* Block your payment gateways via intellectual property abuse reports to your payment processors, VISA, PAYPAL. (http://usa.visa.com/about-visa/our-business/intellectual-property-rights.jsp?ep=v_sym_ReportBrandAb use, https://www.paypalobjects.com/webstatic/ua/pdf/US/en_US/infringementreport.pdf) * Contact your web hosting service to have your website removed, as you are infringing their Terms of Service by using their server space for unlawful purposes.
Re: "No one needs that much, no one will ever use it!"
I'd say a better analogy would be to ban all vehicles except motorbikes, and design the road system to only carry such. One person only needs one seat. Why do you need more than a single-occupant vehicle?
The old 4Mbps downstream speed is equivalent to a motorcycle^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hscooter. Sufficient to carry 1 person as long as you just need basic transport and no luggage space.
The new 25Mbps is like a good-sized sedan. Can carry 4 or so adults in reasonable comfort, or a family of 5.
100Mbps is a people-mover/van/pickup (i.e something that can carry like 7-8 people, or a small amount of cargo/tools for tradie etc). Or like sports cars/sportsbikes, 'enthusiasts' who travel faster and have fun using their transport, pushing the (affordable) limits.
Gigabit is like a semi or a bus. Or a supercar/bike for those that can afford it and like showing off.
But I do agree this should be the owner of the iPhones choice. Rather than bricking the phone, it should just give a warning each time you go to scan a fingerprint that it's a non-certified scanner and thus could be compromised.
Apple's software is checking for licensed scanners, not scanner safety in general.
Well not really.
Consider this scenario.
Scanner replaced with a new scanner that has TWO I/O ports instead of one. Port 1 is connected to the standard iPhone system, port 2 bypasses the iPhone hardware and is linked to other hardware (either internal, external, or say directly to the wifi interface bypassing iOS). Any scans via the fingerprint scanner can be duplicated and sent out both ports, port 1 to the standard iPhone subsystems/iOS, and port 2 where it is recorded. Later on, if the installer of the scanner wishes to access some function of the phone protected via the fingerprint scanner, feed in recorded scanning into I/O port 2 and redirect it out I/O port 1 into the guts of the iPhone. As far as iOS is aware, it's a legitimate scan coming from the fingerprint scanner because it didn't verify that it was a certified secure (or to spec, e.g. only 1 I/O port) scanner.
If a police incident occurs where the vehicles involved were equipped with dashcams and/or the officers involved were equipped with bodycams and no footage is available, either audio or video, then any witness statements made by the officers involved should be inadmissible and all evidence produced by the defendant/plaintiff should be accepted into evidence as uncontested fact.
That will increase the 'reliability' of dash/body cams.
Corporations can own copyrights, however (IANAL) I don't believe a corporation can create a copyright. Most of the terminology being used around the creation of this copyright seems IMO to be able to be summed up as "only a natural person can create a copyright."
A corporation is not a "natural person", it's just "a person". (there's an interesting Wikipedia article on where this whole "a person" vs "a natural person" came from.)
Usually in employment contracts with corporations, there are contractual terms that pass on the copyright of any work created while employed by the corporation to the corporation. Therefore a natural person created the copyrights (i.e. did the creative work over which there are copyrights), with the ownership, via contractual agreement, being transferred to the corporation. Therefore the corporation itself is not an actor, therefore it did not create the copyright.
Therefore creating a corporation would still not solve the issue of which actor created the copyright in the first place. The actor would still be the monkey, which not being a person (let alone a natural person) can not imbue its works with copyright status, therefore there would be no copyright to transfer to the company.
...you have to use the mark in commerce to get a trademark at all...
1) Make a screen-printing mask for the trademarked term; 2) Open up an ecommerce website that sells t-shirts with the screen-printed trademark on it for $1000.00 each; 3) If anyone is stupid enough to order a shirt, you have the mask to make one of the t-shirts, thank you $1000.
You are now using the term in commerce.
However, one thing I have noticed, if this is the case, why/how do companies get trademarks for unreleased/unannounced products? They aren't currently using the term in commerce as the product/service is unreleased, sometimes even secret/unknown. This is often how new products/strategies get leaked when observant people notice a whole slew of similar trademark applications are lodged by a company for no known (but sometimes rumoured) product.
but don't pretend that 180 hours is a "sample request"
Hmm, let's see.
There are 168 hours in a week, so 5 weeks is 168x5 = 840 hours.
The NYPD has about 35k cops. I don't know what % of the cops (assuming it's not every cop) who wears body cams. But let's take a really lowball guesstimate. Say that on average at any 1 time there are 100 cops wearing body-cams.
180 hours of 84,000 is 0.21% of the total footage.
0.21% of total recorded footage fits my definition of "a sampling".
While I agree with and believe that 25Mbps is a better definition of broadband than the old 6Mbps, I can see why the ISPs would be "miffed" with this reclassification.
When the government comes out with a standard, ANY standard, then business will conform with that standard (leaving out the typical cost-cutting, dodging, and out-right fraud elements that is...).
If the building code says you have to have build to a specific standard, buildings will be built to that standard, not beyond that standard. They won't build a typical house or building to take a magnitude 9 earthquake, because the standard doesn't require them to build to withstand a magnitude 9 quake.
If a road-construction contractor is contracted to build a 4-lane highway that can take 5000 cars/hour, support trucks of up to 60feet long and weighing 50tonnes, they are NOT going to build a 6-lane highway that can handle 10000 cars/hour and can support 100foot-long 120tonne trucks.
If the FCC says you have to build out the broadband network, and they define broadband as 6Mbps...well they are going to invest in ADSL1-equivalent technologies and build their communications networks to handle ADSL1 loads. They are not going invest in/buy ADSL2+, DOCSIS3, FTTN, FTTP etc. Why? Because they built to the standard as laid down.
Changing the standard then running around saying "you don't comply to the standard" is a tad unfair.
They should have incrementally changed the standard over a number of years - 10Mbps, 3 years later 15Mbps, 3 years later 20Mbps... and so on, and let the ISP/Telco's know that was their plan and timetable.
Of course, if there was actual and real competition in the market this would not be an issue...
There are 2 types of BES servers, 'public', which are owned and operated by BlackBerry, and private, which are purchased from BlackBerry and owned and operated by private organisations. BlackBerry can access and decrypt communications that use the public BES servers, as BlackBerry manages those and holds the keys. However, BlackBerry cannot decrypt communications that use the private BES servers, unless the administrators of those servers do it or provide the master keys of those servers.
It is these public BES servers that BlackBerry has agree to decrypt for the Indian government, not the privately owned and operated BES servers.