Couldn't they take old statistics (say, ten years worth), plug it into the system and see if it successfully predicts the following year? Like what if they plugged in crime data from 2000 - 2010, then checked to see if it successfully figured out what 2011, 2012 and 2013 were like?
Wouldn't that be adequate to see if the system worked?
It's sort of like the difference between apple and Apple. Apple Computer can claim a trademark over "Apple" if they like (they may not be successful) but the lowercase spelling "apple" refers to the actual fruit and cannot be trademarked.
Thus "Hactivist" in the context of a comic book title can be trademarked. But you can still state "John Smith is a hactivist" with the lowercase h, without infringement.
I didn't infer otherwise. I know titles can be trademarked. They cannot be Copyrighted, which is why I stated it would have been clearer to separate the trademark and copyright statements, which are clearly covering different things.
Sorry, I disagree. While the TM reference CAN be referring to the title of the comic book, it's plain that a title cannot by covered by copyright. So in this context, referring to copyright is plainly referring to the content of the work.
Perhaps it would have been clearer to place the copyright and trademark statements on separate lines.
License plate data is available to lots of different types of people, not just police. Process servers, for example, can enter a license plate into the state database via a smart phone and get all sorts of information that one would hope would be private. And it's not terribly difficult to become a process server.
This is so not news, because this has been going on for ages, and not just by police.
I love how his tirade is over a show that is on cable tv - oh wait, he actually bought comic books, too. So he not only paid for his cable tv or netflix viewing, he actually spent money on the comics as well.
Walking Dead is on cable TV. It's not easily consumed unless you've paid money for the right to see it on AMC. So I have difficulty with the idea that we should censor something that has a pay wall around it already.
I work from home, doing tech support for a software company. I use high speed internet every day for my job because I use screen sharing software to see customer's computers and it takes a lot of bandwidth to use it. I can always tell when a customer has high speed and when they don't, the people that don't have a severe lag loading the software and even for simple mouse clicks.
Sure, maybe the everyday use of super high-speeds wouldn't be apparent, but 15 years ago everyone was saving software installers on their hard disks in case they needed them again. Today we just redownload the latest thing. Did anyone envision that 15 years ago?
What will we be doing with our computers in 5 or 10 years that we can't begin to envision today? We need to continue to support those innovations with infrastructure.
Did anyone bother to tell the CBS lawyers that they copied Big Brother from a Dutch television show from 1997? That three years before Big Brother aired on CBS there was prior art in Europe? Doesn't seem to me CBS has much to stand on in this lawsuit.
For that matter, why aren't George Orwell's descendants suing CBS?
This is like how recipes are treated under copyright. You cannot copyright a recipe, but you can copyright a cookbook or collection of recipes. That is probably how porn will work out - you cannot copyright a position because prior art exists. But you can copyright the combination of a script, footage, etc.
Legislation in the past has been so specific that when new things were invented, it failed to take new technology into account.
Therefore, when "hacking" and "identity theft" legislations were enacted, they were intentionally broad, to cover things that had not yet been invented. Unfortunately, this means people playing "jokes" with no real victim are made into felons.
By this legislation, if I let my niece send farmville gifts to herself using my facebook, she could be charged with a felony. I agree, that's ridiculous. But it's the law, and it's law enforcement's job to execute the laws our legislators write.
So if you think the legislation enabling this to be a felony sucks, you need to contact your legislators.
Well, the fact that it was in school and the footage was surveillance cameras says it won't go far. That means the footage belongs to the school. He showed it to other teachers? Well, wouldn't it be infinitely creepier if he didn't? I mean, let's take doctors for example. If a doctor is examining a patient of the opposite sex, I believe they are required to have another person present (such as a nurse). So, I think it would be worse if the principal watched the video by himself.
The comments were inapproprate for sure, but I don't know if he should lose his job.
It's not clear to me, did Sony expect their insurer to cover losses or penalties related to them being sued in the aftermath of the hacking? Or was Sony expecting the insurer to pay for the system upgrades to fix the security holes that was Sony's fault? Or did they expect Zurich to pay for their income loss for the month they had the network offline?
She knows this isn't a children's book, right? Children aren't going to Barnes & Noble and buying this book. Adults have to perform that task. If children have access to the book, then that's bad parenting.
I think the bigger issue here is that the DMCA blatantly violates the First Amendment. It's sort of like the law restricting the export of encryption software, but if you print the algorithm on a T-shirt you can walk across the US/Canada border with no problem while wearing it.
Don't forget to credit Techdirt for hosting your post, or Mike for creating Techdirt. Or wait, maybe you should credit the inventors of the Web technology. Should you credit the creator of the canvas on which the Beethoven portrait was painted? What about the instructor who taught the artist?