It is generally thought that Canute was actually demonstrating that he could *not* command the tides, despite the widespread belief that his divinely granted authority would allow him to do so.
OK, so long as that is made plain at the outset. If the judge decides that purely unmasking a presumed-innocent person is a legitimate use of the court system, then you can proceed.
If someone was purposefully and maliciously undermining my reputation, I would probably do the same things this model did -- better that than lose my career to defend some foul-mouthed blogger's alleged right to defame me.
So sue them and follow it through to a win, don't just deliberately bring a case to the point of removing their anonymity and then drop it.
My point is that she should not have brought a court action just to expose someone's name and then drop it. That's abusing the court system, and therefore she clearly is contemptuous of the court. Interpreting that as "she should be forced to continue" is misrepresenting my point. And to counter the "how do you know", well, that's what the court system is for, making an informed decision on the truth of someone's intent (e.g. the difference between murder and manslaughter).
Alternatively, the judge should be able to award damages to the defendant when someone brings their name into question like that, even if it's just a token amount. There should be consequences for bringing mischievous lawsuits.
You have a right to anonymity. You forfeit it the instant you use it to commit a crime or defame someone.
But, and this is the crux of this case, do you forfeit it the instant someone accuses you of defamation? Back to the case in hand, the model should be dragged back into court for contempt. This is clearly abuse of the court system to get revenge without caring about justice.
Why would a cloud computing service provider such as Microsoft, Google, or Amazon be hostile to you? Cloud computing is not the same as SETI or Folding@Home, it's run in professional data centres.
But it isn't up to the Authors Guild. Some are saying that this is possible because a court is sanctioning it as a settlement to a class action lawsuit, but even that is a stretch, without the fig-leaf of a class action, there's no way the Authors Guild (who are only one party to the class action) has the right to make deals like this.
I think the objection is that this settlement only allows Google to do this. Anyone else has to not only scan the books in, but also get sued by the Authors Guild and then make the same class-action settlement.
Well, you could say that it doesn't affect your rights directly, only in so far as those rights are no longer as exclusive as they were. It grants additional rights to the defendant, Google, which is unusual in a lawsuit.
I disagree - having map data in poor signal areas is valuable, and also international data roaming charges are pretty horrendous. I didn't use my iPhone for sat nav while in France the last two weeks for the latter reason.
Hopefully it has TomTom's maps built in and doesn't download all the map info on demand over the data connection - I didn't use my iPhone in France for navigation except in emergencies as the roaming data charges are pretty steep. Probably less than £80 though...
I sometimes use Oovoo instead of skype, as it can do 3-way video calling for free, and more-way calls if one of you has a paid account. It's not quite as good as Skype for 2-way calls, but the 3-way video is nice to have.
I wrote a traffic simulaton in college, and it only worked (i.e. didn't jam up) when there was a wide variety of driver behaviours - preferred separaton distance, preferred speed, and slow-down-or-change-lane factor I think were the main attributes that I used. It wasn't sophisticated enough to take laws or highway code into account, but it was just a bunch of Pascal code running on a rickety old Pr1me.
In what way is Apple a monopoly on anything? They've overtaken Windows Mobile, which is impressive given Microsoft's head start, but I think Nokia (Symbian) is still the market leader.
And the judge is absolutely right. Mass file sharing does affect the potential market value of the copyrighted work. That doesn't mean that million-$ judgements are in any way sane.
The world stays pretty much the same, no matter what you do, the same NPCs show up, with only the occasional prescripted changed. That isn't inspiring material for a movie.
It hasn't always been that way, and there's a lore explanation for this. At the start of the World of Warcraft storyline, i.e. after the linear events of Warcraft I II & III, the whole world was put into a time loop by Nozdormu and the Infinite Dragonflight. This was done to trap the Old God C'thun and prevent him from entering the world and destroying it. Some individuals were kept outside of this time loop, in order that heroes could arise that could challenge C'thun and prevent him from entering the world. This gives us the convenient mechanism that you describe for keeping the player as the focus of the game, while the world remains unchanged. We progress through the content, seeing what appears to be an unfolding story.
As to why the time loop was not ended when the Ahn'Qiraj raid was done, well, I guess even the best laid plans of dragons can go wrong. The world has occasionally lurched forwards in big jump since then - the clearing of Naxxramas, the opening of Outland, and the war in Northrend, but the time loop still re-asserts itself.
Back to reality, they can avoid this problem entirely by setting the story prior to WoW, and even if they do something more recent then they can just ignore the problem by showing the linear adventure of one person who doesn't happen to go back to the Crossroads and find that Mankrik is still looking for his wife even though he's been told she's dead.
Ah, I see, I didn't pick up the gist of the OP. As an employee I guess they have a hold over him, but if a member of the public legally gained access and took a photo for personal use, I wonder how the building's owners could enforce that if he were to, for instance, release the picture into the public domain later on. Can a third party insist that I retain my copyright and use it to prevent anyone from profiting? Or, do they claim to own the copyright as it was produced on their premises (under a notional contract if such a thing exists), but are kindly allowing the photographer a personal use licence?
So you are saying that you don't want to contribute to Wikipedia, well that is your right. And you aren't surrendering your copyright, but you are giving away a licence to use the image for any purpose. You still have to be credited as the creator and copyright holder of the image.
Surely the workplace has no obligation to change purely for the betterment of Wikipedia.
Of course not, if any company or individual doesn't want to give their stuff away, then they don't have to.
Wikipedia will benefit here so that is the organisation that must change.
Allowing -nc- would be a huge step. Currently, anyone can copy any article for any purpose as long as they link back to the Wikipedia original. If some images (or other media such as video or audio) were tagged -nc- then anyone wanting to use Wikipedia content then has to go through checking the licences.
My argument against those mandatory online services is simple: What if the company ceases to exist or ceases to support the product?
Basically, tough shit. They make a product you can use it with the strings they attach or not bother.
Well that's the whole point of this article, they will lose sales if they move to an online model. Some friends of mine have 2 PCs, one they use for internet access, and one that is offline 99% of the time but can be plugged into the LAN. They don't have a router, so only one of their PCs can be online at a time. Anyone in this situation will only buy one copy of a game, and will not be able to play with their partner or friend.
Slashdot Mirror
It is generally thought that Canute was actually demonstrating that he could *not* command the tides, despite the widespread belief that his divinely granted authority would allow him to do so.
Clearly you are unaware of the danger inherent in using GOTO.
OK, so long as that is made plain at the outset. If the judge decides that purely unmasking a presumed-innocent person is a legitimate use of the court system, then you can proceed.
I have steam, i don't need another. Work with valve and use their steam, it works great...
...On a Mac?
If someone was purposefully and maliciously undermining my reputation, I would probably do the same things this model did -- better that than lose my career to defend some foul-mouthed blogger's alleged right to defame me.
So sue them and follow it through to a win, don't just deliberately bring a case to the point of removing their anonymity and then drop it.
My point is that she should not have brought a court action just to expose someone's name and then drop it. That's abusing the court system, and therefore she clearly is contemptuous of the court. Interpreting that as "she should be forced to continue" is misrepresenting my point. And to counter the "how do you know", well, that's what the court system is for, making an informed decision on the truth of someone's intent (e.g. the difference between murder and manslaughter).
Alternatively, the judge should be able to award damages to the defendant when someone brings their name into question like that, even if it's just a token amount. There should be consequences for bringing mischievous lawsuits.
You have a right to anonymity. You forfeit it the instant you use it to commit a crime or defame someone.
But, and this is the crux of this case, do you forfeit it the instant someone accuses you of defamation? Back to the case in hand, the model should be dragged back into court for contempt. This is clearly abuse of the court system to get revenge without caring about justice.
Why would a cloud computing service provider such as Microsoft, Google, or Amazon be hostile to you? Cloud computing is not the same as SETI or Folding@Home, it's run in professional data centres.
But it isn't up to the Authors Guild. Some are saying that this is possible because a court is sanctioning it as a settlement to a class action lawsuit, but even that is a stretch, without the fig-leaf of a class action, there's no way the Authors Guild (who are only one party to the class action) has the right to make deals like this.
I think the objection is that this settlement only allows Google to do this. Anyone else has to not only scan the books in, but also get sued by the Authors Guild and then make the same class-action settlement.
Well, you could say that it doesn't affect your rights directly, only in so far as those rights are no longer as exclusive as they were. It grants additional rights to the defendant, Google, which is unusual in a lawsuit.
I disagree - having map data in poor signal areas is valuable, and also international data roaming charges are pretty horrendous. I didn't use my iPhone for sat nav while in France the last two weeks for the latter reason.
Hopefully it has TomTom's maps built in and doesn't download all the map info on demand over the data connection - I didn't use my iPhone in France for navigation except in emergencies as the roaming data charges are pretty steep. Probably less than £80 though...
Yeah it's pretty ugly. Do you know a better free 3-way video calling application?
I sometimes use Oovoo instead of skype, as it can do 3-way video calling for free, and more-way calls if one of you has a paid account. It's not quite as good as Skype for 2-way calls, but the 3-way video is nice to have.
here you go
I wrote a traffic simulaton in college, and it only worked (i.e. didn't jam up) when there was a wide variety of driver behaviours - preferred separaton distance, preferred speed, and slow-down-or-change-lane factor I think were the main attributes that I used. It wasn't sophisticated enough to take laws or highway code into account, but it was just a bunch of Pascal code running on a rickety old Pr1me.
In what way is Apple a monopoly on anything? They've overtaken Windows Mobile, which is impressive given Microsoft's head start, but I think Nokia (Symbian) is still the market leader.
And the judge is absolutely right. Mass file sharing does affect the potential market value of the copyrighted work. That doesn't mean that million-$ judgements are in any way sane.
The world stays pretty much the same, no matter what you do, the same NPCs show up, with only the occasional prescripted changed. That isn't inspiring material for a movie.
It hasn't always been that way, and there's a lore explanation for this. At the start of the World of Warcraft storyline, i.e. after the linear events of Warcraft I II & III, the whole world was put into a time loop by Nozdormu and the Infinite Dragonflight. This was done to trap the Old God C'thun and prevent him from entering the world and destroying it. Some individuals were kept outside of this time loop, in order that heroes could arise that could challenge C'thun and prevent him from entering the world. This gives us the convenient mechanism that you describe for keeping the player as the focus of the game, while the world remains unchanged. We progress through the content, seeing what appears to be an unfolding story.
As to why the time loop was not ended when the Ahn'Qiraj raid was done, well, I guess even the best laid plans of dragons can go wrong. The world has occasionally lurched forwards in big jump since then - the clearing of Naxxramas, the opening of Outland, and the war in Northrend, but the time loop still re-asserts itself.
Back to reality, they can avoid this problem entirely by setting the story prior to WoW, and even if they do something more recent then they can just ignore the problem by showing the linear adventure of one person who doesn't happen to go back to the Crossroads and find that Mankrik is still looking for his wife even though he's been told she's dead.
Ah, I see, I didn't pick up the gist of the OP. As an employee I guess they have a hold over him, but if a member of the public legally gained access and took a photo for personal use, I wonder how the building's owners could enforce that if he were to, for instance, release the picture into the public domain later on. Can a third party insist that I retain my copyright and use it to prevent anyone from profiting? Or, do they claim to own the copyright as it was produced on their premises (under a notional contract if such a thing exists), but are kindly allowing the photographer a personal use licence?
So you are saying that you don't want to contribute to Wikipedia, well that is your right. And you aren't surrendering your copyright, but you are giving away a licence to use the image for any purpose. You still have to be credited as the creator and copyright holder of the image.
Surely the workplace has no obligation to change purely for the betterment of Wikipedia.
Of course not, if any company or individual doesn't want to give their stuff away, then they don't have to.
Wikipedia will benefit here so that is the organisation that must change.
Allowing -nc- would be a huge step. Currently, anyone can copy any article for any purpose as long as they link back to the Wikipedia original. If some images (or other media such as video or audio) were tagged -nc- then anyone wanting to use Wikipedia content then has to go through checking the licences.
ISO 8601:2004 defines the year prior to 1 to be year 0.
My argument against those mandatory online services is simple: What if the company ceases to exist or ceases to support the product?
Basically, tough shit. They make a product you can use it with the strings they attach or not bother.
Well that's the whole point of this article, they will lose sales if they move to an online model. Some friends of mine have 2 PCs, one they use for internet access, and one that is offline 99% of the time but can be plugged into the LAN. They don't have a router, so only one of their PCs can be online at a time. Anyone in this situation will only buy one copy of a game, and will not be able to play with their partner or friend.