Then why is it on the price list and the vlsc? MS may not support spla for vdi , but it is an option.
The issue is every user needs to be licensed.
And for Windows 7, the license contains restrictions.
The Windows 7 SPLA licenses are likely for installing exactly one Windows 7 instance
dedicated to a user, typically on customer premises with equipment owned by the service provider, and not allowed to repurpose or transfer that instance during the license period to different hardware or to a different user.
Make our Internet Explorer the default browser, or be dropped.
Google's new policy is another big company attempting to leverage their monopoly
in one area, to corner an unrelated market (payment services).
The problem is unlike Apple they don't require specific standards or approval of every app,
so they have no plausible deniability with regards to their measure.
If their objective was simply to have a cut every sale, they could include
terms in the agreement requiring developers to report in-game sales
and remit their payment to Google.
It's obvious they want to maximize margins by killing off any potential competition
for payments within an app.
There's no probability here - the asteroid either will or will not hit. Why can't they say just say this is the measure of uncertainty in the curve fit rather than a "chance to hit"?
Actually.... quantum characteristics do effect the motion of objects relatively low in mass (like asteroids) over sufficient time and space.
But there are other probalistic things that will effect the path of an asteroid as well, such as the motion of other
unobserved bodies, actions of humans and other high-entropy phenomena which do not have a deterministic
defined outcome; it's an intractible problem, so the outcome is really not a binary thing; there really is a certain probability of a collision.
How precisely we can know what that probability actually is, is another matter altogether.
The fact that 1 in 625 is what has been indicated so far, does not mean 1 in 625 is as precise a number as possible for
that probability. Methodological improvements in the future will likely improve the accuracy of the prediction of the probability of a collision
it only to find out it won't strike 27 years from now? If September 2013 rolls around and it looks like it will hit in 2040, 27 years is practically as much time as 28 years to develop a solution.
It might sound like that, until some time in 2013, when the Asterois is suddenly sighted that has a 70% chance of hitting earth in 2015.
"You know life is like a train. It's bearing down on you, and guess what? It's gonna hit you! So you can either start running when it's far off in the distance, or you can pull up a chair, crack open a beer, and just watch it come! "
But if you're smart, you stop, turn to the side, and walk away from the tracks until you are a safe distance.
Though, it's still very serious. At least it generally causes your program to crash rather than spitting out a wrong answer. And it sounds like the sequence of instructions that causes it is not commonly found.
It may be uncommon to be found... but that doesn't equate to not exploitable
Doesn't the DMCA takedown request state somewhere something about asserting the statement is true "under the penalties of perjury"?
The penalty of perjury doesn't apply to a DMCA takedown notice, unless the complaining party is not
authorized to act by the copyright owner of a work alleged to be infringed; the " has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner" in (v) does not apply a penalty of perjury.
Interestengly: the penalty of perjury does apply to a good faith belief that it is true, for DMCA counternotice --- "(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled. "
Only a portion of the statement is under a penalty of perjury: a statement that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the copyright owner of a work alleged to be infringed
The requirements for a DMCA takedown are:
Name, address, electronic signature of the party making complaint
The infringing materials and their exact internet location; for a letter sent regarding an "information location tool", the reference or link to the infringing materials.
All information necessary to identify the specific copyrighted work(s)
A statement by the copyright owner that he/she has a good faith belief there is no legal basis for the use of the materials found at the internet location
"(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. "
Flickr is a yahoo property.
If they're anything like Google, they are "too big" to talk to us peons who just utilize their free services.
And i'm sure the flickr EULA contains enough cya that they won't be concerned about being sued
by the user of their free service; ok, maybe you get a refund of the $0.
Actually, the only thing you can do under the DMCA is try to get a prosecutor to indict them for perjury.
The DMCA doesn't contain a provision holding them harmless. They can still be liable for causing the takedown.
Also, "flickr informing the author they can repost" the material doesn't meet the requirements for the
safe harbor to apply
512(g)(1)
(1) No liability for taking down generally. - Subject to paragraph (2)....
(2) Exception. - Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider, pursuant to a notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C), unless the service provider -...
(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and
(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network.
When playing poker, the probability any individual has a pair is higher than the probability he has four of a kind. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, nobody has ever gotten a four of a kind.
No. Occam's razor is not a rule of inference. Occam's razor is a standard for comparing the plausibility of different theories.
Occam's razor would not predict "Nobody has ever gotten four of a kind";
Occam's razor would predict that the observed probability of having four of a kind
when picking cards from the deck would likely apply.
Occam's Razor only applies to two theories that give the exact same prediction. The moment they can be differentiated by testing hypotheses, you don't invoke Occam's Razor. You test the hypotheses.
But we do have two hypothesis:
(1) Titanic's lookouts were slacking / not doing their job properly, therefore there was no warning about the iceberg
or.. (2) Titanic's lookouts were fooled by this complicated weather phenomena that masked the iceberg from their view,
therefore there was no warning about the iceberg
It's probably easier to tell you what you cannot do: Nothing illegal and nothing that interferes with other customers and services. Our Terms of Service document is located here: Terms of Service
In other words, they have stated that their product can be used for any intended purpose, except things that are illegal or interfere with their services.
Now, could you tell me if or to what extent a storage facility would be liable if customer were to store $3000 in cash in their alloted space?
If the storage facility built a private backdoor into every storage locker, and they were negligent in safeguarding the master key that opened all the storage lockers; the storage facility could be held responsible for compensating customers for any items stolen as a result of their neglectful failure.
Or using a domestic washer for commercial use (if a fire were to happen)?
That would depend on if the fire were a result from a substantial defect in the product, or if the product were used in a manner inconsistent with warnings that were prominent on and about the product and its documentation.
In general product manufacturers are strictly liable, unless there was actually an inconsistency.
"This was designed to be a domestic product"; does not free the manufacturer from liability resulting from damages caused by a defect in the product;
It may allow the manufacturer to void certain warranties.
For example... desktop hard drives are rated for X number of daily power-on hours (8 hours a day) for the warranty period, and a total number of power-on hours for its lifetime.
If you exceed this rating, for example, by placing the hard drive in a server powered 24x7, the warranty against mechanical failure is expired very quickly.
But the manufacturer is still liable if the hard drive catches fire due to a fault in the design,
even if powered on for more power-on hours than the device is warranted.
P.S. Linode may be implicitly and strictly liable for damages caused by the "linode admin" product
on hosted servers.
Separate from any liability for the manner in which service is provided.
In many states, manufacturers cannot disclaim one or more forms of implicit liability.
Just in the same manner, as a manufacturer cannot disclaim warranty in case,
your brand new toaster blows itself up the first time you plug it in, due to a manufacturing defect
The manufacturer will be responsible for your injuries, incidental, and consequential damages,
even if the warranty, "Terms of use" and stickers on the box say otherwise, due to the manufacturer's
negligence, in selling a defective product that causes damage to its user when used as directed.
Linode can put in disclaimers until they are blue in the face. Obviously they have made an effort to disclaim liability for service interruptions.
The issue they could likely be sued over is not the service interruption, and not necessarily negligence in regards to proferring the service.
But the issue, being that Linode may be strictly liable for their exposure of sensitive customer data due to their direct failure to maintain reasonable care in the maintenance of Linode systems' security, in the form of the "Linode backdoor".
Liability waivers in a ToS are only capable of disclaiming liability that the company is actually legally capable of waiving.
Students/staff needing to connect to their favorite IRC server that runs on port 6666,
to join an online conference/chat might not feel that this is so open.
It's important to remember: certain applications have well-known port numbers, However;
the port number is not required to be used for a specific application;
it's perfectly legitimate to utilize port 445 for purposes that have nothing to do with file sharing;
it's perfectly valid to utilize port 25 for purposes that have nothing to do with SMTP.
In fact, it's valid to connect out with these used as the ephemeral source port for the connection.
Sometimes it makes sense to block these numbers on the destination traffic for incoming traffic;
as a matter of policy, you can say that servers on your network listening on port 25 must always be
SMTP servers.
But you don't get to dictate to other remote networks, what certain port numbers are used for.
And blocking any such port number is broken internet connectivity.
You're legally in the right but is it really worth your time to fight it? Just delete the video from YouTube, edit the audio on your original video with some voice annotations or something to change it up a bit and re-post.
Since obviously Rumblefish is using your recording, sue them for any "royalties" collected
based on your work.
First of all, send them legal notice that they are collecting royalties on your work without your authorization,
then if your videos gain sufficient popularity, so they actually collect $$$, sue them for
the ad revenues they collected + other offenses.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why is it on the price list and the vlsc? MS may not support spla for vdi , but it is an option.
The issue is every user needs to be licensed.
And for Windows 7, the license contains restrictions. The Windows 7 SPLA licenses are likely for installing exactly one Windows 7 instance dedicated to a user, typically on customer premises with equipment owned by the service provider, and not allowed to repurpose or transfer that instance during the license period to different hardware or to a different user.
Make our Internet Explorer the default browser, or be dropped.
Google's new policy is another big company attempting to leverage their monopoly in one area, to corner an unrelated market (payment services).
The problem is unlike Apple they don't require specific standards or approval of every app, so they have no plausible deniability with regards to their measure.
If their objective was simply to have a cut every sale, they could include terms in the agreement requiring developers to report in-game sales and remit their payment to Google.
It's obvious they want to maximize margins by killing off any potential competition for payments within an app.
Google became a publicly traded company. And got greedy.
That's the reason.
People seem to forget that energy is not power.
People seem to forget that heat is not energy. Heat is the transfer of energy through any means other than work.
Do statements like "The coin has a 1 in 2 chance of coming up heads" also bother you?
The coin has a 50% chance of coming up heads, unless a butterfly flaps her wings at the behest of an EMACS programmer with the right shortcut key.
There's no probability here - the asteroid either will or will not hit. Why can't they say just say this is the measure of uncertainty in the curve fit rather than a "chance to hit"?
Actually.... quantum characteristics do effect the motion of objects relatively low in mass (like asteroids) over sufficient time and space.
But there are other probalistic things that will effect the path of an asteroid as well, such as the motion of other unobserved bodies, actions of humans and other high-entropy phenomena which do not have a deterministic defined outcome; it's an intractible problem, so the outcome is really not a binary thing; there really is a certain probability of a collision.
How precisely we can know what that probability actually is, is another matter altogether. The fact that 1 in 625 is what has been indicated so far, does not mean 1 in 625 is as precise a number as possible for that probability. Methodological improvements in the future will likely improve the accuracy of the prediction of the probability of a collision
it only to find out it won't strike 27 years from now? If September 2013 rolls around and it looks like it will hit in 2040, 27 years is practically as much time as 28 years to develop a solution.
It might sound like that, until some time in 2013, when the Asterois is suddenly sighted that has a 70% chance of hitting earth in 2015.
"You know life is like a train. It's bearing down on you, and guess what? It's gonna hit you! So you can either start running when it's far off in the distance, or you can pull up a chair, crack open a beer, and just watch it come! "
But if you're smart, you stop, turn to the side, and walk away from the tracks until you are a safe distance.
Yep. Sounds like a job for a DMCA takedown letter addressed to the supreme entity by the film rights holder.
Though, it's still very serious. At least it generally causes your program to crash rather than spitting out a wrong answer. And it sounds like the sequence of instructions that causes it is not commonly found.
It may be uncommon to be found... but that doesn't equate to not exploitable
Doesn't the DMCA takedown request state somewhere something about asserting the statement is true "under the penalties of perjury"?
The penalty of perjury doesn't apply to a DMCA takedown notice, unless the complaining party is not authorized to act by the copyright owner of a work alleged to be infringed; the " has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner" in (v) does not apply a penalty of perjury.
Interestengly: the penalty of perjury does apply to a good faith belief that it is true, for DMCA counternotice --- "(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled. "
Only a portion of the statement is under a penalty of perjury: a statement that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the copyright owner of a work alleged to be infringed
The requirements for a DMCA takedown are:
Shouldn't you be asking Flickr?
Flickr is a yahoo property. If they're anything like Google, they are "too big" to talk to us peons who just utilize their free services.
And i'm sure the flickr EULA contains enough cya that they won't be concerned about being sued by the user of their free service; ok, maybe you get a refund of the $0.
Actually, the only thing you can do under the DMCA is try to get a prosecutor to indict them for perjury.
The DMCA doesn't contain a provision holding them harmless. They can still be liable for causing the takedown.
Also, "flickr informing the author they can repost" the material doesn't meet the requirements for the safe harbor to apply
When playing poker, the probability any individual has a pair is higher than the probability he has four of a kind. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, nobody has ever gotten a four of a kind.
No. Occam's razor is not a rule of inference. Occam's razor is a standard for comparing the plausibility of different theories.
Occam's razor would not predict "Nobody has ever gotten four of a kind"; Occam's razor would predict that the observed probability of having four of a kind when picking cards from the deck would likely apply.
Occam's Razor only applies to two theories that give the exact same prediction. The moment they can be differentiated by testing hypotheses, you don't invoke Occam's Razor. You test the hypotheses.
But we do have two hypothesis: (1) Titanic's lookouts were slacking / not doing their job properly, therefore there was no warning about the iceberg
or.. (2) Titanic's lookouts were fooled by this complicated weather phenomena that masked the iceberg from their view, therefore there was no warning about the iceberg
What can I do with my Linode?
In other words, they have stated that their product can be used for any intended purpose, except things that are illegal or interfere with their services.
If you are trained to install either one of those, you can install any distro, with a little reading of documentation.
Now, could you tell me if or to what extent a storage facility would be liable if customer were to store $3000 in cash in their alloted space?
If the storage facility built a private backdoor into every storage locker, and they were negligent in safeguarding the master key that opened all the storage lockers; the storage facility could be held responsible for compensating customers for any items stolen as a result of their neglectful failure.
Or using a domestic washer for commercial use (if a fire were to happen)?
That would depend on if the fire were a result from a substantial defect in the product, or if the product were used in a manner inconsistent with warnings that were prominent on and about the product and its documentation.
In general product manufacturers are strictly liable, unless there was actually an inconsistency. "This was designed to be a domestic product"; does not free the manufacturer from liability resulting from damages caused by a defect in the product;
It may allow the manufacturer to void certain warranties.
For example... desktop hard drives are rated for X number of daily power-on hours (8 hours a day) for the warranty period, and a total number of power-on hours for its lifetime. If you exceed this rating, for example, by placing the hard drive in a server powered 24x7, the warranty against mechanical failure is expired very quickly.
But the manufacturer is still liable if the hard drive catches fire due to a fault in the design, even if powered on for more power-on hours than the device is warranted.
P.S. Linode may be implicitly and strictly liable for damages caused by the "linode admin" product on hosted servers.
Separate from any liability for the manner in which service is provided.
In many states, manufacturers cannot disclaim one or more forms of implicit liability.
Just in the same manner, as a manufacturer cannot disclaim warranty in case, your brand new toaster blows itself up the first time you plug it in, due to a manufacturing defect
The manufacturer will be responsible for your injuries, incidental, and consequential damages, even if the warranty, "Terms of use" and stickers on the box say otherwise, due to the manufacturer's negligence, in selling a defective product that causes damage to its user when used as directed.
Linode can put in disclaimers until they are blue in the face. Obviously they have made an effort to disclaim liability for service interruptions.
The issue they could likely be sued over is not the service interruption, and not necessarily negligence in regards to proferring the service.
But the issue, being that Linode may be strictly liable for their exposure of sensitive customer data due to their direct failure to maintain reasonable care in the maintenance of Linode systems' security, in the form of the "Linode backdoor".
Liability waivers in a ToS are only capable of disclaiming liability that the company is actually legally capable of waiving.
It is a net application performance increase if you can halve the number of CPUs and double the performance of each CPU.
and we block common things like tcp/6666
Students/staff needing to connect to their favorite IRC server that runs on port 6666, to join an online conference/chat might not feel that this is so open.
It's important to remember: certain applications have well-known port numbers, However; the port number is not required to be used for a specific application; it's perfectly legitimate to utilize port 445 for purposes that have nothing to do with file sharing; it's perfectly valid to utilize port 25 for purposes that have nothing to do with SMTP.
In fact, it's valid to connect out with these used as the ephemeral source port for the connection.
Sometimes it makes sense to block these numbers on the destination traffic for incoming traffic; as a matter of policy, you can say that servers on your network listening on port 25 must always be SMTP servers.
But you don't get to dictate to other remote networks, what certain port numbers are used for.
And blocking any such port number is broken internet connectivity.
you might want to see if the entire internet can get behind you and have a view-fest and THEN sue and collect
Posting a link to the Video in the slashdot article would have helped.
You're legally in the right but is it really worth your time to fight it? Just delete the video from YouTube, edit the audio on your original video with some voice annotations or something to change it up a bit and re-post.
Since obviously Rumblefish is using your recording, sue them for any "royalties" collected based on your work.
First of all, send them legal notice that they are collecting royalties on your work without your authorization, then if your videos gain sufficient popularity, so they actually collect $$$, sue them for the ad revenues they collected + other offenses.
You own the copyright to the original recording you made of bird songs from nature.
They own the copyright to their recording of bird songs from nature, but not to yours.
For them to claim copyright to your recording, there must be an original artistic element they created that you have actually reproduced.