I meant to say that the old Google Wallet service/app required the carrier's blessing in some cases. I mixed up my names. And yes, the cited post the "new" service is suppose to work regardless of carrier, the way it should be.
Social media shaming is also part of the deal, threatening to expose the DDOS on Twitter if payment is not made.
What would be the point of this? "We're going to shame you to show that we're trying to extort you and you're not giving in." Is this suppose to cause peer pressure to force the financial institutions to settle? Or to garner sympathy for the attackers?
My domain password at work expires sometime in the near future since I got an email that says I need to change it. I guess I must be a AM user because I changed my password shortly after this news broke.
Didn't Google Pay require carrier's blessing? I seem to remember TMobile not allowing Google Pay to be installed/function on my Galaxy S4 and instead wanted Isis Mobile Wallet (later renamed Softcard) to be the mobile payment method so that the mobile carriers would retain/resell the marketing data from the transaction and not Google. I had to install a unofficial ROM after rooting to get Google Pay to install and work.
In the end it wasn't worth it. It was faster to run my credit card than pull out phone, enter pin, bring up Pay, try to get it and the terminal to sync, eventually having it go through, then have to talk to the cashier because it really didn't, give up and swipe card like I should have done in the first place. Now a days I can't say I recall any places that have tap to pay terminals. A few have Apple-supported terminals, but the ones that had Google-compatible ones replaced them when they got EMV-compatible ones.
So what you're saying is the hardware is a year old and the feature set is 3 years old and they pounded out a complete OS in under a year because they're too cheap to dip into the kabillizion dollar cash reserve they're sitting on instead of "diverting resources".
I can't speak to the particular one that you linked to, but as of about a year ago, almost all of the sub-$100 tables were crap. Inferior displays, slow, buggy software, little updates if you got anything to begin with. While you still get what you pay for, at least with Amazon behind it you'll likely get at least some support and a functional device (as long as you don't mind being confined to the Amazon ecosystem).
Because ultimately they'd still end up in court fighting over how to do something that technically (and hopefully) isn't possible. Might as well do that from the beginning instead of going through the hassles and expense of setting up some type of monitoring infrastructure to receive useless data in the end anyways.
In your senario, you imply that the customer would have purchased the movie if they had not downloaded it. You can't PROVE that they would have done that, so you can't prove that 1 download = 1 lost sale.
For uploading, it's impossible to determine what actual damages are. How many copies did they upload? Partial or full copies? What's the threshold for number of bits or bytes that must be seeded before infringement happens to count as 1 sale lost? The only thing the plaintiff can prove is how much they got. And if that is all they have, actual damages for uploading that would be provable would be 0 because they already owned the work.
So in other words, it's not really provable exactly how much actual damage was done, like I originally said.
$750 seems convenient because it's the statutory minimum allowed by law. The law allows for either actual damages and profit, or statutory damages of $750-30k unless it was willful infringement, then the upper limit is $150k. Actual damages/profit is impossible to prove in this case so $750 would be the minimum.
Also, because they are being accused for sharing the same work as a collective, I believe that $750 gets split up between all parties, or if one party pays it the other parties are not individually liable for more. I believe there was one or more recent infringement cases where this issue came up because one defendant had already paid and then they went after more, but couldn't because the infringement had already been "paid for".
It's not so much what the DoE "gets" out of it as the LSST is being ran by Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) as part of the Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory, which is ran by the DoE. All of the national laboratories are ran under the DoE and do a lot more basic science research than just figuring out how to make nuclear reactions and seeing how fast they can smash particles together.
From the bottom of the article:
SLAC is a multi-program laboratory exploring frontier questions in photon science, astrophysics, particle physics and accelerator research. Located in Menlo Park, California, SLAC is operated by Stanford University for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.... The DOE-funded effort to build the LSST camera is managed by the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC). Learn more at lsst.org.â... SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy. The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time.
I don't think 00000-00000-00000-00000-00000 would have been valid. I think 95 keys were in the format of 000-0000000 or 00000-OEM-0000000-00000 for OEM keys.
it's not going to do real damage to a full size airplane.
I'm sure that's comforting to the pilots that are blinded right before they crash the plane. Pilots already frequently report encountering laser incidents, on average 10 a night and those incidents aren't using lasers specifically designed to destroy things.
And while we're at it, why don't we also stop burning fossil fuels, quit using man made chemicals in agriculture, and stop worldwide violence. I think all those ideas are much more obtainable than stop using plastics.
These days a T1 with multiple freeloading users is painfully slow.
These days a T1 is painfully slow, even without multiple or even a single other user. I can't think of any reason to still use a dedicated circuit like that unless you absolutely positively need the guaranteed bandwidth and SLA service...or there was absolutely no other option.
Except in states where marijuana sales are legal, that only means that state law enforcement couldn't arrest you for drug possession. You still could be charged with a federal crime. Lately they just look the other way as they realize it's not generally worth the effort.
If you were charged under state law for violating private air space, it could be transferred to federal court as the FAA has jurisdiction, where the charge would be ultimately tossed out due to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the state.
That all pertains to the actual flying of the air craft. Perhaps states could side step the issue by not making flying the aircraft illegal, but rather harassment, trespassing, or some other stretch of the imagination.
And Twitter is designed for the lazy with its character limitations
Not really for the lazy. It was designed with the 140 character limit when tweets were originally entered via SMS messages, leaving a little extra for the user's name and not going over the 160 character limit for a single message.
So, a trademark is only valid in the area of business in which it is used. It isn't a blanket "nobody can use my catchphrase".
Which means this can pretty much only be used to... what... introduce a new watch by a CEO wearing a black turtleneck at the end of a keynote address? It sure as hell can't be used to prevent people from using it in a general sense.
If you look at the registration, it tells exactly what areas it can't be used in (slightly reformatted for readability):
511 International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification) - NCL(10-2015)
09 -Apparatus for recording, transmission and reproduction of sound or images; -electronic payment processing apparatus, apparatus for processing cashless payment transactions; -magnetic recording media, sound recording disks; -compact disks, DVDs and other digital recording media; -apparatus enabling the playing of compressed sound files (MP3); -calculating machines and data processing equipment, software; -game software for mobile telephones, for computers and for digital personal stereos; -electronic game software for mobile telephones, for computers and for digital personal stereos; -computers, portable computers, handheld computers, mobile computers, personal computers, wrist computers, electronic tablets and computerized and mobile devices, digital personal stereos, mobile telephones and new-generation mobile telephones featuring greater functionality (smartphones); -telecommunication apparatus and instruments; -apparatus for recording, transmission, reproduction of sound or images, particularly mobile telephones and new-generation mobile telephones incorporating greater functionality (smartphones); -hand-held electronic apparatus for accessing the Internet and sending, receiving, recording and storing short messages, electronic messages, telephone calls, faxes, video conferences, images, sound, music, text and other digital data; -handheld electronic apparatus for wireless receiving, storing and transmitting of data or messages; -handheld electronic apparatus for monitoring and organizing personal information; -handheld electronic apparatus for global positioning [GPS] and displaying maps and transport information; -handheld electronic devices for detecting, monitoring, storing, surveillance and transmitting data relating to the user activity, namely position, itinerary, distance traveled, heart rate; -covers for computers, portable and mobile telephones; -optical apparatus and instruments, particularly spectacles, sunglasses, magnifying glasses; -cases for spectacles, magnifying glasses and sunglasses; -batteries and cells for computers and electronic and chronometric apparatus.
14 -Precious metals and their alloys and goods made of these materials or coated therewith included in this class, namely figurines, trophies; -jewelry, namely rings, earrings, cufflinks, bracelets, charms, brooches, chains, necklaces, tie pins, tie clips, jewelry caskets, jewelry cases; -precious stones, semi-precious stones; -timepieces and chronometric instruments, namely chronometers, chronographs, clocks, watches, wristwatches, wall clocks, alarm clocks as well as parts and accessories for the aforesaid goods, namely hands, anchors, pendulums, barrels, watch cases, watch straps, watch dials, clockworks, watch chains, movements for timepieces, watch springs, watch glasses, presentation cases for timepieces, cases for timepieces.
Anything not listed, or in a generic sense would be fair game (unless covered by someone else's trademark that is).
A trademark protects the owner in the subject area that the trademark is assigned to from competitors using the same phrase creating brand confusion. Swatch's trademark is for "SWATCH ONE MORE THING" in a bunch of areas basically jewelry/watches and electronics.
Other's can use the word/phrase still. Some infomercial could use it about all the wonderful stuff their new magical goo can do, as long as it wasn't for jewelry or an electronic device. Steve Jobs, were he alive today, could use the phrase as part of a presentation, as long as he wasn't using it as a catch phrase. It would just prohibit Apple from naming their next product "One more thing" or launching an ad campaign where that was the slogan, because both of those things could cause confusion to consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant to say that the old Google Wallet service/app required the carrier's blessing in some cases. I mixed up my names. And yes, the cited post the "new" service is suppose to work regardless of carrier, the way it should be.
What would be the point of this? "We're going to shame you to show that we're trying to extort you and you're not giving in." Is this suppose to cause peer pressure to force the financial institutions to settle? Or to garner sympathy for the attackers?
My domain password at work expires sometime in the near future since I got an email that says I need to change it. I guess I must be a AM user because I changed my password shortly after this news broke.
Didn't Google Pay require carrier's blessing? I seem to remember TMobile not allowing Google Pay to be installed/function on my Galaxy S4 and instead wanted Isis Mobile Wallet (later renamed Softcard) to be the mobile payment method so that the mobile carriers would retain/resell the marketing data from the transaction and not Google. I had to install a unofficial ROM after rooting to get Google Pay to install and work.
In the end it wasn't worth it. It was faster to run my credit card than pull out phone, enter pin, bring up Pay, try to get it and the terminal to sync, eventually having it go through, then have to talk to the cashier because it really didn't, give up and swipe card like I should have done in the first place. Now a days I can't say I recall any places that have tap to pay terminals. A few have Apple-supported terminals, but the ones that had Google-compatible ones replaced them when they got EMV-compatible ones.
So what you're saying is the hardware is a year old and the feature set is 3 years old and they pounded out a complete OS in under a year because they're too cheap to dip into the kabillizion dollar cash reserve they're sitting on instead of "diverting resources".
I can't speak to the particular one that you linked to, but as of about a year ago, almost all of the sub-$100 tables were crap. Inferior displays, slow, buggy software, little updates if you got anything to begin with. While you still get what you pay for, at least with Amazon behind it you'll likely get at least some support and a functional device (as long as you don't mind being confined to the Amazon ecosystem).
Because ultimately they'd still end up in court fighting over how to do something that technically (and hopefully) isn't possible. Might as well do that from the beginning instead of going through the hassles and expense of setting up some type of monitoring infrastructure to receive useless data in the end anyways.
I thought almost every /. post was just the first paragraph of the article. There's summaries that aren't just copy/paste jobs?
Apparently this guy will, saying that no OS is secure, never will be, and there will always be security problems.
In your senario, you imply that the customer would have purchased the movie if they had not downloaded it. You can't PROVE that they would have done that, so you can't prove that 1 download = 1 lost sale.
For uploading, it's impossible to determine what actual damages are. How many copies did they upload? Partial or full copies? What's the threshold for number of bits or bytes that must be seeded before infringement happens to count as 1 sale lost? The only thing the plaintiff can prove is how much they got. And if that is all they have, actual damages for uploading that would be provable would be 0 because they already owned the work.
So in other words, it's not really provable exactly how much actual damage was done, like I originally said.
$750 seems convenient because it's the statutory minimum allowed by law. The law allows for either actual damages and profit, or statutory damages of $750-30k unless it was willful infringement, then the upper limit is $150k. Actual damages/profit is impossible to prove in this case so $750 would be the minimum.
Also, because they are being accused for sharing the same work as a collective, I believe that $750 gets split up between all parties, or if one party pays it the other parties are not individually liable for more. I believe there was one or more recent infringement cases where this issue came up because one defendant had already paid and then they went after more, but couldn't because the infringement had already been "paid for".
It's not so much what the DoE "gets" out of it as the LSST is being ran by Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) as part of the Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory, which is ran by the DoE. All of the national laboratories are ran under the DoE and do a lot more basic science research than just figuring out how to make nuclear reactions and seeing how fast they can smash particles together.
From the bottom of the article:
I don't think 00000-00000-00000-00000-00000 would have been valid. I think 95 keys were in the format of 000-0000000 or 00000-OEM-0000000-00000 for OEM keys.
I'm sure that's comforting to the pilots that are blinded right before they crash the plane. Pilots already frequently report encountering laser incidents, on average 10 a night and those incidents aren't using lasers specifically designed to destroy things.
And while we're at it, why don't we also stop burning fossil fuels, quit using man made chemicals in agriculture, and stop worldwide violence. I think all those ideas are much more obtainable than stop using plastics.
I fooled them. I broke the glass so that they can't bounce the laser off the glass. How are they going to listen to me now? Ha!
Painfully slow by today's broadband standards.
So you're saying it will be more successful than most other kickstarters then?
These days a T1 is painfully slow, even without multiple or even a single other user. I can't think of any reason to still use a dedicated circuit like that unless you absolutely positively need the guaranteed bandwidth and SLA service...or there was absolutely no other option.
Except in states where marijuana sales are legal, that only means that state law enforcement couldn't arrest you for drug possession. You still could be charged with a federal crime. Lately they just look the other way as they realize it's not generally worth the effort.
If you were charged under state law for violating private air space, it could be transferred to federal court as the FAA has jurisdiction, where the charge would be ultimately tossed out due to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the state.
That all pertains to the actual flying of the air craft. Perhaps states could side step the issue by not making flying the aircraft illegal, but rather harassment, trespassing, or some other stretch of the imagination.
Not really for the lazy. It was designed with the 140 character limit when tweets were originally entered via SMS messages, leaving a little extra for the user's name and not going over the 160 character limit for a single message.
If you look at the registration, it tells exactly what areas it can't be used in (slightly reformatted for readability):
Anything not listed, or in a generic sense would be fair game (unless covered by someone else's trademark that is).
A trademark protects the owner in the subject area that the trademark is assigned to from competitors using the same phrase creating brand confusion. Swatch's trademark is for "SWATCH ONE MORE THING" in a bunch of areas basically jewelry/watches and electronics.
Other's can use the word/phrase still. Some infomercial could use it about all the wonderful stuff their new magical goo can do, as long as it wasn't for jewelry or an electronic device. Steve Jobs, were he alive today, could use the phrase as part of a presentation, as long as he wasn't using it as a catch phrase. It would just prohibit Apple from naming their next product "One more thing" or launching an ad campaign where that was the slogan, because both of those things could cause confusion to consumers.
Perhaps the politicians shouldn't rely on interns to be their voice then.
Well I welcome a future with lots of encryption-free DRM.