Instead they think up other useless methods like making you click on an onscreen keypad to enter your password How is that useless? When you consider they're in an arms race, its a delaying tactic (as all tactics are). At the moment most criminals employ keystroke loggers, not screen captures. As such onscreen keypads thwart most criminals who would try to steal your details through your computer usage. When it becomes more popular the criminals will begin employing methods that capture the screen, and so banks will move onto the next delaying tactic.
The worst fuck-ups are taken as representative of the media as a whole. Actually I judge them based on a sampling of the most popular. They aren't impartial. You don't need to take examples of only the worst, unless people don't read the newspaper for impartiality, but instead for biased reports to either affirm their own opinion of the issue or affirm their opinion of those they disagree with.
No, no. You've missed the point. Don't let the word trademark in the title fool you. It isn't trademarked keywords, its "special keywords that we have dubbed protected." Trademarked keywords would involve words that are registered as a trademark with the USPTO (you know, United States Patent and Trademark Office). This law has absolutely nothing to do with the USPTO and a word that is registered thanks to this law does not have to be a trademark (although apparently it can be).
Why not simply refuse to serve people in Utah or require an ad-less subscription? Everyone else in the world shouldn't be forced to subsidize people in Utah because the politicians don't like websites making money.
They didn't make a mistake, they deliberately violated someone's copyright. Of course they fixed it and moved on, however tons of companies DON'T violate people's copyright in the first place. Perhaps Google, as well as some other companies, can learn from those that get it right in the first place.
I was thinking "Jesus Christ! You put in a wikpeida link for anything http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anything and you get modded up." Only after visiting the link on a lark did I realise it was actually law related. Those who might be similarly disposed, take a look at the wikipedia links before judging;)
Lucky for me I happen to be a Michigan resident living in a strained economic area. That's lucky? Woah! Will you be appearing on those World Vision ads before you call yourself mildly unlucky?
before riding any ride they have to calculate the G forces and rates of acceleration as well as angular forces of each ride, bonus points for calculating the KW energy needed for each to run as well. Oh that's so cute! You actually believe they're going to do it.
I don't see this as a case of what journalists should be forced to do, but a case of states rights versus federal rights. The state says he doesn't have to, the fact the state can come along and say "we don't care what your laws are, we'll do what we want" is not a good thing.
That sounds like a Craiglist ad I saw, except that one was real. I know because I went there and took the plasma television. Funny how two ads can be placed on the same site saying the same thing, even in the same area.
Actually I believe it is true. I don't think I'd go so far as to say they're stealing, but they are hoarding stuff that belongs to society for their own personal financial gain. IMO as a society we give licences to creators of music (among other stuff) to monopolize what they create for a limited time. However with copyright now being perpetual (and it is, just wait and see what happens when Mickey Mouse goes to enter the public domain once more), some feel that creators of music (among other stuff) have broken the social contract.
So yes, I guess they are stealing from us. Seems informative to me.
You certainly wouldn't expect a chimp to be able to understand the law and understand the consequences of things such as the aforementioned flinging poo at people. Actually, depending on the education given and the type of education given a chimp may understand the law and the consequences of flinging poo. At least as well as some mentally retarded people, perhaps even better then the severely retarded. We don't know for sure one way or another. Some say yes, but I feel their bias is clouding their judgment in some cases, if not all, while others say no but I feel their bias is clouding their judgment. Unfortunately (IMO) every research that has been performed has been in an unscientific manner with problems in the experiments. As such we can't say one way or another.
Although (IMO) the research does suggest there is the very real possibility. We just don't know for sure.
Would a dog that bites someone get 5-10 for assault, which would be a life sentence for the dog? The dog would first have to stand trial, which means it would first have to be able to help in its own defence. Given the best trained dog wouldn't be able to do this, it wouldn't stand trial, therefore no, it shouldn't be punished under human laws or given human rights.
However the best trained (or educated) chimp may be able to help in its own defence. We don't know. That's the answer we need to have before we say if they should be covered by human laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a question: Do you trust Google? Or are they an exception to the rule?
How about .mon for money? Oooh, I know .scr for screw you over!
Well the law says it applies to anyone who delivers content to people within Utah. Now whether or not its enforceable is another story ;)
I guess Mr. O'Reilly doesn't believe in spreading the freer speech, but instead prefers the less free speech he normally spreads.
No, no. You've missed the point. Don't let the word trademark in the title fool you. It isn't trademarked keywords, its "special keywords that we have dubbed protected." Trademarked keywords would involve words that are registered as a trademark with the USPTO (you know, United States Patent and Trademark Office). This law has absolutely nothing to do with the USPTO and a word that is registered thanks to this law does not have to be a trademark (although apparently it can be).
Why not simply refuse to serve people in Utah or require an ad-less subscription? Everyone else in the world shouldn't be forced to subsidize people in Utah because the politicians don't like websites making money.
They didn't make a mistake, they deliberately violated someone's copyright. Of course they fixed it and moved on, however tons of companies DON'T violate people's copyright in the first place. Perhaps Google, as well as some other companies, can learn from those that get it right in the first place.
Who cares, they're pirates and therefore not deserving of protection. At least, that's what the RIAA has taught me.
I was thinking "Jesus Christ! You put in a wikpeida link for anything http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anything and you get modded up." Only after visiting the link on a lark did I realise it was actually law related. Those who might be similarly disposed, take a look at the wikipedia links before judging ;)
The fact the RIAA would ask for them is simply incredible.
Its called bread and circuses. The Democrats must be real desperate to get re-elected in Michigan.
If this truly was happening periodically for the past 6 years, why is development and sales being halted now? Does this also happen periodically?
I don't see this as a case of what journalists should be forced to do, but a case of states rights versus federal rights. The state says he doesn't have to, the fact the state can come along and say "we don't care what your laws are, we'll do what we want" is not a good thing.
That sounds like a Craiglist ad I saw, except that one was real. I know because I went there and took the plasma television. Funny how two ads can be placed on the same site saying the same thing, even in the same area.
Actually I believe it is true. I don't think I'd go so far as to say they're stealing, but they are hoarding stuff that belongs to society for their own personal financial gain. IMO as a society we give licences to creators of music (among other stuff) to monopolize what they create for a limited time. However with copyright now being perpetual (and it is, just wait and see what happens when Mickey Mouse goes to enter the public domain once more), some feel that creators of music (among other stuff) have broken the social contract.
So yes, I guess they are stealing from us. Seems informative to me.
When you break the law, you can't keep the spoils that you gained illegally. The EU is attempting to take Microsoft's illegal gains away from them.
So what's your better methodology? I'd be quite interested to hear it :)
Just because something is more well defined doesn't mean it is less arbitrary.
Although (IMO) the research does suggest there is the very real possibility. We just don't know for sure.
Wow, if you think that's as good of a solution as the one I proposed, I pity you. I really do.
However the best trained (or educated) chimp may be able to help in its own defence. We don't know. That's the answer we need to have before we say if they should be covered by human laws.