I remember Spamhaus deciding to just declare the court had no jurisdiction and give it up, on the basis that no fine could be collected.
So why appeal? Why not just leave it as it was. Let e360 try to collect the money from Spamhaus's imaginary US division. When did Spanhaus change its collective mind?
I bet someone read the post on facebook. Reported it to the FBI. The FBI had a look, decided it was a potential threat and informed Merseyside police.
The BBC's understanding of the schools understanding of Merseyside Police's understanding of FBI procedures could easily have been based on speculation somewhere along that line of communication.
A scanner for suspicious word combinations would throw up so many false positives as to be useless. Security services only go for expensive useless ideas when they're on public display.
Faces are a much better understood problem. And since all most of the users want is to see people face to face refusing to show the image (or at least providing a warning) if no face is present would be a much easier solution.
In other words, whether hard or electronic copy, when you "buy" a book, you're really just licensing it, to put it in the words you used. There is no "bought."
Completely untrue. If you buy a physical book, you own it. There's no licence. This is where the principle of "first sale" comes from.
At the most basic level, a licence is permission. You do not need permission in order to read a book. You don't have a licence simply because you don't need one.
It's true that you can't legally copy it without the copyright holder's permission. This is not because of the terms and conditions in which you bought the book. Your rights are unchanged if you borrow the book, or even steal it. Copyright is a separate legal matter. Much like owning a car doesn't give you the right to drive above the speed limit, owning a book doesn't give you the right to copy it without permission.
If the book came with a note saying it may not be resold, you can safely ignore it. If you hang on to the book after copyright expires, then you have the right to copy it. If it were licensed you wouldn't have this right. Nor would you have the right to copy small parts of it under fair use.
Now, that being said, if I purchase "1984" and wake up one morning and find it missing, then discover the publisher I bought it from repossessed it, I'm going to be ticked off. If they've refunded my purchase price in full, I'll be quite a bit less ticked off.
And if someone takes my property then I'll be ticked of whether they give me my money back or not. I purchased that. It is therefore worth to me at least as much as I paid for it. If I buy a first edition signed copy of 1984, for the price of a paperback reprint, then I legally own it. That would be an item that's potentially worth hundreds. If you take it back after I've paid for it I'll consider it stolen unless you give me what it's worth to me. Not what I originally paid for it.
Scripting (especially event-driven) better suites game designers, who often are not hardcore developers that have a firm understanding of Objective C, C++ or C.
Scripting better suits game developers who are hardcore programmers as well. You don't need to recompile when you change a value. You just need to reload the lua. Really helps a lot when you;re using trial and error to get a value correct.
It's his job to be uptight about this sort of thing. House style is important. Even the readers of today can't all be expected to really understand what twitter is.
It doesn't require a lot of experience to switch between Windows and Mac. I'd expect someone with experience with one platform and absolutely zero on the other to be up to speed in a day or two.
It is ambiguous though. The statement could be referring to the law or the changes to the law as the thing that criminalises use of unsecured networks.
Well the laws that make this illegal have typically been a little inappropriate - dating back to the 1980's to deal with people hacking into mainframes rather than a harmless bit of sneaky freeloading.
Still, I think part of the justification is silly. "It is also hard for a user to know if an unsecured network is intended for public use or not." No it isn't. Does it have a name along the lines of "free wi-fi", or are there posters up telling you that there's free wireless internet? If so then it's probably intended for public use. Does it have a a name like D-LINK-N300? If so it's probably not intended for public use. If you're not sure, don't use it. Err on the side of caution. It's not that hard. You don't assume that unlocked bikes are free for public use after all.
Actually it's not like it's better to have a background, or worse. It's just different. People find change jarring.
It's all perfectly natural that people want Google the way it always used to be... What I find amusing is the people going into length explanations about why a background image is such a terrible thing.
It's the New Coke thing again. In blind tasting, people preferred New Coke. When it was actually sold as something different, people hated it.
OS4.1 is a decent enough OS, and the current Amiga OS machines have fast modern CPUs.
Some people simply like Amiga OS. The way the Amiga does screens (every application on its own desktop at its own resolution) and the fast boot time and the datatypes system are all pretty nice innovations that you don't get with other platforms.
XP does the same job it did 9 years ago. It will continue to do this job for some time. Does Windows 7 do anything that XP doesn't? If there's something specific you can point to then it's worth upgrading otherwise, why change?
The point is that the whole purpose of Limewire is piracy. You may argue otherwise, but Limewire did in a court of law and it seems that the court disagreed with them. For that matter, so do I. Just about everyone who uses Limewire uses it for purposes that infringe copyright.
It's a pretty popular version of a pretty popular OS. Lots of people try it and most of the alleged cultists don't declare it the one true way. It's much closer to Buddhism than Scientology.
Okay - I don't expect honest people, with no criminal or otherwise hostile intent to be deliberately intercepting and recording my wireless transmissions.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm missing part of the background here.
I remember Spamhaus deciding to just declare the court had no jurisdiction and give it up, on the basis that no fine could be collected.
So why appeal? Why not just leave it as it was. Let e360 try to collect the money from Spamhaus's imaginary US division. When did Spanhaus change its collective mind?
Seriously, half a dozen Voyager EMH jokes and not a single House reference?
I bet someone read the post on facebook. Reported it to the FBI. The FBI had a look, decided it was a potential threat and informed Merseyside police.
The BBC's understanding of the schools understanding of Merseyside Police's understanding of FBI procedures could easily have been based on speculation somewhere along that line of communication.
A scanner for suspicious word combinations would throw up so many false positives as to be useless. Security services only go for expensive useless ideas when they're on public display.
Faces are a much better understood problem. And since all most of the users want is to see people face to face refusing to show the image (or at least providing a warning) if no face is present would be a much easier solution.
In other words, whether hard or electronic copy, when you "buy" a book, you're really just licensing it, to put it in the words you used. There is no "bought."
Completely untrue. If you buy a physical book, you own it. There's no licence. This is where the principle of "first sale" comes from.
At the most basic level, a licence is permission. You do not need permission in order to read a book. You don't have a licence simply because you don't need one.
It's true that you can't legally copy it without the copyright holder's permission. This is not because of the terms and conditions in which you bought the book. Your rights are unchanged if you borrow the book, or even steal it. Copyright is a separate legal matter. Much like owning a car doesn't give you the right to drive above the speed limit, owning a book doesn't give you the right to copy it without permission.
If the book came with a note saying it may not be resold, you can safely ignore it. If you hang on to the book after copyright expires, then you have the right to copy it. If it were licensed you wouldn't have this right. Nor would you have the right to copy small parts of it under fair use.
Now, that being said, if I purchase "1984" and wake up one morning and find it missing, then discover the publisher I bought it from repossessed it, I'm going to be ticked off. If they've refunded my purchase price in full, I'll be quite a bit less ticked off.
And if someone takes my property then I'll be ticked of whether they give me my money back or not. I purchased that. It is therefore worth to me at least as much as I paid for it. If I buy a first edition signed copy of 1984, for the price of a paperback reprint, then I legally own it. That would be an item that's potentially worth hundreds. If you take it back after I've paid for it I'll consider it stolen unless you give me what it's worth to me. Not what I originally paid for it.
You're basically asking "why aren't marketing people ever honest?"
I mean it's a fair question but it's one that has been asked many times and never answered satisfactorily.
Scripting (especially event-driven) better suites game designers, who often are not hardcore developers that have a firm understanding of Objective C, C++ or C.
Scripting better suits game developers who are hardcore programmers as well. You don't need to recompile when you change a value. You just need to reload the lua. Really helps a lot when you;re using trial and error to get a value correct.
It's his job to be uptight about this sort of thing. House style is important. Even the readers of today can't all be expected to really understand what twitter is.
It doesn't require a lot of experience to switch between Windows and Mac. I'd expect someone with experience with one platform and absolutely zero on the other to be up to speed in a day or two.
It is ambiguous though. The statement could be referring to the law or the changes to the law as the thing that criminalises use of unsecured networks.
Well the laws that make this illegal have typically been a little inappropriate - dating back to the 1980's to deal with people hacking into mainframes rather than a harmless bit of sneaky freeloading.
Still, I think part of the justification is silly. "It is also hard for a user to know if an unsecured network is intended for public use or not." No it isn't. Does it have a name along the lines of "free wi-fi", or are there posters up telling you that there's free wireless internet? If so then it's probably intended for public use. Does it have a a name like D-LINK-N300? If so it's probably not intended for public use. If you're not sure, don't use it. Err on the side of caution. It's not that hard. You don't assume that unlocked bikes are free for public use after all.
Still, they had their reasons for doing it the way they did. The Snopes article on New Coke is pretty informative.
Quite a lot of people have Google as their homepage. I guess they're the ones who noticed.
Actually it's not like it's better to have a background, or worse. It's just different. People find change jarring.
It's all perfectly natural that people want Google the way it always used to be... What I find amusing is the people going into length explanations about why a background image is such a terrible thing.
It's the New Coke thing again. In blind tasting, people preferred New Coke. When it was actually sold as something different, people hated it.
I seem to be about 9 inches away from my phone. Is smaller than an iPhone though so maybe users do have them further away.
They're variants on cubes and monoliths. Curves and colours are nice but nothing new. The VESA mountable ones are a pretty decent idea though.
In front of me I have a DVD player. it's about 4cm high and has a steel finish. No fan, and an internal PSU. Can we put a PC into one of them please?
Or build one into a keyboard like many 1980's home computers.
OS4.1 is a decent enough OS, and the current Amiga OS machines have fast modern CPUs.
Some people simply like Amiga OS. The way the Amiga does screens (every application on its own desktop at its own resolution) and the fast boot time and the datatypes system are all pretty nice innovations that you don't get with other platforms.
XP does the same job it did 9 years ago. It will continue to do this job for some time. Does Windows 7 do anything that XP doesn't? If there's something specific you can point to then it's worth upgrading otherwise, why change?
The point is that the whole purpose of Limewire is piracy. You may argue otherwise, but Limewire did in a court of law and it seems that the court disagreed with them. For that matter, so do I. Just about everyone who uses Limewire uses it for purposes that infringe copyright.
the $750 per infringement is per work, not per file. Are they really claiming that they have identified 200 million separate works?
That's not the purpose of GPS systems though.
Whether piracy is or is not the purpose of Limewire, I reckon the RIAA are going to have a damn good try at proving it is.
Sure it would. Just slower. Apple still wants people to upgrade every so often, so they're effectively competing with their older products.
It's a pretty popular version of a pretty popular OS. Lots of people try it and most of the alleged cultists don't declare it the one true way. It's much closer to Buddhism than Scientology.
Someone drives into an airport in a burning car - probable terrorist.
Someone walks into airport - probable non-terrorist.
Easy.
Okay - I don't expect honest people, with no criminal or otherwise hostile intent to be deliberately intercepting and recording my wireless transmissions.
Better? Clearer?