on my keys?
But I wasn't meaning that the tech-savvy could easily get around the legislation, more that if, for example, Pirate Bay was taken done, Pirate Buoy would be up within a few hours.
"The Lords also let through any bill which is an implementation of the ruling party's last manifesto."
Well that seems fair enough. If a party is elected then their manifesto has been democratically approved by the public. It would be stupid to stand in the way of that.
Unless it's Fair Use/Dealing... They really need to change those laws so that they take into account consumer rights a bit more - for example, I have trouble using some software because of the stupid DRM, so it should be considered fair use for me to rip the CDs purely so that I can actually run the software.
In a way he is right, but for two key reasons:
1) Users who don't understand or care about internet privacy, and applications such as Facebook make you share by default.
2) Users who do care about privacy cannot change all of the privacy settings on applications such as Facebook.
Basically, yes, we do default to sharing, but only because we are forced to share even if we don't want to.
So, it violates child protection laws, meaning that if they are implemented children will not be allowed to be scanned, so terrorists will just use children.
By the admission of the Home Secretary, it would have had at most a 60% chance of catching the guy who attempting the bombing on Christmas Day.
It's taking "naked pictures" of people against their will.
We have no idea as to the safety of the devices, the concequences of repeated exposure.
Why are we implementing these, again?
Or a squirrel its nuts.
Hmmm, maybe when he said "consumers" he didn't mean "customers" but rather "those who will consume the purchasers of our products" (i.e. themselves.)
What of DRM in general, where if you resell the physical goods or the liscense the person buying it won't be able to run the software?
I'd love it if someone could set a precedent making DRM essentially illegal.
Only one word springs to mind here: Why? I had a sim card that didn't support MMS. Did it cripple my phone with MMS capabilities, by imposing restrictions? No, it just didn't work because the service wasn't supported as a feature. What's wrong with that system?
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly I wouldn't trust anything Microsoft says when promoting their products: I don't think I'll ever forgive them for claiming IE8 supports all of CSS 2.1 and some things that aren't in the standard, since IE8 doesn't understand max-height.
It's somewhat like telling someone something personal that is relevant to the conversation at hand, on their guarantee that they tell no one else. Then 6 months later they sell the story to a newspaper without your consent.
But would the fine still be for each individual violation? The difference between 5 million Euros and 50 thousand is unimportant when you can't even afford the lower rate.
Perhaps, if it isn't the case already, they will demand that anyone willing to share the service buys a license.
Not only that, but it will always be their games console which you have paid to borrow.
For the next episode they should replace every single word in the script with "Muhammad"
Whoops - wasn't logged in.
So, it's a new iteration of those self-sustaining reactors we shut down years ago?
No, no that's not possible.
Search your feelings, you know it to be true!
Sorry, as soon as you said "unencumbered by DRM" I remembered Sony's Spiderman soundtrack (as well as a few other albums at the time, e.g. Depeche Mode's Playing The Angel) and stopped reading.
I greatly look forward to every car company, bank and lock manufacturer investing huge amounts of money into this.
I also greatly look forward to being mugged for my phone, and realising that not only do I need a new phone and phone number, but to replace the locks to my house, car and office, as well as re-registering with the bank.
I also await with great enthusiasm the moment that Apple sues every manufacturer of competing products, essentially taking over the entire planet's security.
Besides that, will I still be allowed to watch porn on my keys?
But I wasn't meaning that the tech-savvy could easily get around the legislation, more that if, for example, Pirate Bay was taken done, Pirate Buoy would be up within a few hours.
Home taping is killing music!
But when a site is blocked or taken down, another will pop up. It will never stop. New sites will always appear.
"The Lords also let through any bill which is an implementation of the ruling party's last manifesto." Well that seems fair enough. If a party is elected then their manifesto has been democratically approved by the public. It would be stupid to stand in the way of that.
This is... patently ridiculous. I'll get my coat.
Unless it's Fair Use/Dealing... They really need to change those laws so that they take into account consumer rights a bit more - for example, I have trouble using some software because of the stupid DRM, so it should be considered fair use for me to rip the CDs purely so that I can actually run the software.
In a way he is right, but for two key reasons: 1) Users who don't understand or care about internet privacy, and applications such as Facebook make you share by default. 2) Users who do care about privacy cannot change all of the privacy settings on applications such as Facebook. Basically, yes, we do default to sharing, but only because we are forced to share even if we don't want to.
So, it violates child protection laws, meaning that if they are implemented children will not be allowed to be scanned, so terrorists will just use children. By the admission of the Home Secretary, it would have had at most a 60% chance of catching the guy who attempting the bombing on Christmas Day. It's taking "naked pictures" of people against their will. We have no idea as to the safety of the devices, the concequences of repeated exposure. Why are we implementing these, again?
But if the actual content is not a threat to national security, couldn't any attempts to arrest the leaker for distributing the document be appealed?
What about MyFace and, god forbid, BookSpace?
Or a squirrel its nuts. Hmmm, maybe when he said "consumers" he didn't mean "customers" but rather "those who will consume the purchasers of our products" (i.e. themselves.)
Personally, I blame the rap music.
What of DRM in general, where if you resell the physical goods or the liscense the person buying it won't be able to run the software? I'd love it if someone could set a precedent making DRM essentially illegal.
Only one word springs to mind here: Why? I had a sim card that didn't support MMS. Did it cripple my phone with MMS capabilities, by imposing restrictions? No, it just didn't work because the service wasn't supported as a feature. What's wrong with that system?