Do you know when I care about yesterday's weather? TWO DAYS AGO. It serves no purpose to have it on the list at all, let alone at the very top. Amateur hour here guys.
I am actually part of an amateur weather group and run a personal weather station and our websites are far better than anything you get from TWC. Even the places we upload our data to (wunderground/wxsim/weather4you) are better.
For most folks, they only care about what the weather will be over the next couple days (if they care at all.) For me, I care about weather yesterday and two days ago, specifically the barometric pressure and wind directions, and maybe even high/low temps, but I am certainly not going to go to TWC for it. NOAA/NWS keeps these readings for all major airports (ASOS), and you can get most of the data for your area from MESO/CWOP as well (which come from both ASOS and amateur weather stations.) With this information, you can determine what the future weather will be like, though with the advent of satellite, determining the future weather is far easier with modern technology than watching a barometer.
I've wanted to serve on a jury my entire life. I've never been called.
Move to any major city in Southern California. I can guarantee you'll be called once. Won't be able to get past the Voir Dire process (if you are an engineer or scientist,) but at least you'll get to sit in the Jury box and look goofy until they dismiss you (plenty of experience here with that.)
I've been called a number of times in my life (at least 19 times.) Only time I got to participate was when they couldn't get rid of me as an alternate (out of preemptive challenges) or when they didn't make any challenges because they were in the process of settling the case (so twice, but never went to deliberations in either.)
The federal government clearly has jurisdiction to prosecute the cops.
IANAL, but I believe, based on previous training I had on the subject, that you are correct. One of a few times when the Federal Government can step in with State matters is when there is a case of depriving someone's civil rights under the color of the law. I believe the reason for the Federal law (a href=http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php>18 USC 242 [justice.gov]) was specifically to deal with violations of civil rights cops would kill someone for no reason other than the color of their skin, and then wouldn't be convicted of murder by a jury based solely on the race of the victim (as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
In the Zimmermann case, the federal nexus was lacking because there was no action by state officials.
I believe that is correct. However, if Zimmermann had an official position within the community (Federal, State, and/or Local,) regardless to whether he was a police officer or not, he would have met the nexus. So long as he was acting (or pretending to act) in an official capacity, which, by all accounts, he wasn't. He was a self-appointed neighborhood watch coordinator, which is not an official position.
I've been using separate browsers for separate tasks for years.
I have as well (if only because it is easier to deal with proxies that way, as in Firefox for anything that requires a proxy and Chrome for anything that doesn't.) However, I think this is the exception rather than the rule. Most of my family/friends know Internet Explorer or Firefox as "The Internet" and will call me occasionally to let me know that their internet is broken and ask me to stop by and help them fix it.
I won't access my bank's web site using a broken DRM'ed-up browser, so these site operators need to be aware that they're risking migrations if they insist on people accessing their sites using an HTML5-compliant browser.
Again, exception vs. rule. I was asked recently about this issue, specifically about how someone should know whether a website/browser/application has security risks and should be used to access online financial institutions or not. Most people use whatever browser is available to them, and may not have the know-how to determine what browser is "bank-safe" and what one isn't.
The one good thing about HTML 5 is that it isn't necessary for browsers to implement all features of it.
At least until it gets market saturation. Then W3C will come out with a HTMLv5 verification tool which tests for specification compatibility and then make a huge deal about how your product doesn't meet its specification and your customers shouldn't use it until you invest the time and energy to implement all of the spec.
When the DRM introduces so many security flaws that all of our personal data is stolen by everyone with nefarious intent, can we hold the MPAA responsible and sue them out of existence once and for all?
Not just security flaws, but loss of legitimate access to the data along with illegitimate access by everyone with nefarious intent. You can't get access to your own data (or the data you licensed legitimately,) because you are following the rules, but anyone who isn't can.
And don't get me started on crappy hardware DRM from vendors who don't want to compete with their older products (grumble, grumble, $450+ 3-year-old ASUS tf101, grumble, encrypted boot-loader, grumble, grumble. Never again!)
So because it's a foreigner then all basic rights should be thrown out of the window?
Again, not saying it is right, just saying that it is the law (or at least, it is how the law has been interpreted openly.)
I personally believe the Constitution of the United States, which I must remind everyone is a document that *controls* the Federal, State and Local governments in the US, not the people of the US, when used correctly, should apply to everyone in the Universe. We already have all the rights laid down by the Constitution, given to *all of us* by nature/God/the Flying Spaghetti Monster/whatever. The Constitution merely tells the government what they can or can't do to take those rights away.
Her daughter is also on the no-fly list and was prevented from entering the US to testify in court, despite her citizenship.
Correct. An entirely different situation. But then again, I was going to add YMMV to my comment since the last two administrations (B and W) have been pretty good about not following, repealing, and rewriting the Amendments in all sorts of ways that shouldn't be legal.
The 6th Amendment (due to the 14th Amendment) only applies to those who are US citizens and/or living on US soil (thus, foreigners who come to visit or those who crossed the border illegally are covered, but those who live in foreign countries are not.)
Not saying it is right, just that this is the way it is.
I still have mine. Haven't turned it back on since I shut it down in 1995, but it should still be usable. I continually resist the urge to turn it on just to walk down memory lane.
The only problem is that there wasn't much security on the BBS since the phone lines were run by AT&T and was point-to-point (hence, NSA already could get them,) and there was little, if any, encryption used on the connection.
This is exactly the kind of behavior that finally, earlier this year, made me tell AT&T to go fuck themselves.
They are probably hearing that a lot now, likely why they are fighting with T-Mobile by giving customers ~$400 to switch back ($200 for the smartphone, and $200 to come back.) They may win a few back, but I'll never deal with AT&T again, no matter how much they pay me. If AT&T buys out T-Mobile, I'll become a hermit.
You wrongly noted that people often do not care about the quality of videos being produced.
How so? Actually, I sarcastically said exactly the opposite. But only because it is part of a sub-genre of amateur videos. Usually done without big budgets, a lack of high-quality FMV cameras and post-processing and editing which make up a majority of the Hollywood produced videos. People don't really care about the "quality" of the cat video, but care more about the completely unscripted and entirely natural actors.
I love cat videos and apparently so do my coworkers (if our network statistics are taken into consideration.) They usually have minimal "quality", but they have the quality we care about. Many people like substance over sparkle.
Who are you to judge the quality of cat videos over Hollywood films?
I don't. I am not a professional. I know very little about framing shots, or steadying the camera, or proper lighting and/or sound. That is my brother's field of study, and he does a pretty good job at it (so I am told,) and can critique others on stuff like that. However, until we see awards ceremonies for cat videos, I suspect they will remain on the lower end of the quality scale in the eyes of the professionals.
Isn't the real measuring stick for quality the number of people that liked something?
That is one measure of quality, though I don't think very many professionals would agree. It certainly is a measure of popularity, but not necessarily quality.
As Lunney notes, filesharing is a "natural experiment in radically reduced copyright protection," and offers us the chance to explore whether that results in reduced creative output too, as maximalists like to claim.
Maximalists' like to claim their are working to the benefit of the artist, but *every* action they champion helps the incumbent industry. But the maximalists' will now claim that even if there is more quantity despite lower copyright protection, there is far less quality (because only Hollywood knows how to properly take Transformers 23 and turn it into an international blockbuster.) And quality is very important to a society that likes viewing the 15th million cat video on YouTube (guilty!)
If increased quality is their new goal, then they are going to have to deal with Michael Bay and the other producers/directors that consider rehashing the same special effects blockbusters and remaking the same story over and over again. (Not that I am against rehashing...I love the Sci-Fi version of Dune as much as I love the 1985 version, and rehashing can be done very effectively.)
It isn't about the creativity of an artist, it is, and always has been, about control of something that cannot be naturally controlled (human creativity.) They would view less musical hits (that they control 100% of) as far more important than more musical hits (that they control significantly less than 100% of.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Walt Disney Corpse still has its fangs into Mickey Mouse and keeps sucking."
Yeah, cuz he's a... y'know, an animated animal. Yeah that's it. That's the ticket.
Both animated animals came from the same person. Disney made Oswald the Lucky Rabbit which was owned by Universal because they paid him to make Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. When the deal fell through, he made Mickey Mouse, which looked very similar to Oswald the Lucky Rabbit.
And of course here at the Techdirt Zoo, that means "Disney stole Micky Mouse" (sic).
A statement that I never made. Talk about idiot. If you are going to respond, at least respond to the right person.
Also, the Government can't *get* copyrights on its works, but it *can* have copyright rights transferred to it.
Only if the original author doesn't work for the government. A government employee, during the course of their duties, cannot claim copyright and therefore have no grounds to assign the copyright to the government or anyone else. The only way this works is if a contractor generated the document, claimed copyright, and then assigned the copyright to the government.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Walt Disney Corpse still has its fangs into Mickey Mouse and keeps sucking."
"Disney stole Micky Mouse, your argument is invalid." Who are you talking about? Walt Disney? He's quite dead. Or Walt Disney Corpse? When Mickey Mouse was created, it was created with the laws and the understanding that its early works would, after a specified and limited time, eventually pass into the Public Domain. That was the deal between creators and the public for granting copyright protection. That was the business model that Walt Disney operated from.
Disney didn't actually steal Mickey Mouse, but instead created Mickey Mouse as a drop-in replacement of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, which was an earlier cartoon created by Disney studio for Universal Studios. Disney asked Universal for more money, but they countered by cutting the budget and stole most of Disney's staff out from under him to continue making the Oswald series. Angry about the terms of his contract, he refused the deal and completed the terms of his original contract, but then searched for a replacement character which became Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse was Disney's creation, but the character is very similar to Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, created by Disney but owned by Universal Studios.