As an added bonus, information regarding Paul's mortality can be found by playing the record in the opposite direction.
Or at least it would have been if EMI had released the rights. Guess aliens aren't immune from the RIAA either, couldn't have them listening to music without paying for it!
Yeah, but good luck finding a mobile data package with a decent data usage limit. In the UK at least the limits are stupidly low, even on the packages advertised as 'unlimited'. In some cases the 'unlimited' packages can have limits of 500MB/month and charge per the MB above that - and they get away with it because they told the Advertising Standards Authority that 500MB was more than any 'reasonable' person would use in a month.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with censorship at all. I just think there are ways the authorities can do it and be less suspicious in their motives. But yeah, slippery slope and all that
Where possible, inform the site owners of the reason the site is being blocked, and give them a right of appeal. Also, tell people they are visiting a blocked site and give them information on why it was blocked and what to do if they think it was blocked in error. That'd still allow sites to be 'legitimately' blocked where they violate the law, but hopefully prevent chilling effects of restricting free speech.
Well, it certainly meets the definition of 'terrorism' in the UK, as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000. "'terrorism' means the use or threat of action where... the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. Action falls within this subsection if it... is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system"
Well actually, they've already done that in the UK, if a trial is too complicated and will go on for too long, the judge can hold the trial without a jury and just decide on the verdict himself. It's under Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Section 44 allows for trials without jury where the police can't afford to protect the jury from tampering/intimidation.
You seem to be confusing the UK with somewhere that has guaranteed and protected rights. And if you were drunk and shouted "I'm going to kill you", you'd almost certainly be charged with a Public Order offence if the target made a complaint against you.
If you're going to quote me, at least quote me all instead of selectively quoting. I said the majority of the CN Tower does not have usable floor space. That is, it doesn't have the 50% required to be recognised as a building by the CTBUH. It's basically just a big lift shaft with a few floors on the top.
Except that the majority of the CN Tower does not have usable floor space, and therefore is not comparable to other skyscrapers. The general authority on these matters is the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and they do not consider the CN Tower to be a building.
By your logic, the Warsaw Radio Mast, built in 1974 was taller than the CN Tower.
Read a bit more closely, he can't create or modify criminal offences, so throwing people in jail is out of the question, and any SI under that section has to be put to public consultation (which will probably be ignored as a matter of routine of course) and voted on by both houses of Parliament. It is a worrying power, since it allows a controversial area of law to be changed with a lot less scrutiny, but don't overstate the matter.
Or possibly, it's because the scientific evidence shows that reducing the screening age doesn't make much difference in reducing cancer rates, and the number of false positives at younger ages means that more people would have to go through lots of unnecessary stress and months of tests and unnecessary, potentially harmful treatments. It doesn't have anything to do with money.
Well every registered company in the UK needs to have a publicly available trading address anyway, which can be found on the Companies House database... though I believe this can be a PO Box to give some anonymity.
But I'm sure if you looked at the statistics, the total number of views on Street View would be in similar proportions. Most people use street view for either exploring landmarks, looking at their own property and area, or looking at an area they're planning to visit to get a feel for the place. Not many people are going to be looking at random properties in small towns.
So while it's trivial for millions of people to view your house, it's unlikely they will.
In the UK, I would suspect using one of these cards would class as an offence under Section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, or more broadly under sections 2 and 6 of the Fraud Act 2006
In UK law there's a specific exception that allows modification of software (but not other copyrighted works) unless expressly forbidden in a EULA or other agreement:
50C.-(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to copy or adapt it, provided that the copying or adapting-
(a) is necessary for his lawful use; and
(b) is not prohibited under any term or condition of an agreement regulating the circumstances in which his use is lawful.
(2) It may, in particular, be necessary for the lawful use of a computer program to copy it or adapt it for the purpose of correcting errors in it.
The law also provides permission to make back-up copies of software, to decompile software for the purpose of interoperability and the study and observe the underlying mechanism of software even where the EULA forbids it (any such term being void in the eyes of the law)
The problem in Australia is that their classifications consider some things unsuitable even for an 18/Adults Only rating, and so refuse classification, which means the product can't legally be sold, even to adults.
While the IWF doesn't filter content, it DOES provide the blacklists to those who do - notably the Cleanfeed and Webminder systems (which are used by BT and Madasafish respectivly), and possibly others
What kind of business needs a really fat pipe to prosper?
Businesses involved in delivery of digital content? A lot of the big TV names in the UK are offering on demand streaming video via the internet (BBCi, 4OD, ITV, Sky and Virgin). They're now starting to trial streaming of HD content, but with the lack of high speed connection it's not really a viable option for most people, and with HD devices starting to become more popular, pretty soon most people are going to want it.
Well, that's not quite true. Time Warner do own the copyright, but they're not the ones that copyrighted it. They came to own it through a series of corporate takeovers from the original composer and publisher, the Clayton F Summy Company. It's not like they took an existing song and copyrighted it - you can't do that under copyright law. So it's no more BS than any other copyright claim really (you can make your own mind up on how much that is)
Slashdot Mirror
As an added bonus, information regarding Paul's mortality can be found by playing the record in the opposite direction.
Or at least it would have been if EMI had released the rights. Guess aliens aren't immune from the RIAA either, couldn't have them listening to music without paying for it!
Yeah, but good luck finding a mobile data package with a decent data usage limit. In the UK at least the limits are stupidly low, even on the packages advertised as 'unlimited'. In some cases the 'unlimited' packages can have limits of 500MB/month and charge per the MB above that - and they get away with it because they told the Advertising Standards Authority that 500MB was more than any 'reasonable' person would use in a month.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with censorship at all. I just think there are ways the authorities can do it and be less suspicious in their motives. But yeah, slippery slope and all that
Where possible, inform the site owners of the reason the site is being blocked, and give them a right of appeal. Also, tell people they are visiting a blocked site and give them information on why it was blocked and what to do if they think it was blocked in error. That'd still allow sites to be 'legitimately' blocked where they violate the law, but hopefully prevent chilling effects of restricting free speech.
Do I get the points?
Well, it certainly meets the definition of 'terrorism' in the UK, as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000. "'terrorism' means the use or threat of action where... the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. Action falls within this subsection if it... is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system"
Reported for this. People have actually been convicted in the UK for downloading that
Well actually, they've already done that in the UK, if a trial is too complicated and will go on for too long, the judge can hold the trial without a jury and just decide on the verdict himself. It's under Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Section 44 allows for trials without jury where the police can't afford to protect the jury from tampering/intimidation.
You seem to be confusing the UK with somewhere that has guaranteed and protected rights. And if you were drunk and shouted "I'm going to kill you", you'd almost certainly be charged with a Public Order offence if the target made a complaint against you.
But I assume they use analogue radio transmissions for that, not data
If you're going to quote me, at least quote me all instead of selectively quoting. I said the majority of the CN Tower does not have usable floor space. That is, it doesn't have the 50% required to be recognised as a building by the CTBUH. It's basically just a big lift shaft with a few floors on the top.
Except that the majority of the CN Tower does not have usable floor space, and therefore is not comparable to other skyscrapers. The general authority on these matters is the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and they do not consider the CN Tower to be a building.
By your logic, the Warsaw Radio Mast, built in 1974 was taller than the CN Tower.
No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
Read a bit more closely, he can't create or modify criminal offences, so throwing people in jail is out of the question, and any SI under that section has to be put to public consultation (which will probably be ignored as a matter of routine of course) and voted on by both houses of Parliament. It is a worrying power, since it allows a controversial area of law to be changed with a lot less scrutiny, but don't overstate the matter.
Or possibly, it's because the scientific evidence shows that reducing the screening age doesn't make much difference in reducing cancer rates, and the number of false positives at younger ages means that more people would have to go through lots of unnecessary stress and months of tests and unnecessary, potentially harmful treatments. It doesn't have anything to do with money.
The NSA work on an operating system? Scandalous!
Was it without consent though? I'm sure it would have been buried in the small print somewhere when installing/updating the .Net framework.
Well every registered company in the UK needs to have a publicly available trading address anyway, which can be found on the Companies House database... though I believe this can be a PO Box to give some anonymity.
But I'm sure if you looked at the statistics, the total number of views on Street View would be in similar proportions. Most people use street view for either exploring landmarks, looking at their own property and area, or looking at an area they're planning to visit to get a feel for the place. Not many people are going to be looking at random properties in small towns.
So while it's trivial for millions of people to view your house, it's unlikely they will.
In the UK, I would suspect using one of these cards would class as an offence under Section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, or more broadly under sections 2 and 6 of the Fraud Act 2006
It is in the UK. It's unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.
In UK law there's a specific exception that allows modification of software (but not other copyrighted works) unless expressly forbidden in a EULA or other agreement:
50C.-(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to copy or adapt it, provided that the copying or adapting-
(a) is necessary for his lawful use; and
(b) is not prohibited under any term or condition of an agreement regulating the circumstances in which his use is lawful.
(2) It may, in particular, be necessary for the lawful use of a computer program to copy it or adapt it for the purpose of correcting errors in it.
The law also provides permission to make back-up copies of software, to decompile software for the purpose of interoperability and the study and observe the underlying mechanism of software even where the EULA forbids it (any such term being void in the eyes of the law)
Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988
The problem in Australia is that their classifications consider some things unsuitable even for an 18/Adults Only rating, and so refuse classification, which means the product can't legally be sold, even to adults.
While the IWF doesn't filter content, it DOES provide the blacklists to those who do - notably the Cleanfeed and Webminder systems (which are used by BT and Madasafish respectivly), and possibly others
What kind of business needs a really fat pipe to prosper?
Businesses involved in delivery of digital content? A lot of the big TV names in the UK are offering on demand streaming video via the internet (BBCi, 4OD, ITV, Sky and Virgin). They're now starting to trial streaming of HD content, but with the lack of high speed connection it's not really a viable option for most people, and with HD devices starting to become more popular, pretty soon most people are going to want it.
Well, that's not quite true. Time Warner do own the copyright, but they're not the ones that copyrighted it. They came to own it through a series of corporate takeovers from the original composer and publisher, the Clayton F Summy Company. It's not like they took an existing song and copyrighted it - you can't do that under copyright law. So it's no more BS than any other copyright claim really (you can make your own mind up on how much that is)