It isn't limited to international calls. . . so . . . once again . . . your straw man has no relation to the issue, or my point. Of course, you don't seem to have much connection with reality anyway, so not too worried about that at this point. Have a life.
Given that I have an unlimited phone plan -- yes, they are every bit as likely to bill correctly without it. But I was referring to collection by the U.S. Gov't -- the subject of this article, not the subject of your straw man.
Say the following are true: (1) you are innocent of murder; (2) your alibi is that you were cheating on your wife with her sister.
Scenario - the prosecutor has a circumstantial case against you - they can identify that you went into building A where the murder occurred (to go meet your sister-in-law) and they saw you leave shortly after the murder hiding your face from security camera.
Problem: Your lawyer says "take the stand, tell them your alibi and walk." You don't want to because you love your wife (despite your abject moral failings) don't want to lose your marriage.
Result in a world with the 5th Amendment - you refuse to take the stand, the prosecution presents its evidence, your attorney points out all the holes in the prosecutions case, and the chips fall where they may.
Result in a world without the 5th Amendment - you refuse to take the stand, the prosecution presents is evidence and then asks the jury why you didn't take the stand - obviously, because you were guilty!! You go to jail.
Speaking as someone who voted for Obama - I am PISSED!
Now you had to go and make my post redundant.
Further -- speaking as an attorney -- this kind of blanket collection of metadata about communications with my clients - which are presumed confidential and not subject to search - is, to use the formal term, total bullshit.
I don't give a shit why -- one of the issues that bothers me about outsourcing is the loss of manufacturing capacity within our own borders. When it comes time to convert manufacturies into war production facilities -- having them in China likely won't help us. Assuming that we ever have another war that will require a full national push.
You are arguing with a raft of people who USE Win8 and are telling you that the thing you are claiming you cannot do is so ingrained into the system that it is obvious you do NOT know what you are talking about -- and you respond by QFTFA? Good luck.
The ones in new york are enclosed by a built in booth with curtains that close when you lift the lever to start voting and open when you pull the lever to vote. If you're REALLY concerned that you're being watched just adjust the curtain.
The desktop is right there underlying the metro interface. The mistake, that people make when first trying Win8 because it *is* flawed in its design, is that they pick an app off the metro screen and think that's what using Win8 is like. It is not. You start word -- bang -- you're back at a desktop with windows and a close button -- everything you are accustomed to (but the start menu). Same goes for firefox, opera, steam, excel, GIMP, etc -- you load in a window on a familiar desktop setting (including "2 windows side by side" which is why I picked under the GGP).
The problem is that science . . . as a scholarly field as opposed to the practice of science . . . has no way to deal with the idea that a significant percentage of our leaders are in willful denial of the sound science. The reality of the research is defeated by their ideology.
This is not new (ask Gallileo) but it is new for the U.S.
Of course they can complain about the manner in which you access it. Your argument is like arguing that you can break into your bank and take your cash -- after all it belongs to you -- without regards to the agreement you signed when you opened your account limiting your access to that cash. You are bound by the TOS. Don't like that? Okay -- but your opinion does not change the fact of its existence, nor does my opinion that TOS and EULAs *should* be invalid change the fact that they most certainly ARE valid and enforceable as a matter of law.
Now that I've spent some time with the app -- woah -- trademark issues up the whazoo -- they are presenting it as a youtube app (it isn't, it is a Microsoft app) they actually were dumb enough to PUT the REGISTERED MARK on the app. Prepare for incoming -- that's a great suit.
As to your other claims -- no -- MS asked Google to BUILD a youtube app. Google said no,/then/ Microsoft put out its own app which breaks the TOS and now is demanding direct access to APIs. This is going to be a clusterfuck for MS.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
"For the sole purpose" meaning only, as in only to allow my software to talk to that section of that other persons software -- this isn't MS unwinding an API to find a way to make its API work with that API -- they're just scraping content. They also have to have "lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program" and are thus restricted by the terms of that licensed use -- the terms of service -- which here make clear that it is unlawful to scrape content in the way MS is doing -- and therefore it falls out of the DMCA exception.
Regarding the adblocking, this is no different then using an adblocker in a browser when visiting a website, AFAIK that's legal (and if isn't it definately should be)
It is a breach of the TOS -- that means it is a breach of contract. There are also DMCA ramifications. That said, very few websites enforce it that way.
Technically, you're the one breaking the TOS, not AdBlock Plus. Also -- I don't believe there are ad blockers that can easily block the video ads that are embedded into the player frame without also disabling the player. Am I wrong on that?
If it were the same thing -- maybe -- but it's not. There are no hidden APIs here -- Google doesn't want to build an app for Microsoft -- so rather than build a compliant app Microsoft built an app that breaks Google's TOS by ad blocking and ALLOWING CONTENT DOWNLOAD. Of the two, the second is the far bigger issue -- you know all those sponsored channels with bands putting up their new music -- yeah, that's an issue.
Breach of contract, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unauthorized access to a computer system and circumventing security systems under the DMCA, shall I go on?
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't limited to international calls. . . so . . . once again . . . your straw man has no relation to the issue, or my point. Of course, you don't seem to have much connection with reality anyway, so not too worried about that at this point. Have a life.
Given that I have an unlimited phone plan -- yes, they are every bit as likely to bill correctly without it. But I was referring to collection by the U.S. Gov't -- the subject of this article, not the subject of your straw man.
Say the following are true: (1) you are innocent of murder; (2) your alibi is that you were cheating on your wife with her sister.
Scenario - the prosecutor has a circumstantial case against you - they can identify that you went into building A where the murder occurred (to go meet your sister-in-law) and they saw you leave shortly after the murder hiding your face from security camera.
Problem: Your lawyer says "take the stand, tell them your alibi and walk." You don't want to because you love your wife (despite your abject moral failings) don't want to lose your marriage.
Result in a world with the 5th Amendment - you refuse to take the stand, the prosecution presents its evidence, your attorney points out all the holes in the prosecutions case, and the chips fall where they may.
Result in a world without the 5th Amendment - you refuse to take the stand, the prosecution presents is evidence and then asks the jury why you didn't take the stand - obviously, because you were guilty!! You go to jail.
They have immunity under FISA.
Speaking as someone who voted for Obama - I am PISSED!
Now you had to go and make my post redundant.
Further -- speaking as an attorney -- this kind of blanket collection of metadata about communications with my clients - which are presumed confidential and not subject to search - is, to use the formal term, total bullshit.
I don't give a shit why -- one of the issues that bothers me about outsourcing is the loss of manufacturing capacity within our own borders. When it comes time to convert manufacturies into war production facilities -- having them in China likely won't help us. Assuming that we ever have another war that will require a full national push.
Nope. That has no relationship to the bill at hand.
You are arguing with a raft of people who USE Win8 and are telling you that the thing you are claiming you cannot do is so ingrained into the system that it is obvious you do NOT know what you are talking about -- and you respond by QFTFA? Good luck.
The ones in new york are enclosed by a built in booth with curtains that close when you lift the lever to start voting and open when you pull the lever to vote. If you're REALLY concerned that you're being watched just adjust the curtain.
The desktop is right there underlying the metro interface. The mistake, that people make when first trying Win8 because it *is* flawed in its design, is that they pick an app off the metro screen and think that's what using Win8 is like. It is not. You start word -- bang -- you're back at a desktop with windows and a close button -- everything you are accustomed to (but the start menu). Same goes for firefox, opera, steam, excel, GIMP, etc -- you load in a window on a familiar desktop setting (including "2 windows side by side" which is why I picked under the GGP).
Windows 8 doesn't bring any new things you can do, but it removes a lot of things could do in the past (like use 2 windows side by side).
This statement contradicts reality in a way I find both amusing and disturbing. Have you /used/ the Win8 desktop?
Offering to waive a right in return for settlement without bringing suit is not extortion.
Has anonymous adopted the snitches get stitches policy of suppression?
Somehow I don't think the trade off is perks or 15,000 dollars.
Three nights a week?
The problem is that science . . . as a scholarly field as opposed to the practice of science . . . has no way to deal with the idea that a significant percentage of our leaders are in willful denial of the sound science. The reality of the research is defeated by their ideology.
This is not new (ask Gallileo) but it is new for the U.S.
I think we're just fucked.
Of course they can complain about the manner in which you access it. Your argument is like arguing that you can break into your bank and take your cash -- after all it belongs to you -- without regards to the agreement you signed when you opened your account limiting your access to that cash. You are bound by the TOS. Don't like that? Okay -- but your opinion does not change the fact of its existence, nor does my opinion that TOS and EULAs *should* be invalid change the fact that they most certainly ARE valid and enforceable as a matter of law.
Oops.. replied to the wrong post -- oh well.
Now that I've spent some time with the app -- woah -- trademark issues up the whazoo -- they are presenting it as a youtube app (it isn't, it is a Microsoft app) they actually were dumb enough to PUT the REGISTERED MARK on the app. Prepare for incoming -- that's a great suit.
/then/ Microsoft put out its own app which breaks the TOS and now is demanding direct access to APIs. This is going to be a clusterfuck for MS.
As to your other claims -- no -- MS asked Google to BUILD a youtube app. Google said no,
(a) they're not using a public API (b) it is when you break the TOS.
No -- you do not know of which you speak.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
"For the sole purpose" meaning only, as in only to allow my software to talk to that section of that other persons software -- this isn't MS unwinding an API to find a way to make its API work with that API -- they're just scraping content. They also have to have "lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program" and are thus restricted by the terms of that licensed use -- the terms of service -- which here make clear that it is unlawful to scrape content in the way MS is doing -- and therefore it falls out of the DMCA exception.
Regarding the adblocking, this is no different then using an adblocker in a browser when visiting a website, AFAIK that's legal (and if isn't it definately should be)
It is a breach of the TOS -- that means it is a breach of contract. There are also DMCA ramifications. That said, very few websites enforce it that way.
Technically, you're the one breaking the TOS, not AdBlock Plus. Also -- I don't believe there are ad blockers that can easily block the video ads that are embedded into the player frame without also disabling the player. Am I wrong on that?
If it were the same thing -- maybe -- but it's not. There are no hidden APIs here -- Google doesn't want to build an app for Microsoft -- so rather than build a compliant app Microsoft built an app that breaks Google's TOS by ad blocking and ALLOWING CONTENT DOWNLOAD. Of the two, the second is the far bigger issue -- you know all those sponsored channels with bands putting up their new music -- yeah, that's an issue.
Breach of contract, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unauthorized access to a computer system and circumventing security systems under the DMCA, shall I go on?