Having read the paper about widespread use of questionable data practices, for some reason I'm wondering whether I should trust the authors' data . . .
The studios would love to stop Netflix DVD rentals too, because they don't share in the revenue from those rentals. But the law doesn't permit them to. The "decoy" answer may be the right answer for the simple reason that copyright law distinguishes between the renting of a physical thing and the renting of the information on that physical thing. That distinction doesn't make any logical sense -- it's based in history -- but it is the law.
on Tesla, this is wrong. The NHTSA did NOT say Tesla's statements were inaccurate. It said "we only give ratings up to 5, and that's what we want you to tell the public." Tesla's sin was disclosing the raw data, not the data the NHTSA wanted them to.
It will certainly make litigators happy. Lawyers always wanted to know what you changed from draft to final. They will also likely demand that your company NOT turn the feature off once you are involved in litigation, as that could be "destroying evidence."
IV may never file a patent lawsuit. IBM almost never does, because it's portfolio is so big that everyone settles with them. You may be able to invalidate several of their patents, but you'll never get them all. IV may accumulate enough patents to follow IBM's strategy.
Guess he missed the Pentagon Papers case, which went to the US Supreme Court back in the early 70s when the New York Times published leaked classified information about the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration tried to block publication, and they lost. Substitute Bush for Nixon [insert your joke here] and the parallel is pretty strong.
The problem is that determining all the possible ways a search could lead people to illegal products is awfully hard to do up front. It's one thing to filter out words like porn, and quite another to try to anticipate who will complain about copyright infringement, trademark infringement, defamation, obscenity, spyware, spam and the host of other potentially illegal content. Unless you want lawyers involved in designing search results, the only option may be a "notice and takedown" system that waits until people have identified problems with a particular search term.
Slashdot Mirror
Who knew?
given the reports that it is auto-downloading without permission?
Hey, if the TSA bans powerless devices on planes, maybe they will require airlines to put power outlets in all seats . . .
Having read the paper about widespread use of questionable data practices, for some reason I'm wondering whether I should trust the authors' data . . .
Most live in San Francisco, after all.
The studios would love to stop Netflix DVD rentals too, because they don't share in the revenue from those rentals. But the law doesn't permit them to. The "decoy" answer may be the right answer for the simple reason that copyright law distinguishes between the renting of a physical thing and the renting of the information on that physical thing. That distinction doesn't make any logical sense -- it's based in history -- but it is the law.
Ooh, can we require the same thing of religion?
on Tesla, this is wrong. The NHTSA did NOT say Tesla's statements were inaccurate. It said "we only give ratings up to 5, and that's what we want you to tell the public." Tesla's sin was disclosing the raw data, not the data the NHTSA wanted them to.
Hmm, after 9 pm? Maybe people who were drinking and driving got no worse at it when using a phone.
Mac users never complain about Apple products. I think they promised not to in one of the terms of use they agreed to . . .
Shouldn't he be required to set his Twitter account to "always on"?
The Utah law applies to any ad that can be viewed in Utah. In short, any ad anywhere on the Internet.
Does the US FBI fit in the "malicious hacker" category these days?
It will certainly make litigators happy. Lawyers always wanted to know what you changed from draft to final. They will also likely demand that your company NOT turn the feature off once you are involved in litigation, as that could be "destroying evidence."
IV may never file a patent lawsuit. IBM almost never does, because it's portfolio is so big that everyone settles with them. You may be able to invalidate several of their patents, but you'll never get them all. IV may accumulate enough patents to follow IBM's strategy.
Isn't that always the problem -- never a lawyer around when you need one!
Guess he missed the Pentagon Papers case, which went to the US Supreme Court back in the early 70s when the New York Times published leaked classified information about the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration tried to block publication, and they lost. Substitute Bush for Nixon [insert your joke here] and the parallel is pretty strong.
The problem is that determining all the possible ways a search could lead people to illegal products is awfully hard to do up front. It's one thing to filter out words like porn, and quite another to try to anticipate who will complain about copyright infringement, trademark infringement, defamation, obscenity, spyware, spam and the host of other potentially illegal content. Unless you want lawyers involved in designing search results, the only option may be a "notice and takedown" system that waits until people have identified problems with a particular search term.