What are the chances that there are capable people around that are just getting annoyed with having to go to IT for everything when they are perfectly capable of handling it themselves?
You hit the nail on the head. Especially when the answer from IT for whatever request tends to be "Why?", or a reflexive "No!" or the ever popular "Please wait". At which point the person has to go to his management to explain why he can't get his work done, then his manager has to go to IT management, and everyone's unhappy all around. That's probably the time to start printing resumes on the company printer, before they lock that down...
1) It happens that most cells operate at 2.4 GHz, the same frequency as the GPS unit in the plane, and on the off chance that the two signals could interfere with each other during takeoff/landing the benefit does not outweigh the risk.
Whoever told you that was full of crap. GPS does not operate at cell phone frequencies, and neither cell phones nor GPS operates at 2.4Ghz. And the regulations pre-date the use of GPS on most planes.
All of these cell-phone drones think that they should be able to do whatever they want just because they can, with no respect for others. To me this is the definition of selfish.
Imagine, being permitted to speak, in public no less???!!! Very selfish.
You can't successfully sue based on a DMCA notice, unless the entity sending the notice perjured itself about one specific thing -- whether or not they actually represented the copyright owner that they claimed to represent. And you don't slay the giant. If you win the case, several years down the line, you just get the right to put your stuff back up. If you lose, you have to pay the giant damages. Either way, you're paying a lot in lawyers fees. So is the giant, but what's a lot to you is pennies for the giant.
I'm guessing Lucas screwed this guy in the original contract, and now he figures that he can do the same thing right back. Unfortunately, he's about to find out that our court system is designed to allow the big guy to screw the little guy, not vice versa. (except class action suits where lawyers screw both sides but one or two little guys can make out big, but that's another story)
Apparently, it doesn't work that way...? Or does the poster not have the guts to stand up for his right? Or does yahoo go further than required by the DMCA?
DMCA counter-notification is basically saying to a lawyer "Go ahead and sue me, asshole". And to make it worse, as soon as they do sue, they get to have the material taken down again, until the court case is finished (years later). There's no upside to it.
There you've added a clause -- "while trying to defend himself...".
I didn't add that clause. The claim was that "The odds are much better that you'll get shot with your own gun in the scenario you describe. ", said scenario being a break-in.
As for your statistics, even for the weakened claim, they only include the one side of the equation. Defenses with guns don't have to result in death for anyone, and usually don't.
The odds are much better that you'll get shot with your own gun in the scenario you describe.
Really? I think you'd be hard pressed to find one case, not involving a police officer, where someone was shot with his own gun while actively trying to defend himself or his home.
No shit. What we really need is a site to report speeders, red light runners, drunk drivers, people putting on makeup or reading while driving, people going 25 in the fast lane of the freeway with their left blinker on, tail-gaters, and people who swerve in and out of lanes trying to get ahead of anyone else. Cops aren't a problem if you aren't driving wrong, it's the thoughtless, selfish drivers on the road.
If you see someone speeding, running red lights, swerving in and out of lanes, and tailgating every car he passes while he's doing it, and he's driving a large American car --- chances are it IS a cop.
As far as I know, Trapster has no way of determining how fast you drive.
Your cell phone company does. The doppler shift of your signal as received by several towers will give your velocity.
(OK, never mind that the phone company hardware isn't set up to detect the rather slight Doppler shift... it's a conspiracy theory, go with it)
Burying your head in the sand will not change it. If you want to change it, go become a politician.
Even that doesn't help. First of all, because you're likely to be a poor one. If you've got the talent, though, you're going to need money and allies. To obtain this money and allies, you are going to need to promise things, and keep many of those promises (not to be confused with campaign promises). By the time you're in a position to affect copyright law, you will be owned by those interested in keeping things the way they are or making them worse.
Wait a minute. Copyright is an artificial right. It is a temporary monopoly granted by the government. As such it only gives exactly as much power to the copyright holder as the law allows. If that goes too far, change the laws, at least in a democracy. If democracy isn't working you have much bigger problems than putting CDs onto your iPod.
"Change the law" is the cry of those who hold all the cards and like it that way. It's the modern-day "let them eat cake".
Even if they do own a trademark on Pullman Brown, Trademark is not copyright. The prosecution of a trademark infringement is supposed to have to show customer confusion or loss/harm involved in the others business.
You're forgetting the winner-take-all rule, also known as the Trademark Anti-dilution Act. If your mark is a "famous" mark, it applies everywhere, not just in your business. UPS Brown would probably qualify; maybe T-mobile magenta would also. Color trademarks and anti-dilution -- two bad ideas that really fuck things up together.
One explanation for this is that we consider symmetrical faces to be attractive (very few people are perfectly symmetrical). Averaging multiple photos will make for a decently symmetrical face.
Perhaps, but it turns out if you take one attractive but not perfectly symmetrical face, split it down the middle and combine with its mirror images, the resulting symmetrical faces are not more attractive; they look wrong.
Heh. Who would have believed that anyone would say this about an interface that was once famous for requiring animal sacrifice rituals to make it work.
It really is about the fact that there has not been any transaction between you and Microsoft at all. And that's why the UCITA came into being, but UCITA apparently sucks so of course almost nobody adopted it. Software companies rightfully want some way for an EULA to cover their products, without the transaction costs of negotiating every software sale directly with the actual consumers and making sure that the consumer signs off on the EULA before paying for the software.
Well, there's where we disagree. I think if the software companies want to impose an EULA, they _should_ have to incur those transaction costs. The rather one-sided and obnoxious nature of many EULAs is IMO evidence that they shouldn't get a streamlined mechanism for them. The issue of software needing to be copied to be used has already been taken care of by 17 USC 117(a);
Right now we've got a muddle. Software companies have an EULA, but most users just pretend to agree to them, and software companies usually have no way of determining that the users are in breach. When the issue has come up, some courts have accepted them as enforcable, and other courts (e.g. Softman v. Adobe) have not. UCITA would have resolved this by making them fully enforceable, but IMO that's the wrong answer.
Slashdot Mirror
You're forgetting about all the enabling patents they have for running an auction on the Internet. Sorry, no competition for you.
You hit the nail on the head. Especially when the answer from IT for whatever request tends to be "Why?", or a reflexive "No!" or the ever popular "Please wait". At which point the person has to go to his management to explain why he can't get his work done, then his manager has to go to IT management, and everyone's unhappy all around. That's probably the time to start printing resumes on the company printer, before they lock that down...
Probably more time than the Google Van spent in the driveway.
You can't successfully sue based on a DMCA notice, unless the entity sending the notice perjured itself about one specific thing -- whether or not they actually represented the copyright owner that they claimed to represent. And you don't slay the giant. If you win the case, several years down the line, you just get the right to put your stuff back up. If you lose, you have to pay the giant damages. Either way, you're paying a lot in lawyers fees. So is the giant, but what's a lot to you is pennies for the giant.
I'm guessing Lucas screwed this guy in the original contract, and now he figures that he can do the same thing right back. Unfortunately, he's about to find out that our court system is designed to allow the big guy to screw the little guy, not vice versa. (except class action suits where lawyers screw both sides but one or two little guys can make out big, but that's another story)
DMCA counter-notification is basically saying to a lawyer "Go ahead and sue me, asshole". And to make it worse, as soon as they do sue, they get to have the material taken down again, until the court case is finished (years later). There's no upside to it.
I didn't add that clause. The claim was that "The odds are much better that you'll get shot with your own gun in the scenario you describe. ", said scenario being a break-in.
As for your statistics, even for the weakened claim, they only include the one side of the equation. Defenses with guns don't have to result in death for anyone, and usually don't.
A rock, of course.
Oh, you meant the ones above! Never mind
They do that in the US also. The states have generally applied a technical solution to a social problem -- fencing on the overpasses.
Really? I think you'd be hard pressed to find one case, not involving a police officer, where someone was shot with his own gun while actively trying to defend himself or his home.
If you see someone speeding, running red lights, swerving in and out of lanes, and tailgating every car he passes while he's doing it, and he's driving a large American car --- chances are it IS a cop.
Fortunately, it's been found that salespeople make the best suicide bombers. It seems you need two things to be a good suicide bomber
1) Ability to find the place you're looking for. This is also an essential skill for salespeople, who often travel to client sites.
2) Having what it takes to close the deal no matter what it takes.
Additionally, Al Queda has found that inexplicably, using salespeople as suicide bombers helps recruit engineers to the cause.
Sun? What is this "sun" you speak of?
The RIAA would never do that. It infringes on the turf of ASCAP and BMI.
"Change the law" is the cry of those who hold all the cards and like it that way. It's the modern-day "let them eat cake".
You're forgetting the winner-take-all rule, also known as the Trademark Anti-dilution Act. If your mark is a "famous" mark, it applies everywhere, not just in your business. UPS Brown would probably qualify; maybe T-mobile magenta would also. Color trademarks and anti-dilution -- two bad ideas that really fuck things up together.
Perhaps, but it turns out if you take one attractive but not perfectly symmetrical face, split it down the middle and combine with its mirror images, the resulting symmetrical faces are not more attractive; they look wrong.
The best way to avoid that trap is to go straight for misanthropy.
Well, there's where we disagree. I think if the software companies want to impose an EULA, they _should_ have to incur those transaction costs. The rather one-sided and obnoxious nature of many EULAs is IMO evidence that they shouldn't get a streamlined mechanism for them. The issue of software needing to be copied to be used has already been taken care of by 17 USC 117(a);
Right now we've got a muddle. Software companies have an EULA, but most users just pretend to agree to them, and software companies usually have no way of determining that the users are in breach. When the issue has come up, some courts have accepted them as enforcable, and other courts (e.g. Softman v. Adobe) have not. UCITA would have resolved this by making them fully enforceable, but IMO that's the wrong answer.