While you answered "YES" your follow up questions seem to imply your answer is actually No. The police are not the general public. In addition your statements are true regardless of whether the home owner received a tax deduction.
It resembles the building from the movie MUCH more than it resembles the Mosque in question. In fact, if I had never seen the movie, and I had seen the Mosque... I wouldn't have confused the two.
Everyone is missing the point. This isn't about unlocking your cell phone, this is about who owns the software on your mobile.
In 2010 the register concluded``[t]he record * * * leads to the conclusion that a substantial portion of mobile phone owners also own the copies of the software on their phones.''
But the CITA (the wireless trade association) convinced the Register that the phone owners don't own the phone. Plus the case law: "Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010), holding that ``a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) Specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software;
and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.''
The claim here is, since you don't own the software, you can't change it (or unlock it). The Register decided that since the case law was inconsistent across the country, AND that numerous options exist (most providers have the ability to unlock the phone) then they would remove the exemption.
What is also interesting is the Register concluded "exemption to the prohibition on circumvention of mobile phone computer programs to permit users to unlock ``legacy'' phones is both warranted and unlikely to harm the market for such programs"
BUT they decided to remove the exemption anyways.
Also, they said "anyone considered to own the software on their phones under applicable precedent--would be entitled to exercise the Section 117 privilege." Does this mean if you live in the proper district, you can still unlock new phones?
Actually I think it's very ill-advised to practice medicine without a license, even on myself.
Why should you need a license? A license is there to tell people that this guy knows what he is doing. Do you know if you know what you are doing, or do you need a piece of paper to tell you that?
As far as "practicing medicine" goes, I am guessing you practice it more often than you think. Or do you go to the ER for paper cuts?
Define "conned"
If someone says "Do X and you'll be happy." And you do X, and you are happy, were you conned?
It may be that if you do Y you will also be happy, but that isn't the point.
360 in an HOUR??? Is that all? What a slow poke. I don't even need to make a John Henry reference. I could beat this machine, with one hand tied behind my back.
Thank you. I thought I was the only one who doesn't get it, and finds the show boring as hell.
That is ok. Comedy isn't for everyone. We are all different, and enjoy different things. That doesn't mean the show isn't funny, and enjoyable. Sometimes the stereotypes are a bit forced. But it is still a funny show,
"our person type"????? What does that mean?
Yeah the show is stereotypical, but so what? It is funny, sometimes it is spot on, and sometimes it isn't. Just like most other shows out there. And unlike most shows, they don't talk about looking up an IP address using VB.
And you know what? Non geeks like the show too!
What does ethics have to do with "open source?" Why has a programmer "tossed his ethical principles in the gutter" if you sign on to develop closed source software?
How do you figure? Because he was being prosecuted?
Two grand parent posts back claims " Free access had been granted to members of the club and his actions took that away." Which seems to imply that he had the right to download the files. So what did he do that was wrong?
I don't get it? The article starts with "The archaeologists have concluded that evidence does not support the original claim..." Then a spokesman says " there are no Spitfires"
The article then continues by giving evidence that the spitfires might exist; "Before the dig, scientists had discovered large concentrations of metal under the ground...
plus some crate was found (although the article doesn't say why this is, or is not evidence. And that is it. There is no more mention in the article why they believe there is no spitfires.
There is a sidebar where they claim to have gone over the records, and say there is no record of the burials, and that probably the metal concentrations come from something else.
So what they are saying is, "we don't really know, but we'll just say there aren't any."
The point is, he got jailed for IMPLYING something. He didn't even say it, just implied it.
The fact that he can get jailed for saying it, is bad enough. The fact he can get jailed for alluding to it, without saying it is even worse.
If you are arriving on an international flight into SEA, you do not go through any scanners to exit the airport. You'll never deal with TSA. You'll deal with customs, but not TSA. Since SEA is my homeport, I am only guessing that you'll have to go back through the scanners if you are clearing customs in SEA and continuing onto a connecting flight.
It shouldn't depend on anything. If you are doing something illegal, like posting things that are illegal, then you should land in the legal system. No MATTER what the TOS is. In this case, it shouldn't matter that you broke the TOS (other than maybe the site banning you),
But if you do something that is legal (like say give your password to your spouse) but is against the TOS, that should NOT land you in the legal system. Any more than any other breach of contract. Seems like a big case of "DUH" to me.
If the company can't even write a decent, secure operating system to begin with,...
In reality no one can write a decent, secure operating system.
Computers are meant to be used, therefore they can be hacked. It is sort of like saying why can't someone make a decent, secure lock.
It looks like banks and gov departments can no longer be trusted as normal web sites.
While this statement may be true, I don't understand how you arrive at that this conclusion from TFA. This is a classic phishing attempt, as in go to a random website that is NOT the bank or gov web site.
It is the same as someone calling you up, claiming to be from the bank, and asking for account info. And then you saying the Bank's phone number can't be trusted.
Slashdot Mirror
While you answered "YES" your follow up questions seem to imply your answer is actually No. The police are not the general public. In addition your statements are true regardless of whether the home owner received a tax deduction.
Wait... what? Are you saying the the INVADERS were portrayed as being aggressive? NOOOOO
If Jar-Jar was more useful
Didn't Jar-Jar save the day on more than one occasion? How could he have been more useful?
What does Jabba's Palace have to do with Naboo?
It resembles the building from the movie MUCH more than it resembles the Mosque in question. In fact, if I had never seen the movie, and I had seen the Mosque... I wouldn't have confused the two.
Everyone is missing the point. This isn't about unlocking your cell phone, this is about who owns the software on your mobile.
In 2010 the register concluded``[t]he record * * * leads to the conclusion that a substantial portion of mobile phone owners also own the copies of the software on their phones.''
But the CITA (the wireless trade association) convinced the Register that the phone owners don't own the phone. Plus the case law: "Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010), holding that ``a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) Specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.''
The claim here is, since you don't own the software, you can't change it (or unlock it). The Register decided that since the case law was inconsistent across the country, AND that numerous options exist (most providers have the ability to unlock the phone) then they would remove the exemption.
What is also interesting is the Register concluded "exemption to the prohibition on circumvention of mobile phone computer programs to permit users to unlock ``legacy'' phones is both warranted and unlikely to harm the market for such programs"
BUT they decided to remove the exemption anyways.
Also, they said "anyone considered to own the software on their phones under applicable precedent--would be entitled to exercise the Section 117 privilege." Does this mean if you live in the proper district, you can still unlock new phones?
Correct, and jailbreaking is perfectly fine (as long as it is a mobile device and not a tablet) but unlocking isn't. Go figure
Actually I think it's very ill-advised to practice medicine without a license, even on myself.
Why should you need a license? A license is there to tell people that this guy knows what he is doing. Do you know if you know what you are doing, or do you need a piece of paper to tell you that?
As far as "practicing medicine" goes, I am guessing you practice it more often than you think. Or do you go to the ER for paper cuts?
Define "conned"
If someone says "Do X and you'll be happy." And you do X, and you are happy, were you conned?
It may be that if you do Y you will also be happy, but that isn't the point.
360 in an HOUR??? Is that all? What a slow poke. I don't even need to make a John Henry reference. I could beat this machine, with one hand tied behind my back.
What functionality of the phone are you using, when you walk down the aisle in the store?
Thank you. I thought I was the only one who doesn't get it, and finds the show boring as hell.
That is ok. Comedy isn't for everyone. We are all different, and enjoy different things. That doesn't mean the show isn't funny, and enjoyable. Sometimes the stereotypes are a bit forced. But it is still a funny show,
of our person type, badly I may add.
"our person type"????? What does that mean?
Yeah the show is stereotypical, but so what? It is funny, sometimes it is spot on, and sometimes it isn't. Just like most other shows out there. And unlike most shows, they don't talk about looking up an IP address using VB.
And you know what? Non geeks like the show too!
What does ethics have to do with "open source?" Why has a programmer "tossed his ethical principles in the gutter" if you sign on to develop closed source software?
He was not on the right
How do you figure? Because he was being prosecuted?
Two grand parent posts back claims " Free access had been granted to members of the club and his actions took that away." Which seems to imply that he had the right to download the files. So what did he do that was wrong?
I don't get it? The article starts with "The archaeologists have concluded that evidence does not support the original claim..." Then a spokesman says " there are no Spitfires" ...
plus some crate was found (although the article doesn't say why this is, or is not evidence. And that is it. There is no more mention in the article why they believe there is no spitfires.
The article then continues by giving evidence that the spitfires might exist; "Before the dig, scientists had discovered large concentrations of metal under the ground
There is a sidebar where they claim to have gone over the records, and say there is no record of the burials, and that probably the metal concentrations come from something else.
So what they are saying is, "we don't really know, but we'll just say there aren't any."
The point is, he got jailed for IMPLYING something. He didn't even say it, just implied it.
The fact that he can get jailed for saying it, is bad enough. The fact he can get jailed for alluding to it, without saying it is even worse.
The cost not being worth it, the time not being worth it... Not to mention the unconstitutionality of it.
If you are arriving on an international flight into SEA, you do not go through any scanners to exit the airport. You'll never deal with TSA. You'll deal with customs, but not TSA. Since SEA is my homeport, I am only guessing that you'll have to go back through the scanners if you are clearing customs in SEA and continuing onto a connecting flight.
How about we respect the constitution, and use NO scanners? I prefer that, but I guess that's just me.
Because Money
It shouldn't depend on anything. If you are doing something illegal, like posting things that are illegal, then you should land in the legal system. No MATTER what the TOS is. In this case, it shouldn't matter that you broke the TOS (other than maybe the site banning you),
But if you do something that is legal (like say give your password to your spouse) but is against the TOS, that should NOT land you in the legal system. Any more than any other breach of contract. Seems like a big case of "DUH" to me.
If the company can't even write a decent, secure operating system to begin with, ...
In reality no one can write a decent, secure operating system.
Computers are meant to be used, therefore they can be hacked. It is sort of like saying why can't someone make a decent, secure lock.
Big banks can't even get password code written correctly. How many banks limit your password to alphanumerics, with no "special characters?"
It looks like banks and gov departments can no longer be trusted as normal web sites.
While this statement may be true, I don't understand how you arrive at that this conclusion from TFA. This is a classic phishing attempt, as in go to a random website that is NOT the bank or gov web site.
It is the same as someone calling you up, claiming to be from the bank, and asking for account info. And then you saying the Bank's phone number can't be trusted.