Come ON Mike, use your thinking cap! They RELEASED the document; how could they still have it? It's running around with all the other wild documents, slowly becoming re-acclimated to its natural environment, majestic and free.
Sorry, I'm not following you on any of this. API's needn't be defined in software, they merely define functions users can expect to exist; NOT their specific implementation. That's why they're not copyrightable, they detail a system for interaction not the specific mechanics underneath.
I would kinda like to see someone level these sanctions against a publisher, studio, or the MPAA itself the next time they're caught infringing a copyright. Just to have them enter a "you must be out of your damn mind" response into the record.
One of my favorite board game rules is that you can tell your opponent what a card says, but you are not allowed to show them. Or in other words, you aren't allowed to prove you're not lying. Most of the time you wouldn't lie, but in the certain cases when you don't want to share the details you're not immediately called out.
Re: "Instant 'probable cause', just cough or scratch leg!"
It's not actually Lex that's "no better than a coin flip" here. The coin flip is which cars the officers choose to pull over, and which suspects they feel the need to manufacture probable cause to search. Once the officer has made that selection, Lex is brought in for the 93% guaranteed alert. Whether he is right or not is more based on the officer's intangible gut feeling than any super sniffer canine quality.
Frankly an almost 60% hit rate is impressive for these officers basing searches on "not quite enough evidence for a search", but that makes it no less illegal.
That actually makes a lot of sense. The book, because of the type of pages it uses, reflects with a signature that the TSA is trained to identify as a possible explosive. The bags are scanned after the passenger checks in, but before passing the checked luggage to the airline. This means that the TSA personnel needed to manually open each bag after identifying its owner and stepping into the secondary screening area. Enough consecutive hits and the conveyor belt has to stop moving, the line stops moving, and the check-in counters stop moving.
Yes, after the first couple dozen hits turn out to be the same book, they're probably expecting to find a book. But they still have to open every bag, because the scan matches the explosives image they're trained for.
I'm actually kinda pleased that they didn't just stop scanning bags. IF the scanning is a necessary and effective means (not just theater) of securing travel, you shouldn't just be able to blow off your responsibility because the process got slow.
If the system isn't working you need to revise the system, not just randomly turn it off when overloaded.
I don't understand why checked luggage would make the security checkpoint lines overflow outside.
Some airports have x-ray machines in the lobby that you have to run your suitcase through before turning it over to the airline. Perhaps that was the case here? But again, a general announcement about removing the book would work for that.
Exactly. Your plan for getting people to "first inform the manufacturer" is to swear you'll fully prosecute anyone who admits to testing? That's just a recipe for anonymously published 0-days popping up all over the Internet.
Start a bounty program and make people want to help you. Exploits are going to be found. Period. It's your choice how you'll be informed about them.
Also the point of the litigation was to expose the resultant documents, as opposed to those class action suits whose purpose is to financially compensate a wronged class. The lawyers didn't take 90% of the documents and leave a pittance to be divided among their clients.
This man's job is to shovel enough money at people fast enough to make some of them not totally despise Comcast. Is there a doubt in anyone's mind that Comcast would pay him to sit idly at a desk with his hands folded 81% percent of the time to skirt legally binding restrictions on influencing elected officials?
It seems a little like companies that think they need to defend their trademarks to maintain validity.
To maintain the finely crafted veneer of "totally-intentionally barely-technically not-a-lobbyist" Cohen, Comcast keeps "correcting" people who "mischaracterize" his actions (*wink*) and malign his forthright and uncontroversial (*grin*) work.
They've got no right or power to stop people from using the completely appropriate term, but public consensus is reminded that he still technically isn't a lobbyist instead of settling on the reasonable and accurate belief that he is.