It is a much better solution to unplug the battery. The cell phone will suddenly disappear from the network as if you were passing through an uncovered area.
How about wrappng it up in the proverbial tinfoil? Radio can't travel into a Faraday cage. Maybe a zip-up metallic mesh bag for the more fashion-conscious.
This may or may not have been a clear case. The issue I have with the punishment is that Google should defer such a financially damning decision to a neutral third party
Google ranking is solely Google's prerogative; it's like saying that Ebert can't pan a movie without referring it to a "neutral third party". Anyway, it's just embarrassing to BMW, they won't lose any sales. No one orders a BMW by searching for "German car".
There are a lot of annoying things out there, but this doesn't break any Google-specific rules. Or any rules at all, really. And would you really want them taken away? Do you want a searchable representation of the web or not?
The "representation of the web" that I personally want does not include dozens of copies of the same information, wrapped up with different ads. And Google does sometimes tell you that "there were 500 pages very similar to those already displayed"; I just wish it would do that for the Wiki-clones.
Who's to say whether a site's HTML is "deceptive"? It's a subjective decision, and one that presents a conflict of interest to Google.
This was a very clear case; the search engines were shown a text-intensive page, ordinary browsers were bounced to a completely different page with lots of images.
I think the summary is wrong; "People who can afford to pay this fee will have the privilege of reaching AOL subscribers, others will end up in junk folders". Though details in TFA are a bit murky, apparently non-Goodmail will have images and links blocked; so this should not affect plain text mail at all, even HTML mail should still be deliverd in a sanitised form.
Also, rather gutsy to have the 1984-style name "Goodmail" for a mail blocking "service". MiniTrue approved double-plus good.
it has been suggested/shown that some terrorist organizations recieve funds as a result of the sale of pirated goods.
It's been proved that billions of dollars from oil is the major funding for ME terrorist groups. Most warez is freely distributed online. That which is sold is mostly for hardly more than the cost of media (as that's the bottom line in cost to the pirates, competition quickly brings the price down to close to that). I'm sure you can do the "Kevin Bacon six degrees of separation" from my buying a CDR of Photoshop under the counter to bin Laden if you try. And I bet the prosecutors will.
As to legal, if I decide that you're doing something in my house that I don't like, at any time I can decide that you are now trespassing, and now nothing you do here is legal.
Trespassing; probably. But "everything you do is now illegal", no. Conditions you state are not laws, breaking them is not "illegal".
Yes, it may have been cliche, but it was not off-topic. Also, at the time of the post it wasn't (too) redundant
Well, no one seems to have modded it "off topic", or "redundant". Currently: 50% Funny 20% Overrated 10% Troll
But I personally do think that "redundant" is applicable for a post that lacks any originality. Mod justice is only approximate, I've had posts that were modded down to 0 as "overrated" when thare were no positive mods at all. And numerous "troll" mods for posts that just expressed an honest opinion.
You know, people have been hassling me about "not understanding Australian law", but the quoted text above just about contradicts all those assertions. From your text: "...they can prohibit almost anything they like (including photography)..."
There is a big difference between photographers needing permission, as you claimed, and landlords being able to prohibit. Basically, the default is that you DON'T need permission, and breaking such a prohibition just gives them grounds to throw you out, not seize your camera, lock you up, etc.
Oh, and another thing, I'm not too sure about that last line... the images taken from WITHIN the building I believe are subject to copyright, and the owner of the building CAN take action to stop them being published.
Read the link I posted. He covers that in detail. In brief:
'[A]rchitectural spaces (and the people in them) cannot be "protected" against being photographed by claiming Copyright. After all, there is no specific & unique representation of the "work" to "protect"! A view of a building or 3D space can be photographed an infinite number of ways; copyright law only applies to the protection of specific instances of authored works. This applies even in the USA (likewise failed attempts to trademark the The Rock Hall of Fame, or the Lone Cypress at Pebble Beach golf course).' So copying the blueprint of a building would vioalte copyright, a photo of the actual building not.
6. So here is how it is going to go. One of you guys stays here to watch me, one goes and gets a warrant for "any and all information in our possession regarding the patron at X IP address at Y time" and I start pulling logs off to CD-R....It is possible to obey the law AND help law enforcement. But it was pretty obvious those idiots in MA were enjoying preening for the press about how they were so feeling oppressed but stood up to great evil. Bullshit.
Bullshit indeed. If you read TFA you'd see the library staff did pretty much what you said they should.
After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge. Meanwhile, Ms. Glick-Weil allowed an FBI computer-forensics examiner to work with information-technology specialists at the library to narrow down which computers might have been used to send the threatening message. They determined that three computers were implicated in the alleged crime.
And the Feds DID then take those 3 PCs. Who's the moonbat?
But if the standard is "clear and present danger" I am not sure I want my local librarian to make that determination. I think the FBI has a bit more qualification to make that call. They say there was clear and present danger, but then they chose not to do it anyway. Weird.
Not weird, sounds very like the FBI were knowingly exaggerating the "threat". When they were called on it, they backed down. As TFA says, if they had really thought there was danger they would have gone in regardless and got the warrant post-facto.
Also, the whole idea of a "credible threat" sent by email from a neighbouring public library is just, well, not very credible to me. They couldn't resist bringing 9/11 into it, as if Osama or any real terrorist would go for such a chicken-shit target, and if he did, he wouldn't give any warning; and with two braincells to rub together would do it untraceably. It's just some trouble-maker making an empty threat, and some bureaucrats covering their asses by going through the motions of responding. At the end of the day they'll probably throw the terrorism book at some student who was trying to cover up being overdue for an assignment.
When I was in high school back in the 70s once or twice a year some idiot would phone in a bomb threat. Everyone knew it was bogus, still we trooped outside for an hour while the cops wandered about, though to do a real search of the buildings would have taken days.
Googling for other articles I find a lunatic columnist the library is a hotbed of liberalism, and that thus a terrorist would have thouht he would have a "safe haven". Spare me.
(printers even refuse to handle these if you try to self-publish books or similar works)
I've never known a printer to care about anything they print in that regard. Maybe if it looked like kiddie porn thay might ask questions; the only discussions I have ever had with printers about photos concerned the DPI, color balance, etc.
I'm told it's 'illegal' to take pictures of Ayes Rock in Aus.
No it's not. "There are no restrictions on taking photographs in the Park for non-commercial purposes, for example holiday photos, other than where park signs indicate sacred sites. Less than 1% of the park is restricted in this way."
"he photographed gas storage cylinders at the city's Shell oil refinery" This seems to be sensitive and could have caused trouble if such pictures land up in the hands of terrorists.
I wonder if you're being serious. It was a Shell Oil Refinery on the outskirts of a small city. Not Area 51. If a "terrorist" wanted to blow something up, it probably would be a good target. But he would look it up in a street directory, and walk past it himself, snap away discreetly. He'd pay attention to the access controls that couldn't be gleaned from some arty industrial photos.
The article mentions being 'hauled away by security' for taking photos inside Eastland shopping center. Well, that one's understandable. The shopping center is private property... can't take photos without the property owner's permission.
Whenever you enter private land, you do so with the understanding that you consent to any requirements the property's owner may impose on you. So if they tell you to stop taking photographs, for whatever reason, then there is nothing you can do about it. It's their turf and their rules - so stop it!
Hence the difficulty taking photographs inside shopping centres, "walmarts", department stores or supermarkets. These areas may be publicly accessible, and have arguably become the "village square or commons" of our time, but they're still on private land, and thus fall under the control & regulation of their owners. Which means they can prohibit almost anything they like (including photography) on their land and there is nothing you can do about it. (Remember no Bill of Rights in Australia = no Freedom of Speech.) Mind you, once you leave their land, there is nothing to prevent you from taking photographs from outside their property borders (this was the finding in the 1937 Victoria Park case).
Although property owners can use "reasonable force" to evict people if they don't follow their lawful instructions, they can never threaten violence (= "assault"), or detain you at length (= "false imprisonment"), or push you around & seize your camera or film (= "battery"). Rent-a-cops, supermarket clerks, shopping centre managers and even customers at a Haldon Street Cafe in Lakemba should take careful note of this.
Finally, what if you take photos, publish them, and are then contacted (threatened?) by the property owner, claiming you have no right to use images of their "private space"? Frankly - ignore them!
So you don't need explicit permission, you can take photos unless they have notices sayng otherwise; and regardless they can't take your camera or prevent you from publishing.
The article mentions being 'hauled away by security' for taking photos inside Eastland shopping center. Well, that one's understandable. The shopping center is private property... can't take photos without the property owner's permission.
Really? What law says that? And what law allows them to demand and destroy the film? Just because some asshole in a uniform demands you do something doesn't mean he has the legal right.
It's funny that when google is concerned opt-out is suddenly a good thing, even for copyrighted works (remember the google library scanning discussions).
The big difference is that an online news site is necessarily live and contactable; many copyright owners of books can be identified by no more than a decades-old reference in the book that may well be to a dead person with no past or current address or a bankrupt company and to find the current copyright owner would be an expensive and perhaps impossible job.
Be happy, now it's +5 funny. Personally, I'd have modded it "redundant", as this exact post is made every time somethng related to censorship is posted. Maybe a couple of years ago it was "subtle and beautiful", now it's on the same level as "Hot grits", "Imagine a Beowulf cluster", etc. Humour requires at least a touch of novelty.
There is a science fiction story that has fascinated me from the first time I read it. It's called "The Black Bag" by Kornbluth
He wrote a kind of sequel to that story a year later, The Marching Morons, 1951. Though this shows the geniuses did not actually have any free time, being busy stopping the majority of idiots from killing themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it is. Who is more qualified? (Well, according to TFA, 24-year-old PR hacks.)
How about wrappng it up in the proverbial tinfoil? Radio can't travel into a Faraday cage. Maybe a zip-up metallic mesh bag for the more fashion-conscious.
In the drawer of the table in the alcove, comrade.
Google ranking is solely Google's prerogative; it's like saying that Ebert can't pan a movie without referring it to a "neutral third party". Anyway, it's just embarrassing to BMW, they won't lose any sales. No one orders a BMW by searching for "German car".
The "representation of the web" that I personally want does not include dozens of copies of the same information, wrapped up with different ads. And Google does sometimes tell you that "there were 500 pages very similar to those already displayed"; I just wish it would do that for the Wiki-clones.
This was a very clear case; the search engines were shown a text-intensive page, ordinary browsers were bounced to a completely different page with lots of images.
Also, rather gutsy to have the 1984-style name "Goodmail" for a mail blocking "service". MiniTrue approved double-plus good.
And that's all.
It's been proved that billions of dollars from oil is the major funding for ME terrorist groups. Most warez is freely distributed online. That which is sold is mostly for hardly more than the cost of media (as that's the bottom line in cost to the pirates, competition quickly brings the price down to close to that). I'm sure you can do the "Kevin Bacon six degrees of separation" from my buying a CDR of Photoshop under the counter to bin Laden if you try. And I bet the prosecutors will.
Trespassing; probably. But "everything you do is now illegal", no. Conditions you state are not laws, breaking them is not "illegal".
OK. But it's the subtext to the whole event.
Yes, it may have been cliche, but it was not off-topic.
Also, at the time of the post it wasn't (too) redundant
Well, no one seems to have modded it "off topic", or "redundant".
Currently:
50% Funny
20% Overrated
10% Troll
But I personally do think that "redundant" is applicable for a post that lacks any originality. Mod justice is only approximate, I've had posts that were modded down to 0 as "overrated" when thare were no positive mods at all. And numerous "troll" mods for posts that just expressed an honest opinion.
It would be legal. Being polite is another thing entirely.
There is a big difference between photographers needing permission, as you claimed, and landlords being able to prohibit. Basically, the default is that you DON'T need permission, and breaking such a prohibition just gives them grounds to throw you out, not seize your camera, lock you up, etc.
Oh, and another thing, I'm not too sure about that last line... the images taken from WITHIN the building I believe are subject to copyright, and the owner of the building CAN take action to stop them being published.
Read the link I posted. He covers that in detail. In brief:
'[A]rchitectural spaces (and the people in them) cannot be "protected" against being photographed by claiming Copyright. After all, there is no specific & unique representation of the "work" to "protect"! A view of a building or 3D space can be photographed an infinite number of ways; copyright law only applies to the protection of specific instances of authored works. This applies even in the USA (likewise failed attempts to trademark the The Rock Hall of Fame, or the Lone Cypress at Pebble Beach golf course).' So copying the blueprint of a building would vioalte copyright, a photo of the actual building not.
Bullshit indeed. If you read TFA you'd see the library staff did pretty much what you said they should.
And the Feds DID then take those 3 PCs. Who's the moonbat?Not weird, sounds very like the FBI were knowingly exaggerating the "threat". When they were called on it, they backed down. As TFA says, if they had really thought there was danger they would have gone in regardless and got the warrant post-facto.
Also, the whole idea of a "credible threat" sent by email from a neighbouring public library is just, well, not very credible to me. They couldn't resist bringing 9/11 into it, as if Osama or any real terrorist would go for such a chicken-shit target, and if he did, he wouldn't give any warning; and with two braincells to rub together would do it untraceably. It's just some trouble-maker making an empty threat, and some bureaucrats covering their asses by going through the motions of responding. At the end of the day they'll probably throw the terrorism book at some student who was trying to cover up being overdue for an assignment.
When I was in high school back in the 70s once or twice a year some idiot would phone in a bomb threat. Everyone knew it was bogus, still we trooped outside for an hour while the cops wandered about, though to do a real search of the buildings would have taken days.
Googling for other articles I find a lunatic columnist the library is a hotbed of liberalism, and that thus a terrorist would have thouht he would have a "safe haven". Spare me.
I've never known a printer to care about anything they print in that regard. Maybe if it looked like kiddie porn thay might ask questions; the only discussions I have ever had with printers about photos concerned the DPI, color balance, etc.
No it's not. "There are no restrictions on taking photographs in the Park for non-commercial purposes, for example holiday photos, other than where park signs indicate sacred sites. Less than 1% of the park is restricted in this way."
I wonder if you're being serious. It was a Shell Oil Refinery on the outskirts of a small city. Not Area 51. If a "terrorist" wanted to blow something up, it probably would be a good target. But he would look it up in a street directory, and walk past it himself, snap away discreetly. He'd pay attention to the access controls that couldn't be gleaned from some arty industrial photos.
Rubbish. Here's a page on Australian street photography legal issues by a lawyer:
So you don't need explicit permission, you can take photos unless they have notices sayng otherwise; and regardless they can't take your camera or prevent you from publishing.Really? What law says that? And what law allows them to demand and destroy the film? Just because some asshole in a uniform demands you do something doesn't mean he has the legal right.
The big difference is that an online news site is necessarily live and contactable; many copyright owners of books can be identified by no more than a decades-old reference in the book that may well be to a dead person with no past or current address or a bankrupt company and to find the current copyright owner would be an expensive and perhaps impossible job.
Be happy, now it's +5 funny. Personally, I'd have modded it "redundant", as this exact post is made every time somethng related to censorship is posted. Maybe a couple of years ago it was "subtle and beautiful", now it's on the same level as "Hot grits", "Imagine a Beowulf cluster", etc. Humour requires at least a touch of novelty.
It already does. Click on the "history" tab.
He wrote a kind of sequel to that story a year later, The Marching Morons, 1951. Though this shows the geniuses did not actually have any free time, being busy stopping the majority of idiots from killing themselves.