Yes, Linux would be fine for any number of users, many of whom need nothing more than a web browser. I suppose installing it would be too hard for most of them though (downloading an ISO, writing it to a USB stick and modifying a BIOS setting - tricky).
But if people insist that they need Windows, then they should accept the facts, and buy a new machine after Microsoft stops supporting their OS. Where do they get the idea that they can continue using a 10 year old operating system forever and expect a strongly profit-motivated company to help them for free?
Besides the obvious prior art, the patent also seems to be incomplete. I haven't read it in detail, but a quick scan suggests that they have patented the analysis of data using methods such as "heuristics analysis module 308" which are not further specified. Do they expect to have a patent for the very idea of heuristics analysis for the given application? I was always lead to believe that ideas aren't patentable, only specific inventions, so shouldn't they be describing exactly what this "heuristics analysis module 308" is doing? Shouldn't I have been given enough information to replicate the entire method, so that the public domain is actually enriched in some way once the patent expires? If I use my own "heuristics analysis module 310" instead, will I be fine?
you're not understanding. The summary is wrong. Warner Brothers can send takedown notices at will. The only thing that's illegal is to claim you're a content owner when you're not.
The way I read the article, it would be illegal to send a takedown notice in the name of Warner brothers if you don't actually represent Warner Brothers. However if you do represent Warner Brothers, it's fine to send takedown notices about absolutely anything regardless of whether Warner Brothers holds the copyright.
Yes, exactly, the complexity of copyright laws in practice is overwhelming. I'd love to watch the MPAA try to teach kids how to determine whether a particular work is still in copyright or not in a random country in Europe. That would be a whole generation ready to abolish the madness.
Given the ridiculous corporatism, overbearing security measures, hostility to the Internet, doping scandals, and obsessive nationalism (which was of course built in from the beginning), it seems like it has already been dead for quite a while. They are now just going through the motions.
The SSL Observatory wouldn't notice a change in certificate if it was only targetted against certain individuals. The CA system is counterproductive if compromising a single CA is all that it takes to disable SSL against any chosen target.
So 1/10th of the numbers are valid, and there are 15 significant digits? Then there are 10^14 valid numbers and each number is 16 digits long... that's going to be a pretty big Google docs spreadsheet.
Actually the main thing I use archive.org for is their archive of scanned books. It's incredibly useful. The only caveat is that I find searching their site using site:archive.org on Google tends to work better than the search feature on archive.org itself.
On tablets and smartphones, South Koreans donâ(TM)t need any particular browser for purchases â" but they do need to download special security apps that meet government standards.
There's some kind of non-ActiveX solution for mobile devices. Who knows what the actual support list actually looks like, though...still, it means that some things without X86 and Windows will work.
Then perhaps all you need is an Android virtual machine and to install the app?
Now they use "User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko". It seems they have become too embarrassed to include the name of their own browser.
It was never a good idea for website code to examine the User-Agent string, and this just further confirms it.
I'm not exactly sure what sort of Wiki manipulation they are talking about. If you check out an old version of the Priceline.com article it has a bit of corporate nonsense for Booking.com etc. However it looks like something that could have been done in less than an hour, and was easily deleted, so hardly justifies the fear of some kind uber-manipulating PR firm.
All the court is saying is that if you enable comments on your site you need to at least have some mechanism by which people can get them reviewed and if appropriate removed. As usual this being an EU story it gets blown out of all proportion.
According to the article, it's a bit more than that:
In addition, the website did not appear to take any proactive steps to remove the defamatory and offensive comments, relying instead on automated word-filtering of certain vulgar terms or notification by users.
So a "mechanism by which people can get them reviewed and if appropriate removed" isn't enough, they have to proactively read every comment and remove anything defamatory. However, they may have been able to pass the liability on to the people making the comments, if they hadn't allowed anonymous posting.
So a website in Estonia should either check every comment, I suppose ideally before publishing it, or ensure that they have the true name of every commenter. Perhaps the latter wouldn't be an issue in the US, since true names would be available from the NSA in most cases anway.
Installing apps from the software centre and running Steam has got nothing to do with Unity. Replace Unity, for example by installing Xubuntu instead of Ubuntu, and all that stuff still works.
Futures and foreign exchange markets aren't closed for long each day. I'm not sure how much of a window there is between the outcome of the Fed meeting becoming obvious and the public release of the outcome, but it may still be long enough for somebody with inside information to take a position while the market was still open.
Closing the financial markets throughout the world every time a news release is expected isn't very realistic, since there are many such releases during a typical day. The could hold the Fed meeting on a weekend, perhaps, but this wouldn't necessarily be an option for every news event.
I'd assume that his decendants are trying to profit from the speech, not trying to suppress it. However it's true that copyright is a restriction on free speech, in that you no longer have the freedom to say something that has already been said by somebody else. Unfortunately, the US constitution explicitly allows this restriction of free speech.
Perhaps, in this case, but what about the Long-tailed Cuckoo? How do the newly born birds manage to migrate from New Zealand to Pacific islands thousands of kilometres away, without ever seeing their parents?
The collander thing is clearly a faux religion, intended to make a mockery of human tendencies by ironically embracing the very thing it mocks.
A religious parody based upon the mockery of other religions, imo, is small-minded, and does nothing. One does not make one's own beliefs more true by mocking or tearing down the beliefs of others. Even if you were to completely and utterly disprove a body of religious thought, it would do not prove your own.
But in the same sense, if they wish to embrace a fabricated tasty cthonic diety my personal response is, "Meh."
Still, it's amusing to image bureaucrats trying to come up with a way to distinguish a "mock" religion from any of the equally ridiculous "established" religious.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Linux would be fine for any number of users, many of whom need nothing more than a web browser. I suppose installing it would be too hard for most of them though (downloading an ISO, writing it to a USB stick and modifying a BIOS setting - tricky).
But if people insist that they need Windows, then they should accept the facts, and buy a new machine after Microsoft stops supporting their OS. Where do they get the idea that they can continue using a 10 year old operating system forever and expect a strongly profit-motivated company to help them for free?
Copyright claims on "Happy Birthday" are old news.
They just get the X years, you don't have to wait for the corporation to die.
I agree with your objections to the treaty, but I'm not sure that your point about prescription drugs is correct. See this.
Besides the obvious prior art, the patent also seems to be incomplete. I haven't read it in detail, but a quick scan suggests that they have patented the analysis of data using methods such as "heuristics analysis module 308" which are not further specified. Do they expect to have a patent for the very idea of heuristics analysis for the given application? I was always lead to believe that ideas aren't patentable, only specific inventions, so shouldn't they be describing exactly what this "heuristics analysis module 308" is doing? Shouldn't I have been given enough information to replicate the entire method, so that the public domain is actually enriched in some way once the patent expires? If I use my own "heuristics analysis module 310" instead, will I be fine?
No worse than for a Taser, surely. Somehow they deal with these sorts of issues and carry on using them.
The way I read the article, it would be illegal to send a takedown notice in the name of Warner brothers if you don't actually represent Warner Brothers. However if you do represent Warner Brothers, it's fine to send takedown notices about absolutely anything regardless of whether Warner Brothers holds the copyright.
Yes, exactly, the complexity of copyright laws in practice is overwhelming. I'd love to watch the MPAA try to teach kids how to determine whether a particular work is still in copyright or not in a random country in Europe. That would be a whole generation ready to abolish the madness.
Given the ridiculous corporatism, overbearing security measures, hostility to the Internet, doping scandals, and obsessive nationalism (which was of course built in from the beginning), it seems like it has already been dead for quite a while. They are now just going through the motions.
The SSL Observatory wouldn't notice a change in certificate if it was only targetted against certain individuals. The CA system is counterproductive if compromising a single CA is all that it takes to disable SSL against any chosen target.
So 1/10th of the numbers are valid, and there are 15 significant digits? Then there are 10^14 valid numbers and each number is 16 digits long ... that's going to be a pretty big Google docs spreadsheet.
Actually the main thing I use archive.org for is their archive of scanned books. It's incredibly useful. The only caveat is that I find searching their site using site:archive.org on Google tends to work better than the search feature on archive.org itself.
Even Microsoft is looking at SK and saying: "WTF? We don't even use ActiveX anymore."
More likely they are thrilled to still have a few locked-in customers. It must seem just like the old days.
On tablets and smartphones, South Koreans donâ(TM)t need any particular browser for purchases â" but they do need to download special security apps that meet government standards.
There's some kind of non-ActiveX solution for mobile devices. Who knows what the actual support list actually looks like, though...still, it means that some things without X86 and Windows will work.
Then perhaps all you need is an Android virtual machine and to install the app?
Now they use "User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko". It seems they have become too embarrassed to include the name of their own browser.
It was never a good idea for website code to examine the User-Agent string, and this just further confirms it.
I'm not exactly sure what sort of Wiki manipulation they are talking about. If you check out an old version of the Priceline.com article it has a bit of corporate nonsense for Booking.com etc. However it looks like something that could have been done in less than an hour, and was easily deleted, so hardly justifies the fear of some kind uber-manipulating PR firm.
All the court is saying is that if you enable comments on your site you need to at least have some mechanism by which people can get them reviewed and if appropriate removed. As usual this being an EU story it gets blown out of all proportion.
According to the article, it's a bit more than that:
In addition, the website did not appear to take any proactive steps to remove the defamatory and offensive comments, relying instead on automated word-filtering of certain vulgar terms or notification by users.
So a "mechanism by which people can get them reviewed and if appropriate removed" isn't enough, they have to proactively read every comment and remove anything defamatory. However, they may have been able to pass the liability on to the people making the comments, if they hadn't allowed anonymous posting.
So a website in Estonia should either check every comment, I suppose ideally before publishing it, or ensure that they have the true name of every commenter. Perhaps the latter wouldn't be an issue in the US, since true names would be available from the NSA in most cases anway.
Running an insurance company is like running a casino. It's gambling, but you only want to take bets where the odds are in your favour.
Installing apps from the software centre and running Steam has got nothing to do with Unity. Replace Unity, for example by installing Xubuntu instead of Ubuntu, and all that stuff still works.
Futures and foreign exchange markets aren't closed for long each day. I'm not sure how much of a window there is between the outcome of the Fed meeting becoming obvious and the public release of the outcome, but it may still be long enough for somebody with inside information to take a position while the market was still open.
Closing the financial markets throughout the world every time a news release is expected isn't very realistic, since there are many such releases during a typical day. The could hold the Fed meeting on a weekend, perhaps, but this wouldn't necessarily be an option for every news event.
As a last resort, once he had exhausted every other option.
I'd assume that his decendants are trying to profit from the speech, not trying to suppress it. However it's true that copyright is a restriction on free speech, in that you no longer have the freedom to say something that has already been said by somebody else. Unfortunately, the US constitution explicitly allows this restriction of free speech.
Perhaps, in this case, but what about the Long-tailed Cuckoo? How do the newly born birds manage to migrate from New Zealand to Pacific islands thousands of kilometres away, without ever seeing their parents?
The collander thing is clearly a faux religion, intended to make a mockery of human tendencies by ironically embracing the very thing it mocks. A religious parody based upon the mockery of other religions, imo, is small-minded, and does nothing. One does not make one's own beliefs more true by mocking or tearing down the beliefs of others. Even if you were to completely and utterly disprove a body of religious thought, it would do not prove your own.
But in the same sense, if they wish to embrace a fabricated tasty cthonic diety my personal response is, "Meh."
Still, it's amusing to image bureaucrats trying to come up with a way to distinguish a "mock" religion from any of the equally ridiculous "established" religious.
Good point.