The important fine print omitted by the summary (and very nearly the article; way to push the important information to the last third ya damn flamebaiters masquerading as journalists) is that they targeting apps
when the intended use of a mobile app is for the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or it is intended to affect the structure of any function of the body of man
Now, we'll have to see how it plays out, to be sure. Certainly I think that their interest in targeting apps that interface with medial devices is a little disconcerting because it would make, say, a free/cheap pulse monitor simply impossible. However, they generally allow anything with sufficient (and reasonable) disclaimers (e.g. for research purposes only) so I'm not too concerned yet.
So while I loathe nanny state type policies and don't like everything that the FDA does, I view stuff like this to actually be rather important. Basically, think of it as a proactive enforcement of truth in advertising (vs reactive which requires a lawsuit). If I say my app diagnoses X, the FDA wants to make sure it actually does that. Coupled with the ability for the developer to avoid that by saying 'this is not approved to actually do anything' it makes for a valuable tool for consumer choice.
How does signing a post with a real name have anything in the slightest to do with standing behind what you say? From a purely logical perspective it adds nothing of value expect maybe an improved ability to make ad hominem attacks. And even if we ignore the extreme difficulty of verifying the supposed real name, real names don't even attempt to be unique. I most certainly do not stand behind things written by people who share my name and yet you have no way of distinguishing me from the author.
In short, a real name adds nothing but confusion. Now, maybe if you attach a publicly visible address to the name the you could improve upon a simple email address in terms of identification. However, chances are that the only additional standing up you'll be doing in that case is in response to getting swatted by some clown.
Personally, I'm plenty happy to "fucking stand behind" my comments in the forum where I make them. I feel no need to sign my posts "come at me (or someone with a similar name) bro".
Your link indicates that (among other things): 1) Copyright abandonment is really only recognized in the Ninth Circuit, and remains unknown elsewhere 2) Releasing into the public domain provides no liability protection to the author 3) Copyright abandonment requires a formal, explicit statement
If you have to provide something that is nearly indistinguishable from a license, why not just provide a well established license that can not only remove all uncertainty and provide explicit terms disavowing all use of the software?
Something like the MIT License or Simplified BSD License is well established, takes only a minute to read, and achieves all the major goals of releasing into the public domain while avoiding many of the pitfalls. This whole POSS thing is ridiculous and seems to be driven by some combination of intellectual laziness, deliberate ignorance, and a desire to 'stick it to the man'. And as usual with rebellious ignorance, a whole lot of unnecessary crap occurs while 'the man' remains un-stuck-to and nothing changes.
> They cannot possibly be the owner of the copyright to VLC, shitwit.
Yeah, and no one is claiming they otherwise. They are claiming that VLC* violates their copyright on Game of Thrones.
Do they own the copyright on Game of Thrones? Yes Has VLC been proven in a court of law to be not infringing on one their exclusive rights to Game of Thrones? No
This is therefore a totally legitimate request under then letter of the law, slimy as it may be. Ignorance and name calling doesn't change that.
*If we are being particular, they are citing a torrent page, not VLC itself. Thus your comment is even more incorrect as even if your misunderstanding was accurate they'd be claiming copyright of a page on torrentportal, not VLC. Further, while it's not really important for this discussion, I'd point out that that detail further muddies the waters: The torrent and/or the the description may actually contain some content from Game of Thrones. I've not checked and don't care to.
They are alleging that VLC is violating their copyright on Game of Thrones. They own the copyright on Game of Thrones so they are in the clear. The fact that their allegation is completely off base doesn't matter.
This is actually a necessary and very unfortunate consequence of our copyright law... Because there aren't clear boundaries for what constitutes fair use and an original work, there is no ability to assert with any certainty that a given work is not derivative. Suppose that maybe that an error message in VLC contains a couple words from the show: it's legitimate (albeit in bad faith) to claim that VLC is now violating your copyright. So unfortunately without a revision to copyright law the only way to hold these people accountable for their 'mistakes' would require them to sue and have the court declare the work non-infringing. Maybe that would be better than the current, but it would undermine the whole point of takedown requests in the first place.
I wouldn't be so quick to discount the MPEG-LA's claims based on Quanta vs LG.
The decision came down to the fact the LG's contract with Intel said (basically, of course): a) Intel had an unrestricted license to produce and sell parts b) LG did not license third parties to use those parts in combination with other parts. Ostensibly the point was to allow Intel full ability to create parts and to collect further royalties should parts be used.
This is what backfired: the court said that because the parts were created and sold without restriction exhaustion doctrine applied.
The court did not, however, rule on restrictions and how they affect exhaustion so Mallinckrodt vs Medipartvery still stands. Basically this says that if a patent holder licenses a product and sale for a specific purpose, using that product for any other purpose constitutes a violation of the patent.
You will find that consumer cameras feature a very specific restriction of the use of their video encoder license from the MPEG-LA, so there is no reason to believe that Quanta vs LG would apply to them. Thus, I they do sue you expect that they either win or we get a landmark ruling.
First, I was responding exactly to the very general claim "patents don't preclude anyone from using/reusing/selling software." They most certainly do. Whether or not the exhaustion doctrine applies is a different issue altogether. If you want to say this is clearly in the context of a legally purchased copy, frankly I disagree: that was a very blanket statement. You'll note that it doesn't even say "reselling".
Second, the exhaustion doctrine is not so trivially applied, for reasons that should be obvious given my prior answer: patents don't cover "software doing X" so much a they cover "a machine doing X" and/or "a machine readable storage device with code doing X". The exhaustion doctrine would apply to the resale of the disc, however the actual use of said disc requires constructing "a machine doing X" which is not only outside the scope of the sale (which was storage not a machine) but also requires remaking the patented materials which would no longer be covered by exhaustion, according to Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs.
As a result, I cannot see any case where exhaustion would allow anything but reselling the original disc. If you have any relevant case law to point out why this wouldn't be true, I'd be curious.
Your analogy is flawed because you are conflating ongoing service with one time service.
The correct analogy would be if your required special gas only sold by the company the created you car, and they would refuse to sell you gas unless you could be shown to be the 'authorized owner' of the vehicle. This is something you would know when buying the car and with the full expectation and understanding that it is a limitation of the car.
Incidentally, a more accurate analogy is already what happens with car registration: you may not drive it without having ownership transferred to you and paying for the transfer (known as "sales tax") . If you want to argue that you can loan it out, I'd point out that you can almost certainly do the same, and with fewer limits, with your XBox / account.
> Patents don't preclude anyone from using/reusing/selling software.
Completely incorrect, and so blatantly so I am uncertain how you even came to that conclusion.
Among the things patents can restrict, courtesy of the MPEG-LA: *) Having a copy of software *) Running software *) Distributing software *) Distributing the output of software. Where "software" is any executable doing a patented operation, regardless of the copyright.
This is, in part, because software patents essentially cover "a machine that does X" rather that "X". Thus, putting a program that does X on you computer means that you constructed a machine doing X without a license from the patent holder. I'm not entirely sure how/why distribution of the machine code can be restricted or how they can attach strings to the output, but rest assured that those restrictions are very real. One fun consequence of that latter is that you can owe the MPEG-LA distribution royalties on a movie you shot using a consumer camera because the license on the camera's encoder only covers very limited commercial usage.
My admittedly cursory understanding of the EU judgement is that it basically states that a copyright holder cannot enforce their right to control distribution after first sale. To reiterate: The right to sole distribution, one of the many rights included in copyright, cannot be used to restrict resale.
The go on to explicitly indicate that a contractual term may forbid resale. Also, they do not address any extent to which resold software be usable. As a result, this basically doesn't address a system like this; it's merely a decision on the scope of copyright law as far as I can tell.
That is entirely untrue: you are buying a copy. What you can do with that copy is limited by copyright law (including the concepts of fair use) and every other applicable law (e.g. DMCA). A copy may come with an explicit license altering what you may do with it. For example, software EULAs will usually allow you to install a copy and create a backup. Without the ELUA you still have a copy; whether it has any value is another argument. Could there be exceptional cases where a copy might come with a shrink wrap license that says you must return the copy (without refund) if you violate it or don't agree? Possible, but it would quite likely unenforceable.
Even in this case, you are totally welcome to sell your game without going through MS's hoops; just don't expect it to work on MS's console. Why? Because that's what the copy does. If you modify it to work, you've broken copyright law by creating a derivative work. A license doesn't even come into play.
The only way your 'temporary/rental' bit makes any sense is if you meant it in the same way that one is only renting a car before it's eventual return to it's proper form of stardust. Just like a book from 100 years ago or a CD right now. A copy is a copy and the thing you bought. Just as owning a car doesn't entitle you to gas to make it go, owning a game copy doesn't entitle you to a console and authorization to make it play.
The awfulness of this post is pretty remarkable. Sidestepping the wrong "your": *) This antibiotic isn't for "taking", it's for things that aren't edible like soap and toothpaste *) Overuse of antibiotics doesn't "raise your resistance to them", at best it increases the bacteria's resistance to them, but in actually it just increases the chance of creating an antibiotic resistance strain. Almost all of the time, however, any resistant bacteria that may develop are killed by other means (like your immune system) and don't live on. *) One should never save antibiotics, but rather take them when prescribed and as prescribed. While your post could be construed as saying that, the reality is that antibiotics generally require a prescription so it's unlikely anyone will have any to save unless they were sick but are feeling better halfway through the prescription. Saving them at that point is the worst possible thing you can do; not taking a full regimen is what is primarily responsible for resistance.
All that being said, the first point is the most important: this is an external antibiotic. Since it's not applying evolutionary pressure while the bacteria are in your body, there isn't a combined force to make deadly resistant bacteria: ones that survive the antibiotic may not be as effective in the body and thus no one cares. Further, even if that is not the case, the mechanism of action is not the same as other antibiotics so it can still be killed off effectively. For instance, MRSA which is resistant to basically every internal antibiotic can be killed by Triclosan (the chemical in question).
It's very important to understand that not all antibiotics are the same. Something like a blast furnace will kill bacteria and they will never develop a resistance to it, period. However, it will also kill all of humanity so it's not a fantastic treatment for infection. Ditto with chemicals like ethylene oxide or other physical means like gamma rays. Something like bleach is also very effective at killing bacteria, and can even do so on human skin, but obviously doesn't leave the skin doing so well on longer exposure. There are many many things that kill bacteria. The only ones that are really 'special' and need careful use are the ones that can kill bacteria without killing people. Triclosan kind of falls in the middle and while it deserves some consideration, that 'ZOMG RESISTANCE" response isn't really appropriate either.
So your point is that BAC is a weak test and the limit is basically meaningless since in the range 0.08 - 0.05 the dependence is far more based on the individual than the actual numerical value. And you think that this is a good idea because it might discourage the handful of people that are negatively impacted within that range that decide to not chance it anymore? I.e. the responsible people who aren't impaired enough to discount their impairment and the law?
While I appreciate the 'better safe than sorry' perspective, I think that it really misses a major problem: DUI is not harmful. DUI merely increases the possibility for harm, but it does not cause it; something that can decidedly not be said about being arrested for a DUI. Thus, it's important for society (well, a functional one, which isn't really ours) to balance the harm of arrest with the value of reducing the probability of harm due to DUI. Frankly, I think either the current punishment at 0.15 or a traffic ticket at 0.05 (or both) is better for that than throwing people in jail at 0.05 just to be safe.
Remember, you can always throw the book at people who actually cause an accident while intoxicated.
> Taking away driving privileges over 60? No. Requiring regular re-testing/re-certification? Absolutely... provided that you require it for *everybody*.
Don't be silly, driving isn't based on skill. That's why there's a minimum driving age and a maximum speed and maximum BAC. We don't test those things, they're one size fits all. No driving after 60 is as entirely reasonable as no driving before your proposed 21, or even the 16-18 we currently have. After all, there are those of us that had more care and responsibility when we were just old enough to reach the petals than many have at the ripe age of 21.
I have yet to see a nonviable solution to storing nuclear waste. The problem is that no one wants viable, they want perfect. The standards are being set by the fearful, with the design to not really make storage safe, but to make it impossible in order to kill the industry.
No, it's not. Not even in this particular case: he could have still have been charged with some kind of conspiracy to smuggle. Making it legal to own/use/make/buy/sell drugs doesn't make it legal to do anything with them like bypass customs or kill someone with them.
Sure, the DEA is an especially nasty enforcement branch and getting rid of them would help, but this is a much broader issue than just the DEA and drugs. It's about liability and it's limits and what level of proof is needed to say what you know.
So, am I to understand that the point of your post is that they can connect the ID from your old phone to the ID of your new phone? Still a total non issue.
Consider: > I can of course ask you to identify yourself through an app or whatnot to attach a name/email to you and match that to my CRM system.
Well, wouldn't the new device offer the the same app and attachment? Why worry about the fingerprint when the person put their id/email into an app and sent it to you?
I'm still with the OP: this identification is a non-issue. You already have an IMEI identifying your phone and a SIM/SSN/etc identifying your account/number. Quite possibly you even have a name/email for your store. Anyone that could come up with this fingerprint, well, would have to already have those things in order to collect the info needed to fingerprint to begin with. What more does this provide?
If the notion is that this would allow someone to logically link, say, a prepaid burn phone to someone's contract phone I find that highly dubious. If you have two devices they are almost certainly for two different situations: thus, two different fingerprints. It's not like you randomly decide which phone you're taking shopping on a given day.
He was not made an example of. In fact, he is only being punished for one incident, at half the maximum penalty, even though he actually hit two aircraft (the original and then the police helicopter searching for him). The the law is being applied completely fairly.
And the rest of your post is a load of crap. It's not about vengeance _or_ rehabilitation, it's about getting the behavior to stop and society putting their foot down. No one cares about this guy, what they care about is that they don't have to worry about some douche bag taking down their aircraft for the lulz. Rehabilitation is a weak fallback a best, the ideal is the crime/criminal never happening.
While I do agree that a random vindictive throwing-the-book-at is not helpful, throwing around a few maximum (or at least heavy) sentences when a crime (like this one) is on the upswing is. It catches headlines and shows potential criminals that the risks are greater than they thought.
It is a bit over the top, and I agree that 2 weeks (or even better, a lot community service) might be more appropriate for the deed... Though then again, this is something that risks doing permanent vision damage so even though it may not have this time, it's still nasty. I'm pretty sure you can't shoot someone and claim 'no harm no foul' because they lived.
AND, the problem is that these assholes are basically impossible to catch. Punishments can't just consider the problem of the deed but also the ease of getting away with it. If the punishment for stealing was to just return what you stole, then why not steal? I'm not normally a fan of 'making an example of', but all factors considered, I think that this is a very appropriate punishment. Hopefully this will send a message that this stuff isn't funny.
I'm not 16 either, and have more experience driving than most fighter pilots do flying.
While your point is well made, it doesn't really apply to this discussion: The law being proposed would affect everyone (except, basically, cops). So your fighter pilot (or a professional driver) would be pulled over and ticketed just like they were a 16 year old with a learner's permit. The only reason age comes up is because the guy seems to think only (very) young people like to try new tech, and so... I dunno wither we should be thinking of them, the children, or maybe we shouldn't care because anyone older than like, their mid-twenties wouldn't want this newfangled crap anyways. I'm a little curious where he thinks a 16 year old is going to get the $1+k to buy these, but I doubt he gave this that much thought.
Indeed. It is a little nice to see folks you don't like slug it out, and I dare say my opinion of Paypal almost went up slightly.
Still, we have to face that fact that in the end all this information is ending up in the same place. It's just a matter of who makes money selling it.
Thanks for that disestablishmentarian boilerplate, but last time I checked, waste water treatment wasn't "socialized" at all; you pay for it just like water.
If your point regards the "cost" of having elevated metals in the treated water (which is emphatically not drinking water), then the problem lies in the fact that the sewage treatment they are paying for is inadequate in the eyes of a few people. If that needs to be addressed, then it needs to be addressed as better standards for industrial waste water treatment. Whether that then means that the treatment plant charges more or mandates limits on pollutants is immaterial. It's not socialized regardless.
Slashdot Mirror
The important fine print omitted by the summary (and very nearly the article; way to push the important information to the last third ya damn flamebaiters masquerading as journalists) is that they targeting apps
when the intended use of a mobile app is for the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or it is intended to affect the structure of any function of the body of man
Now, we'll have to see how it plays out, to be sure. Certainly I think that their interest in targeting apps that interface with medial devices is a little disconcerting because it would make, say, a free/cheap pulse monitor simply impossible. However, they generally allow anything with sufficient (and reasonable) disclaimers (e.g. for research purposes only) so I'm not too concerned yet.
So while I loathe nanny state type policies and don't like everything that the FDA does, I view stuff like this to actually be rather important. Basically, think of it as a proactive enforcement of truth in advertising (vs reactive which requires a lawsuit). If I say my app diagnoses X, the FDA wants to make sure it actually does that. Coupled with the ability for the developer to avoid that by saying 'this is not approved to actually do anything' it makes for a valuable tool for consumer choice.
How does signing a post with a real name have anything in the slightest to do with standing behind what you say? From a purely logical perspective it adds nothing of value expect maybe an improved ability to make ad hominem attacks. And even if we ignore the extreme difficulty of verifying the supposed real name, real names don't even attempt to be unique. I most certainly do not stand behind things written by people who share my name and yet you have no way of distinguishing me from the author.
In short, a real name adds nothing but confusion. Now, maybe if you attach a publicly visible address to the name the you could improve upon a simple email address in terms of identification. However, chances are that the only additional standing up you'll be doing in that case is in response to getting swatted by some clown.
Personally, I'm plenty happy to "fucking stand behind" my comments in the forum where I make them. I feel no need to sign my posts "come at me (or someone with a similar name) bro".
~ Artraze on Slashdot
Your link indicates that (among other things):
1) Copyright abandonment is really only recognized in the Ninth Circuit, and remains unknown elsewhere
2) Releasing into the public domain provides no liability protection to the author
3) Copyright abandonment requires a formal, explicit statement
If you have to provide something that is nearly indistinguishable from a license, why not just provide a well established license that can not only remove all uncertainty and provide explicit terms disavowing all use of the software?
Something like the MIT License or Simplified BSD License is well established, takes only a minute to read, and achieves all the major goals of releasing into the public domain while avoiding many of the pitfalls. This whole POSS thing is ridiculous and seems to be driven by some combination of intellectual laziness, deliberate ignorance, and a desire to 'stick it to the man'. And as usual with rebellious ignorance, a whole lot of unnecessary crap occurs while 'the man' remains un-stuck-to and nothing changes.
> They cannot possibly be the owner of the copyright to VLC, shitwit.
Yeah, and no one is claiming they otherwise. They are claiming that VLC* violates their copyright on Game of Thrones.
Do they own the copyright on Game of Thrones? Yes
Has VLC been proven in a court of law to be not infringing on one their exclusive rights to Game of Thrones? No
This is therefore a totally legitimate request under then letter of the law, slimy as it may be. Ignorance and name calling doesn't change that.
*If we are being particular, they are citing a torrent page, not VLC itself. Thus your comment is even more incorrect as even if your misunderstanding was accurate they'd be claiming copyright of a page on torrentportal, not VLC.
Further, while it's not really important for this discussion, I'd point out that that detail further muddies the waters: The torrent and/or the the description may actually contain some content from Game of Thrones. I've not checked and don't care to.
> I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
See the claim:
Copyright claim #4:
Game of Thrones (Original TV Show)
Original work URL(s):
http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/index.html
Allegedly infringing URLs:
0. https://tpb.ipredator.se/torrent/8493409/Game_of_Thrones_S03E08_480p_HDTV_x264_-VYTO%5BP2PDL%5D
snip
407. http://www.torrentportal.com/details/6093721/VLC-Media-Player-2.0.7-Final-(32-64-bit)-Official.html
They are alleging that VLC is violating their copyright on Game of Thrones. They own the copyright on Game of Thrones so they are in the clear. The fact that their allegation is completely off base doesn't matter.
This is actually a necessary and very unfortunate consequence of our copyright law... Because there aren't clear boundaries for what constitutes fair use and an original work, there is no ability to assert with any certainty that a given work is not derivative. Suppose that maybe that an error message in VLC contains a couple words from the show: it's legitimate (albeit in bad faith) to claim that VLC is now violating your copyright. So unfortunately without a revision to copyright law the only way to hold these people accountable for their 'mistakes' would require them to sue and have the court declare the work non-infringing. Maybe that would be better than the current, but it would undermine the whole point of takedown requests in the first place.
Yeah, but Google it reading your email to sell you stuff. That's evil.
Microsoft is reading your email to potentially arrest you; but innocent people, of course, have nothing to worry about. That's noble.
So the only hilarity here is how much better MS is at looking out for their users!
Their iris patterns weren't "information" until they were scanned.
I wouldn't be so quick to discount the MPEG-LA's claims based on Quanta vs LG.
The decision came down to the fact the LG's contract with Intel said (basically, of course):
a) Intel had an unrestricted license to produce and sell parts
b) LG did not license third parties to use those parts in combination with other parts.
Ostensibly the point was to allow Intel full ability to create parts and to collect further royalties should parts be used.
This is what backfired: the court said that because the parts were created and sold without restriction exhaustion doctrine applied.
The court did not, however, rule on restrictions and how they affect exhaustion so Mallinckrodt vs Medipartvery still stands. Basically this says that if a patent holder licenses a product and sale for a specific purpose, using that product for any other purpose constitutes a violation of the patent.
You will find that consumer cameras feature a very specific restriction of the use of their video encoder license from the MPEG-LA, so there is no reason to believe that Quanta vs LG would apply to them. Thus, I they do sue you expect that they either win or we get a landmark ruling.
First, I was responding exactly to the very general claim "patents don't preclude anyone from using/reusing/selling software." They most certainly do. Whether or not the exhaustion doctrine applies is a different issue altogether. If you want to say this is clearly in the context of a legally purchased copy, frankly I disagree: that was a very blanket statement. You'll note that it doesn't even say "reselling".
Second, the exhaustion doctrine is not so trivially applied, for reasons that should be obvious given my prior answer: patents don't cover "software doing X" so much a they cover "a machine doing X" and/or "a machine readable storage device with code doing X". The exhaustion doctrine would apply to the resale of the disc, however the actual use of said disc requires constructing "a machine doing X" which is not only outside the scope of the sale (which was storage not a machine) but also requires remaking the patented materials which would no longer be covered by exhaustion, according to Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs.
As a result, I cannot see any case where exhaustion would allow anything but reselling the original disc. If you have any relevant case law to point out why this wouldn't be true, I'd be curious.
Your analogy is flawed because you are conflating ongoing service with one time service.
The correct analogy would be if your required special gas only sold by the company the created you car, and they would refuse to sell you gas unless you could be shown to be the 'authorized owner' of the vehicle. This is something you would know when buying the car and with the full expectation and understanding that it is a limitation of the car.
Incidentally, a more accurate analogy is already what happens with car registration: you may not drive it without having ownership transferred to you and paying for the transfer (known as "sales tax") . If you want to argue that you can loan it out, I'd point out that you can almost certainly do the same, and with fewer limits, with your XBox / account.
> Patents don't preclude anyone from using/reusing/selling software.
Completely incorrect, and so blatantly so I am uncertain how you even came to that conclusion.
Among the things patents can restrict, courtesy of the MPEG-LA:
*) Having a copy of software
*) Running software
*) Distributing software
*) Distributing the output of software.
Where "software" is any executable doing a patented operation, regardless of the copyright.
This is, in part, because software patents essentially cover "a machine that does X" rather that "X". Thus, putting a program that does X on you computer means that you constructed a machine doing X without a license from the patent holder. I'm not entirely sure how/why distribution of the machine code can be restricted or how they can attach strings to the output, but rest assured that those restrictions are very real. One fun consequence of that latter is that you can owe the MPEG-LA distribution royalties on a movie you shot using a consumer camera because the license on the camera's encoder only covers very limited commercial usage.
My admittedly cursory understanding of the EU judgement is that it basically states that a copyright holder cannot enforce their right to control distribution after first sale. To reiterate: The right to sole distribution, one of the many rights included in copyright, cannot be used to restrict resale.
The go on to explicitly indicate that a contractual term may forbid resale. Also, they do not address any extent to which resold software be usable. As a result, this basically doesn't address a system like this; it's merely a decision on the scope of copyright law as far as I can tell.
That is entirely untrue: you are buying a copy. What you can do with that copy is limited by copyright law (including the concepts of fair use) and every other applicable law (e.g. DMCA). A copy may come with an explicit license altering what you may do with it. For example, software EULAs will usually allow you to install a copy and create a backup. Without the ELUA you still have a copy; whether it has any value is another argument. Could there be exceptional cases where a copy might come with a shrink wrap license that says you must return the copy (without refund) if you violate it or don't agree? Possible, but it would quite likely unenforceable.
Even in this case, you are totally welcome to sell your game without going through MS's hoops; just don't expect it to work on MS's console. Why? Because that's what the copy does. If you modify it to work, you've broken copyright law by creating a derivative work. A license doesn't even come into play.
The only way your 'temporary/rental' bit makes any sense is if you meant it in the same way that one is only renting a car before it's eventual return to it's proper form of stardust. Just like a book from 100 years ago or a CD right now. A copy is a copy and the thing you bought. Just as owning a car doesn't entitle you to gas to make it go, owning a game copy doesn't entitle you to a console and authorization to make it play.
> How about we actually fucking teach kids about guns, how they work, and what they're used for?
We gave up on actually fucking teaching kids anything some time ago now.
The awfulness of this post is pretty remarkable. Sidestepping the wrong "your":
*) This antibiotic isn't for "taking", it's for things that aren't edible like soap and toothpaste
*) Overuse of antibiotics doesn't "raise your resistance to them", at best it increases the bacteria's resistance to them, but in actually it just increases the chance of creating an antibiotic resistance strain. Almost all of the time, however, any resistant bacteria that may develop are killed by other means (like your immune system) and don't live on.
*) One should never save antibiotics, but rather take them when prescribed and as prescribed. While your post could be construed as saying that, the reality is that antibiotics generally require a prescription so it's unlikely anyone will have any to save unless they were sick but are feeling better halfway through the prescription. Saving them at that point is the worst possible thing you can do; not taking a full regimen is what is primarily responsible for resistance.
All that being said, the first point is the most important: this is an external antibiotic. Since it's not applying evolutionary pressure while the bacteria are in your body, there isn't a combined force to make deadly resistant bacteria: ones that survive the antibiotic may not be as effective in the body and thus no one cares. Further, even if that is not the case, the mechanism of action is not the same as other antibiotics so it can still be killed off effectively. For instance, MRSA which is resistant to basically every internal antibiotic can be killed by Triclosan (the chemical in question).
It's very important to understand that not all antibiotics are the same. Something like a blast furnace will kill bacteria and they will never develop a resistance to it, period. However, it will also kill all of humanity so it's not a fantastic treatment for infection. Ditto with chemicals like ethylene oxide or other physical means like gamma rays. Something like bleach is also very effective at killing bacteria, and can even do so on human skin, but obviously doesn't leave the skin doing so well on longer exposure. There are many many things that kill bacteria. The only ones that are really 'special' and need careful use are the ones that can kill bacteria without killing people. Triclosan kind of falls in the middle and while it deserves some consideration, that 'ZOMG RESISTANCE" response isn't really appropriate either.
So your point is that BAC is a weak test and the limit is basically meaningless since in the range 0.08 - 0.05 the dependence is far more based on the individual than the actual numerical value. And you think that this is a good idea because it might discourage the handful of people that are negatively impacted within that range that decide to not chance it anymore? I.e. the responsible people who aren't impaired enough to discount their impairment and the law?
While I appreciate the 'better safe than sorry' perspective, I think that it really misses a major problem: DUI is not harmful. DUI merely increases the possibility for harm, but it does not cause it; something that can decidedly not be said about being arrested for a DUI. Thus, it's important for society (well, a functional one, which isn't really ours) to balance the harm of arrest with the value of reducing the probability of harm due to DUI. Frankly, I think either the current punishment at 0.15 or a traffic ticket at 0.05 (or both) is better for that than throwing people in jail at 0.05 just to be safe.
Remember, you can always throw the book at people who actually cause an accident while intoxicated.
> Taking away driving privileges over 60? No. Requiring regular re-testing/re-certification? Absolutely... provided that you require it for *everybody*.
Don't be silly, driving isn't based on skill. That's why there's a minimum driving age and a maximum speed and maximum BAC. We don't test those things, they're one size fits all. No driving after 60 is as entirely reasonable as no driving before your proposed 21, or even the 16-18 we currently have. After all, there are those of us that had more care and responsibility when we were just old enough to reach the petals than many have at the ripe age of 21.
I have yet to see a nonviable solution to storing nuclear waste. The problem is that no one wants viable, they want perfect. The standards are being set by the fearful, with the design to not really make storage safe, but to make it impossible in order to kill the industry.
No, it's not. Not even in this particular case: he could have still have been charged with some kind of conspiracy to smuggle. Making it legal to own/use/make/buy/sell drugs doesn't make it legal to do anything with them like bypass customs or kill someone with them.
Sure, the DEA is an especially nasty enforcement branch and getting rid of them would help, but this is a much broader issue than just the DEA and drugs. It's about liability and it's limits and what level of proof is needed to say what you know.
So, am I to understand that the point of your post is that they can connect the ID from your old phone to the ID of your new phone?
Still a total non issue.
Consider:
> I can of course ask you to identify yourself through an app or whatnot to attach a name/email to you and match that to my CRM system.
Well, wouldn't the new device offer the the same app and attachment? Why worry about the fingerprint when the person put their id/email into an app and sent it to you?
I'm still with the OP: this identification is a non-issue. You already have an IMEI identifying your phone and a SIM/SSN/etc identifying your account/number. Quite possibly you even have a name/email for your store. Anyone that could come up with this fingerprint, well, would have to already have those things in order to collect the info needed to fingerprint to begin with. What more does this provide?
If the notion is that this would allow someone to logically link, say, a prepaid burn phone to someone's contract phone I find that highly dubious. If you have two devices they are almost certainly for two different situations: thus, two different fingerprints. It's not like you randomly decide which phone you're taking shopping on a given day.
He was not made an example of. In fact, he is only being punished for one incident, at half the maximum penalty, even though he actually hit two aircraft (the original and then the police helicopter searching for him). The the law is being applied completely fairly.
And the rest of your post is a load of crap. It's not about vengeance _or_ rehabilitation, it's about getting the behavior to stop and society putting their foot down. No one cares about this guy, what they care about is that they don't have to worry about some douche bag taking down their aircraft for the lulz. Rehabilitation is a weak fallback a best, the ideal is the crime/criminal never happening.
While I do agree that a random vindictive throwing-the-book-at is not helpful, throwing around a few maximum (or at least heavy) sentences when a crime (like this one) is on the upswing is. It catches headlines and shows potential criminals that the risks are greater than they thought.
It is a bit over the top, and I agree that 2 weeks (or even better, a lot community service) might be more appropriate for the deed... Though then again, this is something that risks doing permanent vision damage so even though it may not have this time, it's still nasty. I'm pretty sure you can't shoot someone and claim 'no harm no foul' because they lived.
AND, the problem is that these assholes are basically impossible to catch. Punishments can't just consider the problem of the deed but also the ease of getting away with it. If the punishment for stealing was to just return what you stole, then why not steal? I'm not normally a fan of 'making an example of', but all factors considered, I think that this is a very appropriate punishment. Hopefully this will send a message that this stuff isn't funny.
I'm not 16 either, and have more experience driving than most fighter pilots do flying.
While your point is well made, it doesn't really apply to this discussion: The law being proposed would affect everyone (except, basically, cops). So your fighter pilot (or a professional driver) would be pulled over and ticketed just like they were a 16 year old with a learner's permit. The only reason age comes up is because the guy seems to think only (very) young people like to try new tech, and so... I dunno wither we should be thinking of them, the children, or maybe we shouldn't care because anyone older than like, their mid-twenties wouldn't want this newfangled crap anyways. I'm a little curious where he thinks a 16 year old is going to get the $1+k to buy these, but I doubt he gave this that much thought.
Indeed. It is a little nice to see folks you don't like slug it out, and I dare say my opinion of Paypal almost went up slightly.
Still, we have to face that fact that in the end all this information is ending up in the same place. It's just a matter of who makes money selling it.
Thanks for that disestablishmentarian boilerplate, but last time I checked, waste water treatment wasn't "socialized" at all; you pay for it just like water.
If your point regards the "cost" of having elevated metals in the treated water (which is emphatically not drinking water), then the problem lies in the fact that the sewage treatment they are paying for is inadequate in the eyes of a few people. If that needs to be addressed, then it needs to be addressed as better standards for industrial waste water treatment. Whether that then means that the treatment plant charges more or mandates limits on pollutants is immaterial. It's not socialized regardless.