When I stream, I'm downloading. The data goes from their servers to my device. You may play some tricks to minimize caching and delete the data as quickly as its done with, but it's still downloading. So how is copyright enforcement supposed to know if I'm capturing that data for later additional use?
"The ignorance is astounding"? indeed!:)
The difference between "temporary copy made that's inherent to the process of watching it" and "permanent copy" has long been a topic of debate. It was codified in UK law in 2003: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...
Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -- (a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance."
You wrote "so it's still downloading" but that's irrelevant. You should have written "it's still copying" since that's what the law is about (and what the exemption above relates to).
You asked "So how is copyright enforcement supposed to know if I'm capturing that data for later additional use?" -- First, note that the topic of this article is someone's opinion of EXISTING law, not new law. Second, note that although copyright law defines infringement, it's left up to the enforcement agencies to figure out how and what to pursue.
Anyway, enforcement of copyright infringement has largely been driven by the copyright holders themselves, e.g. UK's Federation Against Copyright Theft or America's RIAA. An opinion like this is a shot across their bows, telling them "hey stop sending infringement notices to folks who merely download your movies because we think you're not going to prevail".
Does "streaming" imply the use of some protocol that attempts to prevent the recipient from saving? What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability? What if we develop a new streaming protocol and deliberately include a vulnerability? What if it is based on encryption with a password that is hard-coded to be "password" and cannot be changed? What if it merely requires the use to check a box that says, "I solemnly swear that I obey the law, mostly"?
Your hypotheticals come from someone thinking like a geek, which is a bit pointless here. You should instead think like a lawyer. Start from the relevant quote: http://www.derbytelegraph.co.u...
Accessing premium paid-for content without a subscription is considered by the industry as unlawful access, although streaming something online, rather than downloading a file, is likely to be exempt from copyright laws."
That presumably relates to a long-running question about copyright as regards temporary copies in computers. Here's the wikipedia explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
For a long time, the legal position of services such as Internet caches was dubious under British law, with such copies technically being infringing. However, an amendment explicitly allows temporary copies of literary works, other than when in computer programs and databases; of dramatic works; of artistic works; of musical works; of typographical arrangements; and of films or sound recordings – provided that such temporary copies are necessary for a technical process, are transient or incidental, and are made only for the purpose of transmitting a work across a network between third parties, or for a lawful use of the work. That amendment eliminates the awkward position of the cacheing services of Internet service providers. It is in a similar vein to an exception for the incidental inclusion of a copyright work in an artistic work, sound recording or film. However, deliberate inclusion of a copyright work negates the exception.
Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -- (a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance."
That answers most of your questions: "Does "streaming" imply the use of some protocol that attempts to prevent the recipient from saving?" -- no. "What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability?" -- irrelevant. "What if I check a box which says I solemnly swear to mostly obey the law?" -- irrelevant. It also answers a question implied by your train of thought: if you use software to watch a stream, and you take advantage of flaws or deliberate designs in this software to save a copy, then the exceptions won't apply to you, and you'll be guilty of copyright infringement.
Your other questions were about authoring a protocol or software that has flaws or deliberate designs that allow folks to save a copy. This doesn't fall foul of anti-circumvention law because you're authoring the protocol yourself, not circumventing someone else's. And if a publisher uses this protocol? -- it's up to them, but using a protocol wouldn't constitute a waiver of their copyright rights.
You said you can use your brain and realize only way radiation can damage the brain is through heating or ionization.
How do you know there's not a third mechanism, where the brain acts like a mini antenna and gets minor electrical signals? And maybe these are harmful in some way, not a big thing like an epileptic fit, but maybe more subtle, maybe that hits a frequency that triggers bad effects? I think that bird brains have a kind of electromagnetic compass so we know that some brains do respond to electromagnetic fields. And sharks sense by electrical fields.
I'm not saying these are true. I just think they'd need to be ruled out by you 'finger' method of looking at scientific research, and that your 'brain'method isn't enough...
["What we heard back most explicitly..."] -- Only Microsoft would think that people don't want control of updates, or that unexpected reboots aren't disruptive.
I've been in IT 39 years. Only an idiot doesn't know those two things.
I think you missed the two essential points here. John Cable introduced himself with an explicit overview of the communications channels: https://blogs.windows.com/wind...
I want to say again how important all the feedback we receive from customers is to us at Microsoft. We actively listen to feedback from many different sources including the Feedback Hub application, responses customers provide to system-initiated prompts, our customer support engineers, postings to social media, and a variety of Windows forums. Our approach is to continuously listen to all the feedback and improve the experience with each future update. In fact, most of the improvements I’ll talk about next are the direct result of what we heard through these channels from our customers. On to the details!
Are you an idiot if you don't know that list of feedback channels? No, you're normal, so it makes sense for him to list it. Given the context of this introduction, of course he's going to couch his next sentence in terms of what he's heard through those channels. Doesn't make him an idiot.
He actually writes that they heard about reboots "most explicitly". Are you an idiot if you don't know that reboots tops the feedback? No. Indeed the slashdot vote would likely put telemetry at the top of the list instead.
(A diametrically opposite approach on those two counts is "We don't have a centralized place to gather feedback, and our software is open source so if the community wants their itch scratched then they can do it themselves": diametrically opposite because it doesn't have a list of feedback mechanisms and it doesn't prioritize things by how much users want them. Is it idiotic to follow this approach? No it's been wildly successful.
Those sound like EXCEEDINGLY bad-mannered Applications!!! macOS Apps are NOT supposed to spray files all over the OS, PERIOD! I'd be pissed as HELL if I installed something that acted like it was installing on Windows or Linux, spraying files over the entire hard drive! Ick!!!
You wrote "linux" but should have written "unix". And there's the rub. Mac is unix, and half the software I install on it is unix-like software (e.g. the nginx example I quoted), and so it naturally does spray all over the hard drive.
If you're really worried about that 4 KB prefs file on your 4 TB drive, then they are as easy to delete as the Application Bundle itself: http://echoone.com/tips/how-to.... Oh, and that took exactly.000025 ns to Google, Hater.
(1) As in the example I posted (of nginx), it's not just prefs that are left behind. Nginx leaves behind sbin binaries, for instance. Opam inserts lines into my.bashrc. And Wireshark? I have no idea what tendrils it inserted, nor how to get rid of them, nor if their persistence would be a security hole, so I've been too scared to even install it.
(2) It's not the size of prefs that are the problem -- it's their existence, and the assurance that when I next install the software it will be "clean" without any leftovers. (E.g. last month for me, Camtasia was producing MOVs fine but only silence in its MP4s. I tried to delete+reinstall it but without success. The technical support folks advised me to delete the prefs, and then it started working again). It honestly never would have occurred to me that this kind of bug could be caused by *preferences*, so it took me about 2 days to resolve, considerably more than your 0.000025 ns.
That's no guarantee that Microsoft will be as wise as Apple has been. Instead of code signing, Microsoft is encouraging developers to wrap Win32 apps in UWP containers so they can be published from the Windows Store, so probably not as wise.
Mac: I download something and install it, and then have ZERO IDEA how to uninstall it. Deleting the icon out of "Application" is easy. But what about configuration files? Even homebrew doesn't solve that -- http://superuser.com/questions...
Win32 apps in UWP containers: this "project centennial" approach virtualizes filesystem and registry for the app, so uninstallation will end up removing absolutely everything. I prefer this approach. (speaking as someone with OSX and who knows what leftovers on it...)
Movie theater = $6 parking, $25 for 2.5 hours of babysitting, $15 for two movie tickets. So if my wife and I are really hyped to see a new movie, then $50 for the comfort of our basement media room is about the right price point.
So while I believe the article that the average amount spent per iPhone is $40/year (mean), it's probably equally true that the "average iPhone user" (median) spends less than $5/year. (That number is just a guess because I don't have the data.) Queue all the people who will reply to this story saying "I spent ZERO over the past year".
Let the countries that don't tax their robot manufacturers take all the production AND the jobs.
Great idea. Gates was talking about two jobs in particular - driving and warehouse work. Next time you want a lorry load of goods hauled from Seattle to Spokane, why not just outsource the driving work to India?
I'm calling you out on that. Go on. Point me to the exact place in the TOS which says what you claim, I.e. allows ABC to redistributes publicly posted video. I say there isn't any such place.
Okay, I was semantically incorrect, but functionally on-target. IANAL. Are you?
You weren't functionally on-target. TOS had nothing to do with this case.
They're an interesting topic in and of themselves, and your beliefs about them are reasonable. But even if there was a company with the most privacy-friendly TOS in the world, that still wouldn't have helped in this case. His was a newsworthy story, and ABC showed a short clip, so it was fair use, and the TOS between him and facebook have nothing to do with the relationship between him and ABC.
There are public and private streaming options. He was recording to a public stream.
The article even says he noticed it was public after 30 minutes and left it that way.
I have every desire for legal privacy protections, but this guy basically waived them all.
Are you conflating legal privacy protection with legal copyright protection?
The guy in question didn't make any arguments about legal privacy protections. He instead made arguments about legal *copyright* protections. He remained the copyright owner, notwithstanding uploading it or broadcasting it. He argued that, as copyright holder, he can deny ABC and other networks from redistributing his video. This in general is a valid legal copyright claim. But ABC argued that it was a news story of public significance, and so when they broadcast a clip of it, that fell under fair use. This is a valid legal exception to copyright, which is why they won.
He didn't file a privacy lawsuit. He filed a copyright lawsuit. I don't think it was audacious of him to do that. He would have won, too, had it not been a newsworthy event.
Just think this through. The mere fact that you broadcast something publicly doesn't mean you lose copyright ownership of it. And it doesn't automatically give other companies like ABC the right to rebroadcast it themselves. (If it did, then everyone in the world would be legally entitled to rebroadcast any free-to-air television stations! which might be reasonable in some kind of free-property hippy utopia, but isn't allowed in our society).
Read the TOS - the instant you upload or post data to Facebook (and they sure aren't alone in this), the data becomes their property. They let you use their service for free (that is, they aren't billing your credit card or waiting for your check each month), and in return you give up ownership of everything you voluntarily give to them.
Read the article. This case was decided on the basis of fair use. The question of who is the copyright-owner has no relevance to fair use.
Recessions have been in 1920, 1923, 1927, 1929, 1937, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1957, 1960, 1970, 1974, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2008. That's an average of one recession every 5 years, usually plus/minus 2 years.
If you limit your view of the economy to just the last three recessions, then you do indeed get an average of one every 9 years plus or minus 3 years. But then you'll need to tell us why you think the last three recessions are a better predictor of the future than any other possible interval.
Did you read the link I posted? It was six months more recent than yours, and from the same Seattle Times news source, and had the headline "taxpayers rejoice! Bertha progress cuts into cost overruns."
Also the $3.37b you quoted is for the entire Highway99 replacement plan: $1b of that was for non-tunnel parts of the plan.
So: cost overruns reduced $3.37b down to $3.1b, of which $1b is for non-tunnel parts, so the tunnel cost is $2.1b. For a 1.7mile tunnel that's $1.2b/mile.
You might also have mentioned that your Seattle highway 99 tunnel is on its way to running about $2,000,000,000 a mile.. for two lanes in each direction.
The actual figure for Seattle is half that: $1b/mile for the tunnel. (more precisely, $2.1 billion for a nearly-two-mile tunnel).
Hell, a driver who is paying attention might very well prevent a pedestrian impact... should we now then beam "Warning! Pedestrian!" into the vehicle's stereo speakers?
Well, yes. Better still let's make it so the car's computer will automatically brake safely if there's any obstruction in front of it ("safe" meaning that braking now won't cause you to be rear-ended). This is a completely earnest reply, and indeed it seems to be where the car industry is heading.
... but what kind of doctor will attribute a particular death to air pollution? There is no question that air quality is very poor and heavy industry shits on people in certain areas but pulling a hard number like that out of it is odd.
Why are you talking about doctors? I'd expect this data to be gathered by epidemiologists. I'd expect it to come from studies like "here is one sample population with X level of pollution, here is a demographically similar sample population with Y level of pollution, and we observe the following medical difference trends between the two populations".
I'd pay to get rid of having data from my e-mails saved to target ads to me- actual ads in my e-mail provider though is almost nothing and not worth paying to get rid of. It's not the ads I mind- it's the fact they're data-mining my e-mail in the first place.
You "would" pay? Then do so!
With Office365 for Business their advertised rate is $5/month for one user. You can use your own domain. It's their business product, so there's no data mining. What I and my family have found nice is that, being standard Exchange, it's well supported by most mail apps.
(I'm a bit confused about the price though... I'm paying $8/month/user for "Exchange Online Plan 2" to get completed unlimited email storage, and I'm paying $4/month/user for "Exchange Online Plan 1" for my parents. But the Office365 website quotes $5/month/user with a 50gb capacity limit.)
Why would they wipe out mosquitos instead of wiping out the true culprit: the malaria protozoa itself?
Great idea! That way we could enjoy the incessant buzzing and painful bites of mosquitos that we know and love so well, safe in the knowledge that we're not also exposing ourselves to risk of malaria.
... the real reason is that VR is dead. Normal people get sick after about 15 minutes of using VR. You cannot solve that problem. It is physiological. Facebook wasted billions.
I've never seen anyone get sick from room-scale VR, never. (I've watched my brother give demos of his VR setup to 20+ people now).
Slashdot Mirror
When I stream, I'm downloading. The data goes from their servers to my device. You may play some tricks to minimize caching and delete the data as quickly as its done with, but it's still downloading. So how is copyright enforcement supposed to know if I'm capturing that data for later additional use?
"The ignorance is astounding"? indeed! :)
The difference between "temporary copy made that's inherent to the process of watching it" and "permanent copy" has long been a topic of debate. It was codified in UK law in 2003: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...
Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -- (a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance."
You wrote "so it's still downloading" but that's irrelevant. You should have written "it's still copying" since that's what the law is about (and what the exemption above relates to).
You asked "So how is copyright enforcement supposed to know if I'm capturing that data for later additional use?" -- First, note that the topic of this article is someone's opinion of EXISTING law, not new law. Second, note that although copyright law defines infringement, it's left up to the enforcement agencies to figure out how and what to pursue.
Anyway, enforcement of copyright infringement has largely been driven by the copyright holders themselves, e.g. UK's Federation Against Copyright Theft or America's RIAA. An opinion like this is a shot across their bows, telling them "hey stop sending infringement notices to folks who merely download your movies because we think you're not going to prevail".
Does "streaming" imply the use of some protocol that attempts to prevent the recipient from saving? What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability? What if we develop a new streaming protocol and deliberately include a vulnerability? What if it is based on encryption with a password that is hard-coded to be "password" and cannot be changed? What if it merely requires the use to check a box that says, "I solemnly swear that I obey the law, mostly"?
Your hypotheticals come from someone thinking like a geek, which is a bit pointless here. You should instead think like a lawyer. Start from the relevant quote: http://www.derbytelegraph.co.u...
Accessing premium paid-for content without a subscription is considered by the industry as unlawful access, although streaming something online, rather than downloading a file, is likely to be exempt from copyright laws."
That presumably relates to a long-running question about copyright as regards temporary copies in computers. Here's the wikipedia explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
For a long time, the legal position of services such as Internet caches was dubious under British law, with such copies technically being infringing. However, an amendment explicitly allows temporary copies of literary works, other than when in computer programs and databases; of dramatic works; of artistic works; of musical works; of typographical arrangements; and of films or sound recordings – provided that such temporary copies are necessary for a technical process, are transient or incidental, and are made only for the purpose of transmitting a work across a network between third parties, or for a lawful use of the work. That amendment eliminates the awkward position of the cacheing services of Internet service providers. It is in a similar vein to an exception for the incidental inclusion of a copyright work in an artistic work, sound recording or film. However, deliberate inclusion of a copyright work negates the exception.
Here's the actual text of the law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...
Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -- (a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance."
That answers most of your questions: "Does "streaming" imply the use of some protocol that attempts to prevent the recipient from saving?" -- no. "What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability?" -- irrelevant. "What if I check a box which says I solemnly swear to mostly obey the law?" -- irrelevant. It also answers a question implied by your train of thought: if you use software to watch a stream, and you take advantage of flaws or deliberate designs in this software to save a copy, then the exceptions won't apply to you, and you'll be guilty of copyright infringement.
Your other questions were about authoring a protocol or software that has flaws or deliberate designs that allow folks to save a copy. This doesn't fall foul of anti-circumvention law because you're authoring the protocol yourself, not circumventing someone else's. And if a publisher uses this protocol? -- it's up to them, but using a protocol wouldn't constitute a waiver of their copyright rights.
You said you can use your brain and realize only way radiation can damage the brain is through heating or ionization.
How do you know there's not a third mechanism, where the brain acts like a mini antenna and gets minor electrical signals? And maybe these are harmful in some way, not a big thing like an epileptic fit, but maybe more subtle, maybe that hits a frequency that triggers bad effects? I think that bird brains have a kind of electromagnetic compass so we know that some brains do respond to electromagnetic fields. And sharks sense by electrical fields.
I'm not saying these are true. I just think they'd need to be ruled out by you 'finger' method of looking at scientific research, and that your 'brain'method isn't enough...
The correct answer to all of these questions is "why don't you look on stackoverflow?"
And if you can't write code because you're too exhausted after 24 hours, how do you pull all-night coding binges ?!
["What we heard back most explicitly..."] -- Only Microsoft would think that people don't want control of updates, or that unexpected reboots aren't disruptive.
I've been in IT 39 years. Only an idiot doesn't know those two things.
I think you missed the two essential points here. John Cable introduced himself with an explicit overview of the communications channels: https://blogs.windows.com/wind...
I want to say again how important all the feedback we receive from customers is to us at Microsoft. We actively listen to feedback from many different sources including the Feedback Hub application, responses customers provide to system-initiated prompts, our customer support engineers, postings to social media, and a variety of Windows forums. Our approach is to continuously listen to all the feedback and improve the experience with each future update. In fact, most of the improvements I’ll talk about next are the direct result of what we heard through these channels from our customers. On to the details!
Are you an idiot if you don't know that list of feedback channels? No, you're normal, so it makes sense for him to list it. Given the context of this introduction, of course he's going to couch his next sentence in terms of what he's heard through those channels. Doesn't make him an idiot.
He actually writes that they heard about reboots "most explicitly". Are you an idiot if you don't know that reboots tops the feedback? No. Indeed the slashdot vote would likely put telemetry at the top of the list instead.
(A diametrically opposite approach on those two counts is "We don't have a centralized place to gather feedback, and our software is open source so if the community wants their itch scratched then they can do it themselves": diametrically opposite because it doesn't have a list of feedback mechanisms and it doesn't prioritize things by how much users want them. Is it idiotic to follow this approach? No it's been wildly successful.
Go to ~/Library. Search for the application name. Delete the folder. Done.
There's a lot of things going wrong on MacOS. But this is not one of them.
Read the link I posted. The solution there ended up being /usr/local/nginx /usr/local/sbin/nginx
rm -f -R
rm -f
So your solution (of deleting from ~/Library) isn't enough.
Those sound like EXCEEDINGLY bad-mannered Applications!!! macOS Apps are NOT supposed to spray files all over the OS, PERIOD! I'd be pissed as HELL if I installed something that acted like it was installing on Windows or Linux, spraying files over the entire hard drive! Ick!!!
You wrote "linux" but should have written "unix". And there's the rub. Mac is unix, and half the software I install on it is unix-like software (e.g. the nginx example I quoted), and so it naturally does spray all over the hard drive.
If you're really worried about that 4 KB prefs file on your 4 TB drive, then they are as easy to delete as the Application Bundle itself: http://echoone.com/tips/how-to.... Oh, and that took exactly .000025 ns to Google, Hater.
(1) As in the example I posted (of nginx), it's not just prefs that are left behind. Nginx leaves behind sbin binaries, for instance. Opam inserts lines into my .bashrc. And Wireshark? I have no idea what tendrils it inserted, nor how to get rid of them, nor if their persistence would be a security hole, so I've been too scared to even install it.
(2) It's not the size of prefs that are the problem -- it's their existence, and the assurance that when I next install the software it will be "clean" without any leftovers. (E.g. last month for me, Camtasia was producing MOVs fine but only silence in its MP4s. I tried to delete+reinstall it but without success. The technical support folks advised me to delete the prefs, and then it started working again). It honestly never would have occurred to me that this kind of bug could be caused by *preferences*, so it took me about 2 days to resolve, considerably more than your 0.000025 ns.
That's no guarantee that Microsoft will be as wise as Apple has been. Instead of code signing, Microsoft is encouraging developers to wrap Win32 apps in UWP containers so they can be published from the Windows Store, so probably not as wise.
Mac: I download something and install it, and then have ZERO IDEA how to uninstall it. Deleting the icon out of "Application" is easy. But what about configuration files? Even homebrew doesn't solve that -- http://superuser.com/questions...
Win32 apps in UWP containers: this "project centennial" approach virtualizes filesystem and registry for the app, so uninstallation will end up removing absolutely everything. I prefer this approach. (speaking as someone with OSX and who knows what leftovers on it...)
Movie theater = $6 parking, $25 for 2.5 hours of babysitting, $15 for two movie tickets. So if my wife and I are really hyped to see a new movie, then $50 for the comfort of our basement media room is about the right price point.
The headline (and original report) seem open to misinterpretation.
50% of mobile game revenue comes from just 0.15% of users according to this 2014 report. http://www.recode.net/2014/2/2...
70% of mobile game revenue comes from just 10% of users according to this 2016 report. http://www.adweek.com/digital/...
So while I believe the article that the average amount spent per iPhone is $40/year (mean), it's probably equally true that the "average iPhone user" (median) spends less than $5/year. (That number is just a guess because I don't have the data.) Queue all the people who will reply to this story saying "I spent ZERO over the past year".
Let the countries that don't tax their robot manufacturers take all the production AND the jobs.
Great idea. Gates was talking about two jobs in particular - driving and warehouse work. Next time you want a lorry load of goods hauled from Seattle to Spokane, why not just outsource the driving work to India?
I'm calling you out on that. Go on. Point me to the exact place in the TOS which says what you claim, I.e. allows ABC to redistributes publicly posted video. I say there isn't any such place.
Okay, I was semantically incorrect, but functionally on-target. IANAL. Are you?
You weren't functionally on-target. TOS had nothing to do with this case.
They're an interesting topic in and of themselves, and your beliefs about them are reasonable. But even if there was a company with the most privacy-friendly TOS in the world, that still wouldn't have helped in this case. His was a newsworthy story, and ABC showed a short clip, so it was fair use, and the TOS between him and facebook have nothing to do with the relationship between him and ABC.
Bullshit - Facebook's terms of use allow them to redistribute ANYTHING you post to any and all 3rd parties, and even to charge for it.
How is that even relevant? In this case it was ABC that was redistributing the footage.
There are public and private streaming options. He was recording to a public stream.
The article even says he noticed it was public after 30 minutes and left it that way.
I have every desire for legal privacy protections, but this guy basically waived them all.
Are you conflating legal privacy protection with legal copyright protection?
The guy in question didn't make any arguments about legal privacy protections. He instead made arguments about legal *copyright* protections. He remained the copyright owner, notwithstanding uploading it or broadcasting it. He argued that, as copyright holder, he can deny ABC and other networks from redistributing his video. This in general is a valid legal copyright claim. But ABC argued that it was a news story of public significance, and so when they broadcast a clip of it, that fell under fair use. This is a valid legal exception to copyright, which is why they won.
He didn't file a privacy lawsuit. He filed a copyright lawsuit. I don't think it was audacious of him to do that. He would have won, too, had it not been a newsworthy event.
Just think this through. The mere fact that you broadcast something publicly doesn't mean you lose copyright ownership of it. And it doesn't automatically give other companies like ABC the right to rebroadcast it themselves. (If it did, then everyone in the world would be legally entitled to rebroadcast any free-to-air television stations! which might be reasonable in some kind of free-property hippy utopia, but isn't allowed in our society).
Read the TOS - the instant you upload or post data to Facebook (and they sure aren't alone in this), the data becomes their property. They let you use their service for free (that is, they aren't billing your credit card or waiting for your check each month), and in return you give up ownership of everything you voluntarily give to them.
Read the article. This case was decided on the basis of fair use. The question of who is the copyright-owner has no relevance to fair use.
The economy cycles every 8-10 years. We're 9 years into a growth phase, it's only natural another recession is coming.
That doesn't seem right. Look at the historical record this century: http://www.macrotrends.net/131...
Recessions have been in 1920, 1923, 1927, 1929, 1937, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1957, 1960, 1970, 1974, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2008. That's an average of one recession every 5 years, usually plus/minus 2 years.
If you limit your view of the economy to just the last three recessions, then you do indeed get an average of one every 9 years plus or minus 3 years. But then you'll need to tell us why you think the last three recessions are a better predictor of the future than any other possible interval.
Ahem, no. 1.7 miles, 3.37 Billion as of June 2016 http://www.seattletimes.com/se....
Did you read the link I posted? It was six months more recent than yours, and from the same Seattle Times news source, and had the headline "taxpayers rejoice! Bertha progress cuts into cost overruns."
Also the $3.37b you quoted is for the entire Highway99 replacement plan: $1b of that was for non-tunnel parts of the plan.
So: cost overruns reduced $3.37b down to $3.1b, of which $1b is for non-tunnel parts, so the tunnel cost is $2.1b. For a 1.7mile tunnel that's $1.2b/mile.
You might also have mentioned that your Seattle highway 99 tunnel is on its way to running about $2,000,000,000 a mile .. for two lanes in each direction.
The actual figure for Seattle is half that: $1b/mile for the tunnel. (more precisely, $2.1 billion for a nearly-two-mile tunnel).
http://www.seattletimes.com/se...
Hell, a driver who is paying attention might very well prevent a pedestrian impact... should we now then beam "Warning! Pedestrian!" into the vehicle's stereo speakers?
Well, yes. Better still let's make it so the car's computer will automatically brake safely if there's any obstruction in front of it ("safe" meaning that braking now won't cause you to be rear-ended). This is a completely earnest reply, and indeed it seems to be where the car industry is heading.
... but what kind of doctor will attribute a particular death to air pollution? There is no question that air quality is very poor and heavy industry shits on people in certain areas but pulling a hard number like that out of it is odd.
Why are you talking about doctors? I'd expect this data to be gathered by epidemiologists. I'd expect it to come from studies like "here is one sample population with X level of pollution, here is a demographically similar sample population with Y level of pollution, and we observe the following medical difference trends between the two populations".
I'd pay to get rid of having data from my e-mails saved to target ads to me- actual ads in my e-mail provider though is almost nothing and not worth paying to get rid of. It's not the ads I mind- it's the fact they're data-mining my e-mail in the first place.
You "would" pay? Then do so!
With Office365 for Business their advertised rate is $5/month for one user. You can use your own domain. It's their business product, so there's no data mining. What I and my family have found nice is that, being standard Exchange, it's well supported by most mail apps.
(I'm a bit confused about the price though... I'm paying $8/month/user for "Exchange Online Plan 2" to get completed unlimited email storage, and I'm paying $4/month/user for "Exchange Online Plan 1" for my parents. But the Office365 website quotes $5/month/user with a 50gb capacity limit.)
Why would they wipe out mosquitos instead of wiping out the true culprit: the malaria protozoa itself?
Great idea! That way we could enjoy the incessant buzzing and painful bites of mosquitos that we know and love so well, safe in the knowledge that we're not also exposing ourselves to risk of malaria.
... the real reason is that VR is dead. Normal people get sick after about 15 minutes of using VR. You cannot solve that problem. It is physiological. Facebook wasted billions.
I've never seen anyone get sick from room-scale VR, never. (I've watched my brother give demos of his VR setup to 20+ people now).