Not so, according to the cited article. The second amendment was not intended to let you battle the government, but let you fight with a militia to supprt the government.
Why would you need a constitutional amendment to prevent the government from banning weapons intended for use in its defense? It doesn't make sense.
Except that the iPad has had Bluetooth keyboard support from the moment it was released, and there were Bluetooth cases with built-in keyboards shortly thereafter. Most opt never to buy one.
Those who opt never to buy a Bluetooth keyboard aren't using their tablets the way PC advocates use their laptops and desktops. They don't need a keyboard on their tablets because they already have a computer for those things, or else they don't need personal computers at all.
For people who mostly browse the web, read e-books, do some occasional typing, and don't need to run anything other than what's available available through their device's app store, tablets are an excellent PC substitute.
I informed him that I make available the source code [only] to my users whom I've distributed a binary to and that the GPL specifically allows for this.
That's only the case if you include the source code along with the binaries. Otherwise you must accompany the binaries with a written offer for the source code, of which anybody (including those who aren't your customers) is then free to take advantage.
THE DISTRIBUTOR IS REQUIRES TO DISTRIBUTE THE SOURCE CODE
So if you get the binary from an AppStore, you are entitled for the source code. IF you then get it from a 3rd party, then that 3rd party is required to give you the source code, NOT the original distributor through the AppStore.
Not true. If the developer in question chose to include a written offer for the source code instead of the source code itself, that developer is then required to provide the sources to anybody who chooses to take advantage of the written offer, regardless of whether or not they obtained the binaries directly from the developer.
However that binary you paid for is under the seller's copyright, and you need his permission and must comply with his terms if you want to redistribute it.
Wrong. The GPL requires derivative works to be distributed under the same terms as the original work. This means anybody who gets a GPL'd binary from you is free to redistribute that binary and is entitled to a copy of the source code.
They say once they're done with this latest DMCA notice they'll be left with "an impossible task of policing our indexing bots." I'm not aware of any law requiring content to be filtered as it arrives, so why would they have to police their indexing bots?
"Misunderstood, my ass. Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest."
Imagine Facebook receives an order to remove information concerning a particular incident. How does Facebook remove this information without going through what all its users have shared or otherwise posted to their accounts?
To grant one person the right to be forgotten is to deprive another of the right to remember. The sharing of information once legitimately published cannot become illegitimate just because the person involved doesn't want it to be known. The "right" to be forgotten is a form of censorship and has nothing at all to do with privacy.
The DMCA (which is the only one that passed) is arguably beneficial, and in any case far less intrusive than the other two. So I don't get your point.
The DMCA's safe harbor provisions are certainly beneficial, but the takedown procedures are not. The DMCA's takedown procedures have been abused and misused on numerous occasions, and the requirement that user accounts be disabled after repeated instances of alleged infringement is a serious problem.
If only they would do this for their own attempts to regulate the Internet (think SOPA, PIPA and DMCA), the Internet would be much better off than it is today.
Does this apply to all apps or just games? If it's just games then the claim may be indeed be legitimate (or not), but if it's all apps then it's certainly a case of overreaching by the trademark holder (or else an overreaction by Apple).
The most ridiculous element is the ban on the use of "memory" as a keyword. Trademark law was never intended to forbid others from naming competitors' products or from using trademarked words in their descriptive sense ("this game will enhance your memory and give you super-strength!").
Can the authorities abuse their position of power for various nefarious deeds? Absolutely. Are some of their requests legally or ethically dubious? No doubt. Nevertheless, there's plenty of legitimate reasons for governments to request user information and it should come as no surprise that the number of such requests is increasing.
The problem with "legitimate" requests begins when they become so routine that they end up as fishing expeditions rather than legitimate criminal investigations.
Given Obama's terrible record concerning civil liberties and due process (e.g. indefinite detention of American citizens, domain seizures without a trial, a White House sponsored deal with ISPs to disconnect people accused of infringement, significant expansion of presidential powers in the name of fighting terrorism), what does this mean for the future of America? Would Romney really have been any worse?
Trademarks only have to be defended against uses that would dilute those marks. There's no reason to believe that reviewing a book bearing an infringing title would do anything to dilute the trademark in question, as almost any reviewer's use of the mark would be strictly nominative. The case against Harper Collins is a different matter, assuming he has a valid trademark.
The good thing is that Apple learned how to protect its look and feel from the Microsoft case. Trade dress, how about that.
Didn't Apple's trade dress infringement claims against Microsoft fail to produce a verdict in Apple's favor?
Apple won its case against Samsung mainly on the strength of its patents rather than its trade dress. Either way, one thing is clear: the US intellectual property system is seriously fucked up and needs to change.
That's what I meant. Android allows this by default, but will Ouya?
I should clarify: "allows this by default" meaning it allows you to enable "unknown sources" unless the device manufacturer decides to disable that feature.
"While I agree with the general question about how "open" this device is, you don't have to root your android to install apps from unknown sources; that's one of the main selling points over ios in the first place!"
That's what I meant. Android allows this by default, but will Ouya?
I asked developers whether Ouya will run games sold outside the official store (without having to root the device, like with to Android's "unknown sources"), but they never replied. Until they do, I don't consider this a particularly open console.
Have we reached an era when even those who advertise openness won't release commercial platforms that aren't like walled gardens?
Gmail alone has approximately 425 million users, the vast majority of whom pay no money for the service.
Not directly, but without those 425 million users Google's advertisers wouldn't make any money from Google Ads and Google would end up broke. Google customers therefore deserve some attention in exchange for their patronage.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you need a constitutional amendment to prevent the government from banning weapons intended for use in its defense? It doesn't make sense.
Those who opt never to buy a Bluetooth keyboard aren't using their tablets the way PC advocates use their laptops and desktops. They don't need a keyboard on their tablets because they already have a computer for those things, or else they don't need personal computers at all.
For people who mostly browse the web, read e-books, do some occasional typing, and don't need to run anything other than what's available available through their device's app store, tablets are an excellent PC substitute.
And which countries, do you think, make many times that much by exploiting the inequalities of cheap foreign labor?
I didn't miss the irony in AC's post, if that's what you're thinking.
Right on! Apple's competitors could give their phones sharp corners, or use a polkadot pentagonal shape instead of a black rectangular one.
That's only the case if you include the source code along with the binaries. Otherwise you must accompany the binaries with a written offer for the source code, of which anybody (including those who aren't your customers) is then free to take advantage.
Not true. If the developer in question chose to include a written offer for the source code instead of the source code itself, that developer is then required to provide the sources to anybody who chooses to take advantage of the written offer, regardless of whether or not they obtained the binaries directly from the developer.
No, I suppose they don't.
Wrong. The GPL requires derivative works to be distributed under the same terms as the original work. This means anybody who gets a GPL'd binary from you is free to redistribute that binary and is entitled to a copy of the source code.
They say once they're done with this latest DMCA notice they'll be left with "an impossible task of policing our indexing bots." I'm not aware of any law requiring content to be filtered as it arrives, so why would they have to police their indexing bots?
Imagine Facebook receives an order to remove information concerning a particular incident. How does Facebook remove this information without going through what all its users have shared or otherwise posted to their accounts?
To grant one person the right to be forgotten is to deprive another of the right to remember. The sharing of information once legitimately published cannot become illegitimate just because the person involved doesn't want it to be known. The "right" to be forgotten is a form of censorship and has nothing at all to do with privacy.
Ideologically, 2 out of 3 is far far less than a unanimous vote.
The DMCA's safe harbor provisions are certainly beneficial, but the takedown procedures are not. The DMCA's takedown procedures have been abused and misused on numerous occasions, and the requirement that user accounts be disabled after repeated instances of alleged infringement is a serious problem.
"... it is essential that the Internet remain stable, secure, and free from government control" -- 112th United States Congress.
Lets see if they abide by this once the next round of Internet-specific legislation comes along.
If only they would do this for their own attempts to regulate the Internet (think SOPA, PIPA and DMCA), the Internet would be much better off than it is today.
Does this apply to all apps or just games? If it's just games then the claim may be indeed be legitimate (or not), but if it's all apps then it's certainly a case of overreaching by the trademark holder (or else an overreaction by Apple).
The most ridiculous element is the ban on the use of "memory" as a keyword. Trademark law was never intended to forbid others from naming competitors' products or from using trademarked words in their descriptive sense ("this game will enhance your memory and give you super-strength!").
The problem with "legitimate" requests begins when they become so routine that they end up as fishing expeditions rather than legitimate criminal investigations.
Given Obama's terrible record concerning civil liberties and due process (e.g. indefinite detention of American citizens, domain seizures without a trial, a White House sponsored deal with ISPs to disconnect people accused of infringement, significant expansion of presidential powers in the name of fighting terrorism), what does this mean for the future of America? Would Romney really have been any worse?
Trademarks only have to be defended against uses that would dilute those marks. There's no reason to believe that reviewing a book bearing an infringing title would do anything to dilute the trademark in question, as almost any reviewer's use of the mark would be strictly nominative. The case against Harper Collins is a different matter, assuming he has a valid trademark.
Didn't Apple's trade dress infringement claims against Microsoft fail to produce a verdict in Apple's favor?
Apple won its case against Samsung mainly on the strength of its patents rather than its trade dress. Either way, one thing is clear: the US intellectual property system is seriously fucked up and needs to change.
A much abused citation from an unjust veredict delivered by an overpraised judge.
Fire! Fire! Fire!.
I should clarify: "allows this by default" meaning it allows you to enable "unknown sources" unless the device manufacturer decides to disable that feature.
Sometimes I wish Slashdot had an edit button.
That's what I meant. Android allows this by default, but will Ouya?
I asked developers whether Ouya will run games sold outside the official store (without having to root the device, like with to Android's "unknown sources"), but they never replied. Until they do, I don't consider this a particularly open console.
Have we reached an era when even those who advertise openness won't release commercial platforms that aren't like walled gardens?
Not directly, but without those 425 million users Google's advertisers wouldn't make any money from Google Ads and Google would end up broke. Google customers therefore deserve some attention in exchange for their patronage.