I wasn't sure on that, but considered it compared to a physical search warrant, which might authorize a search which would otherwise violate a state breaking and entering law. Why is it different for federal law - is it a matter of getting a federal vs. state warrant?
I've said this before, but here it is again: Stingrays are transmitters. It is illegal to transmit on cellular frequencies without a license (cellular users transmit under authority of their provider). So, lacking a warrant, police use of Stingrays is illegal. Why are the cops not being prosecuted for violation of federal law, and why isn't any evidence obtained through the use of Stingrays thrown out by the courts?
(I think the answer the the last one is parallel construction, which itself is legally bankrupt)
"Wilderness," what's that? Wild? In some cities, wilderness is increasing. Untouched by humans? Then we wouldn't know about it, would we?
It takes 10 paragraphs to find that the author's "wilderness" is an area which man doesn't habitat. Why not just write about population growth, and figure out by what factor Malthus was off?
"Vehicles affected by the recall include... x,y,z. It also includes z, y x..."
Perhaps a single sentence would suffice, if not a simple link to all affected models. Journalism isn't a middle school writing assignment where you get more credit by submitting 2 pages.
It's a bad ruling. The linker should not have to have knowledge about whatever licensing relationship (or lack thereof) exists between 2 other parties. The linker is not infringing upon, nor copying, nor even transporting the content. They're just stating a simple fact - it exists "over there."
"Suddenly Coke-Cola embeds it on their website linking to my site. That now changes everything. "
It changes nothing. It's up to you whether you serve content referenced through off-site links or not. They're only giving you that choice.
"This has been bashed around the courts for years with a very consistent result."
In many instances, the law has no clothes. There's no copying, and the legal power for copyright only covers exclusivity of works. Linking in no way infringes that, as exclusivity remains a decision of the copyright holder.
Makes no difference. "Contributory infringement" is legally bankrupt BS. The offended party simply picked the path of least resistance to prosecute. If some third party was hosting infringing material, they should have gone after them.
OTOH, there seem to be a lot of self-proclaimed "security researchers" who are looking for nothing but fame and glory, and have a primary interest beyond improving security. A responsible professional would have communicated the findings privately long before making things public on Youtube.
Uh, privileges. Copy"right" is not a natural right (like the right to self-defense), but a privilege granted by society to encourage creation of new works which benefit society. It's a very recent concept, going only back to the 17th/18th centuries.
"You're linking to a party that is legally hosting the content, how is that infringement?"
It isn't. It's no different than saying "go to the library to read this book" (although the action of going to the library becomes more automatic, since it's done for the user by the browser). The "linker" isn't involved in either delivering or receiving the content, and they're not a party to any copying. It's entirely up to the content provider if they want to deliver content which is linked from off-site.
This is just a case of a content provider being lazy by not going through the work of denying content linked from off-site, and trying to push their responsibility onto someone else.
The decision is a step towards further Balkanization of the web, which is based on hyperlinks.
Is BT 4.2 what allows simultaneous communications to 2 separate earbuds? All the BT references I can find refer only to multipoint capability, where BT can connect to two devices (like a headset and a phone), but only one can be in active use at a time. Or is this due to some proprietary extension to Bluetooth? Apple makes no mention of AirPods being compatible with any non-Apple product.
"I'd imagine this move will *improve* battery longevity over time for those who use their phones this way. You're essentially forced to discharge it when you would otherwise be keeping it at 100%, which is not good for long-term battery health."
Welcome to the Future. We now have batteries based on lithium technology which do not benefit from deep discharge cycles like the NiCd ones from your century. In fact, Li-ion batteries provide 4-8 times the number of cycles when discharged 25% vs 100%. A Li-ion battery can sit on a well designed charger for long periods with little impact to service life.
""Doesn't have the quality"? Where do you think the audio stream came from in the first place?"
The vast majority comes from analog signals.
I've learned to ignore any argument which uses "audiophile" as a reason. Perhaps Enid Lumley will listen from the grave (Apple should really make those earbuds in black, so the light doesn't get through and effect the sound).
Audio quality can't improve by replacing 3 feet of wire with a digitized stream of bits, wired or wireless. It can only get worse. So yeah, Apple's complex, expensive, proprietary, user hostile solution doesn't have the quality of a standard headphone jack.
You are clueless about what "proprietary" means, and seem to be confusing it with "exclusive." Good thing you put "open" in quotes, though, because it's anything but.
LOL. You give 4 examples to support a claim for lack of "vendor lock-in", but 3 of them are proprietary, and none have the quality of a simple analog jack. What flavor Kool-aid did you get?
Drank the Kool-aid, eh? Sure, Apple pushed the keyboard back on laptops. Inline headset control wasn't new with Apple. HP created the 3.5" floppy. Ethernet, which is preponderant, pre-dated LocalTalk, which is long gone. Bonjour isn't significantly different than SSDP. People were ripping CDs long before iTunes (which itself originated outside of Apple).
There was once a time when Apple sucked less. Now they just suck.
Courage is a strange way to spell profit. I'll assume that these $159 wireless earplugs don't have replaceable batteries, and it seems they're proprietary, so it's just another recurring profit stream. Since users aren't as willing to upgrade their phones every 2 years (although thinner phones might make them break more easilly, which helps), Apple is searching for a way to get them to upgrade the accessories on a regular basis. There's no benefit to the user, unless they'd like a lighter wallet.
"DSLR" is marketing. Regardless of the number of pixels (oh, look, shiny!), without the light collection abilities of the large glass which can be put on a DSLR, and the photon collection abilities which come with the larger pixel sensors which DSLRs have, a phone will never come close.
Slashdot Mirror
"his "legacy" would be at risk."
Hell, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, so he's already gotten his "ADVANCE TO GO (COLLECT $200)" card.
Just wait until someone posts the original Blind Faith album cover.
I wasn't sure on that, but considered it compared to a physical search warrant, which might authorize a search which would otherwise violate a state breaking and entering law. Why is it different for federal law - is it a matter of getting a federal vs. state warrant?
I've said this before, but here it is again: Stingrays are transmitters. It is illegal to transmit on cellular frequencies without a license (cellular users transmit under authority of their provider). So, lacking a warrant, police use of Stingrays is illegal. Why are the cops not being prosecuted for violation of federal law, and why isn't any evidence obtained through the use of Stingrays thrown out by the courts?
(I think the answer the the last one is parallel construction, which itself is legally bankrupt)
"If local life already exists there is almost no chance that life imported from Earth would be better adapted to local conditions. "
We know how that works with invasive species here, don't we?
"Wilderness," what's that? Wild? In some cities, wilderness is increasing. Untouched by humans? Then we wouldn't know about it, would we?
It takes 10 paragraphs to find that the author's "wilderness" is an area which man doesn't habitat. Why not just write about population growth, and figure out by what factor Malthus was off?
"Vehicles affected by the recall include ... x,y,z. It also includes z, y x..."
Perhaps a single sentence would suffice, if not a simple link to all affected models. Journalism isn't a middle school writing assignment where you get more credit by submitting 2 pages.
...now explain why it flew along the correct route for about an hour, and then the lack of radio contact.
It's a bad ruling. The linker should not have to have knowledge about whatever licensing relationship (or lack thereof) exists between 2 other parties. The linker is not infringing upon, nor copying, nor even transporting the content. They're just stating a simple fact - it exists "over there."
"Suddenly Coke-Cola embeds it on their website linking to my site. That now changes everything. "
It changes nothing. It's up to you whether you serve content referenced through off-site links or not. They're only giving you that choice.
"This has been bashed around the courts for years with a very consistent result."
In many instances, the law has no clothes. There's no copying, and the legal power for copyright only covers exclusivity of works. Linking in no way infringes that, as exclusivity remains a decision of the copyright holder.
Makes no difference. "Contributory infringement" is legally bankrupt BS. The offended party simply picked the path of least resistance to prosecute. If some third party was hosting infringing material, they should have gone after them.
OTOH, there seem to be a lot of self-proclaimed "security researchers" who are looking for nothing but fame and glory, and have a primary interest beyond improving security. A responsible professional would have communicated the findings privately long before making things public on Youtube.
"rights of copyright holders."
Uh, privileges. Copy"right" is not a natural right (like the right to self-defense), but a privilege granted by society to encourage creation of new works which benefit society. It's a very recent concept, going only back to the 17th/18th centuries.
"You're linking to a party that is legally hosting the content, how is that infringement?"
It isn't. It's no different than saying "go to the library to read this book" (although the action of going to the library becomes more automatic, since it's done for the user by the browser). The "linker" isn't involved in either delivering or receiving the content, and they're not a party to any copying. It's entirely up to the content provider if they want to deliver content which is linked from off-site.
This is just a case of a content provider being lazy by not going through the work of denying content linked from off-site, and trying to push their responsibility onto someone else.
The decision is a step towards further Balkanization of the web, which is based on hyperlinks.
Is BT 4.2 what allows simultaneous communications to 2 separate earbuds? All the BT references I can find refer only to multipoint capability, where BT can connect to two devices (like a headset and a phone), but only one can be in active use at a time. Or is this due to some proprietary extension to Bluetooth? Apple makes no mention of AirPods being compatible with any non-Apple product.
"I'd imagine this move will *improve* battery longevity over time for those who use their phones this way. You're essentially forced to discharge it when you would otherwise be keeping it at 100%, which is not good for long-term battery health."
Welcome to the Future. We now have batteries based on lithium technology which do not benefit from deep discharge cycles like the NiCd ones from your century. In fact, Li-ion batteries provide 4-8 times the number of cycles when discharged 25% vs 100%. A Li-ion battery can sit on a well designed charger for long periods with little impact to service life.
""Doesn't have the quality"? Where do you think the audio stream came from in the first place?"
The vast majority comes from analog signals.
I've learned to ignore any argument which uses "audiophile" as a reason. Perhaps Enid Lumley will listen from the grave (Apple should really make those earbuds in black, so the light doesn't get through and effect the sound).
Audio quality can't improve by replacing 3 feet of wire with a digitized stream of bits, wired or wireless. It can only get worse. So yeah, Apple's complex, expensive, proprietary, user hostile solution doesn't have the quality of a standard headphone jack.
You are clueless about what "proprietary" means, and seem to be confusing it with "exclusive." Good thing you put "open" in quotes, though, because it's anything but.
LOL. You give 4 examples to support a claim for lack of "vendor lock-in", but 3 of them are proprietary, and none have the quality of a simple analog jack. What flavor Kool-aid did you get?
Drank the Kool-aid, eh? Sure, Apple pushed the keyboard back on laptops. Inline headset control wasn't new with Apple. HP created the 3.5" floppy. Ethernet, which is preponderant, pre-dated LocalTalk, which is long gone. Bonjour isn't significantly different than SSDP. People were ripping CDs long before iTunes (which itself originated outside of Apple).
There was once a time when Apple sucked less. Now they just suck.
Courage is a strange way to spell profit. I'll assume that these $159 wireless earplugs don't have replaceable batteries, and it seems they're proprietary, so it's just another recurring profit stream. Since users aren't as willing to upgrade their phones every 2 years (although thinner phones might make them break more easilly, which helps), Apple is searching for a way to get them to upgrade the accessories on a regular basis. There's no benefit to the user, unless they'd like a lighter wallet.
To quote Jobs: that's brain-dead.
No mind reading required. Only paying attention to the thread.
"You do know the DSLR actually means..."
Oh, I understand it much better than you understand context.
"DSLR" is marketing. Regardless of the number of pixels (oh, look, shiny!), without the light collection abilities of the large glass which can be put on a DSLR, and the photon collection abilities which come with the larger pixel sensors which DSLRs have, a phone will never come close.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!