I think this latest incident probably makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and I'm a committed Deletionist. Notice that the last AFD of his article was last May.
Actually, you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, at least as far as US law is concerned. The photographer owns the copyright of any image he takes, unless the image is made as a work for hire.
Model releases have nothing whatsoever to do with copyright.
I'm fairly certain that the British don't need to prove they're not too stupid to watch TV to get a TV license, though, so what you're talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with that OP is suggesting.
Have you read The Hot Zone? The book by Richard Preston? It has no such premise. I'm wondering if all of you people saw the movie Outbreak and imagined that while watching it you were reading a book.
The problem is that you apparently need to make the requirements to get a "computer license" more stringent than those required to get a job in network security at IBM or a degree in information security. Good luck legislating that when you're going to have to take away the computers of everyone in Congress and all of their staff.
I doubt it's the ISPs' fault; looking at the list it seems plausible that the "most likely" to be hit are simply the largest ISPs, so you'd expect the largest numbers of affected users to be using those ISPs.
Besides, if 2 supposed "network security" people got hit, do the ISPs really have any hope whatsoever in trying to educate their users to avoid phishing?
A good reason? No. A really stupid reason? Yes. There are more Americans who bitch about letterboxing not showing the whole movie like Fullscreen versions do, because they have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
Although I have to admit I can't imagine how your DVD player can really do "Pan and Scan" automatically on a widescreen disk. Just chopping off the sides of the image doesn't involve any panning or scanning, and you'd need pretty good AI to know exactly where to pan for the optimal chopped off image.
Well, GP and you must have read a different edition of The Hot Zone than I did, if in the one you guys read Ebola spread throughout the world and killed millions of people.
Next you'll be complaining that On The Origin Of Species is bad scifi because it says that my grandfather was a lemur.
I'm sure all of the people who have died of Ebola will be happy to hear that some idiot on Slashdot thinks the disease that killed them is absolutely impossible.
Well, if the cybersquatters are forced into bankruptcy by being hit with huge judgments in favor of Microsoft, they won't be able to afford to register variations of your domain name anymore. Plus one would think there'd be an overall deterrent effect on people thinking of getting into the cybersquatting business.
If your defense counsel asks you a question during direct examination that he knows would require you to commit a felony, you should fire him immediately. He should also be disbarred.
Hey, we could end all violence in the world if we just let everyone kill whoever they wanted to at any time. Eventually, everyone would get bored of killing and go to the library. Well, if they could make their way over the piles of rotting corpses in the streets.
Most libraries in the US make it a point to get rid of any data linking a book to a patron once the book's returned, especially since the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act (which requires them to turn over such data to the government if they're asked for it, but doesn't require them to actually keep the data in the first place). However, I'm not aware of any state that actually makes it illegal to keep such data. I've got tens of thousands of old books with cards listing everyone who checked them out within a certain time period, before there were computers to track such things, and it's certainly not illegal to have these. The law in my state does make it illegal to turn over these records to anyone who doesn't have a court order to see them, but just keeping them isn't illegal. In fact, I'd say the Justice Department would probably like it very much if it was actually required to keep the records forever. Or, you know, turn them over to be put in a federal database every time a book is checked out, so they could do some datamining to find potential terrorists.
Right, and Viacom doesn't make money by showing TV shows that people want to watch on their cable stations, they make money by showing advertisements. I'm shocked that their shareholders haven't demanded that they stop showing any content at all, and moving all of their stations to a 24-hour ad format. Or that Google's haven't demanded that YouTube show hosting video at all, and instead just show pages full of thousands of ads. Think of all the revenue!
If you're too dumb to get sarcasm, let me spell it out for you. Advertising only makes money if people see the ads. Google gets people to see their ads by hosting video.
Google is profited from hosting huge amounts of copyrighted material. Wikipedia was making no profit whatsoever for briefly hosting a potentially libelous statement. To an idiot the cases seem equivalent.
If you're watching enough American Idol to judge whether most of the singers are awful, I hardly think your holier than thou attitude about pop culture has any credibility whatsoever. If you don't think there's anything good on TV, why don't you turn of your damn TV already?
Um, that a retarded way of looking at it. She was held on a charge of Contempt of Court. She was never asked to produce evidence that she was not, in fact, in contempt of court, she was asked to reveal who told her about Valerie Plame.
I'm sure Mark Cuban would be even richer if he just realized that because he can afford to pay off any judgments against him, he should do as much as he could to invite lawsuits. Yeah, that would be incredibly non-moronic. He should totally cancel his car insurance and then go driving around smashing into every car he sees.
The court did not order Miller to produce evidence that she was not guilty. Not the same thing at all. GP claims AT&T would be under a "court order" to provide evidence for or against themselves. The first is ridiculous and the second is protected by the 5th amendment. Being ordered to testify against someone else is a whole other issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this latest incident probably makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and I'm a committed Deletionist. Notice that the last AFD of his article was last May.
Actually, you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, at least as far as US law is concerned. The photographer owns the copyright of any image he takes, unless the image is made as a work for hire.
Model releases have nothing whatsoever to do with copyright.
"From the Zonk doesn't understand statistics Dept."
A survey recently found that 100% of adults who go online breathe oxygen. Therefore, 100% of oxygen breathers are adults.
I'm fairly certain that the British don't need to prove they're not too stupid to watch TV to get a TV license, though, so what you're talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with that OP is suggesting.
Have you read The Hot Zone? The book by Richard Preston? It has no such premise. I'm wondering if all of you people saw the movie Outbreak and imagined that while watching it you were reading a book.
Considering 22/7 is closer to Pi than 3.14 is, March 14 should probable be "Pi approximation day" and 22 July "Much better Pi approximation day"
The problem is that you apparently need to make the requirements to get a "computer license" more stringent than those required to get a job in network security at IBM or a degree in information security. Good luck legislating that when you're going to have to take away the computers of everyone in Congress and all of their staff.
I doubt it's the ISPs' fault; looking at the list it seems plausible that the "most likely" to be hit are simply the largest ISPs, so you'd expect the largest numbers of affected users to be using those ISPs.
Besides, if 2 supposed "network security" people got hit, do the ISPs really have any hope whatsoever in trying to educate their users to avoid phishing?
A good reason? No. A really stupid reason? Yes. There are more Americans who bitch about letterboxing not showing the whole movie like Fullscreen versions do, because they have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
Although I have to admit I can't imagine how your DVD player can really do "Pan and Scan" automatically on a widescreen disk. Just chopping off the sides of the image doesn't involve any panning or scanning, and you'd need pretty good AI to know exactly where to pan for the optimal chopped off image.
What, you don't have one of the new iPods with a High Definition 3 inch screen?
You do not remember correctly.
Well, GP and you must have read a different edition of The Hot Zone than I did, if in the one you guys read Ebola spread throughout the world and killed millions of people.
Next you'll be complaining that On The Origin Of Species is bad scifi because it says that my grandfather was a lemur.
I'm sure all of the people who have died of Ebola will be happy to hear that some idiot on Slashdot thinks the disease that killed them is absolutely impossible.
Well, if the cybersquatters are forced into bankruptcy by being hit with huge judgments in favor of Microsoft, they won't be able to afford to register variations of your domain name anymore. Plus one would think there'd be an overall deterrent effect on people thinking of getting into the cybersquatting business.
If your defense counsel asks you a question during direct examination that he knows would require you to commit a felony, you should fire him immediately. He should also be disbarred.
Hey, we could end all violence in the world if we just let everyone kill whoever they wanted to at any time. Eventually, everyone would get bored of killing and go to the library. Well, if they could make their way over the piles of rotting corpses in the streets.
Why, are you a scientist at one of the U. Illinois schools that is apparently closing down unexpectedly after this announcement?
Most libraries in the US make it a point to get rid of any data linking a book to a patron once the book's returned, especially since the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act (which requires them to turn over such data to the government if they're asked for it, but doesn't require them to actually keep the data in the first place). However, I'm not aware of any state that actually makes it illegal to keep such data. I've got tens of thousands of old books with cards listing everyone who checked them out within a certain time period, before there were computers to track such things, and it's certainly not illegal to have these. The law in my state does make it illegal to turn over these records to anyone who doesn't have a court order to see them, but just keeping them isn't illegal. In fact, I'd say the Justice Department would probably like it very much if it was actually required to keep the records forever. Or, you know, turn them over to be put in a federal database every time a book is checked out, so they could do some datamining to find potential terrorists.
Right, and Viacom doesn't make money by showing TV shows that people want to watch on their cable stations, they make money by showing advertisements. I'm shocked that their shareholders haven't demanded that they stop showing any content at all, and moving all of their stations to a 24-hour ad format. Or that Google's haven't demanded that YouTube show hosting video at all, and instead just show pages full of thousands of ads. Think of all the revenue!
If you're too dumb to get sarcasm, let me spell it out for you. Advertising only makes money if people see the ads. Google gets people to see their ads by hosting video.
Google is profited from hosting huge amounts of copyrighted material. Wikipedia was making no profit whatsoever for briefly hosting a potentially libelous statement. To an idiot the cases seem equivalent.
If you're watching enough American Idol to judge whether most of the singers are awful, I hardly think your holier than thou attitude about pop culture has any credibility whatsoever. If you don't think there's anything good on TV, why don't you turn of your damn TV already?
Um, that a retarded way of looking at it. She was held on a charge of Contempt of Court. She was never asked to produce evidence that she was not, in fact, in contempt of court, she was asked to reveal who told her about Valerie Plame.
I'm sure Mark Cuban would be even richer if he just realized that because he can afford to pay off any judgments against him, he should do as much as he could to invite lawsuits. Yeah, that would be incredibly non-moronic. He should totally cancel his car insurance and then go driving around smashing into every car he sees.
The court did not order Miller to produce evidence that she was not guilty. Not the same thing at all. GP claims AT&T would be under a "court order" to provide evidence for or against themselves. The first is ridiculous and the second is protected by the 5th amendment. Being ordered to testify against someone else is a whole other issue.