Sure, I understand what "subjects of a criminal investigation" are. Do you know what a conjunction is? It means they're also looking for "national security adversaries"
Why did it take so long to detect these? I know that there have been plenty of experiments attempting to measure them before. Are the waves smaller than expect, thus harder to detect? What was the thing preventing discovery?
Had the heads been bugger and Phillips or flat, there were existing screwdrivers that would work.
tbh I don't like phillips screws, every time I see one I'm afraid I'll strip it.
(btw, I don't know if you play chess of FICS, but if you do, I think I just lost a game to you).
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says later this year it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her.
It's unlikely.......she's smart enough to know not to do anything illegal in the public eye, and she's been in the public eye for the last 25 years. She can afford lawyers to tell her how to stay exactly within the law.
With the emails, maybe, she's definitely guilty of being sloppy, but that wasn't an intentional crime........if it's a crime at all, it's because the law around classified documents is very harsh. I don't think Hillary is a particularly bad person.
if the cameras become 'publicly identifiable,' Winn said, 'subjects of the criminal investigation and national security adversaries of the United States will know what to look for to discern whether the FBI is conducting surveillance in a particular location.'"
What kind of 'national security adversaries' are they hoping to catch with these cameras anyway? Are the North Korean infiltrating our Seattle Coast, and the only way to stop them is with cameras? Do those spies who managed to enter the country undetected not know that you can be filmed in public??
Oh yeah, that's a good point, that exec is talking to his customers there, the advertisers. The customers want video advertising, and they're willing to pay for it, so Facebook wants video content so they can get the video dollars.
They also were a much larger portion of the infringing work, it was not functional........etc
You are misunderstanding the fair-use factor 3, the amount copied. That isn't a positive defense, at best it is neutral: Google can say "We copied no more than necessary." But Oracle will try to argue that they did copy more than necessary.
The actual expression (the source code) doesn't lose protection unless there's merger - which was the case here
No, that was Google's idea, but the appellate court explained why it is wrong, see here starting on page 30. In brief, when considering merger for copyright protection, you need to consider the options available to Sun when they originally wrote Java: there were plenty of ways they could have written any of those APIs.
It was transformative because they created entirely new implementation code, and used the existing API in new ways.
Indeed, and Google absolutely owns the copyright on the new implementation code, that isn't even in dispute.
--
The point I'm trying to make here isn't so much to decide whether Google should lose or not, I honestly don't care if one company pays billions to another. My point is that even if Google loses, there is plenty of reason that the ruling would not apply to most other open source projects, like Wine or Samba. There are clear differences between what Samba is doing and what Google did.
I don't know about you, but I like doing stuff at work. I'd rather not work at all (and still get paid), but as long as I'm at work, it feels good to be productive.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, I understand what "subjects of a criminal investigation" are. Do you know what a conjunction is? It means they're also looking for "national security adversaries"
The LIGO experiment is much more sensitive and a lot of effort put in to detect false positives (including some social engineering).
How can social engineering be useful at all in this case?
Why did it take so long to detect these? I know that there have been plenty of experiments attempting to measure them before. Are the waves smaller than expect, thus harder to detect? What was the thing preventing discovery?
Had the heads been bugger and Phillips or flat, there were existing screwdrivers that would work.
tbh I don't like phillips screws, every time I see one I'm afraid I'll strip it.
(btw, I don't know if you play chess of FICS, but if you do, I think I just lost a game to you).
We can only hope.
Based on your incredible though psychotic devotion to her I imagine that if she shot you in the head you would support her
What makes you think I support her? I just don't think she's evil, or even particularly bad.
Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.
Being typical doesn't mean it's "not bad!"
It is difficult to impossible to defend yourself against actual facts.
I see this is your first presidential election.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says later this year it will publish enough new information about Hillary Clinton to indict her.
It's unlikely.......she's smart enough to know not to do anything illegal in the public eye, and she's been in the public eye for the last 25 years. She can afford lawyers to tell her how to stay exactly within the law.
With the emails, maybe, she's definitely guilty of being sloppy, but that wasn't an intentional crime........if it's a crime at all, it's because the law around classified documents is very harsh. I don't think Hillary is a particularly bad person.
if the cameras become 'publicly identifiable,' Winn said, 'subjects of the criminal investigation and national security adversaries of the United States will know what to look for to discern whether the FBI is conducting surveillance in a particular location.'"
What kind of 'national security adversaries' are they hoping to catch with these cameras anyway? Are the North Korean infiltrating our Seattle Coast, and the only way to stop them is with cameras? Do those spies who managed to enter the country undetected not know that you can be filmed in public??
Oh yeah, that's a good point, that exec is talking to his customers there, the advertisers. The customers want video advertising, and they're willing to pay for it, so Facebook wants video content so they can get the video dollars.
And thus Facebook dies
Check out the list of top videos on youtube: it's almost all music. I have no idea why.
oh, that's good to know
the Union is in on it
That's true of Verizon as well. Don't expect them to protect you as an employee.
The CAFC confused merger with scènes à faire.
I don't think so lol. Now you're just saying stupid stuff. Take a nap, think on it, and come back tomorrow with a fresh mind.
You can't isolate the RFID signal.
Why not?
You could hide an antenna in a backpack or something, doesn't need to be super-obvious
Is there a way to increase the range with an antenna or something? 8cm is kind of a short range, even at a concert........
They also were a much larger portion of the infringing work, it was not functional........etc
You are misunderstanding the fair-use factor 3, the amount copied. That isn't a positive defense, at best it is neutral: Google can say "We copied no more than necessary." But Oracle will try to argue that they did copy more than necessary.
The actual expression (the source code) doesn't lose protection unless there's merger - which was the case here
No, that was Google's idea, but the appellate court explained why it is wrong, see here starting on page 30. In brief, when considering merger for copyright protection, you need to consider the options available to Sun when they originally wrote Java: there were plenty of ways they could have written any of those APIs.
It was transformative because they created entirely new implementation code, and used the existing API in new ways.
Indeed, and Google absolutely owns the copyright on the new implementation code, that isn't even in dispute.
--
The point I'm trying to make here isn't so much to decide whether Google should lose or not, I honestly don't care if one company pays billions to another. My point is that even if Google loses, there is plenty of reason that the ruling would not apply to most other open source projects, like Wine or Samba. There are clear differences between what Samba is doing and what Google did.
Wow, thanks!
I don't know about you, but I like doing stuff at work. I'd rather not work at all (and still get paid), but as long as I'm at work, it feels good to be productive.
The estimates end up within tolerance.
Worse than that, I finish at exactly the end of the given tolerance!
Yeah, it's kind of eye-opening, I agree.
Imagine office integration where you can easily share documents, send messages, and video conference among LinkedIn contacts.
Have you ever wanted to do that? LinkedIn is mostly my social graph with people I don't work with anymore.