Google can only associate your searches with your account if you're logged in. If you don't want them to remember your searches, don't log in. Log in to use YouTube when you want to, then log out when you're done.
"Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product."
They're being a bit weasely in their words, though. They didn't technically "develop" a sterile seed product— they merely acquired a company that had already developed one. And they didn't technically commercialize a sterile seed product— yet. Due to public backlash, they backed off. But according to the VP of the company that developed the technology, they still plan to commercialize it.
In this case, Mister Toews is not at all actually interested in protecting children from pedophiles. He is simply playing the pedophile card to get this ridiculous legislation passed. The CBC made an interesting observation about the bill:
The bill includes no mention of children or predators except in the title, which appears to have been changed after it was sent to the printers.
Toews is a joke, and this country would be so much better off without him. The same goes for the rest of those idiots in the CPC.
Or perhaps they did, and decided that it did not matter?
I think that's more likely. If Steve wants to use a name, he'll use it, and leave it to the lawyers sort out the mess later. It's not the first time, and won't be the last.
To follow up, the article saying that it was a chip failure is dated yesterday, while the article claiming it was a programming failure is dated today. Presumably, this is new information to shoot down the previous claims, but TFS (in typical Slashdot "editorial" style) fails to actually make that distinction, and puts both claims together as part of a single summary.
In a report to be presented to Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin on Tuesday, investigators concluded that the primary cause of the failure was "a programming error which led to a simultaneous reboot of two working channels of an onboard computer," the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti reported.
However, the third link says nothing of the sort. It sounds like TFS is just a mishmash of conflicting theories from different articles.
This is not a matter of "producing" the documents -- the prosecution has them, in the form of an encrypted hard drive.
No they don't. What they have is an arrangement of bits. The bits are not the document. The bits + the passkey = the document. In their current form, the bits do not represent the document in a meaningful way.
If the document were a paper document, it would not be the actual paper that they are looking for. The paper is meaningless. A photocopy of the document on a different piece of paper would suffice, assuming it could be guaranteed that it was a true, complete, unaltered copy. It's the contents of the document that matter. They do not currently have those contents. They just have a meaningless arrangement of bits.
If the court orders you to provide a password, that means you're required to provide the actual password, not an algorithm for deriving the password. Your silly game will just land you in jail for contempt.
What entitles Alan Turing to a pardon above all others that endured the same fate?
Nothing. They should all be pardoned.
In other countries, pardons are often given because it is felt that the individuals deserve it, even if they are technically guilty of the crime. The UK doesn't operate that way, which is why they have taken the stance they have. But they should operate that way.
Except that's not at all what the "golden rule" means. It means that you treat people the way you want them to treat you, regardless how they actually have treated you. In other words, what you're saying is, "the golden rule can work, as long as you don't always follow it".
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." —Lao Tzu
Replying to myself to add that another poster has pointed out that the "live performance" version of "synchronization rights" are "grand rights". That might be what would apply to the actual rallies themselves.
So, if Newt didn't make a deal with the publisher, which he obviously didn't since it's the publisher who's suing him, then he could be in trouble here.
I'm not an expert on synchronization rights, but I can't find anything that indicates that such rights apply to anything other than synchronizing with a recorded visual element. That would suggest to me that "synchronizing" the song with Newt's live entrance would still fall under performance rights.
However, there is this element mentioned in the article, with emphasis added by me:
The suit lists appearances by Gingrich at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2009, 2010 and 2011 and numerous stops in Iowa among events at which the candidate has used the song without Sullivan's permission, as well as Internet videos featuring Gingrich that have been posted by American Conservative Union.
I must've missed the part of the article where it said "don't worry about any other form of credit card theft, because this one is all that matters".
This is yet another potential attack. Other attacks are well documented. The fact that those other attacks exist, or even that many of them are more likely to occur, does not in any way mean this threat should not be publicized so that it can be mitigated.
I have one card with a chip. I wander through busy public areas daily where multiple strangers brush past me while I'm carrying that one chipped card. I, like the vast majority of people all over the world, do not have an aluminum wallet. Perhaps more people will buy aluminum wallets or take other steps to further minimize the risk, but only if they are aware of the need... which is precisely why this is being discussed.
with this attack you MUST be the next person to use the card's credentials.
I don't know about you, but I don't use my credit card every day, but I do come into contact with strangers every day. If someone were to sit next to me on my morning bus ride to work and read the card in my wallet, they'd have anywhere from as little as four hours, if I happen to go shopping at lunchtime, to as much as a few days to put the information to use.
They actually have to bump the device up against your wallet.
Not according to TFA:
In a demonstration just before her talk, Paget read a card in my wallet through my back pocket without touching me, successfully obtaining the card’s information.
There are many situations where we get close enough to random strangers for someone to pull this off.
I'm not much of a note-taker, as I'd rather focus on the lecture and participate in discussion, and rely on the textbook as my notes (although I have been in classes where the lectures are intentionally filled with material that is not found in the textbook, but will be on the exam). However, if you think that taking notes means "recording the lecture verbatim", then you're doing it wrong.
When you take notes, you're supposed to be paraphrasing the lecture, which requires processing what's being said in order to distill it into fewer words. You can't paraphrase what you don't understand.
Fair use isn't a First Amendment defense. It's a defense under the Copyright Act. The First Amendment doesn't apply here, because the issue isn't whether Romney can say what he wants to say, the issue is whether he can use somebody else's copyright-protected work. If he wants to go on camera and state, in his own words, exactly what the Brokaw clip says, he is free to do so. But that's not what he did.
Well, you could argue that the melody and lyrics are just notes and words, which were not created by the copyright holder. They were merely arranged into that particular song. Similarly, the photographer didn't create the buildings and bus, but arranged them into that particular image.
The "thing" that copyright is protecting in both cases is an artistic impression. In the case of the song, the artist recording the cover might even change a few lines or play it in a different key or at a different tempo, but it is aesthetically recognizable as being a copy of another work of art. Similarly, the photograph probably used a different, although similar-looking, bus, but it is aesthetically recognizable as being a copy of another work of art.
This is the thing with a lot of art. The physical manifestation is not as important as the aesthetic impression, and that is what's being copied in the case of a cover song, and also a "cover photograph", if I can call it that.
Slashdot Mirror
Google can only associate your searches with your account if you're logged in. If you don't want them to remember your searches, don't log in. Log in to use YouTube when you want to, then log out when you're done.
There is no way to guarantee that it is safe.
Then they shouldn't be announcing in a press conference that "there is no danger".
Those were the exact words used.
"Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product."
They're being a bit weasely in their words, though. They didn't technically "develop" a sterile seed product— they merely acquired a company that had already developed one. And they didn't technically commercialize a sterile seed product— yet. Due to public backlash, they backed off. But according to the VP of the company that developed the technology, they still plan to commercialize it.
In this case, Mister Toews is not at all actually interested in protecting children from pedophiles. He is simply playing the pedophile card to get this ridiculous legislation passed. The CBC made an interesting observation about the bill:
The bill includes no mention of children or predators except in the title, which appears to have been changed after it was sent to the printers.
Toews is a joke, and this country would be so much better off without him. The same goes for the rest of those idiots in the CPC.
That's a popular central Canadian meme, yes.
Trust me, it's based in reality. I'm stuck in the middle of it right now.
The ReDigi case that's going on right now has a great chance of deciding it once and for all. It's one case that's well worth paying attention to.
I'm more annoyed at the wording - "In the post ____ era, the world will never be the same."
Especially in this case, where the "Post MegaUpload Era" isn't even three weeks old.
Or perhaps they did, and decided that it did not matter?
I think that's more likely. If Steve wants to use a name, he'll use it, and leave it to the lawyers sort out the mess later. It's not the first time, and won't be the last.
To follow up, the article saying that it was a chip failure is dated yesterday, while the article claiming it was a programming failure is dated today. Presumably, this is new information to shoot down the previous claims, but TFS (in typical Slashdot "editorial" style) fails to actually make that distinction, and puts both claims together as part of a single summary.
The second link makes the following claim:
In a report to be presented to Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin on Tuesday, investigators concluded that the primary cause of the failure was "a programming error which led to a simultaneous reboot of two working channels of an onboard computer," the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti reported.
However, the third link says nothing of the sort. It sounds like TFS is just a mishmash of conflicting theories from different articles.
This is not a matter of "producing" the documents -- the prosecution has them, in the form of an encrypted hard drive.
No they don't. What they have is an arrangement of bits. The bits are not the document. The bits + the passkey = the document. In their current form, the bits do not represent the document in a meaningful way.
If the document were a paper document, it would not be the actual paper that they are looking for. The paper is meaningless. A photocopy of the document on a different piece of paper would suffice, assuming it could be guaranteed that it was a true, complete, unaltered copy. It's the contents of the document that matter. They do not currently have those contents. They just have a meaningless arrangement of bits.
If the court orders you to provide a password, that means you're required to provide the actual password, not an algorithm for deriving the password. Your silly game will just land you in jail for contempt.
What entitles Alan Turing to a pardon above all others that endured the same fate?
Nothing. They should all be pardoned.
In other countries, pardons are often given because it is felt that the individuals deserve it, even if they are technically guilty of the crime. The UK doesn't operate that way, which is why they have taken the stance they have. But they should operate that way.
Out of court settlements are not extortion. Sorry that you don't see the difference.
While not technically extortion, they do have the same effect on innocent people without the means to defend themselves.
You're missing the best part. They're creating a period of time during which the only people in the world who can play the game are the pirates.
Except that's not at all what the "golden rule" means. It means that you treat people the way you want them to treat you, regardless how they actually have treated you. In other words, what you're saying is, "the golden rule can work, as long as you don't always follow it".
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." —Lao Tzu
'GMO' and 'organic' are not two mutually exclusive categories of food.
In order to be certified organic in the United States, food cannot be genetically modified. This is true of most (although not all) countries.
Replying to myself to add that another poster has pointed out that the "live performance" version of "synchronization rights" are "grand rights". That might be what would apply to the actual rallies themselves.
So, if Newt didn't make a deal with the publisher, which he obviously didn't since it's the publisher who's suing him, then he could be in trouble here.
I'm not an expert on synchronization rights, but I can't find anything that indicates that such rights apply to anything other than synchronizing with a recorded visual element. That would suggest to me that "synchronizing" the song with Newt's live entrance would still fall under performance rights.
However, there is this element mentioned in the article, with emphasis added by me:
The suit lists appearances by Gingrich at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2009, 2010 and 2011 and numerous stops in Iowa among events at which the candidate has used the song without Sullivan's permission, as well as Internet videos featuring Gingrich that have been posted by American Conservative Union.
That last item might be what does Newt in.
I must've missed the part of the article where it said "don't worry about any other form of credit card theft, because this one is all that matters".
This is yet another potential attack. Other attacks are well documented. The fact that those other attacks exist, or even that many of them are more likely to occur, does not in any way mean this threat should not be publicized so that it can be mitigated.
I have one card with a chip. I wander through busy public areas daily where multiple strangers brush past me while I'm carrying that one chipped card. I, like the vast majority of people all over the world, do not have an aluminum wallet. Perhaps more people will buy aluminum wallets or take other steps to further minimize the risk, but only if they are aware of the need... which is precisely why this is being discussed.
with this attack you MUST be the next person to use the card's credentials.
I don't know about you, but I don't use my credit card every day, but I do come into contact with strangers every day. If someone were to sit next to me on my morning bus ride to work and read the card in my wallet, they'd have anywhere from as little as four hours, if I happen to go shopping at lunchtime, to as much as a few days to put the information to use.
They actually have to bump the device up against your wallet.
Not according to TFA:
In a demonstration just before her talk, Paget read a card in my wallet through my back pocket without touching me, successfully obtaining the card’s information.
There are many situations where we get close enough to random strangers for someone to pull this off.
I'm not much of a note-taker, as I'd rather focus on the lecture and participate in discussion, and rely on the textbook as my notes (although I have been in classes where the lectures are intentionally filled with material that is not found in the textbook, but will be on the exam). However, if you think that taking notes means "recording the lecture verbatim", then you're doing it wrong.
When you take notes, you're supposed to be paraphrasing the lecture, which requires processing what's being said in order to distill it into fewer words. You can't paraphrase what you don't understand.
Fair use isn't a First Amendment defense. It's a defense under the Copyright Act. The First Amendment doesn't apply here, because the issue isn't whether Romney can say what he wants to say, the issue is whether he can use somebody else's copyright-protected work. If he wants to go on camera and state, in his own words, exactly what the Brokaw clip says, he is free to do so. But that's not what he did.
Well, you could argue that the melody and lyrics are just notes and words, which were not created by the copyright holder. They were merely arranged into that particular song. Similarly, the photographer didn't create the buildings and bus, but arranged them into that particular image.
The "thing" that copyright is protecting in both cases is an artistic impression. In the case of the song, the artist recording the cover might even change a few lines or play it in a different key or at a different tempo, but it is aesthetically recognizable as being a copy of another work of art. Similarly, the photograph probably used a different, although similar-looking, bus, but it is aesthetically recognizable as being a copy of another work of art.
This is the thing with a lot of art. The physical manifestation is not as important as the aesthetic impression, and that is what's being copied in the case of a cover song, and also a "cover photograph", if I can call it that.