The good news is that many legal scholars, journalists, and lawyers agree with our stance. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), for example, responded that Starz has no right to silence TorrentFreak
Twitter can take down anything they like, independent of what the EFF et al. say. Maybe Starz advertises on Twitter. Maybe Twitter just thinks that annoying Stars will cause them more trouble than complying with their request. TorrentFreak is not silenced and is free to speak out in many other ways, just as Twitter is free to control content on their own platform. There's no law that platforms have to dishonour take-down requests because they're invalid.
This is why Firefox is doomed if it remains a hold-out. Money from the internet comes from advertising so the major platforms are going to find a way to sideline companies the size of Mozilla that spoil the party. The surprise here is that Safari has recently disabled this feature since Apple is much less beholden to advertising interests. There's a chance that the Safari change was inadvertent, or at least wan't considered very high up the corporate ladder. With luck Apple will put the feature back.
How is competition from Netflix and streaming different from competition from TV? Haven't telemovies already been excluded for years? I guess nobody cared because telemovies haven't been able to compete on quality in the way the movies made for streaming services now can.
How long until Netflix buys one of the traditional studios that supports the oscars?
That won't help if a rule "restricting movies that debut on Netflix and other streaming services around the same time that they show in theaters" comes into force. Netflix would have to buy enough traditional studios to have the votes to change the Academy's rules.
So I assume MySpace had the usual terms for uploads whereby you granted them all the rights to the content: perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable, blah, blah... Now that they’ve lost the content, do they legally still own these licences? My guess is that they do but proving things in court without the content will be problematic. I bet there will be some interesting cases in the future out of this. If they’re worth enough we might even find out that MySpace magically does have backups after all.
Preponderance is for Civil not Criminal law. Police enforcing traffic law is a criminal concern because you have to be breaking a law to be legally pulled over.
He's not talking about proving a particular case, he's talking about the scientific evidence that informs law making. The evidence says that hands-free calling is no safer than calling while holding your phone. This is an argument for law-makers to ban making all phone calls while driving.
If it's illegal to drive when holding your phone, why should it be legal to drive when making a hands-free call? Science says both are too dangerous. Yes, not being able to take calls would be very inconvenient, but why should one type of call be allowed while the other isn't?
4K on 35mm, which has a frame 25mm wide, works out to 80 line pairs per mm. Film and lenses are capable of that (at 50% contrast anyway) but it's challenging, and that's just for the original negative; prints will be worse. Restorations of relatively recent 35mm films have the potential to achieve or slightly better 4K given access to the original negatives. For older films, especially where the negatives aren't available, a digital transfer can struggle to reach 2K, AKA, "Full HD".
Don't forget, digital cinemas are mostly 2K, i.e., roughly blu-ray quality, unless 4K projectors have overtaken 2K installations recently. Most people (those with 20/20 vision or worse) have to sit closer than 1.5 times the screen diagonal to take advantage of resolution above 2K.
In Australia, it's illegal to make a statement about whether you have or haven't received certain kinds of warrants, because they don't have an equivalent to the US's first amendment. Couldflare appears to operate in Australia so I wonder how they plan to deal with that issue. I also suspect that Australian agencies would be willing to use the powers they have here to assist other Five Eyes governments.
Laws to handle this situation incoming in 3... 2... 1. Something along the lines of you not being able to sue the cops for computer errors. A more subtle approach would be for them to outsource the technology to someone else, if they haven't already, and deflecting the lawsuits to them. The required liability insurance is going to make for some very expensive technology.
As it turns out, cops are people. Like all other people, most are good, some are awesome, and some are assholes.
The problem is that the culture prevents the good and the awesome from keeping the "assholes" under control. And "assholes" doesn't really cover it when we're talking about serious criminal activity that causes massive harm to the victims.
the plaintiff qualifications should only include had cancer and visited the Grand Canyon in the last 18 years.
Anyone can sue, whatever their qualifications, but winning is going to require showing that it's more likely than not that Grand Canyon caused them harm. Staff or anyone else who had many days of exposure might have a chance but nobody else will, not unless there's somehow a mass outbreak of cancer that can be linked to visiting.
Freedom of requiring a global platform with an audience of billions to grant you your own echo chamber where you can radicalise your stupidity is not a good thing.
The discussion not about requiring Facebook to allow anti-vax posts; they already do that. The discussion is about at least coercing them to seek out and delete anti-vax posts.
But more than that, who defines this "stupidity" you're talking about. First of all, good luck banning stupidity. Secondly, who's going to define what's stupid? Trust people to decide for themselves rather than allowing a faceless Facebook worker to do the job. My view is that the anti-vax movement is stupid, possibly driven by malice somewhere, but banning it is the start of a slippery slope we don't want to go down.
This is the result of freedom of speech. It's a Good Thing. Sure, go ahead and make laws that outlaw incitement to illegal activities, but you'd better not make a law against telling people what to believe.
If you think that having people be unvaccinated is such a danger to public health, then go ahead and make vaccination a legal requirement. Banning people from even advocating against vaccination is a more extreme step than that.
Yes, I get it: we're not talking about all free speech here, only speech via Facebook. They can restrict speech much more than can the government via corporate policies. But I'm sure they don't want to moderate postings more than they have to, just for cost reasons, and do you really want some opaque and unaccountable Facebook system deciding what we're allowed to read?
The solution is for people to learn how to distinguish good reporting from propaganda. Not everyone's going to be able to do this, or even want to, but having some percentage of people fall for lies is better than trying to filter what everyone reads.
The dextrous robot was dangled into the Unit 2 reactor
Maybe if they didn't make their robots out of sugar they would last longer under the heat.
"Dextrous" just means it's a right-handed robot. If it were left-handed it would be "sinister". Any medical professional should be able to confirm this.
From reality. The scanners are not the limiting factor, it's rather the film itself. Take "Bad Times as the El Royale" as an example - it was shot on Kodak film of which you can read the specs at https://www.kodak.com/uploaded...
Look at the logarithmic scale of the spatial resolution diagram - the contrast of the higher spatial frequencies drops very quickly, while granularity quickly increases under all but the most ideal lighting conditions. In reality, the resolution you will get from such a film, even when using good scanners and 4k digital intermediates, is nowhere near the resolution of a decent digital camera (like let's say an Arri Alexa 65).
To explain a little further, he's talking about the "Modulation Transfer Curves" graph, which essentially shows how well the film records fine detail. It's 100% at 10 cycles per mm but below 50% (and falling steeply) by the time you go up to 80 cycles per mm. Now there are, crudely, 2 pixels per cycle and the 35mm film frame is 25mm wide, so that's 4000 pixels across. Remember, that's the film coming out of the camera; the quality of prints will be worse. Another factor is that camera lenses will struggle to match the resolution of this film.
That they continue to have account abuse issues does not surprise me at all.
But they don't have account abuse issues; only their customers do. Or, at least, fobbing off customers with boilerplate is cheaper than improving their security. It's not like they're a bank or anything; what's their worst case cost?
They're required by California state regulations to provide electrical service to the thousands of people moving into the state's forested areas, yet "an unusual California state law, known as 'inverse condemnation,' made PG&E liable if its equipment started a fire, regardless of whether it was negligent."
Either that legal situation is going to change, or power bills are going to go up steeply (at least for people if forested areas, if it's legal to discriminate). Or no power company is going to buy up the company's infrastructure and there'll be no electricity for their customers.
Supermoon: A supermoon occurs when the full moon is at the closest point of its orbit to the Earth (perigee).
This part is lame. The eclipse ends at 07:51 UTC but perigee (closest approach) is over twelve hours later at 19:59 UTC. So who decides the arbitrary definition of how close to perigee the eclipse has to be before it's a "supermoon eclipse"? The only definition I'd be happy with would be one where perigee occurs between the beginning and end of the eclipse, either total (2nd to 3rd contact) or partial (1st to 4th contact). With the definition they're using, requiring only being within 90% of the closest distance, over a quarter of full moons, and therefore over a quarter of lunar eclipses are called supermoons. When did astronomers go in so heavily for marketing?
The only parts Apple makes are the A10 processor and the software
Maybe, but "the software" is a huge part of a phone. All those people pricing the components of iPhones and then ridiculing people for paying much more for the device are missing this same point. There's a huge amount of R&D and work in the software. Sure, Google gives Android away for free... but it's really funded by end-user consumption of Google ads. Smartphone OSes cost serious money and end-users have some choice in how they pay for them, though I guess most people don't realise this.
All this said, I doubt iOS is the tech the Chinese are being accused of ripping off. It would have little value to them unless they were planning on manufacturing their own iOS devices. That would be such a massive and blatant copyright violation that it would really fire up the China-US trade tensions.
EU justice (outside of maybe the departing UK and France) is pretty bogus. Really bad, horrible things that might get you locked up forever in the USA get sentences of say, 10 years
You're comparing Europe to the United States, which has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world, and the largest prison population in the world. Naturally almost every other country appears bogus.
Slashdot Mirror
The good news is that many legal scholars, journalists, and lawyers agree with our stance. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), for example, responded that Starz has no right to silence TorrentFreak
Twitter can take down anything they like, independent of what the EFF et al. say. Maybe Starz advertises on Twitter. Maybe Twitter just thinks that annoying Stars will cause them more trouble than complying with their request. TorrentFreak is not silenced and is free to speak out in many other ways, just as Twitter is free to control content on their own platform. There's no law that platforms have to dishonour take-down requests because they're invalid.
This is why Firefox is doomed if it remains a hold-out. Money from the internet comes from advertising so the major platforms are going to find a way to sideline companies the size of Mozilla that spoil the party. The surprise here is that Safari has recently disabled this feature since Apple is much less beholden to advertising interests. There's a chance that the Safari change was inadvertent, or at least wan't considered very high up the corporate ladder. With luck Apple will put the feature back.
How is competition from Netflix and streaming different from competition from TV? Haven't telemovies already been excluded for years? I guess nobody cared because telemovies haven't been able to compete on quality in the way the movies made for streaming services now can.
How long until Netflix buys one of the traditional studios that supports the oscars?
That won't help if a rule "restricting movies that debut on Netflix and other streaming services around the same time that they show in theaters" comes into force. Netflix would have to buy enough traditional studios to have the votes to change the Academy's rules.
Well, I guess being in the shape of a large sphere does qualify in some way as having a curve somewhere
Actually a sphere is the least curvy way to enclose volume, at least if you go by minimum or average radius of curvature.
Believe it or not, it's legal to leave your door unlocked, and if someone comes in and commits crimes they are still guilty.
Sure, but good luck getting your insurance to pay out.
So I assume MySpace had the usual terms for uploads whereby you granted them all the rights to the content: perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable, blah, blah... Now that they’ve lost the content, do they legally still own these licences? My guess is that they do but proving things in court without the content will be problematic. I bet there will be some interesting cases in the future out of this. If they’re worth enough we might even find out that MySpace magically does have backups after all.
Preponderance is for Civil not Criminal law. Police enforcing traffic law is a criminal concern because you have to be breaking a law to be legally pulled over.
He's not talking about proving a particular case, he's talking about the scientific evidence that informs law making. The evidence says that hands-free calling is no safer than calling while holding your phone. This is an argument for law-makers to ban making all phone calls while driving.
If it's illegal to drive when holding your phone, why should it be legal to drive when making a hands-free call? Science says both are too dangerous. Yes, not being able to take calls would be very inconvenient, but why should one type of call be allowed while the other isn't?
You can get about 3000-4000 horizontal pixels of usable info out of a 36x24mm film frame
But 35mm cinema frames are more like 24x18mm.
35mm is 36 × 24 mm.
Only for still cameras where it runs horizontally. For motion pictures it runs vertically so it's more like 24 × 18 mm.
4K on 35mm, which has a frame 25mm wide, works out to 80 line pairs per mm. Film and lenses are capable of that (at 50% contrast anyway) but it's challenging, and that's just for the original negative; prints will be worse. Restorations of relatively recent 35mm films have the potential to achieve or slightly better 4K given access to the original negatives. For older films, especially where the negatives aren't available, a digital transfer can struggle to reach 2K, AKA, "Full HD".
Don't forget, digital cinemas are mostly 2K, i.e., roughly blu-ray quality, unless 4K projectors have overtaken 2K installations recently. Most people (those with 20/20 vision or worse) have to sit closer than 1.5 times the screen diagonal to take advantage of resolution above 2K.
In Australia, it's illegal to make a statement about whether you have or haven't received certain kinds of warrants, because they don't have an equivalent to the US's first amendment. Couldflare appears to operate in Australia so I wonder how they plan to deal with that issue. I also suspect that Australian agencies would be willing to use the powers they have here to assist other Five Eyes governments.
Laws to handle this situation incoming in 3 ... 2 ... 1. Something along the lines of you not being able to sue the cops for computer errors. A more subtle approach would be for them to outsource the technology to someone else, if they haven't already, and deflecting the lawsuits to them. The required liability insurance is going to make for some very expensive technology.
As it turns out, cops are people. Like all other people, most are good, some are awesome, and some are assholes.
The problem is that the culture prevents the good and the awesome from keeping the "assholes" under control. And "assholes" doesn't really cover it when we're talking about serious criminal activity that causes massive harm to the victims.
the plaintiff qualifications should only include had cancer and visited the Grand Canyon in the last 18 years.
Anyone can sue, whatever their qualifications, but winning is going to require showing that it's more likely than not that Grand Canyon caused them harm. Staff or anyone else who had many days of exposure might have a chance but nobody else will, not unless there's somehow a mass outbreak of cancer that can be linked to visiting.
Freedom of requiring a global platform with an audience of billions to grant you your own echo chamber where you can radicalise your stupidity is not a good thing.
The discussion not about requiring Facebook to allow anti-vax posts; they already do that. The discussion is about at least coercing them to seek out and delete anti-vax posts.
But more than that, who defines this "stupidity" you're talking about. First of all, good luck banning stupidity. Secondly, who's going to define what's stupid? Trust people to decide for themselves rather than allowing a faceless Facebook worker to do the job. My view is that the anti-vax movement is stupid, possibly driven by malice somewhere, but banning it is the start of a slippery slope we don't want to go down.
This is the result of freedom of speech. It's a Good Thing. Sure, go ahead and make laws that outlaw incitement to illegal activities, but you'd better not make a law against telling people what to believe.
If you think that having people be unvaccinated is such a danger to public health, then go ahead and make vaccination a legal requirement. Banning people from even advocating against vaccination is a more extreme step than that.
Yes, I get it: we're not talking about all free speech here, only speech via Facebook. They can restrict speech much more than can the government via corporate policies. But I'm sure they don't want to moderate postings more than they have to, just for cost reasons, and do you really want some opaque and unaccountable Facebook system deciding what we're allowed to read?
The solution is for people to learn how to distinguish good reporting from propaganda. Not everyone's going to be able to do this, or even want to, but having some percentage of people fall for lies is better than trying to filter what everyone reads.
The dextrous robot was dangled into the Unit 2 reactor
Maybe if they didn't make their robots out of sugar they would last longer under the heat.
"Dextrous" just means it's a right-handed robot. If it were left-handed it would be "sinister". Any medical professional should be able to confirm this.
From reality. The scanners are not the limiting factor, it's rather the film itself. Take "Bad Times as the El Royale" as an example - it was shot on Kodak film of which you can read the specs at https://www.kodak.com/uploaded...
Look at the logarithmic scale of the spatial resolution diagram - the contrast of the higher spatial frequencies drops very quickly, while granularity quickly increases under all but the most ideal lighting conditions. In reality, the resolution you will get from such a film, even when using good scanners and 4k digital intermediates, is nowhere near the resolution of a decent digital camera (like let's say an Arri Alexa 65).
To explain a little further, he's talking about the "Modulation Transfer Curves" graph, which essentially shows how well the film records fine detail. It's 100% at 10 cycles per mm but below 50% (and falling steeply) by the time you go up to 80 cycles per mm. Now there are, crudely, 2 pixels per cycle and the 35mm film frame is 25mm wide, so that's 4000 pixels across. Remember, that's the film coming out of the camera; the quality of prints will be worse. Another factor is that camera lenses will struggle to match the resolution of this film.
That they continue to have account abuse issues does not surprise me at all.
But they don't have account abuse issues; only their customers do. Or, at least, fobbing off customers with boilerplate is cheaper than improving their security. It's not like they're a bank or anything; what's their worst case cost?
They're required by California state regulations to provide electrical service to the thousands of people moving into the state's forested areas, yet "an unusual California state law, known as 'inverse condemnation,' made PG&E liable if its equipment started a fire, regardless of whether it was negligent."
Either that legal situation is going to change, or power bills are going to go up steeply (at least for people if forested areas, if it's legal to discriminate). Or no power company is going to buy up the company's infrastructure and there'll be no electricity for their customers.
Supermoon: A supermoon occurs when the full moon is at the closest point of its orbit to the Earth (perigee).
This part is lame. The eclipse ends at 07:51 UTC but perigee (closest approach) is over twelve hours later at 19:59 UTC. So who decides the arbitrary definition of how close to perigee the eclipse has to be before it's a "supermoon eclipse"? The only definition I'd be happy with would be one where perigee occurs between the beginning and end of the eclipse, either total (2nd to 3rd contact) or partial (1st to 4th contact). With the definition they're using, requiring only being within 90% of the closest distance, over a quarter of full moons, and therefore over a quarter of lunar eclipses are called supermoons. When did astronomers go in so heavily for marketing?
The only parts Apple makes are the A10 processor and the software
Maybe, but "the software" is a huge part of a phone. All those people pricing the components of iPhones and then ridiculing people for paying much more for the device are missing this same point. There's a huge amount of R&D and work in the software. Sure, Google gives Android away for free ... but it's really funded by end-user consumption of Google ads. Smartphone OSes cost serious money and end-users have some choice in how they pay for them, though I guess most people don't realise this.
All this said, I doubt iOS is the tech the Chinese are being accused of ripping off. It would have little value to them unless they were planning on manufacturing their own iOS devices. That would be such a massive and blatant copyright violation that it would really fire up the China-US trade tensions.
Is it possible they will be using specially trained hawks and owls to hunt drones
Oh they’re using hawks alright. Begun the drone wars have.
EU justice (outside of maybe the departing UK and France) is pretty bogus. Really bad, horrible things that might get you locked up forever in the USA get sentences of say, 10 years
You're comparing Europe to the United States, which has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world, and the largest prison population in the world. Naturally almost every other country appears bogus.