So if I'm reading this correctly, Uber offered work to GoCatch drivers, drivers they identified using information published by GoCatch themselves.
The fact that GoCatch didn't intend to be used that way doesn't make the tool "spyware" or otherwise nefarious.
And the fact that it worked implied that Uber offered the drivers a good deal.
Thanks to Google's indifference, the pirates can continue to sell ebooks no matter how many times copyright holders might complain. If Google takes a pirated ebook down in response to a DMCA notice, the pirates simply upload another copy of the same title.
If you pirates to stop distributing your works, you need to go after the pirates. Google is not your mommy. It won't kiss you and make everything all right.
DMCA requires platforms to take down very specifically identified infringements. The same work uploaded by another user is not necessarily an infringement, so another notification is required on behalf of the rights owner. Not policing for infringement is not a sign of indifference on the behalf of the platform. Policing is not required of the platform because it is impossible for it to do so.
Someone who can type into a word processor is to word processing as a script kiddie is to programming. I can type stuff into Word, but I couldn't use Word effectively without spending some time with it.
The difference is that committing a murder is illegal, but reporting that "escroc" is commonly associated with "Lyonnaise de Garantie" is not.
If someone said Lyonnaise de Garantie is a crook, and if that person was wrong, then Lyonnaise de Garantie should be going after that person.
Dropbox, as the service provider, does NOT have the right to say what is or is not copyrighted content
Of course they can. It's not libel, slander or otherwise illegal speech.
If you meant they don't have the right to take down content, that's not right either. The DMCA safe harbours make clear that a site isn't responsible for the actions of 3rd parties, but that doesn't prevent sites from policing their users if they want to, and it doesn't prevent sites from taking down any content they want to from their own sites.
What they can't do is send DMCA takedown requests for content to which they down own the rights. If they did this here, they are in the wrong. Unfortunately, very few face the consequences of sending false DMCA takedown requests.
It also goes on to say the if safe harbor were given to these sites, it would put too big a burden on networks to police their own material.
So what if it's a big burden for Viacom? That's Viacom's business problem, not Google's. It's just as laughable as hearing an entrepreneur say "it's too big of a burden to find costumers".
But let's say that "it's too big a burden" is a valid argument for a second. Viacom is known to intentionally hide the fact that its the one uploading its own material to Youtube. This has led to Viacom mistakenly sending takedown requests for material it itself placed on Youtube. If Viacom can't get it right with regards to its own material, it would be downright impossible for Google to get it right for Viacom's material, much less everyone's material. It would be an even bigger burden for Google, thus the status quo imposes the least burden.
Finally, what differentiates "these sites"? Their size? Their success? By that argument, Apple should be responsible for preventing bank robbers from using an iPhone to organize their crime. That's nonsense. Liability must lie with those who actually perform the illegal act.
That's 9 months after you were born. You were conceived 9 months before you were born.
If someone was born in April, they were not conceived in January. They were conceived in July.
Minimize the chance, yes. Earlier, you said the accident could have been avoided.
No matter how clear the weather and how much you pump the brakes, the teenage driver behind you still can't see through her coffee cup.
And you have no control over the deer completely hidden in the ditch, that decides to run into the side of your car.
Note that (2) is illegal, and will prevent the triggering of the light change at traffic activated lights (which is pretty much every light around here).
But what about the idea that information MUST BE FREE?
Information wants to be free. The claims refers to any and all of the following facts:
When information is shared, the sharer loses none of the information.
The cost of sharing information information is next to nil if not nil. It is an infinite good. In a free market, it's price WILL go down to zero (regardless of whether you think it SHOULD or not).
Information sharing almost always benefits society.
But must information be free? No, not always. There is value in privacy, for example. So while your DNA information "wants to be free" doesn't mean you should "let it free".
-----
You might be wondering how there can exist privacy if information wants to be free.
Notice that I said the cost of information will drop to nothing in a free market. Privacy can exist by hindering the market for information deemed private. One means of achieving this is through the creation of laws that (artifically) raise the cost of the information (by imposing penalities for inappropriately sharing and using the information).
Unfortunately, the legal landscape has not yet dealt with DNA sharing in any serious manner. For now, all you can do is hide your DNA. Once it's known by someone else, it's outside your control.
Seems to me it would be easier to convince my sysadmin to simply run a program of my choice.
This would be an interesting to include in a released program. The rate of infection will be low, but those infected are likely to be admins and power users. It would also provide some deniability. "I didn't change the loader! What does that even mean?"
If Copyright had a limit of five years, the 5 year old version of the software would become public domain, not changes done since then.
I feel that software would still be created at the same rate with a five year limit as it does with the current insane copyright lengths. That means that Copyright has fulfilled its purpose of promoting progress.
That's not Perl. That's a regular expression. They are found in Java, C, Python, and so many more, and their popularity is gaining. I don't see how that's possibly an argument against Perl.
It's also bad code. The coder is trying to parse HTML or XML himself despite the availability of many libraries and tools.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I'm reading this correctly, Uber offered work to GoCatch drivers, drivers they identified using information published by GoCatch themselves. The fact that GoCatch didn't intend to be used that way doesn't make the tool "spyware" or otherwise nefarious. And the fact that it worked implied that Uber offered the drivers a good deal.
If you pirates to stop distributing your works, you need to go after the pirates. Google is not your mommy. It won't kiss you and make everything all right.
DMCA requires platforms to take down very specifically identified infringements. The same work uploaded by another user is not necessarily an infringement, so another notification is required on behalf of the rights owner. Not policing for infringement is not a sign of indifference on the behalf of the platform. Policing is not required of the platform because it is impossible for it to do so.
Someone who can type into a word processor is to word processing as a script kiddie is to programming. I can type stuff into Word, but I couldn't use Word effectively without spending some time with it.
The difference is that committing a murder is illegal, but reporting that "escroc" is commonly associated with "Lyonnaise de Garantie" is not. If someone said Lyonnaise de Garantie is a crook, and if that person was wrong, then Lyonnaise de Garantie should be going after that person.
Of course they can. It's not libel, slander or otherwise illegal speech.
If you meant they don't have the right to take down content, that's not right either. The DMCA safe harbours make clear that a site isn't responsible for the actions of 3rd parties, but that doesn't prevent sites from policing their users if they want to, and it doesn't prevent sites from taking down any content they want to from their own sites.
What they can't do is send DMCA takedown requests for content to which they down own the rights. If they did this here, they are in the wrong. Unfortunately, very few face the consequences of sending false DMCA takedown requests.
Your comparison is flawed. MacOS is not a window.
Volvo, meet Fail Crane
The correct answer is to subtract the inverse of the numbers:
1/10 - 1/20 = 0.10 - 0.05 = Saves 0.05 gallons per mile
1/33 - 1/50 = 0.03 - 0.02 = Saves 0.01 gallons per mile
Actually, I hear Ctrl-L, "about:config", Enter, "keyword.URL", Tab, Tab, Enter, edit result, Enter.
So what if it's a big burden for Viacom? That's Viacom's business problem, not Google's. It's just as laughable as hearing an entrepreneur say "it's too big of a burden to find costumers".
But let's say that "it's too big a burden" is a valid argument for a second. Viacom is known to intentionally hide the fact that its the one uploading its own material to Youtube. This has led to Viacom mistakenly sending takedown requests for material it itself placed on Youtube. If Viacom can't get it right with regards to its own material, it would be downright impossible for Google to get it right for Viacom's material, much less everyone's material. It would be an even bigger burden for Google, thus the status quo imposes the least burden.
Finally, what differentiates "these sites"? Their size? Their success? By that argument, Apple should be responsible for preventing bank robbers from using an iPhone to organize their crime. That's nonsense. Liability must lie with those who actually perform the illegal act.
The argument is complete garbage.
Use coax to pull cat5 and two strings. Use one of the strings to pull coax back in.
That's 9 months after you were born. You were conceived 9 months before you were born. If someone was born in April, they were not conceived in January. They were conceived in July.
Minimize the chance, yes. Earlier, you said the accident could have been avoided.
No matter how clear the weather and how much you pump the brakes, the teenage driver behind you still can't see through her coffee cup.
And you have no control over the deer completely hidden in the ditch, that decides to run into the side of your car.
Note that (2) is illegal, and will prevent the triggering of the light change at traffic activated lights (which is pretty much every light around here).
When he said binary, he meant 2's complement
byte 09 hex = 9 if BCD, 9 if 2's complement
byte 10 hex = 10 if BCD, 16 if 2's complement
How does something that separates them from the rest of the company promote unity?
Either way, wouldn't something like a different style for the id badge do the same thing more cheaply and without resentment?
This reminds me of the record industry's attempts to past legislation to kick pirates off the internet without explaining how it will increase sales.
If there is some relationship between a lawyer and a judge, how does it help anyone to hide it? Hiding it doesn't make the relationship go away.
Isn't that what Declaratory Judgements are for? Or are those just for civil issues?
Information wants to be free. The claims refers to any and all of the following facts:
When information is shared, the sharer loses none of the information.
The cost of sharing information information is next to nil if not nil. It is an infinite good. In a free market, it's price WILL go down to zero (regardless of whether you think it SHOULD or not).
Information sharing almost always benefits society.
But must information be free? No, not always. There is value in privacy, for example. So while your DNA information "wants to be free" doesn't mean you should "let it free".
-----
You might be wondering how there can exist privacy if information wants to be free.
Notice that I said the cost of information will drop to nothing in a free market. Privacy can exist by hindering the market for information deemed private. One means of achieving this is through the creation of laws that (artifically) raise the cost of the information (by imposing penalities for inappropriately sharing and using the information).
Unfortunately, the legal landscape has not yet dealt with DNA sharing in any serious manner. For now, all you can do is hide your DNA. Once it's known by someone else, it's outside your control.
Seems to me it would be easier to convince my sysadmin to simply run a program of my choice.
This would be an interesting to include in a released program. The rate of infection will be low, but those infected are likely to be admins and power users. It would also provide some deniability. "I didn't change the loader! What does that even mean?"
That means ISPs are legally responsible for their clients misbehaviour!!!
If Copyright had a limit of five years, the 5 year old version of the software would become public domain, not changes done since then.
I feel that software would still be created at the same rate with a five year limit as it does with the current insane copyright lengths. That means that Copyright has fulfilled its purpose of promoting progress.
Not at all.
CafePress isn't responsible for someone using McD's trademark on a t-shirt (whether that's a trademark violation or not).
Google isn't responsible for someone getting an ad on someone else's trademark (whether that's a trademark violation or not).
Nokia isn't responsible for someone uttering a trademark over the phone (whether that's a trademark violation or not).
I believe you mean Canada Geese. Not all Canada Geese are Canadian.
The grandparent had it right. The starting position in security should be an assumption of insecurity.
That's not Perl. That's a regular expression. They are found in Java, C, Python, and so many more, and their popularity is gaining. I don't see how that's possibly an argument against Perl.
It's also bad code. The coder is trying to parse HTML or XML himself despite the availability of many libraries and tools.