"The research team used a specially crafted test rig to blast audio waves at a hard drive from different angles, recording results to determine the sound frequency, attack time, distance from the hard drive, and sound wave angle at which the HDD stopped working."
Too bad the distance from the hard drive and sound wave angle cannot be determined absent an inside job because, and this is a doozy, the HDD system is almost never located immediately adjacent to the camera.
Good luck finding one on a real world environment, much less disabling it before it records a video stream of you entering the building, the anteroom to the server room and/or security room, etc., carrying a very odd looking piece of equipment. It's like Where's Waldo for idiots - "I think our target is... that guy with the sci-fi gun."
People have replaced perfectly working video connectors/standards (VGA and DVI) with DRM-laden, controlled up the wazoo stuff like HDMI and DisplayPort.
You do realize that HDCP over DVI has been a thing since forever. It's HDMI without the audio/networking links.
You're thinking Copperweld inability to conspire. The problem is, Eastman Kodak violations are a section 1 violation, the separate and independent nature is relevant to impermissible product tying, and the attempted conspiracy is between the intra-enterprise actor (Google/YouTube) and the unwilling target (Amazon).
Thanks for playing "I did not study antritrust law and it shows."
Remember that this began with Amazon banning the sale of hardware devices that competed with its own products, including Apple TV.
Too bad YouTube is a separate entity (YouTube LLC) that does not sell hardware products. It's almost as if this is an antitrust violating "contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States," rather than independent decision of one organization to boycott another...
Meanwhile you're paying 5-10% more than you should.
Versus 7-12% more than he "should" if he did not, generously assuming that 5-10% is accurate (it's not, transaction fees are ~2%) and you have any authority to declare what things "should" cost.
Do you think banks are giving you money out of the goodness of their hearts... hell no. They're charging the merchant 5-10% for accepting payment by card, they give a pittance back to you to keep you using the card and pocket the rest.
Meanwhile, people using cash or debit are finding retailers who'll give them discounts.
Debit cards have essentially equal transaction processing fees. As for cash discounts -- name such retailers. More than one. National, not Bill's Hole in the Wall in Noneck. Wyoming.
The digital download is not part of the sale. It is a separate transaction, executable only by the owner of the physical disc, no one else.
Interesting. Where's the consideration for this "separate transaction"? Particularly since the purchaser of the physical good was already promised the "digital download" on the face of the good as part of the marked price.
The PIECE OF PAPER is what is included with the sale. THAT is what qualifies as sellable under first-sale doctrine. Redbox isn't selling that piece of paper, they are selling a COPY of it.
How is the information on the piece of paper not being sold? How is the code itself copyrightable?
Hint: the code is being sold, the code is not copyrightable, and the sale is a sale of the code to obtain the digital copy whether accessed through the information or through the literal piece of paper.
It's a writing that was apparently signed by the person. Florida does not require that its DNRO form be notarized. The only thing that the tattoo lacks in comparison to the Florida DNRO form is the physician's statement. If you choose to hang your hat on that, then I remind you that this patient completed a Florida DNRO form and that the hospital only chose to look for it AFTER beginning resuscitation efforts and finding the tattoo.
Even if the tattoo doesn't have the protections of Florida law connected to its 'official' DNRO form (if any), competent adult patients retain the right to refuse medical care, and this one clearly had. That is why the ethics committee came down the way that it did.
Imagine if it HAD been a joke, and the family sued the pants off the hospital for denying treatment to their family member without a formal DNR request?
Yes imagine. Imagine that I could retroactively declare writings bearing my signature to be jokes that shouldn't be taken literally. Like that confidentiality agreement. Or that credit card agreement. Or that mortgage.
Now let's image that the hospital successfully resuscitated the patient despite the tattoo and the patient and the family "sued the pants off" the hospital for providing specifically declined treatment to their family member without patient consent.
"Ultimately obtained the legal documentation that stated he definitely was a DNR." What makes the Florida DNRO form "legal" documentation in your mind? That could have been an artifact of previous poor life choices as well.
It sounds like they did pretty much everything right
Oh, so now you're admitting that the tattoo was "legal document" enough that the hospital had to delay efforts and inquire into the existence of the DNRO form (or at least contact the family).
And "We" think it's bullshit, the person making the claims is a liar looking for personal gain along with anyone that supports them.
No evidence required per your example.
No need to credit my example, there are almost countless AC posts before mine that say virtually the same thing. No evidence required per your examples.
The point that just sailed over your head is that we shouldn't take such a claim as true without corroborating evidence.
No, the point is a court can't take such as claim as true without corroborating evidence. "We" can take such a claim any way we like, since any presumption that Tesla does not maintain a hostile work environment also lacks corroborating evidence. Once may be an anomaly, twice may be a conspiracy, but thrice or more suggests a real problem.
"Wikipedia wouldn't have been possible without a dedicated leadership" who have created bots, notifiers, and other mechanisms to zealously "curate" Wikipedia content by reverting any editing contributed by the other 99% of Wikipedia users.
"The assumption is that it's a creation of the crowd, but this couldn't be further from the truth" because Wikipedia tolerates these practices and cannot be bothered so long as donations far in excess of its operating needs continue to roll in in response to never ending "we need money" campaigns.
but you seem to be under the impression that the elderly are expecting something for nothing, when really, all they're expecting is repayment (with interest, adjusted for inflation).
I think the idea is that old people deserve the babysitting, since they've already spent a lifetime contributing to society.
"Deserve?" "Already?"
Not if it means taking away from my disposable income, leisure time, and ability to beat my chest about "personal responsibility" above all. Eff them too. Let their don't-exist-because-the-rubbers-children care for them in their homes by themselves.
You're not reading. Your'e demanding to be lead by the nose. You're intentionally being dense in an attempt to make some point, without regard to the fact that you look like an imbecile.
They're your old people. Not mine. And neither I, nor "the internet", nor even a school, is responsible for [caring for] them.
Clear enough? Now?How about now? You seem to believe that "raising" is strictly limited to children. Wrong.
If you cannot be assed to take care of your old people, use rubbers.
Makes as much sense as the original comment. If you can't be assed to take care of your parents, which you certainly have, you may as well not have children, which are, apparently, "optional." Except in a societal sense that without children there's nobody to become the next generation of workers, and to support the previous generation of workers who have become elderly.
huh? apply that to old people?
-Social security -Medicare -Homestead exemptions -other government "senior" assistance programs
Happy to hear that you won't be using any of these since they violate a principle of "personal responsibility" that the the GP and, apparently, you hold so dear.
"They're your old people. Not mine." "Chuck 'em out in the snow." You'll change your tune, as soon as it threatens to get cold for you.
They're your kids. Not mine. And neither I, nor "the internet", nor even a school, is responsible for raising them. You are. If you cannot be assed to take care of your kids, use rubbers.
Now, apply that to old people, and watch that attitude do a 180 the moment you become old and exhaust your savings (if you have any).
the prediction of Hillary's coronation with absolute certainty is a perfect example
Citation needed. Reporting that she was nominally ahead in polls with a 3% margin of error is not "absolute certainty" in any statistician's book, and your failure to understand polling statistics is your own problem.
Hello Anonymous Coward. I said that in reply to him.
You said that about our discussion. You were wrong.
The actual person who speaks the words is the speaker.
No. The "speaker" in the sense of "freedom of speech" is the person whose words are being "spoken", whether that is in print, audio, or any other medium. When you hire a voice-over artist to record your political ad, the "speaker" of the words, the person to whom the freedom of speech applies, is YOU. To assume your interpretation would result in the government being able to write laws preventing you from hiring a voice-over artist to convey your political or other message. Where is the "freedom of speech" for someone who is mute and wants to air a radio spot, if he can be prohibited from hiring a voice to speak his words for him? Does the First Amendment not apply to people who cannot speak, because they could never "speak the words" which the First Amendment would protect?
Overly lengthy, illogical drivel that continues to conflate the content of the message and the act of publishing or speaking it. There can be two speakers, the original author and the person or entity that publishes the message ("cable system operators are "speakers" for First Amendment purposes"). Your counter example is fundamentally flawed -- as if speech is limited to vocalization and not considered in the law to include any form of message, whether spoken, written, sculpted, signed, or the like.
Where is the author of a pamphlet like Common Sense if he can be arrested and prohibited from passing his material to the publisher who would print and distribute it (your version of "speak")?
He can. The easiest example is when the material discloses the existence of an NSL. There are several other bases as well, so long as they pass strict scrutiny and are a least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling national interest.
No, I'm sorry. The person who originates the content is the "speaker" when applying the First Amendment freedoms of speech. Note that copyright law would be unconstitutional on its face were your interpretation to be valid. The government would be prohibited from making any law abridging my right to take your words and reprint them as my own, because under your interpretation I would be the "speaker" of those words and the person to whom the freedom of speech would attach. You would have no protection because I would be the "person who spoke the words" (i.e. published the text), not you, even if you had previously "spoken" them in some other form. And, I might add, your freedom of speech is not abridged when I can steal your work and publish it as my own because I did not prevent you from speaking your own words, so you would have no First Amendment claims.
It's cute that you think that the First Amendment is absolute, as well as that it doesn't have to be interpreted in view of the fact that the Constitution expressly authorizes copyrights and thus copyright law. But you remain deeply, fundamentally wrong.
The Communications Decency Act had to provide a specific immunity stating that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" precisely because everywhere else in the law, the publisher is a speaker.
Not in the sense of the first amendment, where it is the CONTENT and not the specific utterer of sounds that matters. The Communications Decency Act supports this when it makes it clear that the originator of the speech is the "information content provider" who is responsible fo
And no, we're not talking about the actual person who speaks the words, we're talking about the content of the message.
Don't tell me what I'm talking about. The actual person who speaks the words is the speaker. It does not matter whether they independently choose to speak or speak a message that they are given.
The Communications Decency Act had to provide a specific immunity stating that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" precisely because everywhere else in the law, the publisher is a speaker.
You're the one wrongly focused on the content of the message. Not my problem.
Look it up. Greatest information tool ever known at your fingertips, and you can't even be bothered to inform yourself. Yet you can manage to spin up a hypothetical that has been addressed ever since "dinosaur media" political advertising was similarly regulated.
Hint: those aren't political ads, those are issue ads.
So, if I spend $501 running ads that say things.... [offtopic digression]. If I spend $501 on fancy printed signs and march around downtown proclaiming the same things, how is that different?
In the first, you're paying someone else to speak for you. In the second, you're the one speaking. That's different.
When you're an anonymous individual speaking for yourself, you're still only an individual and you risk social consequences for what you are saying. When you're a plutocrat or a corporation paying hundreds or thousands to speak, you're buying the appearance of a larger group of individuals. That's called "astroturfing." When you're a plutocrat or a corporation paying an entity to speak without attribution, you're buying deniability in the form of a "front organization." Both practices are forms of deception that cannot be prohibited, but can be subject to mandatory disclosure. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Slashdot Mirror
"The research team used a specially crafted test rig to blast audio waves at a hard drive from different angles, recording results to determine the sound frequency, attack time, distance from the hard drive, and sound wave angle at which the HDD stopped working."
Too bad the distance from the hard drive and sound wave angle cannot be determined absent an inside job because, and this is a doozy, the HDD system is almost never located immediately adjacent to the camera.
Good luck finding one on a real world environment, much less disabling it before it records a video stream of you entering the building, the anteroom to the server room and/or security room, etc., carrying a very odd looking piece of equipment. It's like Where's Waldo for idiots - "I think our target is... that guy with the sci-fi gun."
Or they're different ones who are merely pissed off at Trump. Far more likely different ones, but that wouldn't fit into your narrative.
"Some Very Fine People on Both Sides." Your own leader says so, dummkopf.
You do realize that HDCP over DVI has been a thing since forever. It's HDMI without the audio/networking links.
You're thinking Copperweld inability to conspire. The problem is, Eastman Kodak violations are a section 1 violation, the separate and independent nature is relevant to impermissible product tying, and the attempted conspiracy is between the intra-enterprise actor (Google/YouTube) and the unwilling target (Amazon).
Thanks for playing "I did not study antritrust law and it shows."
Too bad YouTube is a separate entity (YouTube LLC) that does not sell hardware products. It's almost as if this is an antitrust violating "contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States," rather than independent decision of one organization to boycott another...
Versus 7-12% more than he "should" if he did not, generously assuming that 5-10% is accurate (it's not, transaction fees are ~2%) and you have any authority to declare what things "should" cost.
Citation needed. You're grossly exaggerating credit transaction processing fees.
Debit cards have essentially equal transaction processing fees. As for cash discounts -- name such retailers. More than one. National, not Bill's Hole in the Wall in Noneck. Wyoming.
Like hell.
'eff you. /s
Interesting. Where's the consideration for this "separate transaction"? Particularly since the purchaser of the physical good was already promised the "digital download" on the face of the good as part of the marked price.
This is going to be fun...
How is the information on the piece of paper not being sold?
How is the code itself copyrightable?
Hint: the code is being sold, the code is not copyrightable, and the sale is a sale of the code to obtain the digital copy whether accessed through the information or through the literal piece of paper.
Says who, boyo?
It's a writing that was apparently signed by the person. Florida does not require that its DNRO form be notarized. The only thing that the tattoo lacks in comparison to the Florida DNRO form is the physician's statement. If you choose to hang your hat on that, then I remind you that this patient completed a Florida DNRO form and that the hospital only chose to look for it AFTER beginning resuscitation efforts and finding the tattoo.
Even if the tattoo doesn't have the protections of Florida law connected to its 'official' DNRO form (if any), competent adult patients retain the right to refuse medical care, and this one clearly had. That is why the ethics committee came down the way that it did.
Yes imagine. Imagine that I could retroactively declare writings bearing my signature to be jokes that shouldn't be taken literally. Like that confidentiality agreement. Or that credit card agreement. Or that mortgage.
Now let's image that the hospital successfully resuscitated the patient despite the tattoo and the patient and the family "sued the pants off" the hospital for providing specifically declined treatment to their family member without patient consent.
"Ultimately obtained the legal documentation that stated he definitely was a DNR." What makes the Florida DNRO form "legal" documentation in your mind? That could have been an artifact of previous poor life choices as well.
Oh, so now you're admitting that the tattoo was "legal document" enough that the hospital had to delay efforts and inquire into the existence of the DNRO form (or at least contact the family).
So what was your point?
No need to credit my example, there are almost countless AC posts before mine that say virtually the same thing. No evidence required per your examples.
No, the point is a court can't take such as claim as true without corroborating evidence. "We" can take such a claim any way we like, since any presumption that Tesla does not maintain a hostile work environment also lacks corroborating evidence. Once may be an anomaly, twice may be a conspiracy, but thrice or more suggests a real problem.
"Wikipedia wouldn't have been possible without a dedicated leadership" who have created bots, notifiers, and other mechanisms to zealously "curate" Wikipedia content by reverting any editing contributed by the other 99% of Wikipedia users.
"The assumption is that it's a creation of the crowd, but this couldn't be further from the truth" because Wikipedia tolerates these practices and cannot be bothered so long as donations far in excess of its operating needs continue to roll in in response to never ending "we need money" campaigns.
BTW, again, /s, although the unfunded benefit gap is quite real.
I'm under that impression because it's true.
A $21.6 trillion unfunded obligation is not merely "repayment."
"Deserve?" "Already?"
Not if it means taking away from my disposable income, leisure time, and ability to beat my chest about "personal responsibility" above all. Eff them too. Let their don't-exist-because-the-rubbers-children care for them in their homes by themselves.
You're not reading. Your'e demanding to be lead by the nose. You're intentionally being dense in an attempt to make some point, without regard to the fact that you look like an imbecile.
Clear enough? Now? How about now? You seem to believe that "raising" is strictly limited to children. Wrong.
Makes as much sense as the original comment. If you can't be assed to take care of your parents, which you certainly have, you may as well not have children, which are, apparently, "optional." Except in a societal sense that without children there's nobody to become the next generation of workers, and to support the previous generation of workers who have become elderly.
-Social security
-Medicare
-Homestead exemptions
-other government "senior" assistance programs
Happy to hear that you won't be using any of these since they violate a principle of "personal responsibility" that the the GP and, apparently, you hold so dear.
"They're your old people. Not mine." "Chuck 'em out in the snow." You'll change your tune, as soon as it threatens to get cold for you.
Now, apply that to old people, and watch that attitude do a 180 the moment you become old and exhaust your savings (if you have any).
Citation needed. Reporting that she was nominally ahead in polls with a 3% margin of error is not "absolute certainty" in any statistician's book, and your failure to understand polling statistics is your own problem.
Because having a publicly available database of names with social security numbers would have absolutely no consequences at all.
Oh wait, it would.
In that case the Spanish government should have permitted a clean vote so that the independence movement would have no choice but to stay.
But noooo...
You said that about our discussion. You were wrong.
Overly lengthy, illogical drivel that continues to conflate the content of the message and the act of publishing or speaking it. There can be two speakers, the original author and the person or entity that publishes the message ("cable system operators are "speakers" for First Amendment purposes"). Your counter example is fundamentally flawed -- as if speech is limited to vocalization and not considered in the law to include any form of message, whether spoken, written, sculpted, signed, or the like.
He can. The easiest example is when the material discloses the existence of an NSL. There are several other bases as well, so long as they pass strict scrutiny and are a least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling national interest.
It's cute that you think that the First Amendment is absolute, as well as that it doesn't have to be interpreted in view of the fact that the Constitution expressly authorizes copyrights and thus copyright law. But you remain deeply, fundamentally wrong.
Don't tell me what I'm talking about. The actual person who speaks the words is the speaker. It does not matter whether they independently choose to speak or speak a message that they are given.
The Communications Decency Act had to provide a specific immunity stating that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" precisely because everywhere else in the law, the publisher is a speaker.
You're the one wrongly focused on the content of the message. Not my problem.
Look it up. Greatest information tool ever known at your fingertips, and you can't even be bothered to inform yourself. Yet you can manage to spin up a hypothetical that has been addressed ever since "dinosaur media" political advertising was similarly regulated.
Hint: those aren't political ads, those are issue ads.
In the first, you're paying someone else to speak for you. In the second, you're the one speaking. That's different.
When you're an anonymous individual speaking for yourself, you're still only an individual and you risk social consequences for what you are saying. When you're a plutocrat or a corporation paying hundreds or thousands to speak, you're buying the appearance of a larger group of individuals. That's called "astroturfing." When you're a plutocrat or a corporation paying an entity to speak without attribution, you're buying deniability in the form of a "front organization." Both practices are forms of deception that cannot be prohibited, but can be subject to mandatory disclosure. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.