I'd been hit by the FBI virus years ago. It brought up a full screen program that wouldn't let me access control panel or anything else. I got around it by figuring out that it took a few seconds to pop up when I changed users. That was enough time to bring up control panel and kill the process before it fully launched and locked it down again.
Pretty old virus, actually. Funny how our government demands payment in untraceable money orders.
I think the problem needs to be looked at as whether the general idea of a character can be copyrighted, or the specific implementation of it. Basically, is the copyright on the specific books expired (leading to the ability for anyone to "copy" and print out their own copies with maybe slight changes in cover art and shapes), or has the copyright on the character itself expired.
If the latter, then this case is null, and anyone can make any stories they damned well please despite the fact that the original author made another book with it's own copyright.
Easy enough to put vent holes near the bottom of the can so there won't be a vacuum cause by the bag being removed. Or, alternately, rather than lift the can over the bag, make it so the can has a large door in the side to take it out that way.
I don't see what the smart can's point is, unless there are people unable to lift ~3 pounds of bag high above their heads. If that is the case, lifting the can isn't much better. Side doors, people!
You know, I see that there is sort of a problem here. It's vague, but I can see how an owner of a software who has their product "named" (slightly) in a movie can have an issue. If people (like me) hear the name and then go out and find there IS a software program called Clean Slate, I might associate the capabilities in the movie with the real program.
Wouldn't be the first time someone used a real-world program in a movie - *cough product placement *cough* - to show off the capability. After the movie, I might have an unrealistic expectation of the software's capability.
But then, I graduated from kindergarten and didn't believe they had anything to do with each other, so I never thought about it again.
Where I work, I came across a guy named James Bond III. Indicating that not only is there a James Bond out there (COPYRIIIIIIIIIGHT!) but that there are at least 2 more of them too. Are THEY denied passport applications because their name is too similar to one under copyright?
What about anyone with the last name Simpson (another I see often)? The idea that someone adopts -as their middle name no less - a single name from a fictional character in a fictional movie and this is cause for alarm to anybody just amazes me. You pick a name, and someone somewhere has it naturally.
Heck my friend gave their daughter the middle name "Cortana". Is Microsoft going to deny her driver's license now?
I think what we need to focus on is not whether particular books are in the public domain, but rather the concept itself of a British PI names Sherlock Holmes being in the public domain. A particular book may or may not be in the public domain depending on publication date, but that should have absolutely no relation to someone else making a different story involving the character.
If we can establish that the general idea/concept of a character can't be copyrighted (or if it is, when it expires), we should then apply that to every single other icon we can find.
It was the particular case that I based my rant on, in fact. I don't have a recent iPhone (my current is a hand-me-down and was free, the only reason I use it), so it hasn't affected me personally. But the massive number of cables I keep near my bed in case I need to charge a device.
Standardization is one of the greatest things that can possibly happen to nearly every industry. Imagine if we standardized power charging cables; no longer would you need to have your ipad charging cable, your new iphone charging cable, your kindle fire charging cable, your 3DS charging cable, and more. As long as the equipment is designed to charge off of the same power levels, there is no reaosn to have a separate brick for charging one device and another.
Instead, we get companies sitting on their own tiny islands, with hardware specifically made for their devices. They claim otherwise, but it's USUALLY so they can charge high prices for equipment that cost them pennies to make since they have a monopoly on their parts. Heck, apple CHECKS to make sure you aren't using an unauthorized CHARGING cable, and refuses to charge if it's not licensed (as in, they pay a fee to apple for each sold).
Well, rant over. I highly approve of Musk's plan here to open up their tech. It will destroy one big barrier to a nation-wide adoption of electric car infrastructure. Now, all we need is a cheap, powerful alternative/upgrade to batteries, and we are set.
I say, if they cannot show official ACCURATE representation of what happened in there (either by a stenographer or a recording) then it didn't happen. Nothing found or used in it (and I feel ALL FBI interrogations too) can be used for anything.
Their own analogy actually disproves their argument they are trying to make.
In their analogy, Comcast isn't the Postmaster. They are more like a owner/organizer of a mailsystem for an apartment complex. Mail comes in and goes out through their office, but they are not at all responsible for making sure the mail from another apartment complex down the street is delivered to the other side of the country.
Ah, but think of the alternative! If the FBI is forced to adopt a sense of humor, then that means they won't investigate obvious jokes! Then the Terr'ists only have to "joke" about their plans in specific painstakingly accurate details and it will fly under our radar!
The FBI: because having a sense of humor will cause another 9/11.
Just implement a data decryption protocol that allows you to enter a "fake" passsword that trashes the data and/or shows irrelevant info such as public domain content. If you do the latter, they may be tricked into thinking that it was the only thing being protected.
Then, invoke the 5th when it comes to whether that is the legit content, no matter if it is or isn't.
GOG, who provides DRM-free downloads of video games, manages to provide a coded link so only those that are authorized can click it and download it. Sure, the copy could then be distributed to friends or file-sharing sites (and they have) yet the games still manage to pull sales on DRM-locked services like steam just fine. Oh, and GOG is still doing well, despite selling products that - once sold - are not "locked down" by the content provider.
Kind of ruins the argument that DRM is a necessity nowadays to protect the creators. Now, if only the MPAA and it's members would understand this logic.
About 10 years back, some private group tried starting up a fiber-to-the-home project, called Utopia. In it, they went to every city that wanted it and asked them to put up a bond in case the project failed to turn profitable. In exchange, they would be able to install and sell fiber lines in the city.
Sale Lake City refused, but Provo (down south) and Brigham City (up north) got it, but not the main most-populated city.
It didn't do too well, being sold off a few times, until most recently it is still around, but tiny regional internet providers I've never heard of are the ones providing the internet. The big names such as Comcast and Century Link all refuse to use this "open" network, probably because anyone can use whatever provider they want to, and they don't want to provide internet for the cost the others do.
I checked just last week, and they charge (unless you buy the install out-right for almost $3000) 30/month for the equipment, and the ISPs charge about 35/month for the internet of synchronous 50 mbps. So, 65/month total.
And Salt Lake City still has no fiber-to-the-home network, because.... it would be too good? I can't understand how Century Link can justify it. At all. Without lies.
"Another concern bubbling up in Chicago is that the programs are effectively using racial profiling to target already-troubled areas where crime naturally would be greater due to poverty, without anybody bothering to perform a deeper analysis of why those areas might be having problems (aka targeting symptoms, not disease)"
Well, it's not the police's job to prevent poverty (or the disease as we use in the analogy), their job is supposed to be treatment of the symptoms. Their local legislature is supposed to "regulate" away the disease through social programs.