They do give you a ticket whenever they feel like it. All a speed limit does is serve notice that exceeding that speed puts you in the "eligible for a ticket" category. Given that speed limits are set at an 85% rule (at least in CA, but this is derived from the Eisenhower Interstate System plan), 15% of people are by definition expected to be driving in excess of a given speed limit. Simply exceeding the posted speed is not itself illegal, but this is too complicated a rule for the masses, and publication of exact threshold policies would lead to the average speed maximizing to the maximum legal level (that is, above the speed limit).
The same approach works here. There is a general notice which you should be aware of if you're anywhere near crossing that threshold. They're not required to kick you off for exceeding it, and instead reserve the right to manage traffic by isolating egregious offenders as they see fit to preserve the smooth, safe, and efficient flow of vehicles (or data packets).
Bright line rules are extremely rare. It's absurd that Slashdotters expect a hard limit here, where everwhere else they complain about how black-and-white rules don't take circumstances into account. Here's the moral of the story: situational and relative rules are unclear by definition!
If they provided a rule that said, 150GB monthly limit, period, there'd be an equal amount of bitching. Since Comcast is run with regional franchises, and each community has different infrastructure limits and customer loads, it doesn't make sense to force a hard limit. You'll get cut off if you're causing a problem for other users. You'll be notified if that occurs. What is unfair about that?
.2) It's not up to you to define what's reasonable. No, it's up to Comcast, because it's their damn service. Deal with it or go somewhere else.
3) Nobody is asking for guaranteed bandwidth, so your point is silly. The point isn't about guaranteed bandwidth. It's about your paying for a residential service and then out-consuming 95% of other customers to the point where you place an unnecessary strain on a community resource. The nature of cable requires bandwidth management in order to assure steady access to all customers. That's exactly what they're doing.
4) Internet access via comcast or verizion or whomever is not a "community resource", it's something I'm buying from an ISP like a coat, TV, or a book from WalMart. You buy water and electricity too. They're all finite resources tied to community sources, overuse of which places strain on other users. It's a communal pool of shared access, not your private and dedicated infrastructure.
5) The electric company doesn't care how much I use. The more the merrier. The more you use, the higher your rate plan goes. Exceeding the set baseline puts you into a higher per-kWh charge. You pay for the amount you use.
You think because you have an opinion as to what is correct and incorrect that it somehow gives you the moral high ground. Morality doesn't enter into this. There's a finite resource, controlled by a private party. They are managing it to best serve their interests and those of 95%+ of their customers.
What's truly repugnant are people like you who fail to understand the limitations of a service and expect to do as you please without recognizing that YOUR INTERESTS are not the only ones that matter, and the trivial $30 a month you cough up doesn't buy you unilateral control and ownership of ANYTHING.
You're using too much and interfering with the use of other customers on a congested service. You can switch to a business account (they'll happily take your money, contrary to your little rant), or you can go somewhere else. You're willing to interfere with MY access by overusing your share, but you want to complain that Comcast, the OWNER of the service, wants to manage THEIR service more equitably for everyone? That's the bullshit, right there.
Right up until FIOS becomes oversaturated by greedy bastards and starts doing the same thing.
150GB per month for a residential connection is far greater than any home user or family should consume. It's pretty difficult to hit that limit with browsing and downloading alone--we're talking about less than the top 10% of consumers here. You need to be doing some pretty serious torrenting to cross into that category, in which case you SHOULD be paying for a higher guaranteed-bandwidth connection.
Internet access is a community resource, and it's not unlimited. If you're regularly bumping up at that limit, you should be bumped into a separate rate category commensurate with your usage, just like the electric company.
Doesn't that little anecdote answer your question? If you got banned for just talking about the recommendation, it seems like they're the lunatics.
"Slashdotters" should have to "put pressure on the authors" to change the name of their own work. They can call it whatever they like. But it's eminently obvious that the name sucks, and changing it would go a long way. If they refuse to listen, that's fine, but they should shut the hell up and not wonder why it hasn't overtaken Photoshop. Geeks shun marketing, but there's a reason it's a multi-billion dollar industry. It works. That, and Photoshop is leaps and bounds better when considering a professional, to whom a few hundred dollars is an easy investment. You might take a free set of outdated and incomplete reference books, but you'd buy a comprehensive set if they were essential to your job. Same with any tool.
Perhaps they should gun for the "prosumer" instead, where the cost is somewhat prohibitive and the features less critical. The name still needs to be fixed. People will write off a product based on a stupid name or an ugly website. Seriously.
That would require that the craft generate enough solar power to charge the batteries AND power the craft at the same time. The loss of energy in transferring from solar cells to batteries and drawing from batteries again is not inconsiderable, and the motors need to run in daylight, too.
At 20% overall efficiency (assuming arbitrary battery losses from a 30% solar cell), you need to be able to collect ten times the operational requirements of your vehicle in order to pull off what you describe. That's quite a lot of power.
Way to pounce on a semantic argument and completely miss the point. It's not a semantic argument. You're claiming the "credit card 4-page pamphlet" (which is neither credit-card sized nor 4 pages) doesn't say anything about the issue (in fact it does on two separate panels) that the button on the top isn't a power button.
Airplane mode doesn't solve the issue. Sure it does. So would actually turning the phone off like the article claims (but the moron failed to do--it wasn't off, and he knew it wasn't off). So, as it happens, would turning the email settings back to defaults and forgetting about airplane mode altogether. You're talking about a separate issue of disabling the cellular radio independent of the wifi/Bluetooth.
my missing user's manual One more indication that you didn't read the "4 page pamphlet." Your manual is not missing.
Also, you can't watch youtube with a wifi connection either. Nonsense. I'm doing it right now.
This is the case of the idiot user not managing his own data connections. The iPhone doesn't transmit or receive when off, and the iPhone wasn't turned off. Period. Even the idiot user knew it wasn't off and would have consciously recognized it if he'd spent half a second thinking about it. Absolutely a connection management option that lets you turn off services independently would be a good feature to add. That doesn't mean $4800 bill guy isn't just plan stupid.
User didn't realize that "Sleep/Wake" doesn't mean "On/Off"
You don't need arcane instructions. You need one active brain cell. It's not a power button; it doesn't say it's a power button; when you push the button, the screen turns off but the phone still rings. How stupid do you have to be?
I personally would like a small status LED of some kind, since there's no way of knowing if the battery died while asleep and suddenly you're wondering why no one's calling and it turns out it's not on at all. Of course, my Windows smartphone did the same thing.
Maybe it is intentionally not self-aware. We wouldn't want Google taking over the world and building Googlebots to enslave us. It could probably glean enough credit card numbers and bank information to finance the whole operation, and who is smarter than Google?
You'd have to Google for "kill google" and that just wouldn't end well.
Yes, I believe they do. People have become more acutely aware of crime and living in a dangerous world--a consequence of 24-hour news and the Internet and the jet age--which made them feel less safe. These "electric comfort blankets" are a direct response to that fear and a source of mitigation of that fear. It's also a misdirected rubuttal that feeling less safe in the world today than 50 years ago means that there's an excuse for increasing that fear, since we've slipped below the high water mark.
The safety blanket only changes. Security cameras and street lights are what we've got now (and farcical airport security, but I think many people realize the absurdity of that [but further, it's the only thing the government can really do to LOOK like they're doing something about safety]). Reality is just perception. You can't convince people of something they won't believe, even if it's true--but you can do the opposite, even when false. 50 years ago, the safety blanket was the insulation from world events and the post-war boom. 30 years before that, it was isolationism and domestic integration (automobiles and the first air travel). 20 years from now it'll be something else.
It's not your comment I take exception to, simply the way it is moderated as though it's a viable strategy in any world, even a fantasy construct--if it makes people feel safer, there's no world in which it's not a stillborn idea.
Only on Slashdot would someone support such an argument. The perception of safety is what matters to people. The actual statistics on crime (or anything else) are never as important as what people think about them.
If street lights make people feel safer, then there will be street lights. It doesn't matter that much if it actually works or not. Arguing for a public policy that makes people "feel endangered" is grounded in fantasy. Further, the premise that people feeling more in danger will have a net reduction in crime is a myopic viewpoint typical of this forum. It may well reduce actual crime, but you can bet it will ratchet up paranoia and accidental injuries arising from perceived crimes (you know, like how people with guns hurt and kill more people every year than are saved by having the guns).
Just imagine yourself listening to someone on TV saying "I support this plan to make you feel less safe, more on edge, and therefore more active in stopping crime." It's ludicrous. People shouldn't be police officers. Citizens shouldn't have to be more careful. That's treating a symptom.
That sounds like the ETF exactly covers their losses. You don't honestly believe that your provider pays retail price for handsets, do you?
This is the problem with early termination fees. They are exactly priced to ensure that the cellular provider doesn't suffer a loss. That's perfectly fine and reasonable for people who take subsidized phones. However, when I bring my own phone to a provider and pay an activation fee (which would be waived if I bought a phone from them), and THEN they still try to charge an early termination fee, they're just extorting money. I paid for the service I used, I didn't put them in the hole even one penny by getting a subsidized phone, and I want to leave because I'm leaving the country. They don't seem to care.
That, generally, is exactly what the American government does, especially when put into the comparative scope of the rest of the world, it's a fairly narrowly construed apparatus.
The problem is that the libertarian viewpoint maintains a different set of rights than the rest of the population. With minor exceptions (as can be expected), everything the government does IS securing individual property rights and protecting civil liberties. Certainly the system of checks and balances is a Federalist issue and not a Libertarian issue. If you're referring to the citizenry checking government power, you're just describing a power vacuum. If the people have no obligation to obey, the government has no power to enforce. Individuals are not the only actors, and government regulation is the only means of securing individual interests against those of corporations. The American political system is more susceptible to special interest lobbying precisely because it is comparatively weak. This is an American values thing--if people fashioned government to be their corporation and treated it as such, then corporations wouldn't control both sides of the equation. But the system is too right-tilted to facilitate that.
A government can't enforce property rights without the power to enforce laws regarding property transactions. Name one aspect of the US government not securing property rights or personal rights. You've merely described the purpose of government in general. Try again.
If your Photobucket account is publicly viewable, absolutely. You can't claim a fair use exemption on a public forum if you've not demonstrated fair use in that forum. There are other file hosting services you can use.
Fair Use only applies to the qualifying use. You can't write an essay on a painting and then start distributing unlicensed prints, and that's exactly what you're doing with YouTube. The terms of service of these services are quite clear that you must have the legal authority to upload content. You have no such authority to post a verbatim clip or image outside the fair use context and you're responsible for ensuring your own compliance.
Because the customers of these cars have already paid part of the purchase price. Selling them outside of California without an attendant markup to pay California back for the per-unit amount shouldered by the state wouldn't be fair. That car was partially paid for by California. If Nebraska wants to sell one, they owe California whatever that investment was. Since Nebraska isn't likely to care about California's money, the only way to enforce this is to prevent their sale and to collect money from violators, which helps to repay the subsidies in the first place. If someone in another state wants one, they can buy one in California.
The true and simple harm is this: there is a finite supply of these vehicles. Californians paid for their development and offset the sticker price. They should get first pass at buying them. If Toyota made so many that supply exceeded demand, then I think selling them (at full price) outside the state would be reasonable. As it stands, though, there are waiting lists for these cars.
Read the works of the classical liberals summarized in your flimsy Wikipedia link. They are not opposed to government. Illustrate the link between what is said about classical liberalism and the libertarian website.
Smith, Mill, Montesquieu, and Voltaire were all pro-government liberals. Every last one of them expected government intervention to secure individual property rights, to protect civil liberties, and to check the power of the many hands of government. JS Mill's Considerations would piss off any self-described "libertarian" here because it's very liberal about government participation and "artificial" support for women in society (by government). The prime example of harm by omission in On Liberty is not paying taxes.
Libertarianism wants to do away with external guarantees and wants to cut off the hands of government. The ultimate goal? A power vacuum and mano-a-mano resolution of perceived disputes.
They're not the same, except in the fortune cookie la-la-land of Slashdot libertarians. You don't know what you're talking about.
It's sad to see that people don't understand what 'separation of church and state' means. Tell me, how is the Vatican violating this directive?
Here's a hint: 'separation of church and state' is only to specify that the state cannot endorse a religion or foist one on its citizens. It also, of course, doesn't apply to the Vatican, which knows no such separation. It has also never meant that the church stays out of politics, or that politics stay out of churches. The church can't be granted government power, and the government can't grant the church power. That's it, and it only applies in your own borders.
The Vatican isn't making a law. It's lobbying. That's what the Pope does every time he opens his mouth. Outside of the Catholic Church and the Vatican, he has no authority.
That argument would be predicated on the program being classified as an anthology, compendium, or compilation. It's an interesting idea, but one without common law support. Aside from a special set of programs, television shows are single works under the law.
Of course it further requires classification as a derivative work, which this is not. It can't be non-transformative and derivative at the same time, both of which were asserted in the course of the discussion.
In point of fact, I agree with you. As a matter of law, however, Viacom has a sound claim to the content--or more specifically, I should say, to the clip posted to YouTube. In the course of that interaction, the original clip producer could sue Viacom for copyright infringement, of course, but again, it's a rare day for a court to step in and say that there is a minimum standard to the news reporting exemption. If the TV people discussed the clip at all, which I think is reasonably well established, it qualifies as reporting. Again, the Viacom clip was more than double the length of the original as I recall, so any reasonable standard would have been met. Those "around the world in 60 seconds" on local news qualify for the exemption and they don't even discuss the stories individually. Further, in establishing the harm incumbent in copyright infringement proceedings, Viacom did not hurt any commercial interests of the owner--they in fact increased commercial value.
In any case, Viacom owns the copyright to the program that was clipped and posted to YouTube. The entire work is protected--there are no "sections" of a work in the law and even if Viacom did lose a copyright infringement case, it would still have the authority to demand YouTube remove that clip. Title is not voidable to an entire work because of a single element of infringement. Damages of course would be awarded to the owner on that element of infringement, along with other possible legal relief, but that's a story for another day.
'FFT' is shorthand "in the biz" for the four factor test established in Folsom for determining fair use. It is worth mentioning here, as always (because Slashdot has yet to collectively get this right), that this is for Fair Use and not "uses that are fair" (like backup copies and mix CDs). Personal non-infringing uses are just that--non-infringing--and not Fair Use.
It's the same thing. It's really not. The video is pulled and put in the context of discussion and news reporting (a fair use qualifying context in and of itself). The ceramic tile, on the other hand, was not the subject of a scholarly review, a news report, a parody, or commentary. It was converted to a new form (as a painting to a print) and sold.
WRT your comment on my Factor 1 analysis -- all of fair use presupposes an infringing use. You misunderstand, and perhaps it's because I wasn't clear. If the use is determined to be fair use, the commercial factor is nullified. Thus, you are presenting a bifurcated approach as a complementary approach. In the FFT outlined by the Court, the commentary/reporting exemption automatically terminates the issue. The question of commercial interests need not be addressed if the work passes on the first grounds. It's a procedural objection to your comment, not an attempt to sidestep fair use as an affirmative defense.
WRT your comment on my Factor 1 analysis -- all of fair use presupposes an infringing use. Since it falls into a news reporting context, the amount of commentary is just the icing on the cake, as it were. It could be addressed tangentially by a news anchor/host. On the other hand, unless I've seen an edited version of the original clip, the presentation/commentary section is longer than the work itself.
Incidentally, if you've been involved in politics (or advertising in general I guess), you're familiar with the publicity nature. Exposure and free airing works against demonstrating the harm of infringement. The TV exposure only increased the commercial value of the work, which within and even beyond the fair use issue makes his complaint against Viacom substantially harder. Viacom enjoyed some benefit by filling time with that content (but it could have been filled with something else), but this guy enjoyed a much larger benefit as a result of Viacom's airing.
Because the clip on YouTube is isolated from his possible fair use context. A person can (and likely would) come across the clip on YouTube completely free of any commentary, reporting, criticism, or other fair use mechanism.
If the clip were a media file on his own server, people would go to his site and the site itself would be the work. YouTube is a public, searchable platform. Each video has its own page associated with it, and that page provides access to the work outside a fair use context. Posting on YouTube is infringement. An element of a page, on the other hand, is considered part of that page. The YouTube page would have to contain the fair use qualifying material. It does not, ergo there is no fair use defense for posting to YouTube.
I'm not changing the argument. You are the one who has engaged in a long detour about the finer points of an analogy that I plainly and obviously voiced an objection to.
Trade secret in no way applies to co-incidental similarity between products. It in no way applies to reverse engineering of products to discover said trade secrets You're the only one talking about reverse engineering, which wouldn't fit in the context of the OP's original argument. "Co-incidental similarity" is also not a factor in the given scenario. Intentional duplication is not incidental similarity, and you've been given the mechanics of that scenario.
You haven't constructed a legal argument requiring an evidentiary rebuttal. You're not talking about the same thing, and you're certainly not talking about aspects relevant to TFA and the issue at hand. Demonstrate relevancy and we'll talk. I haven't lost anything, because you've already ceded the argument to the actual issue of the thread. You're lost in the woods, and it's eminently obvious that I'm not retarded.
but that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about the taste of the drink that my magic free Pepsi machine produces.. in other words, the recipe. I beg your pardon, but *I* am the authority on what *I* said. We were talking about reproduction verbatim of a Pepsi purchase. That includes the bottle and everything attendant in that sale. As regards the "recipe" itself, that is a legally protected trade secret (and in the case of a number of beverages, a patented one). I'm not familiar with the exact arrangement Pepsi has pursued, but Coca-Cola has not patented their formula on the grounds of strict reliance on trade secret. More to the point, I did not confine it to taste. Most colas taste roughly the same, so in fact the recipe is of little importance to the law up until the point where it becomes indistinguishable on analysis. At that point, it becomes your burden to prove you came up with the formula through a legitimate means (and magic is not a legitimate means).
If I am "magically" able to make more of their product then trade secret law is no good to restrain me. False. Your "magic" defense would fail the competitive advantage test in R 2d Torts and it would be impossible to demonstrate independent arrival at the formula. The lack of work on your part would be substantial evidence to be presented by the plaintiff in his favor.
I could probably get the same taste without using the technique covered in the patent. Then it wouldn't be Pepsi. All the identifiable factors would be present in a verbatim copy. If you didn't use the label, didn't use the process, and didn't precisely match the ingredients, it's not a reproduction. This is irrelevant as it does not refer to a general rule, but merely to the specifics of differentiating products that are fundamentally the same.
Nope, haven't signed one of those with either of these companies. Nobody said you did. You wanted to know what possible bases of property rights the company might hold. You were given a sampling of possible bases of property rights. Same deal with copyrights and recipes--you're misapplying to distract because you've got no substance.
What makes you think this? What element of law do you use to justify this extraordinary claim? There's a phrase in property law you should be familiar with. "A person cannot convey better title than he has." This is the rationale of the common law. Copyright is an exclusive right to control the commercial interests including all distribution rights. You may not interfere with the copyright owner's right to exclude. 17 USC 106. You do not have artistic ownership or authority to distribute because that right was never transfered to you.
You seem to think that Pepsi has the exclusive right to make a drink that tastes like Pepsi Cola. They don't. NO. They have the exclusive right to make Pepsi Cola. Not something that tastes like Pepsi, not something that looks like Pepsi, but Pepsi.
Again, what are you talking about when you say they have the exclusive right to make their products? They don't. This is truly absurd. What is your basis for this assertion? They have the exclusive right to make their products. This is incumbent and requisite in the law and commerce could not occur in a capitalist system without it. They own their products in their entirety. You have no legal basis to assert property rights outside those conveyed to you. You can't assume rights via duplicating. The only possible venue for you to have theory that fits into any functioning legal framework would be if you conjured a recording without knowledge of its existence with security of property in another person, neither of which is possible.
Your duplication is intentional infringement and a blatant attempt to undermine property interests legally held by others. It is not a "happy coincidence" which is the only place court opinions might look favorably on the act.
Slashdot Mirror
They do give you a ticket whenever they feel like it. All a speed limit does is serve notice that exceeding that speed puts you in the "eligible for a ticket" category. Given that speed limits are set at an 85% rule (at least in CA, but this is derived from the Eisenhower Interstate System plan), 15% of people are by definition expected to be driving in excess of a given speed limit. Simply exceeding the posted speed is not itself illegal, but this is too complicated a rule for the masses, and publication of exact threshold policies would lead to the average speed maximizing to the maximum legal level (that is, above the speed limit).
The same approach works here. There is a general notice which you should be aware of if you're anywhere near crossing that threshold. They're not required to kick you off for exceeding it, and instead reserve the right to manage traffic by isolating egregious offenders as they see fit to preserve the smooth, safe, and efficient flow of vehicles (or data packets).
Bright line rules are extremely rare. It's absurd that Slashdotters expect a hard limit here, where everwhere else they complain about how black-and-white rules don't take circumstances into account. Here's the moral of the story: situational and relative rules are unclear by definition!
If they provided a rule that said, 150GB monthly limit, period, there'd be an equal amount of bitching. Since Comcast is run with regional franchises, and each community has different infrastructure limits and customer loads, it doesn't make sense to force a hard limit. You'll get cut off if you're causing a problem for other users. You'll be notified if that occurs. What is unfair about that?
.2) It's not up to you to define what's reasonable. No, it's up to Comcast, because it's their damn service. Deal with it or go somewhere else. 3) Nobody is asking for guaranteed bandwidth, so your point is silly. The point isn't about guaranteed bandwidth. It's about your paying for a residential service and then out-consuming 95% of other customers to the point where you place an unnecessary strain on a community resource. The nature of cable requires bandwidth management in order to assure steady access to all customers. That's exactly what they're doing. 4) Internet access via comcast or verizion or whomever is not a "community resource", it's something I'm buying from an ISP like a coat, TV, or a book from WalMart. You buy water and electricity too. They're all finite resources tied to community sources, overuse of which places strain on other users. It's a communal pool of shared access, not your private and dedicated infrastructure. 5) The electric company doesn't care how much I use. The more the merrier. The more you use, the higher your rate plan goes. Exceeding the set baseline puts you into a higher per-kWh charge. You pay for the amount you use. You think because you have an opinion as to what is correct and incorrect that it somehow gives you the moral high ground. Morality doesn't enter into this. There's a finite resource, controlled by a private party. They are managing it to best serve their interests and those of 95%+ of their customers.What's truly repugnant are people like you who fail to understand the limitations of a service and expect to do as you please without recognizing that YOUR INTERESTS are not the only ones that matter, and the trivial $30 a month you cough up doesn't buy you unilateral control and ownership of ANYTHING.
You're using too much and interfering with the use of other customers on a congested service. You can switch to a business account (they'll happily take your money, contrary to your little rant), or you can go somewhere else. You're willing to interfere with MY access by overusing your share, but you want to complain that Comcast, the OWNER of the service, wants to manage THEIR service more equitably for everyone? That's the bullshit, right there.
Right up until FIOS becomes oversaturated by greedy bastards and starts doing the same thing.
150GB per month for a residential connection is far greater than any home user or family should consume. It's pretty difficult to hit that limit with browsing and downloading alone--we're talking about less than the top 10% of consumers here. You need to be doing some pretty serious torrenting to cross into that category, in which case you SHOULD be paying for a higher guaranteed-bandwidth connection.
Internet access is a community resource, and it's not unlimited. If you're regularly bumping up at that limit, you should be bumped into a separate rate category commensurate with your usage, just like the electric company.
oops, left out a word.
Doesn't that little anecdote answer your question? If you got banned for just talking about the recommendation, it seems like they're the lunatics.
"Slashdotters" should have to "put pressure on the authors" to change the name of their own work. They can call it whatever they like. But it's eminently obvious that the name sucks, and changing it would go a long way. If they refuse to listen, that's fine, but they should shut the hell up and not wonder why it hasn't overtaken Photoshop. Geeks shun marketing, but there's a reason it's a multi-billion dollar industry. It works. That, and Photoshop is leaps and bounds better when considering a professional, to whom a few hundred dollars is an easy investment. You might take a free set of outdated and incomplete reference books, but you'd buy a comprehensive set if they were essential to your job. Same with any tool.
Perhaps they should gun for the "prosumer" instead, where the cost is somewhat prohibitive and the features less critical. The name still needs to be fixed. People will write off a product based on a stupid name or an ugly website. Seriously.
SD is digital. They'll be supplying SD signals to analog TVs for many years to come.
That would require that the craft generate enough solar power to charge the batteries AND power the craft at the same time. The loss of energy in transferring from solar cells to batteries and drawing from batteries again is not inconsiderable, and the motors need to run in daylight, too.
At 20% overall efficiency (assuming arbitrary battery losses from a 30% solar cell), you need to be able to collect ten times the operational requirements of your vehicle in order to pull off what you describe. That's quite a lot of power.
This is the case of the idiot user not managing his own data connections. The iPhone doesn't transmit or receive when off, and the iPhone wasn't turned off. Period. Even the idiot user knew it wasn't off and would have consciously recognized it if he'd spent half a second thinking about it. Absolutely a connection management option that lets you turn off services independently would be a good feature to add. That doesn't mean $4800 bill guy isn't just plan stupid.
Hey genius, the "Finger tips" pamphlet isn't the manual, and in fact it DOES discuss this, along with containing 20 panels, not 4.
The manual ("User's Guide") goes into quite a bit of detail beyond that.
User didn't realize that "Sleep/Wake" doesn't mean "On/Off"
You don't need arcane instructions. You need one active brain cell. It's not a power button; it doesn't say it's a power button; when you push the button, the screen turns off but the phone still rings. How stupid do you have to be?
I personally would like a small status LED of some kind, since there's no way of knowing if the battery died while asleep and suddenly you're wondering why no one's calling and it turns out it's not on at all. Of course, my Windows smartphone did the same thing.
Maybe it is intentionally not self-aware. We wouldn't want Google taking over the world and building Googlebots to enslave us. It could probably glean enough credit card numbers and bank information to finance the whole operation, and who is smarter than Google?
You'd have to Google for "kill google" and that just wouldn't end well.
Yes, I believe they do. People have become more acutely aware of crime and living in a dangerous world--a consequence of 24-hour news and the Internet and the jet age--which made them feel less safe. These "electric comfort blankets" are a direct response to that fear and a source of mitigation of that fear. It's also a misdirected rubuttal that feeling less safe in the world today than 50 years ago means that there's an excuse for increasing that fear, since we've slipped below the high water mark.
The safety blanket only changes. Security cameras and street lights are what we've got now (and farcical airport security, but I think many people realize the absurdity of that [but further, it's the only thing the government can really do to LOOK like they're doing something about safety]). Reality is just perception. You can't convince people of something they won't believe, even if it's true--but you can do the opposite, even when false. 50 years ago, the safety blanket was the insulation from world events and the post-war boom. 30 years before that, it was isolationism and domestic integration (automobiles and the first air travel). 20 years from now it'll be something else.
It's not your comment I take exception to, simply the way it is moderated as though it's a viable strategy in any world, even a fantasy construct--if it makes people feel safer, there's no world in which it's not a stillborn idea.
Only on Slashdot would someone support such an argument. The perception of safety is what matters to people. The actual statistics on crime (or anything else) are never as important as what people think about them.
If street lights make people feel safer, then there will be street lights. It doesn't matter that much if it actually works or not. Arguing for a public policy that makes people "feel endangered" is grounded in fantasy. Further, the premise that people feeling more in danger will have a net reduction in crime is a myopic viewpoint typical of this forum. It may well reduce actual crime, but you can bet it will ratchet up paranoia and accidental injuries arising from perceived crimes (you know, like how people with guns hurt and kill more people every year than are saved by having the guns).
Just imagine yourself listening to someone on TV saying "I support this plan to make you feel less safe, more on edge, and therefore more active in stopping crime." It's ludicrous. People shouldn't be police officers. Citizens shouldn't have to be more careful. That's treating a symptom.
That sounds like the ETF exactly covers their losses. You don't honestly believe that your provider pays retail price for handsets, do you?
This is the problem with early termination fees. They are exactly priced to ensure that the cellular provider doesn't suffer a loss. That's perfectly fine and reasonable for people who take subsidized phones. However, when I bring my own phone to a provider and pay an activation fee (which would be waived if I bought a phone from them), and THEN they still try to charge an early termination fee, they're just extorting money. I paid for the service I used, I didn't put them in the hole even one penny by getting a subsidized phone, and I want to leave because I'm leaving the country. They don't seem to care.
That, generally, is exactly what the American government does, especially when put into the comparative scope of the rest of the world, it's a fairly narrowly construed apparatus.
The problem is that the libertarian viewpoint maintains a different set of rights than the rest of the population. With minor exceptions (as can be expected), everything the government does IS securing individual property rights and protecting civil liberties. Certainly the system of checks and balances is a Federalist issue and not a Libertarian issue. If you're referring to the citizenry checking government power, you're just describing a power vacuum. If the people have no obligation to obey, the government has no power to enforce. Individuals are not the only actors, and government regulation is the only means of securing individual interests against those of corporations. The American political system is more susceptible to special interest lobbying precisely because it is comparatively weak. This is an American values thing--if people fashioned government to be their corporation and treated it as such, then corporations wouldn't control both sides of the equation. But the system is too right-tilted to facilitate that.
A government can't enforce property rights without the power to enforce laws regarding property transactions. Name one aspect of the US government not securing property rights or personal rights. You've merely described the purpose of government in general. Try again.
If your Photobucket account is publicly viewable, absolutely. You can't claim a fair use exemption on a public forum if you've not demonstrated fair use in that forum. There are other file hosting services you can use.
Fair Use only applies to the qualifying use. You can't write an essay on a painting and then start distributing unlicensed prints, and that's exactly what you're doing with YouTube. The terms of service of these services are quite clear that you must have the legal authority to upload content. You have no such authority to post a verbatim clip or image outside the fair use context and you're responsible for ensuring your own compliance.
Because the customers of these cars have already paid part of the purchase price. Selling them outside of California without an attendant markup to pay California back for the per-unit amount shouldered by the state wouldn't be fair. That car was partially paid for by California. If Nebraska wants to sell one, they owe California whatever that investment was. Since Nebraska isn't likely to care about California's money, the only way to enforce this is to prevent their sale and to collect money from violators, which helps to repay the subsidies in the first place. If someone in another state wants one, they can buy one in California.
The true and simple harm is this: there is a finite supply of these vehicles. Californians paid for their development and offset the sticker price. They should get first pass at buying them. If Toyota made so many that supply exceeded demand, then I think selling them (at full price) outside the state would be reasonable. As it stands, though, there are waiting lists for these cars.
Read the works of the classical liberals summarized in your flimsy Wikipedia link. They are not opposed to government. Illustrate the link between what is said about classical liberalism and the libertarian website.
Smith, Mill, Montesquieu, and Voltaire were all pro-government liberals. Every last one of them expected government intervention to secure individual property rights, to protect civil liberties, and to check the power of the many hands of government. JS Mill's Considerations would piss off any self-described "libertarian" here because it's very liberal about government participation and "artificial" support for women in society (by government). The prime example of harm by omission in On Liberty is not paying taxes.
Libertarianism wants to do away with external guarantees and wants to cut off the hands of government. The ultimate goal? A power vacuum and mano-a-mano resolution of perceived disputes.
They're not the same, except in the fortune cookie la-la-land of Slashdot libertarians. You don't know what you're talking about.
It's sad to see that people don't understand what 'separation of church and state' means. Tell me, how is the Vatican violating this directive?
Here's a hint: 'separation of church and state' is only to specify that the state cannot endorse a religion or foist one on its citizens. It also, of course, doesn't apply to the Vatican, which knows no such separation. It has also never meant that the church stays out of politics, or that politics stay out of churches. The church can't be granted government power, and the government can't grant the church power. That's it, and it only applies in your own borders.
The Vatican isn't making a law. It's lobbying. That's what the Pope does every time he opens his mouth. Outside of the Catholic Church and the Vatican, he has no authority.
That argument would be predicated on the program being classified as an anthology, compendium, or compilation. It's an interesting idea, but one without common law support. Aside from a special set of programs, television shows are single works under the law.
Of course it further requires classification as a derivative work, which this is not. It can't be non-transformative and derivative at the same time, both of which were asserted in the course of the discussion.
In point of fact, I agree with you. As a matter of law, however, Viacom has a sound claim to the content--or more specifically, I should say, to the clip posted to YouTube. In the course of that interaction, the original clip producer could sue Viacom for copyright infringement, of course, but again, it's a rare day for a court to step in and say that there is a minimum standard to the news reporting exemption. If the TV people discussed the clip at all, which I think is reasonably well established, it qualifies as reporting. Again, the Viacom clip was more than double the length of the original as I recall, so any reasonable standard would have been met. Those "around the world in 60 seconds" on local news qualify for the exemption and they don't even discuss the stories individually. Further, in establishing the harm incumbent in copyright infringement proceedings, Viacom did not hurt any commercial interests of the owner--they in fact increased commercial value.
In any case, Viacom owns the copyright to the program that was clipped and posted to YouTube. The entire work is protected--there are no "sections" of a work in the law and even if Viacom did lose a copyright infringement case, it would still have the authority to demand YouTube remove that clip. Title is not voidable to an entire work because of a single element of infringement. Damages of course would be awarded to the owner on that element of infringement, along with other possible legal relief, but that's a story for another day.
'FFT' is shorthand "in the biz" for the four factor test established in Folsom for determining fair use. It is worth mentioning here, as always (because Slashdot has yet to collectively get this right), that this is for Fair Use and not "uses that are fair" (like backup copies and mix CDs). Personal non-infringing uses are just that--non-infringing--and not Fair Use.
Incidentally, if you've been involved in politics (or advertising in general I guess), you're familiar with the publicity nature. Exposure and free airing works against demonstrating the harm of infringement. The TV exposure only increased the commercial value of the work, which within and even beyond the fair use issue makes his complaint against Viacom substantially harder. Viacom enjoyed some benefit by filling time with that content (but it could have been filled with something else), but this guy enjoyed a much larger benefit as a result of Viacom's airing.
Because the clip on YouTube is isolated from his possible fair use context. A person can (and likely would) come across the clip on YouTube completely free of any commentary, reporting, criticism, or other fair use mechanism.
If the clip were a media file on his own server, people would go to his site and the site itself would be the work. YouTube is a public, searchable platform. Each video has its own page associated with it, and that page provides access to the work outside a fair use context. Posting on YouTube is infringement. An element of a page, on the other hand, is considered part of that page. The YouTube page would have to contain the fair use qualifying material. It does not, ergo there is no fair use defense for posting to YouTube.
You haven't constructed a legal argument requiring an evidentiary rebuttal. You're not talking about the same thing, and you're certainly not talking about aspects relevant to TFA and the issue at hand. Demonstrate relevancy and we'll talk. I haven't lost anything, because you've already ceded the argument to the actual issue of the thread. You're lost in the woods, and it's eminently obvious that I'm not retarded.
Your duplication is intentional infringement and a blatant attempt to undermine property interests legally held by others. It is not a "happy coincidence" which is the only place court opinions might look favorably on the act.