>>>Why would I want to use an emulator on the classic windows game box I have in the living room, when I have the genuine article in there already?
Because no console lasts forever. My original Atari console croaked. Ditto my Commodore 64 (not a console but it's not good for much else but NES-style gaming). I did manage to buy used models but they didn't last long either.
These units lasted ~30 years but I bet the moving parts in a CD console won't last as long. It's nice to have Emulators so you can keep playing favorite Atari, C64, Super NES, Sega Genesis, PS1/2, N64 games long after the hardware goes extinct.
>>>Your comparison makes sense only when ABC and Fox also run a competing network to Comcasts/NBCs
Uh. What? They do run competing networks/channels to NBC-Comcast. Just as google runs competing OS to Apple's OS. That's why I made the comparison in my original post.
>>>relying on a third service for what is rapidly becoming a central reason to have a multipurpose phone (mapping and turn by turn navigation) when the relationship between you and that third party was never going to fly, especially when that same third party is fostering a competitor to your platform - goodbye Google Maps, hello something better. >>> How disappointing you don't see a problem with this. It would be equivalent to Comcast/NBC ejecting all the ABC and FOX-owned channels from our television screens. Goodbye FOX News... goodbye FX... goodbye ABC Family... goodbye Disney... goodbye Nickelodeon... goodbye A&E... goodbye Showtime... et cetera. (Don't worry: They'll soon be replaced with NBC-owned channels which are "better".)
>>>What has that got to do with anything? You *DO* realize that youtube is available via the Safari browser too, right?
But I don't want to use the Safari browser. Or any browser period. I want to use the Youtube app. But Apple's taken that option away, because Apple Knows Best (coming to a black-and-white TV near you).
>>>The DMCA's "It has to be taken down right now!" policy without any ability to stop the takedown prior to its execution is fundamentally unconstitutional.
It is no more unconstitutional then when the police arrest you immediately for a murder or theft & toss you in jail. It is routine in legal matters for innocent people to have their freedoms *momentarily* abridged. In the case of DMCA it's just a few days.
And what happens when the cloud provider decides to start "messing" with your online creations? Just last week Amazon announced they were converting people's stored-on-the-cloud songs to higher quality 256kbps versions.
In theory that sounds okay, but what if Amazon makes a mistake and replaces a personal song (perhaps you singing David guetta's "Titanium") with the official song release. Ooops. You just lost your creation.
You can't trust other people with your data, anymore than you can trust a random stranger to borrow your CD or car and return it unscratched/clean.
How small? One tower for every two homes in order to raise the cap from 3GB to 100GB/month? At that point you might as well just skip the cellular internet, and go with fiber to the home.
Due to CLAIMED copyright infringement. That's no different then when you get arrested by the police for a CLAIMED act of murder. You are still presumed innocent by the jury and the judge when you go to trial.
>>>For everyone saying I'm only hurting the other users, Verizon needs to upgrade their systems
How do they do that when the EM spectrum is already close to full? Contrary to popular belief, their is not an infinite amount of room for data over the radiowaves.
>>>You have no right to have your content restored. The law does not compel Youtube to restore anything --
If they don't restore your video, then they can be named in a criminal lawsuit for violating the DMC Act. And they will be punished. So YES the law does compel youtube to restore your video.
Well the article is wrong then. (Not the first time a reporter demonstrated his/her lack of technical understanding.) Here is how it works:
(1) Author/creator submits DMCA Takedown Request (2)(a) The "victim" realized he was wrong and does nothing so item remains offline. (2)(b) Or they say the takedown notice is BS and submits a restore request: "This items does not violate copyright. I own it." (3) The item is then restored. Legally the time is 10 days but many ISPs (including youtube) restore immediately. (4) At that point the alleged copyright owner can file a lawsuit against the alleged violator. The ISP has immunity since it followed steps 1-3.
>>>I'd really hate to be Youtube in such a situation. They'd essentially be damned either way.
Under the DMCA statute Youtube/websites/ISPs have immunity so long as they follow the takedown & restore process. i.e. Take it down when they receive a request. And restore it when the owner replies, "This does not infringe copyright."
Of course you can. It's called punative damages. It's why if I spilled hot coffee on you, I'd have to pay your hospital bills, but if the corporate thing called McDonalds' spills hot coffee, they have to pay your hospital bills + millions in punative damages (so they stop selling 200 degree coffee).
The DMCA law is not flawed. It is better than what we had before when youtube just yanked your video & you had no way to get it restored. You just got screwed. At least under DMCA you have a legally-protected right over your videos. Youtube MUST restore your video, else they will be guilty of a criminal act (under the DMCA).
It seems more-likely that Scripps contracted with Youtube to automatically have any content removed that has an "audio signature" which matches Scripps own uploaded videos. In other words, no people involved.
I've heard radio host Alex Jones complain about this. Some corporation (CBS Radio if I recall correctly) has contracted a DJ for their national news starting in 2011. However they claim ownership of ALL recordings by that DJ, both present and past. So youtube is automatically removing all videos of said DJ, including interviews on Jones' show from ten years ago. There's no person involved... just a computer doing automatic filtering & automatic takedowns.
And once again you guys blow it all out of proportion. Nobody is "guilty" here. All that NASA (or anybody else) needs to do is reply to the DMCA takedown request with this response: "This material does not infringe upon anybody's copyright."
Then the video, song, picture, or text will be restored. After that point it is up to the owner is he/she/it wants to pursue a legal court case. THAT is the point where your innocence or guilt is decided. (And yes you are "presumed innocent" during the trial.) Fortunately most companies do not waste their time with a court case, so after your video/et cetera is restored you no longer need to worry.
This process is a LOT better than what we had before. Youtube would yank your video and you had no way to get it restored. At least now under the DMCA you have the legally-protected right to get your video put back up. (Else youtube would be guilty of a criminal act & could be prosecuted.)
This stuff would have all existed without Microsoft. IBM would have asked some other company to make their PC-DOS. Like Atari. Or Commodore.
Who knows? We might all be running GEOSworks on our PCs instead of windows. (And WordPerfect with Lotus 1-2-3 and OrCad and Netscape..... not a single microsoft program in sight.) Hmmm. I think I just thought of an alternate history short story: The Year 2012 w/o Microsoft.
>>>Chick-Fil-A has a rather affectionate relationship with its customers. Hard to see the same thing happening at McDonalds, never mind Microsoft.
Interesting. Maybe I ought to try this Chick-Fil-A business. The ACLU has strongly criticized the mayors of Boston, Chicago, et cetera. They say if the government follows-through on blocking Chick-Fil-a then the ACLU will sue the local governments for discrimination against a business (or group) based upon its religious beliefs. Though I am pro-same sex marriage, I agree with teh ACLU that it is not the role of government to punish/boycott/ban people or businesses or groups for their speech or ideas.
It does. There's a process for the browser and a process for the flash (or other addons). When flash hangs as it often does, you can kill the flash process without losing the browser.
I have a Nokia phone right now. My previous phone was Nokia too. For 14 years they served me well, but I really need an update. (My current phone doesn't even have internet access.) I'm thinking after the i5 is released the 4 will drop in price from $550 to $400.
Slashdot Mirror
Last rumor I heard (here), he would take a golden parachute to escape before BB crumbled.
>>>Why would I want to use an emulator on the classic windows game box I have in the living room, when I have the genuine article in there already?
Because no console lasts forever. My original Atari console croaked. Ditto my Commodore 64 (not a console but it's not good for much else but NES-style gaming). I did manage to buy used models but they didn't last long either.
These units lasted ~30 years but I bet the moving parts in a CD console won't last as long. It's nice to have Emulators so you can keep playing favorite Atari, C64, Super NES, Sega Genesis, PS1/2, N64 games long after the hardware goes extinct.
And we still don't know HOW the oil markets were affected (did they go up or down). Your post was pointless.
>>>Your comparison makes sense only when ABC and Fox also run a competing network to Comcasts/NBCs
Uh. What? They do run competing networks/channels to NBC-Comcast. Just as google runs competing OS to Apple's OS. That's why I made the comparison in my original post.
>>>relying on a third service for what is rapidly becoming a central reason to have a multipurpose phone (mapping and turn by turn navigation) when the relationship between you and that third party was never going to fly, especially when that same third party is fostering a competitor to your platform - goodbye Google Maps, hello something better.
>>>
How disappointing you don't see a problem with this. It would be equivalent to Comcast/NBC ejecting all the ABC and FOX-owned channels from our television screens. Goodbye FOX News... goodbye FX... goodbye ABC Family... goodbye Disney... goodbye Nickelodeon... goodbye A&E... goodbye Showtime... et cetera. (Don't worry: They'll soon be replaced with NBC-owned channels which are "better".)
>>>What has that got to do with anything? You *DO* realize that youtube is available via the Safari browser too, right?
But I don't want to use the Safari browser.
Or any browser period.
I want to use the Youtube app.
But Apple's taken that option away, because Apple Knows Best (coming to a black-and-white TV near you).
If it were the U.S. I'd be worried they'd come after the stored user data & put people into indefinite detainment (under NDAA 2012).
>>>The DMCA's "It has to be taken down right now!" policy without any ability to stop the takedown prior to its execution is fundamentally unconstitutional.
It is no more unconstitutional then when the police arrest you immediately for a murder or theft & toss you in jail. It is routine in legal matters for innocent people to have their freedoms *momentarily* abridged. In the case of DMCA it's just a few days.
And what happens when the cloud provider decides to start "messing" with your online creations? Just last week Amazon announced they were converting people's stored-on-the-cloud songs to higher quality 256kbps versions.
In theory that sounds okay, but what if Amazon makes a mistake and replaces a personal song (perhaps you singing David guetta's "Titanium") with the official song release. Ooops. You just lost your creation.
You can't trust other people with your data, anymore than you can trust a random stranger to borrow your CD or car and return it unscratched/clean.
How small? One tower for every two homes in order to raise the cap from 3GB to 100GB/month? At that point you might as well just skip the cellular internet, and go with fiber to the home.
Due to CLAIMED copyright infringement. That's no different then when you get arrested by the police for a CLAIMED act of murder. You are still presumed innocent by the jury and the judge when you go to trial.
>>>For everyone saying I'm only hurting the other users, Verizon needs to upgrade their systems
How do they do that when the EM spectrum is already close to full? Contrary to popular belief, their is not an infinite amount of room for data over the radiowaves.
>>>You have no right to have your content restored. The law does not compel Youtube to restore anything --
If they don't restore your video, then they can be named in a criminal lawsuit for violating the DMC Act. And they will be punished. So YES the law does compel youtube to restore your video.
Well the article is wrong then. (Not the first time a reporter demonstrated his/her lack of technical understanding.) Here is how it works:
(1) Author/creator submits DMCA Takedown Request
(2)(a) The "victim" realized he was wrong and does nothing so item remains offline.
(2)(b) Or they say the takedown notice is BS and submits a restore request: "This items does not violate copyright. I own it."
(3) The item is then restored. Legally the time is 10 days but many ISPs (including youtube) restore immediately.
(4) At that point the alleged copyright owner can file a lawsuit against the alleged violator. The ISP has immunity since it followed steps 1-3.
>>>I'd really hate to be Youtube in such a situation. They'd essentially be damned either way.
Under the DMCA statute Youtube/websites/ISPs have immunity so long as they follow the takedown & restore process. i.e. Take it down when they receive a request. And restore it when the owner replies, "This does not infringe copyright."
Of course you can. It's called punative damages. It's why if I spilled hot coffee on you, I'd have to pay your hospital bills, but if the corporate thing called McDonalds' spills hot coffee, they have to pay your hospital bills + millions in punative damages (so they stop selling 200 degree coffee).
>>> http://www.scripps.com/ nobody will see this though because i have such shitty karma. i suck at everything.
(wipes away tears). "Anakin..... you're breaking my heart."
Here's your pity fuck. I mean + 1 insightful.
The DMCA law is not flawed. It is better than what we had before when youtube just yanked your video & you had no way to get it restored. You just got screwed. At least under DMCA you have a legally-protected right over your videos. Youtube MUST restore your video, else they will be guilty of a criminal act (under the DMCA).
It seems more-likely that Scripps contracted with Youtube to automatically have any content removed that has an "audio signature" which matches Scripps own uploaded videos. In other words, no people involved.
I've heard radio host Alex Jones complain about this. Some corporation (CBS Radio if I recall correctly) has contracted a DJ for their national news starting in 2011. However they claim ownership of ALL recordings by that DJ, both present and past. So youtube is automatically removing all videos of said DJ, including interviews on Jones' show from ten years ago. There's no person involved... just a computer doing automatic filtering & automatic takedowns.
And once again you guys blow it all out of proportion. Nobody is "guilty" here. All that NASA (or anybody else) needs to do is reply to the DMCA takedown request with this response: "This material does not infringe upon anybody's copyright."
Then the video, song, picture, or text will be restored. After that point it is up to the owner is he/she/it wants to pursue a legal court case. THAT is the point where your innocence or guilt is decided. (And yes you are "presumed innocent" during the trial.) Fortunately most companies do not waste their time with a court case, so after your video/et cetera is restored you no longer need to worry.
This process is a LOT better than what we had before. Youtube would yank your video and you had no way to get it restored. At least now under the DMCA you have the legally-protected right to get your video put back up. (Else youtube would be guilty of a criminal act & could be prosecuted.)
Bill hasn't been CEO in over a decade, or a Borg encounter on Star Trek in almost as long. It's an old icon whose time is past.
This stuff would have all existed without Microsoft. IBM would have asked some other company to make their PC-DOS. Like Atari. Or Commodore.
Who knows? We might all be running GEOSworks on our PCs instead of windows. (And WordPerfect with Lotus 1-2-3 and OrCad and Netscape..... not a single microsoft program in sight.) Hmmm. I think I just thought of an alternate history short story: The Year 2012 w/o Microsoft.
>>>Chick-Fil-A has a rather affectionate relationship with its customers. Hard to see the same thing happening at McDonalds, never mind Microsoft.
Interesting. Maybe I ought to try this Chick-Fil-A business.
The ACLU has strongly criticized the mayors of Boston, Chicago, et cetera. They say if the government follows-through on blocking Chick-Fil-a then the ACLU will sue the local governments for discrimination against a business (or group) based upon its religious beliefs. Though I am pro-same sex marriage, I agree with teh ACLU that it is not the role of government to punish/boycott/ban people or businesses or groups for their speech or ideas.
It does. There's a process for the browser and a process for the flash (or other addons). When flash hangs as it often does, you can kill the flash process without losing the browser.
I have a Nokia phone right now. My previous phone was Nokia too. For 14 years they served me well, but I really need an update. (My current phone doesn't even have internet access.) I'm thinking after the i5 is released the 4 will drop in price from $550 to $400.