Anything that crosses the event horizon is absorbed. Anything that does not interacts gravitationally with the black hole as it would with any other massive object. Black holes don't have any sort of magical ability to suck things in. All they have is gravity (Well, ok. They also have charge and spin.)
The Chinese government has long since figured out that it doesn't matter if a tiny number of geeks can get around their censorship as long as they can impose it on most of the population. And they can and do.
Far more likely: one did a market study, noticed that the customers neither knew nor cared what the price was, and so tried a price increase. The others quickly noticed that he lost no business and so followed suit.
They are distributing the library under the terms of the LGPL with no additional restrictions and so are complying fully with the license. Whether or not they are violating their patent license by doing so is their problem.
The situation this clause of the LGPL is aimed at is one wherein Google would be obligated by their patent license to require that everyone they distributed the program to sign a patent sublicensing agreement that took away rights granted by the LGPL.
> I don't think there can be much in the way of law enforcement action. No damages, yet.
Clear violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
> No idea where they might be operating from, so jurisdiction is an open question.
Doesn't matter where they were operating from. T-Mobile is a US company and the computers that were cracked were in US territory so the US has jurisdiction. The question is custody: can the Feds find them and if so can they get them extradited (or otherwise gain custody).
All your steps are quite unnecessary. He is an "other" and he owns his intellecual property through operation of copyright law.
In any case, I don't see that they are making any claims to anything on his machine: just to what's on theirs (not that such a blanket assignment would work under US law anyway).
...if what you "bought" was shallow crap that you will have lost interest in in six months, who cares if the DRM servers shut down after a year? And that describes 99% of the market.
Was the suit dismissed with prejudice or without? The difference is important. "With prejudice" means that the issue is settled and they can never bring it before any US court again. "Without prejudice" means that they can try again.
Slashdot Mirror
Anything that crosses the event horizon is absorbed. Anything that does not interacts gravitationally with the black hole as it would with any other massive object. Black holes don't have any sort of magical ability to suck things in. All they have is gravity (Well, ok. They also have charge and spin.)
n/t
> And I thought e-rate was bad. At least this kind of filtering in the U.S. is only
> mandated in the elementary schools and public libraries...
Only ones that get Federal money (which is almost all, unfortunately)
> ...so far.
Look up the "Child Online Protection Act". The Supreme Court killed it.
The Chinese government has long since figured out that it doesn't matter if a tiny number of geeks can get around their censorship as long as they can impose it on most of the population. And they can and do.
Right. The term he wants is "state socialism".
Sounds like a hoax to me.
Far more likely: one did a market study, noticed that the customers neither knew nor cared what the price was, and so tried a price increase. The others quickly noticed that he lost no business and so followed suit.
The "cyber czar" deals primarily with internal government IT matters. He has no power to enact regulations affecting the public.
They are distributing the library under the terms of the LGPL with no additional restrictions and so are complying fully with the license. Whether or not they are violating their patent license by doing so is their problem.
The situation this clause of the LGPL is aimed at is one wherein Google would be obligated by their patent license to require that everyone they distributed the program to sign a patent sublicensing agreement that took away rights granted by the LGPL.
> I don't think there can be much in the way of law enforcement action. No damages, yet.
Clear violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
> No idea where they might be operating from, so jurisdiction is an open question.
Doesn't matter where they were operating from. T-Mobile is a US company and the computers that were cracked were in US territory so the US has jurisdiction. The question is custody: can the Feds find them and if so can they get them extradited (or otherwise gain custody).
What is there in this data that would cause an AT&T executive to risk losing his job and perhaps going to prison?
After all, the "press" is so fast on the uptake on this sort of thing.
It's utterly harmless unless you eat it. If you do so it will increase your risk of cancer by a miniscule amount (unless you swallow it whole).
All your steps are quite unnecessary. He is an "other" and he owns his intellecual property through operation of copyright law. In any case, I don't see that they are making any claims to anything on his machine: just to what's on theirs (not that such a blanket assignment would work under US law anyway).
A different college.
> ...something from my favourite book, "Harry Potter and the Dead Horse." But I can't it's
> DRMed.
Of course you can. Just type it in.
So don't by anything with DRM.
...if what you "bought" was shallow crap that you will have lost interest in in six months, who cares if the DRM servers shut down after a year? And that describes 99% of the market.
If only that was the worst thing they've ever done...
> Very high pressures + spinning media doesn't work particularly well.
There may be other ways to create the effect. That's the point.
Well, why *wouldn't* they want to waste the opposition's time? A better question is why do they want to waste the judge's time? (and their own.)
This is not an appeal. It is a new trial.
Are you implying that the judge has been bribed?
You just might want to read the summary...
Was the suit dismissed with prejudice or without? The difference is important. "With prejudice" means that the issue is settled and they can never bring it before any US court again. "Without prejudice" means that they can try again.