I remember a couple years ago pointing out that iPods weren't any better than the competition and that the whole thing was pretty much a sham. The response back was one of shock that I was badmouthing Apple, and that I might be, gasp, anti-Apple. The possibility was apparently wholly unbelievable at that time. Since then Apple has just gotten worse in pretty much every respect. The iPad as great as it is as a tablet is not an ereader. Plus, it sounds more like a sanitary product for a niche porn site.
What makes you think that there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy? There isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy covering video footage of the interactions, but that isn't the same as for audio recordings. The technology to record somebody at distance in a way which is understandable all but eliminates the possibility of somebody not wearing a wire from being able to snoop in on the conversation.
How many of those jurisdictions are in 2 party consent jurisdictions? It's an important point, the NH law exempts law enforcement from needing consent under certain circumstances but allows for no such exemption for individuals trying to record the police.
Internet should be a basic human right, it's the only way that people come to find out what it's like in the rest of the world. The bigger issue is as you say, interfering with a sovereign state. Gaddafi has already been claiming that foreign powers are riling up the Libyan people, finding something like this would definitely embolden him.
If only, it will almost certainly be divided up by SOCAN without anybody knowing how they're making the decisions and none of the artists having any idea as to whether or not their getting their fair share. Plus those with no reputation may or may not get anything at all, even if some people do listen to their work.
But on the balance this would likely be good for the unknown performers because it would likely open up a new audience, one which wouldn't likely pay just to sample.
It sounds good until you realize that random citizens making recordings doesn't in any way, shape or form ensure the recordings are accurate. Not just in terms of editing, but in terms of putting words into other people's mouths. Also, you have to be extremely careful about where you draw the lines because you can very easily wind up with vigilantism.
Precisely, in a 1 party consent state this wouldn't have happened because the person doing the wiretapping would be considered to give the consent, assuming that they were a part of the discussion. In 2 party consent states you need to have consent of all parties involved.
And yes indeed all states have their own rules as far as what exactly is needed for consent. And really this is something that you should know about to begin with, just because that way you have some idea what the rules are. Extending it to voice message services in this manner isn't something which should surprise anybody it is still a recording made by the person that's being charged, assuming that individual actually did it.
It's not abuse, it's almost certain to be the natural extension of the law. The laws on wiretapping don't generally specify the methods that are used to do the actual recording, so an audio recording of any sort is equal to any other. If you're in a 2 party consent state, then this sort of prosecution is to be expected, if the person did the recording, which it sounds like he did, then he'll end up being charged and likely convicted.
There isn't anything inherently abusive about it, the statutes are there for everybody to read and if you're going to record somebody without their consent then you need to be really careful that you don't violate the law.
Now, whether the statute itself is reasonable or in this instance is within the protection of the constitution is a different matter all together. This seems a bit overly strict and probably not what the people writing the law really had in mind.
Removing it isn't really much of an issue, the problem is that this breaks the paradigm and people that aren't aware that you can double click to maximize and minimize aren't likely to know that you can do that. With XP I can double click to restore and maximize which makes it that much more confusing since this actually minimizes instead of restoring.
Actually removing the status bar and that other stuff from browsers was a positive move for usability, the problem is that it's limited to just mobile computing and times when you have a small screen. If you've got a generous screen like I have, it actually makes it less usable, and so removing it completely was stupid.
I think it's more an issue of forcing it on the actual users. Personally, I like to keep my desktop clear of icons, because I tend not to use them. Having all that dead space isn't useful, but they could make it useful, by allowing people to use it for terminals, calendars and desklets if they chose to.
And yet, quite a few other online stores allow for multiple downloads, and have for years. I'm sorry, but was Apple really that short sighted or is this another Steve Jobs blow job incoming? Er snow job.
If I hadn't already posted I'd mod you flamebait for that.
The issue is that they used an iPod only format until the iPod was on top, then they decided that they'd like to be populist and make use their huge clout to make the tracks DRM free. In the process they severely damaged the already damaged album by encouraging people to only buy the good tracks, ripped off Creative for their innovative DB based interface and apparently gave the users a screw off in the form of only allowing 1 download per song.
Plus, do your homework, Apple blatantly ripped off Xerox's PARC designs for their paperless office and made it into their Lisa and Mac offerings.
I've never used the ITMS largely because early on the DRM scheme was only available for iPod or iTunes and by the time they removed the DRM I was pretty angry for the bad behavior. But, this seems to be pretty bad, if they're advertising that you've bought these tracks, then you should be able to download them again it's not like CDs where they'd have to make and send you a new copy.
Did they finally eliminate the DRM tracks? Last I'd heard about that was that DRM free tracks were introduced alongside the DRM encumbered ones and could be had for a small premium. I could be wrong, but I think you had to pay an upgrade fee to trade up the DRM encumbered ones for the DRM free tracks if you'd already purchased them with DRM.
I changed brokerages recently to one that has some annoying log in policies. I just remind myself that banks should be going the extra mile to make things annoying, even if it is annoying at times.
You might look into Asus as well. The hardware is nice, and you can sometimes get it without Windows. Just replace the Xandros adaptation they use with something that doesn't suck. I had a VAIO and it was a really nice machine, but that was many years ago and they had yet to do a lot of the dickish stuff that caused me to avoid paying money to them.
That's their job. Just because the people voted for it doesn't mean that it's constitutional. Recently the idiots here voted by a simple majority to require a super majority in the future on measures to raise taxes. It's not constitutional and has already been ruled unconstitutional in other states, but because of people like you that say they can't or shouldn't do it, we're having to see crushing service cuts so that MS and the like can avoid paying their taxes.
The bigger issue tends to be the modem. I'm still using the same modem that I got when I switched from horrible Comcrap to terrible Qwest, it seems to have stability issues and yet lacks any sort of hardware watchdog setting and has to be periodically reboot when downloading via torrent.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember a couple years ago pointing out that iPods weren't any better than the competition and that the whole thing was pretty much a sham. The response back was one of shock that I was badmouthing Apple, and that I might be, gasp, anti-Apple. The possibility was apparently wholly unbelievable at that time. Since then Apple has just gotten worse in pretty much every respect. The iPad as great as it is as a tablet is not an ereader. Plus, it sounds more like a sanitary product for a niche porn site.
What makes you think that there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy? There isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy covering video footage of the interactions, but that isn't the same as for audio recordings. The technology to record somebody at distance in a way which is understandable all but eliminates the possibility of somebody not wearing a wire from being able to snoop in on the conversation.
How many of those jurisdictions are in 2 party consent jurisdictions? It's an important point, the NH law exempts law enforcement from needing consent under certain circumstances but allows for no such exemption for individuals trying to record the police.
Internet should be a basic human right, it's the only way that people come to find out what it's like in the rest of the world. The bigger issue is as you say, interfering with a sovereign state. Gaddafi has already been claiming that foreign powers are riling up the Libyan people, finding something like this would definitely embolden him.
Not to mention reinforcing the claims of foreign interference and probably making his supports more steadfast.
No, there's an explicit exemption for law enforcement on the page the GP cited.
Depends, do they still make those stupid CD players for component systems that can only write to audio CDs?
If only, it will almost certainly be divided up by SOCAN without anybody knowing how they're making the decisions and none of the artists having any idea as to whether or not their getting their fair share. Plus those with no reputation may or may not get anything at all, even if some people do listen to their work.
But on the balance this would likely be good for the unknown performers because it would likely open up a new audience, one which wouldn't likely pay just to sample.
But like in real life you'd be able to take it unawares when it's updating its page.
Hmm, this is the internet, so that's clearly a glory hole, but this "Mr. Google" fellow seems to be quite the pervert.
It sounds good until you realize that random citizens making recordings doesn't in any way, shape or form ensure the recordings are accurate. Not just in terms of editing, but in terms of putting words into other people's mouths. Also, you have to be extremely careful about where you draw the lines because you can very easily wind up with vigilantism.
Precisely, in a 1 party consent state this wouldn't have happened because the person doing the wiretapping would be considered to give the consent, assuming that they were a part of the discussion. In 2 party consent states you need to have consent of all parties involved.
And yes indeed all states have their own rules as far as what exactly is needed for consent. And really this is something that you should know about to begin with, just because that way you have some idea what the rules are. Extending it to voice message services in this manner isn't something which should surprise anybody it is still a recording made by the person that's being charged, assuming that individual actually did it.
It's not abuse, it's almost certain to be the natural extension of the law. The laws on wiretapping don't generally specify the methods that are used to do the actual recording, so an audio recording of any sort is equal to any other. If you're in a 2 party consent state, then this sort of prosecution is to be expected, if the person did the recording, which it sounds like he did, then he'll end up being charged and likely convicted.
There isn't anything inherently abusive about it, the statutes are there for everybody to read and if you're going to record somebody without their consent then you need to be really careful that you don't violate the law.
Now, whether the statute itself is reasonable or in this instance is within the protection of the constitution is a different matter all together. This seems a bit overly strict and probably not what the people writing the law really had in mind.
Removing it isn't really much of an issue, the problem is that this breaks the paradigm and people that aren't aware that you can double click to maximize and minimize aren't likely to know that you can do that. With XP I can double click to restore and maximize which makes it that much more confusing since this actually minimizes instead of restoring.
Actually removing the status bar and that other stuff from browsers was a positive move for usability, the problem is that it's limited to just mobile computing and times when you have a small screen. If you've got a generous screen like I have, it actually makes it less usable, and so removing it completely was stupid.
I think it's more an issue of forcing it on the actual users. Personally, I like to keep my desktop clear of icons, because I tend not to use them. Having all that dead space isn't useful, but they could make it useful, by allowing people to use it for terminals, calendars and desklets if they chose to.
And yet, quite a few other online stores allow for multiple downloads, and have for years. I'm sorry, but was Apple really that short sighted or is this another Steve Jobs blow job incoming? Er snow job.
If I hadn't already posted I'd mod you flamebait for that.
The issue is that they used an iPod only format until the iPod was on top, then they decided that they'd like to be populist and make use their huge clout to make the tracks DRM free. In the process they severely damaged the already damaged album by encouraging people to only buy the good tracks, ripped off Creative for their innovative DB based interface and apparently gave the users a screw off in the form of only allowing 1 download per song.
Plus, do your homework, Apple blatantly ripped off Xerox's PARC designs for their paperless office and made it into their Lisa and Mac offerings.
I've never used the ITMS largely because early on the DRM scheme was only available for iPod or iTunes and by the time they removed the DRM I was pretty angry for the bad behavior. But, this seems to be pretty bad, if they're advertising that you've bought these tracks, then you should be able to download them again it's not like CDs where they'd have to make and send you a new copy.
Did they finally eliminate the DRM tracks? Last I'd heard about that was that DRM free tracks were introduced alongside the DRM encumbered ones and could be had for a small premium. I could be wrong, but I think you had to pay an upgrade fee to trade up the DRM encumbered ones for the DRM free tracks if you'd already purchased them with DRM.
I changed brokerages recently to one that has some annoying log in policies. I just remind myself that banks should be going the extra mile to make things annoying, even if it is annoying at times.
Honestly, it's not that hard. If you're changing them by hand on more than a few machines then you're doing it wrong.
11, definitely 11.
You might look into Asus as well. The hardware is nice, and you can sometimes get it without Windows. Just replace the Xandros adaptation they use with something that doesn't suck. I had a VAIO and it was a really nice machine, but that was many years ago and they had yet to do a lot of the dickish stuff that caused me to avoid paying money to them.
That's their job. Just because the people voted for it doesn't mean that it's constitutional. Recently the idiots here voted by a simple majority to require a super majority in the future on measures to raise taxes. It's not constitutional and has already been ruled unconstitutional in other states, but because of people like you that say they can't or shouldn't do it, we're having to see crushing service cuts so that MS and the like can avoid paying their taxes.
The bigger issue tends to be the modem. I'm still using the same modem that I got when I switched from horrible Comcrap to terrible Qwest, it seems to have stability issues and yet lacks any sort of hardware watchdog setting and has to be periodically reboot when downloading via torrent.