If by "completely safely" you mean "a complete idiot who treated public roads as his personal race course and put innocent lives in danger, but luckily no one was killed", then yes.
I think it seems just about right. If you haven't profited in 14 years, then you're doing it wrong. Agreed, and if you haven't done anything new after 14 years in order to keep paying the bills, maybe you should go out and get a job like everyone else.
Think of it the other way. How many artists will stop creating because they "only" have 14 years to make money off of it.
Copyright was not originally intended to guarantee the artist a paycheck for the rest of their life. Having copyrights that last for the life of the creator isn't about "encouraging the arts" it's about locking in control and legally enforcing a profit, neither of which are what it was created for.
Why is it that the RIAA (and I guess the MPAA too?) are able to basically have the best of both worlds with current copyright laws. They have the reduced burden of proof that a civil court gives them, but are also allowed to basically get criminal levels of punishment. If they really want to be able to financially ruin someones life for a single infringement, shouldn't they at least have to do it in criminal court with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof.
In addition to all of the other comments about the scope of the problem, number of resources, etc, you also have to take into consideration what you're changing. Obviously there are huge differences between patching the avionics system on an airplane vs a banner ad on a website. I've given estimates anywhere from hours to months before. There's no such thing as "X is the right amount of time for a patch" without a lot more details.
One thing you can always do is try and work with the customer to make them aware of the issues. You can tell them that it's possible to get a patch out to them faster, but you will be skipping a lot of the QA in order to do so (depending on what flexibility you have with the standard company process). The risk of it failing would be theirs. If they're OK with that, then you might be able to expedite things. It all depends on what you're patching and how important it is to them.
If someone asks you if you believe in jury nullification, it is moral to like and say "no" since saying "yes" would get you disqualified from the jury. If you do so, you must use any reason besides jury nullification as your reason for finding the defending "not guilty" or you could face contempt charges.
I don't think that's how it works. My understanding is that you don't have to give reasons for your finding. The way jury nullification works is that you just tell the judge "not guilty". You don't have to say "not guilty because we're exercising our right to jury nullification". I don't think the judge can make you give reasons for why you decided on not guilty.
Yeah, it sounds like this story was from an investor conference call, not a press release. I thought it was a federal SEC thing that public companies were required to report the worst possible cases to investors? It doesn't mean that they'll necessarily happen that way. A lot of companies file "doom and gloom" things like this for stock purposes, but nobody in the media usually pays much attention to it.
Unless AT&T is paying Apple in order to be the exclusive carrier for the iphone. I don't know if they are doing that, but it seems reasonable. If unlocking the iphone becomes mainstream enough, AT&T may balk at paying Apple for the exclusive license.
First off I'll not that claims of 'breaking the law' is FUD of your own creation. Yes, claims of "breaking the law" is FUD. But it's not my FUD, it's in TFA.
To claim that a user is stealing from you by choosing to not view your ads is delusional. Really, this is no different than a brick-and-mortar location running off the teens hanging out in the parking lot, or folks that have been sitting in a booth for two hours and have only bought one cup of coffee. It's their business, and their decision to make. (And I'll point out - there are plenty of brick and mortar places that do so, and don't go out of business. Thus, any claims that doing so 'virtually' to Firefox users is a death knell stands on very shakey grounds.) I think you're missing my point. I have no problems with a site running ads to try and generate revenue. I also don't care if a website wants to block a segment of viewers for any reason they want to (it may be stupid, but they're certainly within their rights to do it). What I do have a problem with is them claiming that users choosing to not view the ads is stealing/theft. As you said yourself, it's FUD. I'm not even sure if TFA's author really cares about ad blocking. Their claims are so rediculously blown out of proportion and sensationalized, it really sounds like someone who has a strong anti-firefox agenda. All of the stealing/theft nonsense is just FUD being thrown in the direction of firefox.
Every time you walk into a physical store and leave without buying anything is obviously theft as well. I mean, if everyone did that how would the store stay in business?
Or they are people who, Oh don't know - run a useful and popular free-to-use Web resource and need to raise some income to maintain the service. Which means, of course, that they're legally guaranteed to make an income and anyone who doesn't pay them is breaking the law.
I notice, by the way that you are posting on a free ad-funded Web site. I must have missed the part where slashdot was blocking firefox.
Running a free website and trying to use ad revenue to help fund it is fine. That's not what we're talking about here. The idea that such a site is legally entitled to that ad revenue is absurd. If you can only exist based on ad revenue, and enough people don't want to view your ads that would put your existence in jeopardy... maybe you shouldn't exist. To claim that a user is stealing from you by choosing to not view your ads is delusional.
Any website that thinks running Ad Blocker is "stealing" and "resource theft" is probably not worth visiting in the first place. Sounds to me like their only purpose is ad revenue.
Would you think that LAX is running anything that out-of-date or crappy? I'm surprised they're even using IP. Many airline systems are still running on X.25 and mainframes.
So, no, running out-of-date hardware wouldn't surprise me at all.
The ATSC standard (which defines digital television) covers 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i. The HDTV standard only defines 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. Many people confuse DTV (digital TV) with HDTV (high definition TV), but they're not the same thing. You can have HDTV with or without being digital, and you can have DTV with or without being high definition.
My guess is that the original quote in the article about a hi-def DVD was just due to a clueless reporter.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "completely safely" you mean "a complete idiot who treated public roads as his personal race course and put innocent lives in danger, but luckily no one was killed", then yes.
Was it illegally hijacked?
Think of it the other way. How many artists will stop creating because they "only" have 14 years to make money off of it.
Copyright was not originally intended to guarantee the artist a paycheck for the rest of their life. Having copyrights that last for the life of the creator isn't about "encouraging the arts" it's about locking in control and legally enforcing a profit, neither of which are what it was created for.
Why is it that the RIAA (and I guess the MPAA too?) are able to basically have the best of both worlds with current copyright laws. They have the reduced burden of proof that a civil court gives them, but are also allowed to basically get criminal levels of punishment. If they really want to be able to financially ruin someones life for a single infringement, shouldn't they at least have to do it in criminal court with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof.
Exactly... "How long is a piece of string"?
In addition to all of the other comments about the scope of the problem, number of resources, etc, you also have to take into consideration what you're changing. Obviously there are huge differences between patching the avionics system on an airplane vs a banner ad on a website. I've given estimates anywhere from hours to months before. There's no such thing as "X is the right amount of time for a patch" without a lot more details.
One thing you can always do is try and work with the customer to make them aware of the issues. You can tell them that it's possible to get a patch out to them faster, but you will be skipping a lot of the QA in order to do so (depending on what flexibility you have with the standard company process). The risk of it failing would be theirs. If they're OK with that, then you might be able to expedite things. It all depends on what you're patching and how important it is to them.
Look for a TCP packet with the reset flag. Or was that a trick question? :)
If someone asks you if you believe in jury nullification, it is moral to like and say "no" since saying "yes" would get you disqualified from the jury. If you do so, you must use any reason besides jury nullification as your reason for finding the defending "not guilty" or you could face contempt charges.
I don't think that's how it works. My understanding is that you don't have to give reasons for your finding. The way jury nullification works is that you just tell the judge "not guilty". You don't have to say "not guilty because we're exercising our right to jury nullification". I don't think the judge can make you give reasons for why you decided on not guilty.
What deliberations? They had decided on a guilty verdict after 5 minutes.
The article says that one of the members of the jury wanted to award the RIAA $3.6M
Yeah, it sounds like this story was from an investor conference call, not a press release. I thought it was a federal SEC thing that public companies were required to report the worst possible cases to investors? It doesn't mean that they'll necessarily happen that way. A lot of companies file "doom and gloom" things like this for stock purposes, but nobody in the media usually pays much attention to it.
Oh wait, those are "yodabeats".
No, it was Inigo.
Unless AT&T is paying Apple in order to be the exclusive carrier for the iphone. I don't know if they are doing that, but it seems reasonable. If unlocking the iphone becomes mainstream enough, AT&T may balk at paying Apple for the exclusive license.
--Inigo Montoya
Neither is walking out of a store without making a purchase. It was (attempted) sarcasm. ;)
Every time you walk into a physical store and leave without buying anything is obviously theft as well. I mean, if everyone did that how would the store stay in business?
Running a free website and trying to use ad revenue to help fund it is fine. That's not what we're talking about here. The idea that such a site is legally entitled to that ad revenue is absurd. If you can only exist based on ad revenue, and enough people don't want to view your ads that would put your existence in jeopardy... maybe you shouldn't exist. To claim that a user is stealing from you by choosing to not view your ads is delusional.
Any website that thinks running Ad Blocker is "stealing" and "resource theft" is probably not worth visiting in the first place. Sounds to me like their only purpose is ad revenue.
So, no, running out-of-date hardware wouldn't surprise me at all.
Diebold is already swapping everybody's vote for cash from the highest bidder.
The ATSC standard (which defines digital television) covers 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i. The HDTV standard only defines 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. Many people confuse DTV (digital TV) with HDTV (high definition TV), but they're not the same thing. You can have HDTV with or without being digital, and you can have DTV with or without being high definition.
My guess is that the original quote in the article about a hi-def DVD was just due to a clueless reporter.