The technology that was "broken" was not DRM technology. Look up the definition of DRM. Read the DMCA. "DRM" does not mean "Business Plan Enforcement". It means "Digital Rights Management", that is, controlling the copying of copyrighted digital works. You can't properly speak of every technology that attempts to limit or direct human behaviour so as to maximize profit as "DRM".
You would deny the legitimacy of any criticism of anything self-destructive if you associate it with African-Americans? Yours is a particularly harmful brand of racial stereotyping.
Any troll worth his salt need not "use... obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person".
You failed to think of the tiny regions scattered through each cell provider's high-level coverage area that happen to be, say, blocked by a hill from the nearest tower. No layers of concrete, or anything else, is necessary to get an unreliable signal in those locations. Take a look at AT&T's detailed coverage map for any city and you will see them. This is precisely what these boxes were designed to address.
But in asking whether these private security guards would have the 'rights' of cops, you did offer as examples of such 'rights' that they are "allowed to touch you if you don't touch them", and that they "can[not] be videotaped". If you so take for granted that cops have those 'rights' that you don't even follow my point, then you have been well engineered to be a police state subject.
Are you saying that where you live, police are immune from the laws against assault, and that while in public, where they have no expectation of privacy, they cannot be photographed (which is to say, one cannot capture an image in a public place if police will be visible in it)? If so, then your country not merely in practise, but formally, is a police state.
So the constitutional clause can be perfectly legally subverted by the ploy of designating as a "secured area" a bottleneck along a member of Congress's path of travel to the capitol? The intent of the clause is NOT to prevent an MC from being charged with a crime. It is to prevent him from being blocked from traveling to the capitol by means of arrest. By the way, in that era, everyone understood that depriving a person of his liberty to travel on the King's highway was to arrest him.
When a lot is otherwise full, the half dozen empty "handicapped spots" prevent half a dozen people from parking anywhere in the lot. In some cases that effectively prevents them from pursuing their business at the location at all, because the nearest alternative is literally kilometres away.
The headline is egregiously wrong. But what else is new around here? If the article's abstract of the paper is anywhere close to accurate, this was just a toxicological study of the effects on animals of being fed certain genetically modified plants. It has NO predictive value with respect to the effects of other modifications.
Sadly, the news is rife with stories of judges displaying gross lack of understanding of peer-to-peer comms technologies and gratefully accepting the 'education' offered them by plaintiffs as to how any such technology is analogous to a burglar's tool. So, yes, there is a story here.
heathen_01 made a sweeping claim: Who is responsible for Government if not the population, and I critiqued it. Before you call a comment idiotic, you might want to read the context.
The fundamental error here is a confusion about what a virtual world is and how virtual worlds relate to the real world. A virtual game world must, to be worth the name, and to be worth entering, be like our world: a world with physics and freedom of individual action. Any restraints on action of the players must arise via social organization within that world. If the characters want to create laws and build prisons, or apply peer pressure to others, fine. But for the human beings running the game to reach in and impose what amount to magical constraints from the in-world point of view, such as striking characters dead every time they commit certain actions, is deeply wrong and undermines the whole business. It's worse than playing God.
What country was that ever true in? Certainly not any Western democracies, in which anyone doing that is, of course, arrested, as they expect. Or are you just a troll?
Slashdot Mirror
The technology that was "broken" was not DRM technology. Look up the definition of DRM. Read the DMCA. "DRM" does not mean "Business Plan Enforcement". It means "Digital Rights Management", that is, controlling the copying of copyrighted digital works. You can't properly speak of every technology that attempts to limit or direct human behaviour so as to maximize profit as "DRM".
You would deny the legitimacy of any criticism of anything self-destructive if you associate it with African-Americans? Yours is a particularly harmful brand of racial stereotyping.
The question is, does anyone really want or need a light for their Kindle?
That's a lot like ending a story about a new agricultural technology with "But does anyone really want or need to eat?"
You're new around here, aintcha?
Any troll worth his salt need not "use ... obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person".
You failed to think of the tiny regions scattered through each cell provider's high-level coverage area that happen to be, say, blocked by a hill from the nearest tower. No layers of concrete, or anything else, is necessary to get an unreliable signal in those locations. Take a look at AT&T's detailed coverage map for any city and you will see them. This is precisely what these boxes were designed to address.
The Third Reich had trials, too. And they, being fastidious Germans, even codified their oppression in 'laws'.
You went to the trouble of copying and pasting that excerpt from the article, and commenting on it, without bothering to read it?
And while we are at it, let's tax all women to pay the expenses of rapists.
But in asking whether these private security guards would have the 'rights' of cops, you did offer as examples of such 'rights' that they are "allowed to touch you if you don't touch them", and that they "can[not] be videotaped". If you so take for granted that cops have those 'rights' that you don't even follow my point, then you have been well engineered to be a police state subject.
I wonder if that's how she put when speaking at KKK rallies.
Are you saying that where you live, police are immune from the laws against assault, and that while in public, where they have no expectation of privacy, they cannot be photographed (which is to say, one cannot capture an image in a public place if police will be visible in it)? If so, then your country not merely in practise, but formally, is a police state.
You wouldn't want it. His job is to deliberately misspell simple words so as to generate posts like yours.
Still, that didn't stop a spokesman from characterizing the new AT&T data plans as 'a great value' for customers.
Naturally. Lying is what marketing is all about.
Petition government to change the law
In other words, beg your rulers to change their announced policy to so as to respect the contract defining their powers.
stay out of the airport until you manage (if you manage) to restrict TSA power.
In other words, submit to their invalid usurpation of authority.
So the constitutional clause can be perfectly legally subverted by the ploy of designating as a "secured area" a bottleneck along a member of Congress's path of travel to the capitol? The intent of the clause is NOT to prevent an MC from being charged with a crime. It is to prevent him from being blocked from traveling to the capitol by means of arrest. By the way, in that era, everyone understood that depriving a person of his liberty to travel on the King's highway was to arrest him.
The word "misappropriated" in your sentence bears an immense weight. You owe it to us to define it and explain how it applies here.
When a lot is otherwise full, the half dozen empty "handicapped spots" prevent half a dozen people from parking anywhere in the lot. In some cases that effectively prevents them from pursuing their business at the location at all, because the nearest alternative is literally kilometres away.
The headline is egregiously wrong. But what else is new around here? If the article's abstract of the paper is anywhere close to accurate, this was just a toxicological study of the effects on animals of being fed certain genetically modified plants. It has NO predictive value with respect to the effects of other modifications.
Sadly, the news is rife with stories of judges displaying gross lack of understanding of peer-to-peer comms technologies and gratefully accepting the 'education' offered them by plaintiffs as to how any such technology is analogous to a burglar's tool. So, yes, there is a story here.
heathen_01 made a sweeping claim: Who is responsible for Government if not the population, and I critiqued it. Before you call a comment idiotic, you might want to read the context.
Uh, the people who constitute the Government? The ones with their boots on the throats of the people?
The fundamental error here is a confusion about what a virtual world is and how virtual worlds relate to the real world. A virtual game world must, to be worth the name, and to be worth entering, be like our world: a world with physics and freedom of individual action. Any restraints on action of the players must arise via social organization within that world. If the characters want to create laws and build prisons, or apply peer pressure to others, fine. But for the human beings running the game to reach in and impose what amount to magical constraints from the in-world point of view, such as striking characters dead every time they commit certain actions, is deeply wrong and undermines the whole business. It's worse than playing God.
What country was that ever true in? Certainly not any Western democracies, in which anyone doing that is, of course, arrested, as they expect. Or are you just a troll?
Tomorrow we'll probably have a story about a group of cartographers who have demonstrated that the flat earth theory is not true.