If its clearly spelled out in the conditions of entry and with a message at the start of the show and people still use their phones, the theater owners would then have the right to kick the phone abusers out (since a movie theater is private property)
Maybe if the movie theater owners did more to make the experience better, more people would go to the theater.
Why cant theaters just have conditions of entry that tell people that use of mobile phones in the theater is prohibited (along with recording devices, alcohol, glass bottles, metal cans and hot food). Anyone who violates the conditions of entry gets ejected from the theater.
Here in Australia, all theaters I have been to have such rules (and they usually have a message right at the start saying "please turn off your phones") and I have never experienced someone using a phone during the film itself in a way that is distracting or annoying.
The #1 reason US broadband sucks is because companies that make big bucks selling you TV want to keep it that way.
The cable companies are willing to spend big bucks keeping competition out. They see the Internet as a massive threat to their business model of selling linear TV channels (and they have Hollywood in their corner who see better broadband as being good for the "pirates" who "steal" their content, especially if its broadband run by entities that wont play ball with their "anti-piracy" plans and programs like Google or a local municipality)
If you want a great example of what the cable companies are doing, look up the deal Verizon and Comcast did where Verizon agreed to stop rolling out FiOS (which basically hands Comcast a monopoly on high speed broadband in most of those areas)
1.Find another drug that can be used for the lethal injections (or the operations), if such a chemical exists. 2.Get a company not located in the EU to start making this particular drug as a source (for the lethal injections, for the operations or both). Would work good assuming the EU company doesn't have any patent on the drug in the US or the country where it would be made. 3.End capital punishment and lock people in jail for life instead or 4.Find an alternative to lethal injection for killing people (as others in this thread have said)
Not really, they use the shipping address to detect foreign purchases. (and more and more online retailers are detecting and blocking the use of re-shippers)
In the case of #1, it should apply to anyone who is making claims about violation even before it ever gets to court. (I haven't read the full bill to know if it works that way)
It would stop Microsoft (for example) being able to spread its "Linux violates our patents, if you are using it without a license from us, we may sue you" FUD (or the BS where they only provide details about infringement once you agree not to go to court and challenge)
As for #2, Apple for example claims they have a license from Lodsys regarding in-app purchasing and that the license covers the in-app purchasing implementation in iOS. Under that provision, Lodsys would be prohibited from suing app developers as the implementation of the patent was done by Apple (and would instead need to sue Apple if Lodsys thinks the license Apple has isn't valid). It would also make it 100% illegal to sue someone under any laws for merely using a patented product (e.g. if someone has a patent for compressing video, you would ONLY be able to sue entities producing encoders and decoders and be prohibited from suing anyone who is merely using a product to encode or decode the video or distributing the results of such encoding)
1.Require anyone who is saying "xyz is violating my patents" to disclose exactly which patents are being violated and exactly which products are violating those patents and how, regardless of whether a lawsuit is being filed or not. This would, for example, mean if Microsoft wants to say "Linux violates our patents" they would have to show exactly which patents they are claiming Linux is violating and which parts of Linux are violating which patents.
2,Make it illegal to sue customers and users if the manufacturer has a license for the patents. So, for example, if a company makes a video camera that records H.264 compressed video and purchases a patent license from the patent holders of H.264, those same patent holders can't sue someone who buys that video camera and uses it. Or a patent troll suing the developer of an app because that app uses a feature that is provided by the OS (in that case they would be required to sue the operating system vendor instead)
3.Introduce an "enforce it or loose it" rule for patents that requires patent holders to vigorously defend (either via licensing or via lawsuits) their patent or risk loosing the ability to sue those entities in the future. This would prevent the situation where patent holders go after small fish that they know they can beat, then using those wins as precedent and leverage against the big boys. This would also prevent the situation where someone holding a patent sits on the patent until the technology is more wide spread and then files lawsuits (remember what happened with LZW and GIF?)
4.Introduce a system where anyone (even if they aren't using/violating the patent) can submit prior art to the patent office for review. The patent office would then review that prior art. If the prior art is found to be genuine and the patent is invalidated, the holder of the patent must pay the patent office money to cover the review. If the prior art is not genuine, the entity that submitted the prior art has to pay.
Due to the costs incurred if the prior art is not genuine, there is a dis-incentive to submit frivolous or bogus prior art requests. If the fees paid are structured correctly then there would also be an incentive to properly review all prior art requests.
and 5.Require that anyone who claims to have a patent over any part of a standard, where that standard has been mandated by the government for use in certain situations, MUST license that patent for use in implementing the standard to anyone who wishes to acquire a license (including open source software) and must license under fair terms (with a suitable legal definition of whats "fair" that is not open to influence from either party)
Ok, so Telsa goes to someone not employed by the company or connected to it and pays them money to open up "Telsa Car Dealers of Texas Inc". Since "Telsa Car Dealers of Texas Inc" is a completly separate company with no ownership ties to "Telsa Motors Inc" then "Telsa Car Dealers of Texas Inc" can legally purchase cars from "Telsa Motors Inc" and sell them to the public.
I dont know about Texas specifically but I do know that there was a situation where a Chevrolet dealer got in trouble with GM for not following the mandatory corporate image in the building of the dealership (i.e. it didn't have the colors, materials, signage etc required for a Chevy dealership)
So there is no reason that I can see that Telsa can't require dealers to comply with requirements about how the cars must be displayed and how the showroom has to be set up. (e.g. requirements about signage)
I run SeaMonkey (which is using most of the Firefox core and will probably inherit this Java block feature if its not already there) and I dont have Java installed at all. I have yet to find a single web site I use that needs Java (on the rare occasion I have found one there is usually an alternative for what I want to do anyway:)
Last xmas here in Australia I flew from Perth to Brisbane and back without ever showing any form of ID. All I needed was the booking details to plug into the self check-in machine. The guys doing the security screening didn't check anything and the airline staff at the gate and on the airplane only checked the boarding pass.
All I needed in order to get on that airplane was the name the booking was made under so I could put it into the self-check machines (they take either a name or a booking reference from memory)
This was with QANTAS, never flown with JetStar or Virgin or others so I dont know how things work there.
The difference with those vendors is that they (AFAIK) sell/give you a PID that you get to use alongside their hardware chipsets only (hardware chipsets that have presumably been verified by the USB people as being spec-compliant)
The reason Samsung is using its cellular technology SEP patents against Apple is that Apple (unlike basically every other mobile device company on the planet) refused to agree to the standard terms for licensing the patents (a broad cross-licensing deal). And then when Samsung offered an alternative that Samsung claimed was fair and reasonable (a per-unit royalty on devices) Apple rejected that too. Hence Samsung suing.
If Apple would agree to the same terms everyone else in the industry has licensed these Samsung patents at, this whole mess would go away.
I think a lot of people are saying "Yeah, the government might be listening to my phone calls or reading my emails but so what. If it helps stop the bad guys, I am ok with that". Others are saying "yeah I heard about the surveillance but there is nothing I can do about it so why bother caring". Still others believed the promises of Obama when he said he would do something about this stuff (shut down gitmo, wind back the police state etc etc etc) but since he has been in office things have gotten worse, not better and now people have given up hoping that their politicians will do something about it.
The real reason the broadcasters are doing this is because right now if you dont have an antenna (and many people dont, people in apartments and other shared dwellings, people with no light of sign to the transmission tower etc) the only way to get the OTA channels is to buy pay TV. And the pay TV operators pay a fair chunk of money to the OTA networks for rebroadcast rights.
So what Aereo is doing is allowing a lot more people to get the OTA channels without going through the cable companies (which means the cable companies wont be willing to pay as much for the rebroadcast rights to the OTA networks)
What forced DRM out of the music industry was Apple's market dominance of the MP3 player market with the iPod. The record companies were afraid that the Apple iTunes store was going to become such a dominant player in the digital music business that they would loose all their power. The only way to break iTunes was to allow another competitor (in this case Amazon) to offer a music store that was DRM free (as only Apple can produce DRM audio for the iPod). Once Amazon was up and running the studios offered Apple the ability to offer DRM free (and IIRC higher quality) audio but they had to change the model (i.e. no more "one price for every song")
As for the situation with DRM video, if HTML DRM isn't possible all that will happen is that video providers will continue to use Flash, Silverlight or another proprietary plugin (or make their own app)
From what I can tell, the frequencies they are using bounce of the ionosphere so they get REALLY long propagation meaning if you broadcast at the times they tell you to, you will get picked up by the probe.
Even though you have to buy from a dealer, this new GM website means you get exactly the car you want with the extras you want at a price that is set before you even set foot on the dealer lot. No negotiating and no up-sell.
There are a lot of people in groups 1, 2 and 3 on your list who WANT to acquire content lawfully but cant because the content they want is unavailable to them through a lawful source. There are also a bunch of people in group 3 that can get the content lawfully but choose not to because of price (or because they have to acquire content they dont want in order to get the content they do).
For example, there is a documentary series produced by the History Channel called "Tales of the gun". If I wish to obtain this series here in Australia, I can: A.Buy Foxtel pay TV at great expense and hope the episodes I want to see gets aired on History Channel Australia B.Try and track down a DVD copy from overseas and import it (and hope it works on my DVD player and doesn't fail because of region lock issues) or C.Go to YouTube or Google, type in a few keywords and watch the episode online.
If I could walk into a store and buy a box-set of this series (or a number of other pieces of older content that just isn't available on DVD in this country) I would do it. But since the content producers refuse to sell it to me, I have no option but to pirate if I want to consume the content.
I saw this film yesterday and I can say that there is no way you would be able to replicate the space station sets inside the Vomit Comet (or any other flying machine built to date), they are just too big.
You clearly have never used the open source ATI driver otherwise you would know that its more than adequate for many people and that you dont need the closed-source flgrx driver 99% of the time.
Same with nvidia and their blob, Noveau is getting better all the time (and will only continue to improve now that nvidia have decided to stare info)
I personally run Noveau on my Gentoo box (which has a fairly old card in it)
But they need to make sure there is a clause requiring the port to be ON the device and not handled through an adapter from whatever the law ends up specifying as standard to the proprietary connector on the device. That way you dont need to carry around the adapter in order to just charge anywhere.
Oh and it needs to be extended not just to smartphone vendors but to vendors of dumbphones, MP3 players, GPS devices and tablets too. (99.9% of non-Apple MP3 players that dont use regular batteries are already using either miniusb or microusb anyway so only Apple would have to make any changes to their product I suspect)
The SteamBox will have whatever hardware Valve decides to include. Valve will be able to choose the CPU and GPU combo that makes the games they intend to run on the device (i.e. Source engine titles, whatever else is on Steam for Linux etc) run the best (including picking a GPU with good OpenGL support)
Valve can also publish a set of specs and say "if you want the best SteamOS experience, buy this hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
If its clearly spelled out in the conditions of entry and with a message at the start of the show and people still use their phones, the theater owners would then have the right to kick the phone abusers out (since a movie theater is private property)
Maybe if the movie theater owners did more to make the experience better, more people would go to the theater.
Why cant theaters just have conditions of entry that tell people that use of mobile phones in the theater is prohibited (along with recording devices, alcohol, glass bottles, metal cans and hot food). Anyone who violates the conditions of entry gets ejected from the theater.
Here in Australia, all theaters I have been to have such rules (and they usually have a message right at the start saying "please turn off your phones") and I have never experienced someone using a phone during the film itself in a way that is distracting or annoying.
The #1 reason US broadband sucks is because companies that make big bucks selling you TV want to keep it that way.
The cable companies are willing to spend big bucks keeping competition out. They see the Internet as a massive threat to their business model of selling linear TV channels (and they have Hollywood in their corner who see better broadband as being good for the "pirates" who "steal" their content, especially if its broadband run by entities that wont play ball with their "anti-piracy" plans and programs like Google or a local municipality)
If you want a great example of what the cable companies are doing, look up the deal Verizon and Comcast did where Verizon agreed to stop rolling out FiOS (which basically hands Comcast a monopoly on high speed broadband in most of those areas)
1.Find another drug that can be used for the lethal injections (or the operations), if such a chemical exists.
2.Get a company not located in the EU to start making this particular drug as a source (for the lethal injections, for the operations or both). Would work good assuming the EU company doesn't have any patent on the drug in the US or the country where it would be made.
3.End capital punishment and lock people in jail for life instead
or 4.Find an alternative to lethal injection for killing people (as others in this thread have said)
Not really, they use the shipping address to detect foreign purchases. (and more and more online retailers are detecting and blocking the use of re-shippers)
In the case of #1, it should apply to anyone who is making claims about violation even before it ever gets to court. (I haven't read the full bill to know if it works that way)
It would stop Microsoft (for example) being able to spread its "Linux violates our patents, if you are using it without a license from us, we may sue you" FUD (or the BS where they only provide details about infringement once you agree not to go to court and challenge)
As for #2, Apple for example claims they have a license from Lodsys regarding in-app purchasing and that the license covers the in-app purchasing implementation in iOS. Under that provision, Lodsys would be prohibited from suing app developers as the implementation of the patent was done by Apple (and would instead need to sue Apple if Lodsys thinks the license Apple has isn't valid). It would also make it 100% illegal to sue someone under any laws for merely using a patented product (e.g. if someone has a patent for compressing video, you would ONLY be able to sue entities producing encoders and decoders and be prohibited from suing anyone who is merely using a product to encode or decode the video or distributing the results of such encoding)
1.Require anyone who is saying "xyz is violating my patents" to disclose exactly which patents are being violated and exactly which products are violating those patents and how, regardless of whether a lawsuit is being filed or not.
This would, for example, mean if Microsoft wants to say "Linux violates our patents" they would have to show exactly which patents they are claiming Linux is violating and which parts of Linux are violating which patents.
2,Make it illegal to sue customers and users if the manufacturer has a license for the patents. So, for example, if a company makes a video camera that records H.264 compressed video and purchases a patent license from the patent holders of H.264, those same patent holders can't sue someone who buys that video camera and uses it. Or a patent troll suing the developer of an app because that app uses a feature that is provided by the OS (in that case they would be required to sue the operating system vendor instead)
3.Introduce an "enforce it or loose it" rule for patents that requires patent holders to vigorously defend (either via licensing or via lawsuits) their patent or risk loosing the ability to sue those entities in the future. This would prevent the situation where patent holders go after small fish that they know they can beat, then using those wins as precedent and leverage against the big boys. This would also prevent the situation where someone holding a patent sits on the patent until the technology is more wide spread and then files lawsuits (remember what happened with LZW and GIF?)
4.Introduce a system where anyone (even if they aren't using/violating the patent) can submit prior art to the patent office for review. The patent office would then review that prior art. If the prior art is found to be genuine and the patent is invalidated, the holder of the patent must pay the patent office money to cover the review. If the prior art is not genuine, the entity that submitted the prior art has to pay.
Due to the costs incurred if the prior art is not genuine, there is a dis-incentive to submit frivolous or bogus prior art requests. If the fees paid are structured correctly then there would also be an incentive to properly review all prior art requests.
and 5.Require that anyone who claims to have a patent over any part of a standard, where that standard has been mandated by the government for use in certain situations, MUST license that patent for use in implementing the standard to anyone who wishes to acquire a license (including open source software) and must license under fair terms (with a suitable legal definition of whats "fair" that is not open to influence from either party)
Ok, so Telsa goes to someone not employed by the company or connected to it and pays them money to open up "Telsa Car Dealers of Texas Inc". Since "Telsa Car Dealers of Texas Inc" is a completly separate company with no ownership ties to "Telsa Motors Inc" then "Telsa Car Dealers of Texas Inc" can legally purchase cars from "Telsa Motors Inc" and sell them to the public.
I dont know about Texas specifically but I do know that there was a situation where a Chevrolet dealer got in trouble with GM for not following the mandatory corporate image in the building of the dealership (i.e. it didn't have the colors, materials, signage etc required for a Chevy dealership)
So there is no reason that I can see that Telsa can't require dealers to comply with requirements about how the cars must be displayed and how the showroom has to be set up. (e.g. requirements about signage)
I run SeaMonkey (which is using most of the Firefox core and will probably inherit this Java block feature if its not already there) and I dont have Java installed at all. I have yet to find a single web site I use that needs Java (on the rare occasion I have found one there is usually an alternative for what I want to do anyway :)
Somehow I dont think Oregon wants to try to collect tax from someone with the capability to lob 120mm tank rounds at the tax collectors office...
Last xmas here in Australia I flew from Perth to Brisbane and back without ever showing any form of ID. All I needed was the booking details to plug into the self check-in machine. The guys doing the security screening didn't check anything and the airline staff at the gate and on the airplane only checked the boarding pass.
All I needed in order to get on that airplane was the name the booking was made under so I could put it into the self-check machines (they take either a name or a booking reference from memory)
This was with QANTAS, never flown with JetStar or Virgin or others so I dont know how things work there.
The difference with those vendors is that they (AFAIK) sell/give you a PID that you get to use alongside their hardware chipsets only (hardware chipsets that have presumably been verified by the USB people as being spec-compliant)
Monsanto and co will just genetically engineer the crops to grow in whatever conditions the climate throws at them...
The reason Samsung is using its cellular technology SEP patents against Apple is that Apple (unlike basically every other mobile device company on the planet) refused to agree to the standard terms for licensing the patents (a broad cross-licensing deal). And then when Samsung offered an alternative that Samsung claimed was fair and reasonable (a per-unit royalty on devices) Apple rejected that too. Hence Samsung suing.
If Apple would agree to the same terms everyone else in the industry has licensed these Samsung patents at, this whole mess would go away.
I think a lot of people are saying "Yeah, the government might be listening to my phone calls or reading my emails but so what. If it helps stop the bad guys, I am ok with that".
Others are saying "yeah I heard about the surveillance but there is nothing I can do about it so why bother caring".
Still others believed the promises of Obama when he said he would do something about this stuff (shut down gitmo, wind back the police state etc etc etc) but since he has been in office things have gotten worse, not better and now people have given up hoping that their politicians will do something about it.
The real reason the broadcasters are doing this is because right now if you dont have an antenna (and many people dont, people in apartments and other shared dwellings, people with no light of sign to the transmission tower etc) the only way to get the OTA channels is to buy pay TV. And the pay TV operators pay a fair chunk of money to the OTA networks for rebroadcast rights.
So what Aereo is doing is allowing a lot more people to get the OTA channels without going through the cable companies (which means the cable companies wont be willing to pay as much for the rebroadcast rights to the OTA networks)
What forced DRM out of the music industry was Apple's market dominance of the MP3 player market with the iPod. The record companies were afraid that the Apple iTunes store was going to become such a dominant player in the digital music business that they would loose all their power. The only way to break iTunes was to allow another competitor (in this case Amazon) to offer a music store that was DRM free (as only Apple can produce DRM audio for the iPod). Once Amazon was up and running the studios offered Apple the ability to offer DRM free (and IIRC higher quality) audio but they had to change the model (i.e. no more "one price for every song")
As for the situation with DRM video, if HTML DRM isn't possible all that will happen is that video providers will continue to use Flash, Silverlight or another proprietary plugin (or make their own app)
From what I can tell, the frequencies they are using bounce of the ionosphere so they get REALLY long propagation meaning if you broadcast at the times they tell you to, you will get picked up by the probe.
Even though you have to buy from a dealer, this new GM website means you get exactly the car you want with the extras you want at a price that is set before you even set foot on the dealer lot. No negotiating and no up-sell.
Which is exactly why some dealers dont like it.
There are a lot of people in groups 1, 2 and 3 on your list who WANT to acquire content lawfully but cant because the content they want is unavailable to them through a lawful source. There are also a bunch of people in group 3 that can get the content lawfully but choose not to because of price (or because they have to acquire content they dont want in order to get the content they do).
For example, there is a documentary series produced by the History Channel called "Tales of the gun". If I wish to obtain this series here in Australia, I can:
A.Buy Foxtel pay TV at great expense and hope the episodes I want to see gets aired on History Channel Australia
B.Try and track down a DVD copy from overseas and import it (and hope it works on my DVD player and doesn't fail because of region lock issues)
or C.Go to YouTube or Google, type in a few keywords and watch the episode online.
If I could walk into a store and buy a box-set of this series (or a number of other pieces of older content that just isn't available on DVD in this country) I would do it. But since the content producers refuse to sell it to me, I have no option but to pirate if I want to consume the content.
I saw this film yesterday and I can say that there is no way you would be able to replicate the space station sets inside the Vomit Comet (or any other flying machine built to date), they are just too big.
You clearly have never used the open source ATI driver otherwise you would know that its more than adequate for many people and that you dont need the closed-source flgrx driver 99% of the time.
Same with nvidia and their blob, Noveau is getting better all the time (and will only continue to improve now that nvidia have decided to stare info)
I personally run Noveau on my Gentoo box (which has a fairly old card in it)
But they need to make sure there is a clause requiring the port to be ON the device and not handled through an adapter from whatever the law ends up specifying as standard to the proprietary connector on the device. That way you dont need to carry around the adapter in order to just charge anywhere.
Oh and it needs to be extended not just to smartphone vendors but to vendors of dumbphones, MP3 players, GPS devices and tablets too. (99.9% of non-Apple MP3 players that dont use regular batteries are already using either miniusb or microusb anyway so only Apple would have to make any changes to their product I suspect)
The SteamBox will have whatever hardware Valve decides to include. Valve will be able to choose the CPU and GPU combo that makes the games they intend to run on the device (i.e. Source engine titles, whatever else is on Steam for Linux etc) run the best (including picking a GPU with good OpenGL support)
Valve can also publish a set of specs and say "if you want the best SteamOS experience, buy this hardware.