I stand corrected. For a more accurate interpretation of the ruling, please see DragonWriter's reply. I was too hasty in my wording, and I think "grounds" was an inappropriate word choice. However, it does seem that criteria is what the rest of the bench was using when denying to hear the case. Alito was dissenting, but I think his later comment that "The Court has decided not to grant review at this time, but if a conflict in the Circuits develops in the future, the question presented, in my judgment, is important enough to warrant review." implies that he feels that going forward, he does hope that the court will decide to hear the case using possibly any criteria, but specifically of dissent in the circuit courts (since that is what they used to reject this case).
Not quite. That's precisely why Alito says they SHOULD hear the case. The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it. He hopes to eventually hear this case when the lower courts do disagree, as written in the summary, he thinks that the law is outdated. He also acknowledges what you're saying - that she did not have access to the copyright notice.
"The University of Texas didn't violate the constitutional rights of an online dating service "
Since when do dating services have constitutional rights? Isn't it convenient that corporations can cherry pick when they want to be corporations and when they want to be individuals?
What is the uproar about? It's not as if Google is forcing this down anyone's throat. Don't like the privacy implications? Don't use it! Worry about more insidious privacy attacking things. Google is providing a service. While altruism is great and all, I don't blame them for trying to find new avenues for making a profit - if that's what this even is.
There are competions in the US that use the Sony Aibos to play soccer. (Ok, so Aibo's Japanese)There's even a "RoboCup American Open". Aibo's are cuter anyway.
Clicky Clicky
I didn't really appreciate the idea of the extra waste factor, but face it- we live in an extremely disposable world and I doubt one product would make a difference.
overall, I like the convenience the one time I tried it and found it to useful and assumed that once they were mass marketed the prices would become more reasonable.
That's what's wrong with the Americal psyche. Maybe 1 product doesn't make a difference. But what about this one product plus the AOL CDs plus the various other pieces of junk companies give out times the number of people who find no use for said junk. It adds up. Where does it go? Well invariably, you're not going to want it in your back yard. But it's got to go somewhere.
In any event, solutions don't come by people saying, "Oh the problem's too big. So we shouldn't fix it, but we should just add more fuel to the fire."
Things like this have been around for a while. I first heard about it in an episode of Ed, but doing some research proved interesting.
It's called lucid dreaming. And people don't need a device to do it. All you need to do is to be aware that you are dreaming. Things like the inability to read words, or time standing still are cues that let you know you are dreaming.
The first thing you need to do is to not wake yourself up. But once you get the hang of it, apparently you can control everything. You can make yourself fly, control scene changes.
Apparently there are some things that make it easier to lucid dream including -get this -eating weird combinations of foods (ie pickles and peanut butter).
I even came across a freeware program that would help you achieve lucid dreaming... The name and location eludes me, however.
http://www.lucidity.com
http://brain.web-us.com/lucid/luciddreamingFAQ.htm
I don't think shoplifting a DVD is the same thing. If I rip an MP3 off my own CD, I would hope that fair use would protect me. If someone else ripped the same song with the same software/hardware, wouldn't these files be digitally the same, and indistinguishable? If so, then I think downloading a song that I have already paid for is still fair use, and the RIAA would be hard pressed to prove anything else.
IANAL and it probably shows, but how does the RIAA distinguish between legal and illegal sharing? If i bought a CD, don't have the knowledge necessary to "rip" it to listen on my computer, am I allowed to download a digital copy? And if so, how does the RIAA prove that I did or didn't purchase the CD in the first place? Doesn't the burden of proof lie on them?
Slashdot Mirror
I stand corrected. For a more accurate interpretation of the ruling, please see DragonWriter's reply. I was too hasty in my wording, and I think "grounds" was an inappropriate word choice. However, it does seem that criteria is what the rest of the bench was using when denying to hear the case. Alito was dissenting, but I think his later comment that "The Court has decided not to grant review at this time, but if a conflict in the Circuits develops in the future, the question presented, in my judgment, is important enough to warrant review." implies that he feels that going forward, he does hope that the court will decide to hear the case using possibly any criteria, but specifically of dissent in the circuit courts (since that is what they used to reject this case).
Not quite. That's precisely why Alito says they SHOULD hear the case. The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it. He hopes to eventually hear this case when the lower courts do disagree, as written in the summary, he thinks that the law is outdated. He also acknowledges what you're saying - that she did not have access to the copyright notice.
If memory serves correctly, ask.com has had this feature for ages. http://sp.askkids.com/en/docs/about/binoculars.shtml
"The University of Texas didn't violate the constitutional rights of an online dating service "
Since when do dating services have constitutional rights? Isn't it convenient that corporations can cherry pick when they want to be corporations and when they want to be individuals?
What is the uproar about? It's not as if Google is forcing this down anyone's throat. Don't like the privacy implications? Don't use it! Worry about more insidious privacy attacking things. Google is providing a service. While altruism is great and all, I don't blame them for trying to find new avenues for making a profit - if that's what this even is.
There are competions in the US that use the Sony Aibos to play soccer. (Ok, so Aibo's Japanese)There's even a "RoboCup American Open". Aibo's are cuter anyway. Clicky Clicky
I didn't really appreciate the idea of the extra waste factor, but face it- we live in an extremely disposable world and I doubt one product would make a difference.
overall, I like the convenience the one time I tried it and found it to useful and assumed that once they were mass marketed the prices would become more reasonable.
That's what's wrong with the Americal psyche. Maybe 1 product doesn't make a difference. But what about this one product plus the AOL CDs plus the various other pieces of junk companies give out times the number of people who find no use for said junk. It adds up. Where does it go? Well invariably, you're not going to want it in your back yard. But it's got to go somewhere.
In any event, solutions don't come by people saying, "Oh the problem's too big. So we shouldn't fix it, but we should just add more fuel to the fire."
Things like this have been around for a while. I first heard about it in an episode of Ed, but doing some research proved interesting. It's called lucid dreaming. And people don't need a device to do it. All you need to do is to be aware that you are dreaming. Things like the inability to read words, or time standing still are cues that let you know you are dreaming. The first thing you need to do is to not wake yourself up. But once you get the hang of it, apparently you can control everything. You can make yourself fly, control scene changes. Apparently there are some things that make it easier to lucid dream including -get this -eating weird combinations of foods (ie pickles and peanut butter). I even came across a freeware program that would help you achieve lucid dreaming... The name and location eludes me, however. http://www.lucidity.com http://brain.web-us.com/lucid/luciddreamingFAQ.htm
I don't think shoplifting a DVD is the same thing. If I rip an MP3 off my own CD, I would hope that fair use would protect me. If someone else ripped the same song with the same software/hardware, wouldn't these files be digitally the same, and indistinguishable? If so, then I think downloading a song that I have already paid for is still fair use, and the RIAA would be hard pressed to prove anything else.
IANAL and it probably shows, but how does the RIAA distinguish between legal and illegal sharing? If i bought a CD, don't have the knowledge necessary to "rip" it to listen on my computer, am I allowed to download a digital copy? And if so, how does the RIAA prove that I did or didn't purchase the CD in the first place? Doesn't the burden of proof lie on them?
I don't know what the big deal is. I've always been able to do pagerank on my computer...