It's a little bit different than that. A DMCA takedown request is a statement that the submitter of the request is (a) an agent of someone who owns some IP, and (b) the material targeted by the request is believed to infringe on that IP. Not quite the same thing. If I have a copyrighted song and you use it in a video, everyone knows I don't have copyright on your video but your video can be infringing on my song copyright, and I could file a DMCA request on that basis.
The weak spot is "believed to infringe", since it's pretty durn hard to prove that I didn't actually believe something, even if that belief is proven later to be incorrect.
You're being a bit more literal than the general populace on this one.
From Merriam-Webster: Full Definition of WITCH HUNT 1 : a searching out for persecution of persons accused of witchcraft 2 : the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views
depends on the definition of "express authorization". Is "It's not against FAA regs if you avoid these situations" an express authorization, or does it take a piece of paper signed by the FAA saying "you are allowed to fly drones"?
seems like it should be possible for backblaze to store whatever encrypted data (including the PEM file) without the passkey that can open the PEM file ever entering their system. Of course, then my client has to do all the encryption/decryption, but then again, if I care whether the passkey leaves my system I'm probably willing to pay that price.
Of course, it's entirely possible that that's exactly how it's handled when using a non-web client... in which case I would just avoid the website.
Disk is cheap. Time is valuable. Whether it's more valuable to you than disk is your call. I personally think I'd rather spend my weekend doing other stuff than curate my photos. Maybe it's lazy, maybe it's prioritizing my time. Again, subjective call. (Personally, I think it's about 50/50:)
... that has used their website so far. They've only got 24000ish data points; I can well believe that at this stage, small correlations result in apparently weird results. Give them a few million samples and I bet that those factors won't make you unique anymore.
It's required if you want to use ARIN's data. Those who choose not to agree are simply not using that data, with the consequence that they are less effective at validating route origin identity.
getting a vaccination is not a 100% guarantee of immunity. If, for whatever reason, the immune system's reaction to the vaccine is weak, it won't ramp up as fast in the case of real exposure, and may not completely prevent infection. The resulting infection will probably be weaker than for an unvaccinated victim, but can still be trasmittable.
Not to mention the possibility of just carrying the virus around when not actually infected, a la Typhoid Mary.
It's more like "You didn't vaccinate, so you are a threat to the ones that cannot vaccinate because they're allergic, or too young, and the ones who did vaccinate but had a weak reaction, so their immune system won't ramp up fast enough to completely prevent infection."
I think the gripe with 14 shots at age 2 is the belief that getting poked with needles that many times is painful and must be life-alteringly traumatic. I'll admit, getting stuck with a needle isn't particularly comfortable, but I wouldn't call it painful when done by an experienced professional. Of course, I have many years of experience in painful situations to compare it against, which a 2 year old doesn't.
True, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but it's weak evidence. It reduces the probability somewhat, but not a whole lot, and certainly not to zero. Stronger evidence of absence could exist, but we don't get to see it.
which only proves that if they've done it they've successfully suppressed reporting of it. Certainly, you can assert and I can hope that they wouldn't... but neither of us can really prove it.
You're right, I was mistaken. The difference I was thinking of is that the defendant is presumed to have spoken falsely unless they can prove otherwise. My error.
It may be something about being in France that allows "messes with my business plan" to be actionable, sort of like how in the UK truth can still be defamation.
Slashdot Mirror
Since TFS does not contain that word, I assume you mean TFA, which uses it in only one place. So which part of Mexico do you live in?
I also use TaxAct. They charge for other stuff too, like State taxes, but I have no problem with that.
which security issue is addressed by "the first rule of Dev Club is you cannot talk about the rules of Dev Club"?
That's why he suggested the stuff doesn't actually get removed until it's been determined to infringe.
It's a little bit different than that. A DMCA takedown request is a statement that the submitter of the request is (a) an agent of someone who owns some IP, and (b) the material targeted by the request is believed to infringe on that IP. Not quite the same thing. If I have a copyrighted song and you use it in a video, everyone knows I don't have copyright on your video but your video can be infringing on my song copyright, and I could file a DMCA request on that basis.
The weak spot is "believed to infringe", since it's pretty durn hard to prove that I didn't actually believe something, even if that belief is proven later to be incorrect.
woo, free title insurance :) Wait... I bet that's _lender_ title insurance, isn't it? well, at least it's free.
You're being a bit more literal than the general populace on this one.
From Merriam-Webster:
Full Definition of WITCH HUNT
1
: a searching out for persecution of persons accused of witchcraft
2
: the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views
depends on the definition of "express authorization". Is "It's not against FAA regs if you avoid these situations" an express authorization, or does it take a piece of paper signed by the FAA saying "you are allowed to fly drones"?
seems like it should be possible for backblaze to store whatever encrypted data (including the PEM file) without the passkey that can open the PEM file ever entering their system. Of course, then my client has to do all the encryption/decryption, but then again, if I care whether the passkey leaves my system I'm probably willing to pay that price.
Of course, it's entirely possible that that's exactly how it's handled when using a non-web client... in which case I would just avoid the website.
Disk is cheap. Time is valuable. Whether it's more valuable to you than disk is your call. I personally think I'd rather spend my weekend doing other stuff than curate my photos. Maybe it's lazy, maybe it's prioritizing my time. Again, subjective call. (Personally, I think it's about 50/50 :)
definitely true, but also beware of buying a hammer and starting to see glass stuff as nails
... that has used their website so far. They've only got 24000ish data points; I can well believe that at this stage, small correlations result in apparently weird results. Give them a few million samples and I bet that those factors won't make you unique anymore.
They were to him. Pretty much nobody believes they are a villain, even if the rest of the world disagrees.
It's required if you want to use ARIN's data. Those who choose not to agree are simply not using that data, with the consequence that they are less effective at validating route origin identity.
getting a vaccination is not a 100% guarantee of immunity. If, for whatever reason, the immune system's reaction to the vaccine is weak, it won't ramp up as fast in the case of real exposure, and may not completely prevent infection. The resulting infection will probably be weaker than for an unvaccinated victim, but can still be trasmittable.
Not to mention the possibility of just carrying the virus around when not actually infected, a la Typhoid Mary.
It's more like "You didn't vaccinate, so you are a threat to the ones that cannot vaccinate because they're allergic, or too young, and the ones who did vaccinate but had a weak reaction, so their immune system won't ramp up fast enough to completely prevent infection."
I think the gripe with 14 shots at age 2 is the belief that getting poked with needles that many times is painful and must be life-alteringly traumatic. I'll admit, getting stuck with a needle isn't particularly comfortable, but I wouldn't call it painful when done by an experienced professional. Of course, I have many years of experience in painful situations to compare it against, which a 2 year old doesn't.
True, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but it's weak evidence. It reduces the probability somewhat, but not a whole lot, and certainly not to zero. Stronger evidence of absence could exist, but we don't get to see it.
"Sure, Joe the Cop smelled something funny, traced it to this car, arrested the driver, and found incriminating papers under the seat."
In the house, yes. Does the senate also have a veto-proof margin? (Has the senate even voted on this yet? All I see is the House figures.)
which only proves that if they've done it they've successfully suppressed reporting of it. Certainly, you can assert and I can hope that they wouldn't... but neither of us can really prove it.
Hardly. But they can still be better than those they're regulating.
You're right, I was mistaken. The difference I was thinking of is that the defendant is presumed to have spoken falsely unless they can prove otherwise. My error.
Thanks, also, for the interesting pointer.
It may be something about being in France that allows "messes with my business plan" to be actionable, sort of like how in the UK truth can still be defamation.
They're probably paid extra, in the sense of "you can sign and get the package, or you can not sign and not get any package."