I think the ITU should feel welcome to try to regulate the internet the same way the IEEE does. Write standards proposals and see buys in and starts manufacturing equipment or supplying software that meets the standards requirements. I predect the this will lead to ITUnet with a few thousand users, mostly government sponsored and the continuation of the internet with millions/billions of users.
When it comes to the parts of the computer that I will have my hands on constantly. (Mouse, keyboard, joystick) I will swear by (and occasionaly at) Microsoft and Logitech. Most of their kit fits my hands nicely and is quite durable. It took me about 5 years you wear out the left mouse buttion on my Logitech trackman wheel.
I think these J-school professors need to be turfed out to the public relations or advertising departments. Journalists should be reporting what is rather than trying to influence trends. Gaming Klout scores is perfect training for someone trying to become influential and sell products or ideas, but really doesn't have much impact on journalism.
No outlook is terrible, and lives on because the other enterprise e-mail/calendering/scheduling software is even worse. As it is I would still rather run outlook than stick my hand in a meat grinder, but I don't run it on my own machines.
A simpler solution might to be go back to having a requirement of providing a working model. Not a document the "describes" how something theoretically works but an actual working device or program. I'm not sure if the requirement should be on filing or simply be a requirement for beginning litigation. either way it make patents a protection for inventions, not ideas that might eventually become an invention after the problems are worked out. It also greatly limits but does not eliminate non-practicing entities (patent trolls) as they just need someone to be using the invention somewhere so they can bring the working model to court, they don't have to produce it themselves. However whoever is producing it may be vulnerable to counter suits which makes loaning it to a NPE much less attractive.
I'm having difficulty understanding the timeline as written. By my math if the ride opened 4 years ago that would be 2008. And if the AFM if talking about new uses as a result of a 2010 agreement. Then shouldn't the use for the ride already be "grandfathered" in as something that happened before the agreement.
Re: Bah. Innovation as defined around here is pretty meh
Yes becasue using a cell phone for filming is solely the domain of youtube. You might want to check out a movie that was in theatres recently, called "The Avengers" I hear it had a couple dollar budget and earned a few sheckels. They publicly stated that some scenes were filmed with an iPhone.
They aren't a replacement yet, but they are good enough to be used in some situations.
Or if you are interested in long form content you might look at the Tromafilms channel on youtube. or look at the 3D channel on youtube, or look at ultra-high res videos (assuming you have a display capable of showing 4K content.) Some things will succeed, others will fail. If you don't try new things it is inevitable that you will eventually fail.
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that Ebersman works for the majority stockholder. Until Mark Zuckerberg loses control of the company or decides he doesn't need his skills anymore he isn't going anywhere. Last I heard Zuckerberg has enough voting stock to override everyone else combined.
So maybe the first order response should be to adjust the Hugo rules so that broadcast media properties are not eligible until there is some sanity in the system. This will solve the problem of the award show getting pulled even if clips are cleared. I suspect that the impacts would be less sci-fi on TV and other deserving content receiving awards.
I think they should allow them the publicity rights claim. Then hit them with a judgement for 40 years of back taxes on the publicity rights as applicable tax fraud. I also thick the estates current representation should be held personally and professionally liable for not paying appropriate taxes based on the publicity rights that didn't actually exist for most of the 40 years. If the state of California can collect it might take a small bite out of the state deficit.
Why can't we go to a patent system where a working model must be submitted with the application. Having an idea is great, but you don't get a patent unless you can prove that it can be made into an actual device or product. Also assess a storage fee for the model tied to how long the inventor wants patent protection. This way a company could secure their patent protection for a shorter time for a reduced cost if they are in a field that is rapidly changing.
Considering the calibre of lawyers working for the record industry the artist probably does own all of the legal risk, while the label holds all the legal benefit. Didn't Eminem's label try to charge legal fees for defending themselves against him when he sued to get what was owed to him?
Actually mil-spec mostly means that there is most likely a pile of paper in a warehouse somewhere detailing the each step of the manufacturing process with someone's signature on it. When the pile of paper exceeds the weight of the part it may be ready to ship.
Copyrights were probably assigned to the "Authors" and as far as I know all of the material was donated to create the book so there is no provision for royalties to be paid. The whole thing was a collosal and apparently profitable joke.
Doesn't the DMCA include a $500 fine for takedown requests made in bad faith? Seems like someone could probably go after Scripps for $500 per invalid notice plus court costs. Unfortunately for anyone who could reasonably afford to press the suit to a successful conclusion $500 is pocket change.
This level of bizarre behavior has me starting to wonder if there is something physically wrong in his brain. What would it take to force him to see a psychologist and/or force him to have a CT scan or MRI to prove that he doesn't have a brain tumor that would be affecting his behavior.
For what it is worth it isn't worth my time to steal music. It also isn't worht my time to indulge in copyright infringement of music. It is worth my time to do a quick background check at RIAA-radar prior to purchasing music to ensure that I am not finacially supporting people who oppose everything that makes the internet great.