I have a question: why so much upstream from Netflix? It seems like the requests and ratings that I send to them would be infinitesimal compared to what they send back down.
"trademark is just about the only way of protecting against this."
So true.
I would also like to point out that copyright protection for Taxi Driver (until the year 2120 or so) is about the only way to protect against people signing Martin Scorsese's name to checks.
If for some reason you can't be troubled that much, the Headline should be in your window's title bar. Unless you're using one of those browsers that's way too cool for a title bar.
As a philosophy major I have to nominate this word as the most abused word in business. The fact that it is used in/by business at all is already an atrocity. Google returns some gems: "At Coldwell Banker Lunsford, our philosophy is simple. We bring people together. " "Our Philosophy is that our first priority is to ensure the long-term health, wellbeing and longevity of your beloved pet through our superior and natural nutrition"
I'm not sure what these guys think "our philosophy" means ("our strategy"? "our adverrtising slogan"?) but they're pissing me off.
But I think a dark/. would be a good solidarity statement anyway. Geeks who weren't planning to do anything special in protest today might put some extra effort in.
I stand corrected. Sweet. If no senators support it what are we worried about? It can't become law without passing the Senate, per my hazy recollections of schoolhouse Rock.
If I'm afraid you're going to "compete or be able to deliver something at the level of a Pixar or a Disney", couldn't I just get your ISP to block you off from the cloud because I don't feel you're doing enough to prevent Pixar/Disney intellectual property from being incorporated into your work?
"... businesses are more responsive to their "constituents" then politicians are." You're partially right here, but the main difference is (supposed to be) that business is responsive per the formula "one dollar, one vote" rather than "one person, one vote".
The US government has increasingly drifted away from the latter formula toward the former one, though.
Ditch the RIAA for real by going to ccmixter, jamendo, or any number of other sites and build up a collection of music that you can listen to without glancing over your shoulder every few seconds.
I just got this crazy idea for dealing with this problem: When people make unauthorized copies of non-free material, prosecute them for doing that. I know this goes against the legal mainstream (viz. find out what they used to do that and ban it); I'm just thinking out loud.
"Apple will follow suit eventually, they might resist for a while but with Android's rising market share and Google controlling Youtube, they're caught between a rock and a hard place and I'm sure they know it."
They're called "everything else you could do with your time other than reward philistine pig-headed execs who crank out noncreative garbage" I'm just sayin'
"Only the second of these four rights is widely accepted in the USA. In addition to these four pure privacy torts, a victim might recover under other torts, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, or trespass.
Unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion only applies to secret or surreptitious invasions of privacy. An open and notorious invasion of privacy would be public, not private, and the victim could then chose not to reveal private or confidential information. For example, recording of telephone conversations is not wrong if both participants are notified before speaking that the conversation is, or may be, recorded. There certainly are offensive events in public, but these are properly classified as assaults, not invasions of privacy."
Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:
1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
has a nice right to it
Interesting article.
I have a question: why so much upstream from Netflix? It seems like the requests and ratings that I send to them would be infinitesimal compared to what they send back down.
There must be a lot of prime numbers in your world
2^n-1 is always prime?
n=4
(2**4)-1 = 15
Macs have fans?
This will come in *very* handy when Windows 9 is released
"trademark is just about the only way of protecting against this."
So true.
I would also like to point out that copyright protection for Taxi Driver (until the year 2120 or so) is about the only way to protect against people signing Martin Scorsese's name to checks.
If for some reason you can't be troubled that much, the Headline should be in your window's title bar. Unless you're using one of those browsers that's way too cool for a title bar.
Call it "Office Software" and everyone will be happy.
As a philosophy major I have to nominate this word as the most abused word in business.
The fact that it is used in/by business at all is already an atrocity.
Google returns some gems:
"At Coldwell Banker Lunsford, our philosophy is simple. We bring people together. "
"Our Philosophy is that our first priority is to ensure the long-term health, wellbeing and longevity of your beloved pet through our superior and natural nutrition"
I'm not sure what these guys think "our philosophy" means ("our strategy"? "our adverrtising slogan"?) but they're pissing me off.
But I think a dark /. would be a good solidarity statement anyway. Geeks who weren't planning to do anything special in protest today might put some extra effort in.
I stand corrected. Sweet. If no senators support it what are we worried about? It can't become law without passing the Senate, per my hazy recollections of schoolhouse Rock.
Whatever wikipedophile.org is, it seems to have been blocked. I imagine that's because it, like Apple, was stealing ideas or something..
If I'm afraid you're going to "compete or be able to deliver something at the level of a Pixar or a Disney", couldn't I just get your ISP to block you off from the cloud because I don't feel you're doing enough to prevent Pixar/Disney intellectual property from being incorporated into your work?
An article for each senator who supports SOPA, with the corresponding senate.gov link
Seems like it should go without saying..
"... businesses are more responsive to their "constituents" then politicians are."
You're partially right here, but the main difference is (supposed to be) that business is responsive per the formula "one dollar, one vote" rather than "one person, one vote".
The US government has increasingly drifted away from the latter formula toward the former one, though.
Ditch the RIAA for real by going to ccmixter, jamendo, or any number of other sites and build up a collection of music that you can listen to without glancing over your shoulder every few seconds.
I just got this crazy idea for dealing with this problem:
When people make unauthorized copies of non-free material, prosecute them for doing that.
I know this goes against the legal mainstream (viz. find out what they used to do that and ban it); I'm just thinking out loud.
"Apple will follow suit eventually, they might resist for a while but with Android's rising market share and Google controlling Youtube, they're caught between a rock and a hard place and I'm sure they know it."
Or...
Watch this space for iTube?
fghfnh
gsh
Editors, can we get a story about the $75 trillion P2P lawsuit soon plz?
They're called "everything else you could do with your time other than reward philistine pig-headed execs who crank out noncreative garbage"
I'm just sayin'
pasted too soon
"Only the second of these four rights is widely accepted in the USA. In addition to these four pure privacy torts, a victim might recover under other torts, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, or trespass.
Unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion only applies to secret or surreptitious invasions of privacy. An open and notorious invasion of privacy would be public, not private, and the victim could then chose not to reveal private or confidential information. For example, recording of telephone conversations is not wrong if both participants are notified before speaking that the conversation is, or may be, recorded. There certainly are offensive events in public, but these are properly classified as assaults, not invasions of privacy."
Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:
1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.
http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm