Anything that can be seen in a public place is not private. Period.
Anyone can go out into the street, take whatever photos they want, and publish them however they please. When in a public place, one should have no expectation of privacy.
Ironically, when the USPO tried to automate some of their systems, it was found that the systems that they were trying to create were protected by patents.
Every mayor city has a mobile phone system, and implementing the 'send an SMS to every newcomer' system should be trivial.
unfortunately, that particular system is illegal in the uk, and possibly the rest of europe. the provisions of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations [our anti-spam laws] prevent any non-private entity from opening electronic communications with someone who has not explicitely reqiested it. [link]
the innovation is that they had a new idea, and they implemented it, and it worked, and they want to protect their creative product from cheap knockoffs.
isn't that the point of patents?
close: from this we can conclude that the effective value of any track is zero. which is the prinicipal upon which the charing on p2p networks operates.
which is why the copyright holders hate them. they want to make something from nothing; whereas the 'pirates' want to make nothing from nothing.
which illustrates the key difference between music 'theft' and real theft. in brittish law, theft is defined as 'taking, with permanent intent to deprive the owner.' intelectual property 'theft' deprives nobody of anything.
it seems that copyright holders are the only people who expect to do a days work, and have people keep paying them for it. architects don't expect to be paid by everyone who walks past and admires a building of theirs.
but it remains that the supply is infinite.
each individual has a certain amount of desire for each track. lower prices to increase sales [and customer satisfaction] while decreasing profit per sale.
increase prices to drop sale numbers while making each sale more profitable and customers less happy. and less happy customers increases piracy.
sounds like the most profitable option, as well as the one that gives least piracy, and most satisfaction, is the former: low prices.
It's time for some supply and demand to kick in.
exactly. the supply is infinite. the demand is dynamic, but never anywhere near infinite. the sipply:demand ratio is therefore constant, implying constant price, no?
it's the only one whose servers READ your email
no. if you read most of the privacy policies from say hotmail or yahoo, they say that they're able to do that too. gmail is the only one which was upfront about the fact that they did from the launch.
It would clearly no longer be 'unladen' once it was carrying the 750kg fridge laser. But more to the point, would it be an african or european swallow?
the EUCD is significantly more lenient. for instance, the rules concerning the act of developing a circumvention device.
if the driver is a device that will allow the circumvention of a system designed to protect copyrighted information, that makes the implementation of it a breach of the DMCA, no?
illegal to decrypt encrypted intelectual property without permission. you have some DMCA thing over there that bans it. we don't even have software patents.
i don't know about you *my* moustache claims a lot of things, many of which are untrue. i'm working on cutting down the meds too. i guess i just need a shave.
If you are of the opinion that limiting the rights of americans to privacy and to the liberty to act normally without suspicion is a good intention, then, by all means, the Patriot Act has good intentions.
However, if you think that any breach of privacy must be preceeded by justification; or that 'security' is not automatically created by loss of liberty - as I do - then the patriot act has intentions which could even be classed as malicious.
Slashdot Mirror
Anything that can be seen in a public place is not private. Period. Anyone can go out into the street, take whatever photos they want, and publish them however they please. When in a public place, one should have no expectation of privacy.
It strikes me that those who choose to use the torrents may already have seen it http://btjunkie.org/search?q=pirates%20caribbean%2 0world suggests that it's already available.
I guess they didn't watch the second and third Matrix movies. I guess that you didn't see the second and third Pirates movies either.
I've been hitting F5 for ten minutes, and still not even a single good terminator joke. I'm disappointed, people.
Ironically, when the USPO tried to automate some of their systems, it was found that the systems that they were trying to create were protected by patents.
mod parent insightful. that's a brilliant catch: managing to find someone walking into that quote.
Every mayor city has a mobile phone system, and implementing the 'send an SMS to every newcomer' system should be trivial. unfortunately, that particular system is illegal in the uk, and possibly the rest of europe. the provisions of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations [our anti-spam laws] prevent any non-private entity from opening electronic communications with someone who has not explicitely reqiested it. [link]
ATM machines? automated teller machine machines? and you call youirself a geek!
from the gods?
have you got a source for this?
not 'creative work'. 'creative product'. as in, a synonym for 'invention'. which is what patents are designed to protect.
the innovation is that they had a new idea, and they implemented it, and it worked, and they want to protect their creative product from cheap knockoffs. isn't that the point of patents?
close: from this we can conclude that the effective value of any track is zero. which is the prinicipal upon which the charing on p2p networks operates.
which is why the copyright holders hate them. they want to make something from nothing; whereas the 'pirates' want to make nothing from nothing.
which illustrates the key difference between music 'theft' and real theft. in brittish law, theft is defined as 'taking, with permanent intent to deprive the owner.' intelectual property 'theft' deprives nobody of anything.
it seems that copyright holders are the only people who expect to do a days work, and have people keep paying them for it. architects don't expect to be paid by everyone who walks past and admires a building of theirs.
but it remains that the supply is infinite. each individual has a certain amount of desire for each track. lower prices to increase sales [and customer satisfaction] while decreasing profit per sale. increase prices to drop sale numbers while making each sale more profitable and customers less happy. and less happy customers increases piracy. sounds like the most profitable option, as well as the one that gives least piracy, and most satisfaction, is the former: low prices.
It's time for some supply and demand to kick in. exactly. the supply is infinite. the demand is dynamic, but never anywhere near infinite. the sipply:demand ratio is therefore constant, implying constant price, no?
aren't we meant to call it spotted richard now?
I was waiting for that. 'hearing a remake of a tack commerical...'
it's the only one whose servers READ your email no. if you read most of the privacy policies from say hotmail or yahoo, they say that they're able to do that too. gmail is the only one which was upfront about the fact that they did from the launch.
How does the release of sensative information,per se, indicate that the administration doing so is fascist. Where's this fascism from?
It would clearly no longer be 'unladen' once it was carrying the 750kg fridge laser. But more to the point, would it be an african or european swallow?
the EUCD is significantly more lenient. for instance, the rules concerning the act of developing a circumvention device. if the driver is a device that will allow the circumvention of a system designed to protect copyrighted information, that makes the implementation of it a breach of the DMCA, no?
illegal to decrypt encrypted intelectual property without permission. you have some DMCA thing over there that bans it. we don't even have software patents.
i don't know about you *my* moustache claims a lot of things, many of which are untrue. i'm working on cutting down the meds too. i guess i just need a shave.
yes, but we don't have software patents. so websites are off scott free, no matter what else gets patented.
If you are of the opinion that limiting the rights of americans to privacy and to the liberty to act normally without suspicion is a good intention, then, by all means, the Patriot Act has good intentions. However, if you think that any breach of privacy must be preceeded by justification; or that 'security' is not automatically created by loss of liberty - as I do - then the patriot act has intentions which could even be classed as malicious.