He was disbarred, which is sort of like dying for a lawyer. But he's still out there, sort of an undead lawyer now.
Thank you. I now have an image of Zombie Jack strolling about, arms reaching outward, holding a copy of GTA in one hand and a summons in the other, drooling "CLAAAIIIIIIIIIMMMMSSS...."
Seriously, if you think Apple saying "Our apps only work on iPhones" is a problem, try spending half an hour getting your phone to connect to your laptop via Bluetooth because your carrier decided it was a feature they'd rather "give you" after the cost of some $40 "Media Kit".
Which is it? One sentence says that the program can be "removed" and then it's explained that the program can be "turned off" but the files aren't deleted. That's hardly removing the product. It's equivelent to not using it.
I had gotten work at one of several small ISPs that had yet to fail in the area. I had actually applied at a computer shop, who passed my resume to the ISP, who then called me and hired me without an interview or giving me any training.
The ISP was an adventure in itself, with the owners, a married couple, going through a nasty divorce. The husband was running the tech half and the wife was running the business half. The daughter (the receptionist) warned me that "things in this office stay in this office, and vice versa."
I quit six hours into the job. It was that bad. I don't remember the e-mail I sent out (because no one on the business half picked up a phone after 3:30) but I do recall criticizing their internal communication: "Such a level of synergy has yet to be reached at many a Fortune 500 company."
If the content is streaming, I don't see Apple having a problem with this. After all, I can stream numerous radio stations already through iTunes or through an iPhone app. I don't think Apple will be concerned unless the app allows you to save the music. Besides, there's probably some agreement the developers have to agree to that states no app will directly compete with iTunes.
Microsoft's IE8 team is doing the 'right' thing by finally making IE more standards-compliant, they are risking 'breaking the Web' because the vast majority of Web sites are still written to work correctly with previous, non-standards-compliant versions of IE.
I used to work for a small ISP and we had several servers explode. And one melt. We took a direct lightning strike. This storm appeared out of nowhere, two of us were on the phone (because most customers did not have their PCs plugged in during this weather) and then BANG!
My co-worker's phone began to smoke and slowly warped over 10 minutes. My phone was unresponsive and I couldn't hear anything out of my left ear for three hours.
Oddly enough there was no structural damage to the building. It took out our mail and radius servers and a few other boxes.
That is the issue. How would most users get their browser if it wasn't already installed?
I think a better solution, rather than fines with no forseeable change in pattern, is to try to work with Microsoft and convince them it is in the consumer's best interest to package other popular browsers (Firefox, Safari and Chrome) with Windows as well as Internet Explorer.
Piracy is not as impactful to the overall performance of record labels as much as just not listening to the fans and adjusting to the changes in the market.
Honestly, I wish a large "sit-out" could be organized among all file-sharers. I would love to see a majority of those who do download music without consent from the copyright owner put a hault to it for say a month or two. Then I would like to see the rationalization for why album sales are still down.
Again, pipe dream. No way to organize something like this.
I was reading this earlier over at CNN. Apparently the group mentioned the words "bomb" and "attack" while they were talking to themselves, hypothetically discussing the safest part of the plane to be in. Understandably this caused some concern with other passengers.
The FBI cleared them of any wrong-doing. According to what I read, the group was happy with the FBI's response. They did request a later flight, which the Airline rejected.
I have Brighthouse because my apartment complex has an agreement with them to provide extended-basic free of charge, so I pay a very small bill for the digital package when it's said and done. We're free to have other providers, we just don't see anything subtracted from our rent.
I just warned Bright House (essentially Time Warner, both affected by this) that if they actually subtract stations from me they had best be prepared to adjust my bill accordingly or I would switch to FiOS, which just made itself available in our area.
I already got a canned response telling me to use websites. I might switch anyway.
True, this does not bode well for WoW players, or people distributing files legally. This ban may serve as a wake-up call. File sharing has a very negative association with it, and many in Government positions will just take it to mean "piracy", as groups such as the RIAA and MPAA (and their overseas counterparts) imply it to be synonymous.
Now, Australia blocks bittorrent. So, you've got a lot of pissed off WoW players and hopefully at least one of them will stand up and say the block is not right at all. And what about the Australian ISPs who download linux distros through bittorrent?
This block is being put into effect by someone who clearly doesn't understand exactly what bittorrent or file sharing is. I'm sure he will be thoroughly informed soon enough.
I don't think the ISPs will bite down on this. The ISP will obviously need to report the results to the RIAA, otherwise the RIAA will cry foul. Then, if the ISP misses an obvious "illegal activity" the ISP might be held liable by the RIAA for not protecting the RIAA's intellectual property.
"You failed to notify your customers that we knew they're stealing. So now, it's your fault."
I'm willing to bet more than a few ISPs will worry about this possible outcome.
See, this issue confounds me. I can understand people wanting their information to be private, but at the same time if you don't want that information on the Internet, don't give it to them.
Slashdot Mirror
He was disbarred, which is sort of like dying for a lawyer. But he's still out there, sort of an undead lawyer now.
Thank you. I now have an image of Zombie Jack strolling about, arms reaching outward, holding a copy of GTA in one hand and a summons in the other, drooling "CLAAAIIIIIIIIIMMMMSSS...."
Now Obama's replacement, Burris may be charged with perjury and there are calls for him to resign.
Last I knew, Obama wasn't a support of Burris and wanted him to resign.
Wait, is this Apple or Verizon now?
Seriously, if you think Apple saying "Our apps only work on iPhones" is a problem, try spending half an hour getting your phone to connect to your laptop via Bluetooth because your carrier decided it was a feature they'd rather "give you" after the cost of some $40 "Media Kit".
BitPim FTW, incidentally.
Which is it? One sentence says that the program can be "removed" and then it's explained that the program can be "turned off" but the files aren't deleted. That's hardly removing the product. It's equivelent to not using it.
I had gotten work at one of several small ISPs that had yet to fail in the area. I had actually applied at a computer shop, who passed my resume to the ISP, who then called me and hired me without an interview or giving me any training.
The ISP was an adventure in itself, with the owners, a married couple, going through a nasty divorce. The husband was running the tech half and the wife was running the business half. The daughter (the receptionist) warned me that "things in this office stay in this office, and vice versa."
I quit six hours into the job. It was that bad. I don't remember the e-mail I sent out (because no one on the business half picked up a phone after 3:30) but I do recall criticizing their internal communication: "Such a level of synergy has yet to be reached at many a Fortune 500 company."
If the content is streaming, I don't see Apple having a problem with this. After all, I can stream numerous radio stations already through iTunes or through an iPhone app. I don't think Apple will be concerned unless the app allows you to save the music. Besides, there's probably some agreement the developers have to agree to that states no app will directly compete with iTunes.
And I was so looking forward to registering ".1" so I could realize my dream of having an external URL at 127.0.0.1.
Microsoft's IE8 team is doing the 'right' thing by finally making IE more standards-compliant, they are risking 'breaking the Web' because the vast majority of Web sites are still written to work correctly with previous, non-standards-compliant versions of IE.
Well then, why even try, right?
I used to work for a small ISP and we had several servers explode. And one melt. We took a direct lightning strike. This storm appeared out of nowhere, two of us were on the phone (because most customers did not have their PCs plugged in during this weather) and then BANG!
My co-worker's phone began to smoke and slowly warped over 10 minutes. My phone was unresponsive and I couldn't hear anything out of my left ear for three hours.
Oddly enough there was no structural damage to the building. It took out our mail and radius servers and a few other boxes.
So, if for instance, Verizon or AT&T start using this tool, does that mean they lose common carrier status?
That is the issue. How would most users get their browser if it wasn't already installed?
I think a better solution, rather than fines with no forseeable change in pattern, is to try to work with Microsoft and convince them it is in the consumer's best interest to package other popular browsers (Firefox, Safari and Chrome) with Windows as well as Internet Explorer.
It wasn't profitable.
And here I thought you didn't attract worms because you walk without rhythm.
Piracy is not as impactful to the overall performance of record labels as much as just not listening to the fans and adjusting to the changes in the market.
Honestly, I wish a large "sit-out" could be organized among all file-sharers. I would love to see a majority of those who do download music without consent from the copyright owner put a hault to it for say a month or two. Then I would like to see the rationalization for why album sales are still down.
Again, pipe dream. No way to organize something like this.
I was reading this earlier over at CNN. Apparently the group mentioned the words "bomb" and "attack" while they were talking to themselves, hypothetically discussing the safest part of the plane to be in. Understandably this caused some concern with other passengers.
The FBI cleared them of any wrong-doing. According to what I read, the group was happy with the FBI's response. They did request a later flight, which the Airline rejected.
At my job, we've used Malwarebytes to fix about 200 PCs with this so far. It's a good alternative.
I have Brighthouse because my apartment complex has an agreement with them to provide extended-basic free of charge, so I pay a very small bill for the digital package when it's said and done. We're free to have other providers, we just don't see anything subtracted from our rent.
I just warned Bright House (essentially Time Warner, both affected by this) that if they actually subtract stations from me they had best be prepared to adjust my bill accordingly or I would switch to FiOS, which just made itself available in our area. I already got a canned response telling me to use websites. I might switch anyway.
Maybe it's just tapped? Like some weird cardiac mana?
True, this does not bode well for WoW players, or people distributing files legally. This ban may serve as a wake-up call. File sharing has a very negative association with it, and many in Government positions will just take it to mean "piracy", as groups such as the RIAA and MPAA (and their overseas counterparts) imply it to be synonymous.
Now, Australia blocks bittorrent. So, you've got a lot of pissed off WoW players and hopefully at least one of them will stand up and say the block is not right at all. And what about the Australian ISPs who download linux distros through bittorrent?
This block is being put into effect by someone who clearly doesn't understand exactly what bittorrent or file sharing is. I'm sure he will be thoroughly informed soon enough.
I don't think the ISPs will bite down on this. The ISP will obviously need to report the results to the RIAA, otherwise the RIAA will cry foul. Then, if the ISP misses an obvious "illegal activity" the ISP might be held liable by the RIAA for not protecting the RIAA's intellectual property.
"You failed to notify your customers that we knew they're stealing. So now, it's your fault."
I'm willing to bet more than a few ISPs will worry about this possible outcome.
See, this issue confounds me. I can understand people wanting their information to be private, but at the same time if you don't want that information on the Internet, don't give it to them.
How can I sell my scripts if there is someone giving them out for free? This is outrageous!
Somewhere, Darth RIAA has felt the presence of his new apprentice.
I'm surprised MalwareBytes isn't on the list. We've come to depend on it for removing zlob from problematic PCs.
Am I the only one who finds Miller really overrated?
No. But then I've read DK2.