You can have CCs in any device, no approval necessary.
No, you can't. CableLabs has the spec locked down under patent protections to prevent third parties from developing, for example, PCI cards that will accept a CableCard and can be sold direct to the consumer (instead of only to OEMs for those lame Windows DRM'ed media center PCs). There actually are PC component manufacturers who would like to make such a device (Dvico and Hauppauge would likely be interested), but since it would be useless to those of us with custom-built PVRs in the only form in which CableLabs will provide certification (i.e., DRMed tighter than a script kiddie's ass in federal prison), there's no point in developing one.
And none of that has anything to do with protecting the cable companies' signals. It's all about protecting and extending the content industry's control over the consumer, same as it's been since the days of the player piano.
There's only one way that there'll be enough public outcry to cause solutions to be generated. The spammers will have to overplay their hands hugely. (Think Al Qaeda in Iraq - things are turning around over there at the grassroots level, mainly because AQI was chopping off people's heads and serving roasted children on platters to parents, and the public outcry has been enormous.)
Everyone hates spam, but spam filtering techniques have progressed to the point where we're at an uneasy stalemate with spammers. Everyone hates DDoS attacks, but in truth, how many people have really been the victim of one, and how many companies with muscle are really vulnerable to a normal-sized one? What will have to happen is that some overambitious crook gets it in their head to attack a Google or a Level3 or an Amazon or a national military, and puts the muscle behind it to make it work. It'll take players of that sort of weight to induce ISPs to do what they should have been doing all this time - proactively detecting botnet traffic and suspending the account of any user, individual or corporation, participating in such botnets.
I suppose we could also black hole enough of the world that the botnet controllers are forced into the reach of countries with tough computer anticrime resources, where they can be put behind bars and well out of the reach of any keyboard. I'm just not quite sure the Russians will stand for that....
I was annoyed that Led Zeppelin wasn't on iTunes a while back, but it did lead me to the London Philharmonic Orchestra's Led Zeppelin cover album. Highly recommended (and they did a Pink Floyd cover album, too).
The Collins ad and your example have one critical difference: your example is premised on an untrue statement that would be defamatory to (in this case) the Ubuntu Foundation. The Collins ad may have appropriated the MoveOn name, but it did so based on MoveOn's own actions, in a manner that not only doesn't create marketplace confusion about the MoveOn name, but in fact reinforces that trademark.
I don't think it's appropriate to call shenanigans on Google in this case quite yet, but MoveOn got caught with their hand in the cookie jar again. This case is pretty much the same as Evil Corporation filing a lawsuit against {evilcorporation}sucks.com, except using Google as the heavy instead of the judicial system. Oh, and except that people are suddenly unable to see around their political views to get at the heart of the matter, which is that there was no trademark infringement taking place here.
On the other hand, it's a bad sign because the music industry is just finding new ways (or, perhaps, rediscovering old ways) to exert unnecessary control over their product. Hardware lock-in is bad for the consumer, because it limits consumer choice, but it's good for the music and electronics industries, for the same reason.
I don't have a car, no kids, I live alone (no neighborhood) in an abandoned gov. concrete bunker (no fire), have my own well and sewage system, so why do _I_ have to pay for your luxuries? Hey, I don't know about you, but I rather enjoy not having to fight off the Canadian Imperial Army singlehandedly.
On the other hand, by accommodating people whose languages use a different character set, you put a further burden on two groups of people: content creators, who are forced to decide which language's hostname to use in their URLs, or how many languages to support; and everyone, because using other character sets or languages destandardizes common hostnames and makes it more difficult for people to inspect a URL and determine whether it's worth following or not.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev alojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld. I think I speak for us all when I say, OMGWTFBBQ.
She's described in the IHT article as being hired as a "contributor". The folks who are normally described as contributors on FNC appear on various programs to provide their opinions, but typically don't have journalistic duties. (Some contributors are journalists for other publications.)
It's not just that you can't determine for certain who is behind such campaigns - it's that the dirty players can frame anybody they choose. My prediction is, since everyone is so hypersensitive to "open foot, insert mouth" moments these days (thanks, Daily Show!*), we'll see at least one moderately successful Internet e-mail campaign that (1) purports to be from a candidate, and (2) includes a comment that can be construed as offensive and probably racist, but (3) is actually from some other group who hopes to make that candidate take a fall.
Actually, a research satellite in orbit around Jupiter would be useful for studying atmospheric processes there, which change on the order of days to decades.
If you make a claim in US court under copyright law, and you lose, you can be liable (at the discretion of the court) for the legal costs of the person you sued (17 USC 505).
Slashdot Mirror
You mean.... posting to Slashdot isn't special?
You should count yourself lucky for having three choices.
You can have CCs in any device, no approval necessary.
No, you can't. CableLabs has the spec locked down under patent protections to prevent third parties from developing, for example, PCI cards that will accept a CableCard and can be sold direct to the consumer (instead of only to OEMs for those lame Windows DRM'ed media center PCs). There actually are PC component manufacturers who would like to make such a device (Dvico and Hauppauge would likely be interested), but since it would be useless to those of us with custom-built PVRs in the only form in which CableLabs will provide certification (i.e., DRMed tighter than a script kiddie's ass in federal prison), there's no point in developing one.
And none of that has anything to do with protecting the cable companies' signals. It's all about protecting and extending the content industry's control over the consumer, same as it's been since the days of the player piano.
What they really need is the TLDR rule for automatically rejecting patent applications.
Also, expect Berman and Coble to take care of business (literally) in the House if the Mafiaa can't ramrod it through in the Senate.
There's only one way that there'll be enough public outcry to cause solutions to be generated. The spammers will have to overplay their hands hugely. (Think Al Qaeda in Iraq - things are turning around over there at the grassroots level, mainly because AQI was chopping off people's heads and serving roasted children on platters to parents, and the public outcry has been enormous.)
Everyone hates spam, but spam filtering techniques have progressed to the point where we're at an uneasy stalemate with spammers. Everyone hates DDoS attacks, but in truth, how many people have really been the victim of one, and how many companies with muscle are really vulnerable to a normal-sized one? What will have to happen is that some overambitious crook gets it in their head to attack a Google or a Level3 or an Amazon or a national military, and puts the muscle behind it to make it work. It'll take players of that sort of weight to induce ISPs to do what they should have been doing all this time - proactively detecting botnet traffic and suspending the account of any user, individual or corporation, participating in such botnets.
I suppose we could also black hole enough of the world that the botnet controllers are forced into the reach of countries with tough computer anticrime resources, where they can be put behind bars and well out of the reach of any keyboard. I'm just not quite sure the Russians will stand for that....
I was annoyed that Led Zeppelin wasn't on iTunes a while back, but it did lead me to the London Philharmonic Orchestra's Led Zeppelin cover album. Highly recommended (and they did a Pink Floyd cover album, too).
You apparently don't watch enough Cops.
I, for one, welcome our new proletariat overlords.
Incoming phone numbers? Not sure what Verizon does with those, but I don't even get those numbers from Sprint on my bill.
Some light reading for you.
The Collins ad and your example have one critical difference: your example is premised on an untrue statement that would be defamatory to (in this case) the Ubuntu Foundation. The Collins ad may have appropriated the MoveOn name, but it did so based on MoveOn's own actions, in a manner that not only doesn't create marketplace confusion about the MoveOn name, but in fact reinforces that trademark.
I don't think it's appropriate to call shenanigans on Google in this case quite yet, but MoveOn got caught with their hand in the cookie jar again. This case is pretty much the same as Evil Corporation filing a lawsuit against {evilcorporation}sucks.com, except using Google as the heavy instead of the judicial system. Oh, and except that people are suddenly unable to see around their political views to get at the heart of the matter, which is that there was no trademark infringement taking place here.
On the other hand, it's a bad sign because the music industry is just finding new ways (or, perhaps, rediscovering old ways) to exert unnecessary control over their product. Hardware lock-in is bad for the consumer, because it limits consumer choice, but it's good for the music and electronics industries, for the same reason.
On the other hand, by accommodating people whose languages use a different character set, you put a further burden on two groups of people: content creators, who are forced to decide which language's hostname to use in their URLs, or how many languages to support; and everyone, because using other character sets or languages destandardizes common hostnames and makes it more difficult for people to inspect a URL and determine whether it's worth following or not.
If I were working at a store, and Wil Wheaton came through my line, I'd probably card him just for fun.
Wil Wheaton: But I'm just trying to buy a tube of toothpaste!
Me: Fork over that multipass, Wunderkind! Muahahahahaha!
In the end, it was deemed a highly illogical method, since it killed his ability to play the game.
WOPR always had the same problem, but for slightly different reasons.
She's described in the IHT article as being hired as a "contributor". The folks who are normally described as contributors on FNC appear on various programs to provide their opinions, but typically don't have journalistic duties. (Some contributors are journalists for other publications.)
It's not just that you can't determine for certain who is behind such campaigns - it's that the dirty players can frame anybody they choose. My prediction is, since everyone is so hypersensitive to "open foot, insert mouth" moments these days (thanks, Daily Show!*), we'll see at least one moderately successful Internet e-mail campaign that (1) purports to be from a candidate, and (2) includes a comment that can be construed as offensive and probably racist, but (3) is actually from some other group who hopes to make that candidate take a fall.
Actually, a research satellite in orbit around Jupiter would be useful for studying atmospheric processes there, which change on the order of days to decades.
Thanks much. I guess you (or I) learn something every day.
Okay, it's a big fat myth in the US, but are you saying it's actually still true in Canada?
If you make a claim in US court under copyright law, and you lose, you can be liable (at the discretion of the court) for the legal costs of the person you sued (17 USC 505).