The FAA covers airspace from elevation 0 up (FAA myths). They currently don't bother with noncommercial hobby stuff if it's under something like 500 feet and not otherwise being a pain, but they could if they wanted to deal with the paperwork.
Eh. Getty probably still pays the photographer. They make it back on (hopefully) licensing fees from folks who see the pictures and want to do more with them and (more likely) ads.
I don't know if my company does this. I wouldn't be surprised if they do; many folks have already mentioned reasons why it might be desirable (for them) that aren't malicious.
But I want to know whether it's happening so I can decide if I want to change my behavior. How would I go about checking for such things on a Windows 7 Professional laptop?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q... has an explanation of how to do it in such a way that the existence of a person in the middle can be detected. It boils down to "A flips a coin while sending each photon, B flips a coin when receiving each photon, they ignore photons where the coins came up differently, and if the bits where the coins were the same are perturbed by an eavesdropper, messages will be corrupted visibly." Yeah, comparing the coins is out of band, but it doesn't have to be secure because the attacker can't go back and use that information; the photons have flown already. This shows that the _real_ strength of it is that the photon stream the key gets derived from can't be recorded.
if it succeeds in its stated goals, there will be less thefts, therefore they won't get as many replacing-stolen-phone sales. And there will be less phones out there, because the stolen ones will be bricks, so less phone plans get sold. They lose money on both ends. (Yeah, they think of "a reduction in possible future profits" as "a loss".)
They've also decided that it covers production of stuff for personal use (specifically, growing corn in your back yard), because that affects whether you would buy it from a market which could include selling across state lines. So in practice, the ICC means they can regulate anything.
The warrant question is not for the tracking, it's for entering the house without consent. They didn't want to get a warrant because they didn't want to tell a judge how they found the house. Now the evidence they gained by entering the house is tainted and excluded. The moral is they were frigging stupid to use equipment they couldn't tell a judge about.
Then you should also ban GPS units. Or is there some significant difference between a phone GPS app in a handsfree mount and a Garmin GPS appliance? The studies I've heard of that address your point are still talking about conversation, not GPS usage.
The danger of inattention, though, is linked to the speed of the vehicle. No movement, no extra danger. A stopped car is a stopped car whether the driver is checking his mirrors every second or asleep. If the situation changes and he doesn't notice that he can become un-stopped, I'm sure the drivers around him will be sure to let him know, but until then, his behavior does not affect anyone's danger level.
In the US, there is no blame. The program noticed something; that's enough for the company to claim a good faith belief, at which point they're off the hook beyond (maybe) legal costs. And until a judge decides that the program's crappy enough that they should know better than to believe it, they have no motivation to improve it.
apparently the 'win' is that the label in question, as part of the settlement, has to agree to improve their processes. Not as good as a legal precedent, but a lot cheaper.
Oh, you wouldn't get busted for the format shift. You'd get busted for circumventing the DRM, which is itself illegal. Note that the permission to format shift is not described as a 'right', either in the post you're responding to or in the linked article section; it is described as an exception to existing law. Similarly, "fair use" is not described as a right in US law; it is an affirmative defense. You have to show that what you're doing is fair use, and if you succeed they get no damages. And similarly, you still can't circumvent the DRM to do so.
actually, as far as I can tell, you never said you weren't recording. Nor, according to your hypothetical script, did you necessarily wait to hear my question before kicking my ass. Did I miss some detail or a different post?
I think his theory is that at any time, only half of the moon is in sunshine, whereas if the panels were in orbit they could be placed to always be in sunshine. It seems to me that having them on the moon might (emphasis on might) make maintenance somewhat easier, and as long as there's enough panel area in the lit half, it's good enough, but as he says paying for both a lit half and an unlit half adds up.
I would put Cogent on the network provider side. They store bits, they shovel bits, they don't care whether those bits encode Star Trek or Futurama or Dale and Tucker Versus Evil. (Unless they have a stake in Paramount that I haven't heard of:)
I haven't been getting stoppage/buffering with Netflix, but I've been thinking I was getting lower video quality than I'm used to, which could be a less severe result of packet loss. I have definitely been getting a crapload of buffering with Amazon Instant Video, though.
Slashdot Mirror
The FAA covers airspace from elevation 0 up (FAA myths). They currently don't bother with noncommercial hobby stuff if it's under something like 500 feet and not otherwise being a pain, but they could if they wanted to deal with the paperwork.
I think a closer analogy would be getting the DoT involved when your RC car freaks out the neighbor's dog.
Eh. Getty probably still pays the photographer. They make it back on (hopefully) licensing fees from folks who see the pictures and want to do more with them and (more likely) ads.
Exactly what I needed. Thanks :)
That would simplify matters, but it doesn't really answer my question. Thanks, though :)
I don't know if my company does this. I wouldn't be surprised if they do; many folks have already mentioned reasons why it might be desirable (for them) that aren't malicious.
But I want to know whether it's happening so I can decide if I want to change my behavior. How would I go about checking for such things on a Windows 7 Professional laptop?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q... has an explanation of how to do it in such a way that the existence of a person in the middle can be detected. It boils down to "A flips a coin while sending each photon, B flips a coin when receiving each photon, they ignore photons where the coins came up differently, and if the bits where the coins were the same are perturbed by an eavesdropper, messages will be corrupted visibly." Yeah, comparing the coins is out of band, but it doesn't have to be secure because the attacker can't go back and use that information; the photons have flown already. This shows that the _real_ strength of it is that the photon stream the key gets derived from can't be recorded.
When I was a kid, the 100 problem task was assigned as punishment, pure and simple. (It was also actually "these 10 problems, 10 times each".)
if it succeeds in its stated goals, there will be less thefts, therefore they won't get as many replacing-stolen-phone sales. And there will be less phones out there, because the stolen ones will be bricks, so less phone plans get sold. They lose money on both ends. (Yeah, they think of "a reduction in possible future profits" as "a loss".)
They've also decided that it covers production of stuff for personal use (specifically, growing corn in your back yard), because that affects whether you would buy it from a market which could include selling across state lines. So in practice, the ICC means they can regulate anything.
The warrant question is not for the tracking, it's for entering the house without consent. They didn't want to get a warrant because they didn't want to tell a judge how they found the house. Now the evidence they gained by entering the house is tainted and excluded. The moral is they were frigging stupid to use equipment they couldn't tell a judge about.
Then you should also ban GPS units. Or is there some significant difference between a phone GPS app in a handsfree mount and a Garmin GPS appliance? The studies I've heard of that address your point are still talking about conversation, not GPS usage.
The danger of inattention, though, is linked to the speed of the vehicle. No movement, no extra danger. A stopped car is a stopped car whether the driver is checking his mirrors every second or asleep. If the situation changes and he doesn't notice that he can become un-stopped, I'm sure the drivers around him will be sure to let him know, but until then, his behavior does not affect anyone's danger level.
In the US, there is no blame. The program noticed something; that's enough for the company to claim a good faith belief, at which point they're off the hook beyond (maybe) legal costs. And until a judge decides that the program's crappy enough that they should know better than to believe it, they have no motivation to improve it.
apparently the 'win' is that the label in question, as part of the settlement, has to agree to improve their processes. Not as good as a legal precedent, but a lot cheaper.
Oh, you wouldn't get busted for the format shift. You'd get busted for circumventing the DRM, which is itself illegal. Note that the permission to format shift is not described as a 'right', either in the post you're responding to or in the linked article section; it is described as an exception to existing law. Similarly, "fair use" is not described as a right in US law; it is an affirmative defense. You have to show that what you're doing is fair use, and if you succeed they get no damages. And similarly, you still can't circumvent the DRM to do so.
actually, as far as I can tell, you never said you weren't recording. Nor, according to your hypothetical script, did you necessarily wait to hear my question before kicking my ass. Did I miss some detail or a different post?
I would disagree with item 1. Anyone has the right to make a (polite) request (not threats, not demands).
Sounds like number 2, unless the requester works for the bar. Is that an accurate assessment of your position?
I think his theory is that at any time, only half of the moon is in sunshine, whereas if the panels were in orbit they could be placed to always be in sunshine. It seems to me that having them on the moon might (emphasis on might) make maintenance somewhat easier, and as long as there's enough panel area in the lit half, it's good enough, but as he says paying for both a lit half and an unlit half adds up.
I would put Cogent on the network provider side. They store bits, they shovel bits, they don't care whether those bits encode Star Trek or Futurama or Dale and Tucker Versus Evil. (Unless they have a stake in Paramount that I haven't heard of :)
I haven't been getting stoppage/buffering with Netflix, but I've been thinking I was getting lower video quality than I'm used to, which could be a less severe result of packet loss. I have definitely been getting a crapload of buffering with Amazon Instant Video, though.
Cities don't have the budget to fight the cable and phone companies in the state legislature and the courts to get/keep permission to lay fiber.
TV has revolutionized learning. It just wasn't a particularly beneficial revolution.
No. -Software Marketing Association of America
My first FTFY! :)