Because of this, anything on Wikipedia is and should be basically on the same level of "hearsay" as far as courts are concerned and dismissed out of hand.
It’s not the courts job to investigate if the content is legitimate, it’s the prosecuting/defending parties job to prove to the judge that it is and that disclaimer (even without knowledge of how Wikipedia works) makes that impossible.
Wikipedia can be a starting point for research/investigation but if you are going to use the information, dig deeper and go direct to the sources
Let’s see, new version of Visual Studio, made completely in WPF, of which Silverlight is a subset.
New version of .NET, tons of silverlight enhancements (probably more than any other part of .NET
New tool for creating Silverlight app's (lightswitch) released as beta...hmm yesterday?
Then you post as "news" some comment that MS are dumping Silverlight by an anonymous poster as news?
No doubt, in the wider web Silverlight is not doing well as MS would like, but within company’s where it is more about creating business applications instead of flashy animations/games it is rapidly and steadily gaining traction and for good reason as it is a lot better than flash for that type of stuff
Content wise the only reason to have premium paid for television (Cable/Satellite) is sports. If you have no real interest in sports, content wise there is little reason to have it with all the free/lower cost alternatives
On the other hand, technically, internet transmitted TV is not quite there, for the average Joe (you know..the types that still have problems programming a vcr) it is still very complicated and in many cases beyond them to use…even if they have someone else set it up for them
But i defiantly would not invest much in cable/Satellite companies any more, their market will continue to shrink and if/when someone solves the technical complexity of internet delivered audio/visual content they will be left with only the sports fans (and even that will not last).
Unless western governments start to backtrack their general policies of putting as much of government services online as possible (in some cases exclusively) doubt any kind of ban would stand up in court. Basically banning someone from the internet would be equivalent to banning them from participating in society
Used to be common in hacking cases to ban hackers from using a PC, these days a lot less common, in future would say impossible
How would apple have DMCA safe harbour protection?
Anything and everything that can appear on the app store has to be approved by them beforehand (and they charge for this) and then they make a direct percentage based profit from any sales of that app.
This very process removes their safe harbour protection and makes them a retailer, not a “service provider” which is who the safe harbour protections were designed for
"No one is accused of *lying*. If there is fraud, you can sue for fraud. But an *OPINION* is not about "truth" or "lying." It's about an OPINION, which is neither right nor wrong."
Going to have to disagree, Moody's and co did not sell themselves as just general financial advisors that you can find in any phone book, saying little more than "in your opinion we think you should buy/sell" but rather as quasi-official independent expert analysts of the financial risks of instruments and then said to everyone “trust us we know what we are doing”
It’s as different as the difference between a diamond salesman convincing you your girlfriend will like that pretty diamond ring and an expert from somewhere like the Gemmological Institute of America (GIA) and the European Gemological Laboratory (EGL) telling you the ‘true’ quality of the diamond
If you are going to (over)sell yourself and your services in certain way’s like Moody’s and co (or the GIA/EGL) you have to be prepared to accept the (greater) consequences when you mess you
Right conclusion by government but highly doubt for right reasons
US has long standing practice of ignoring other country’s laws (and international law when it suits them) while attempting to either export their laws to other countries where possible and if not possible just attempt to apply US law on non-citizens for actions that occurred in other countries.
This is normal standard operating procedure, hardly something to congratulate them for
As said before, it's a lie that they cannot from technical standpoint, forum accounts have always been tied to game accounts and game account have always been tied to billing accounts. A > B > C one to one relationships all the way with common unique identifiers. Pretty straight forward technically
Probably more of case of their lawyers stopping them
The official story is this is to "tame the forums"
The real story is it's for their (Activision) Facebook integration deal announced two months ago. They basically want to create the social network of gaming and that won’t work if everyone is hidden from everyone else behind character names
"Also, you don't have to link your real name to your in-game name, that is optional. So long as there's no way of getting to gameplay statistics from your real name, how can a Google search reveal an "obsession"?"
While some are concerned about being stalked in game, that has you say is harder unless you show your character name as well. But it’s not too hard to figure out your game characters unless you are very careful (never give clue to server/faction/class you play) due to the hackability of the real id system in game.
But vast majority are concerned by the other side of this, game affecting real life. Many people who play WoW would defiantly prefer that information not be in the public domain
As an unfortunate employee of blizzard discovered when he posted his real name to "prove everyone was overreacting" and had his photos (some rather embarrassing), facebook page, home address, telephone numbers, house value, family member’s names and address, even his criminal record posted online within the hour. Blizzard was fast to pull that as it’s against the current ToS to post people’s, even your own, real details (ironic that) but not fast enough, it’s now on the internet forever as it was copied to multiple sites and they have not said a word about the whole plan since.
No company should be giving people the choice of don’t use all or part of our service unless you want everyone to know you are our customer. Like hell only a few weeks ago Apple was getting blasted for just putting users email addresses on an insecure system, now we have a company intentionally advertising their customer’s real names and some people actually try to defend it?
But no matter how much their customers complain doubt it will be dropped, actually most likely be expanded over time, the CEO of Activision really wants his “social gaming network”, customer privacy be damned
Being copyright infringement or not in this case is pretty immaterial (it's not like someone is selling your book/article under their name), more of case, if trying to rewrite history don't advertise someone's efforts to stop you. Better to just keep quiet and hope most people don't notice.
Just accept once something is on the net it is never really gone, just hope it fall's down far enough down the ranking that no one notices it, suing people just guarantee’s this will not happen
" but I'm sure they have enough legaleeze written into the agreement when someone posts a new app to cover them for almost everything.."
That type of "legaleeze" would protect them from the app developer sueing them, It could never protect them from a 3rd party sueing them because, quite obviously, you cannot sign someone else rights away without them giving you the right to do so in the first place
Putting to one side the issue should he be able to claim copyright at all.
If the works are copyrighted then yes apple should be on the hook, not only are they profit sharing with developer (instead of just buying and selling on or charging a fix price to use their service) but also with their strict control over the app store they are very far from just a dumb 3rd party retail outlet like say EBay
Would go as far to say, by using a profit sharing model instead of standard charge and the extreme control over what can go on the app store I would say in any case involving copyright/patent violations or even criminal conduct of 3rd party app developers, apple can and should be a viable target
Be and act like impartial 3rd party? Be safe.
Act like big brother ‘partner’? Be your brother’s keeper and pay the price when he mess’s up
"what is the upside for google not to remove them?"
Simple, to advoid setting precedence.
Today it's copyright
Tomorrow Neo Nazi sites (Germany/France…done and retracted except for local language versions)
Next day it abortion sites (where ever it's illegal*)
Next day it's assisted suicide (where ever it's illegal)
Next it’s criticising the government (Russia, various dictatorships around the world)
Next its sites that are "insult" to religion X (Most Islamic countries, Ireland and UK)
And so on until search engines are pretty much useless and Google, as s search engine at least, no longer exists.
Facebook and YouTube can afford to pull content to abide by local laws because finding information is not their core business, Google search is all about people finding what they want and if it becomes too censored people will just go elsewhere and the advertising will follow.
Google tried once before twisting itself to conform to a particular country’s laws (China) and we saw how that worked out...they just demanded more. I would hope they have learned their lesson
Interesting that it's the BPI and not RIAA trying this, my guess is BPI is the RIAA's stalking horse on this, if the BPI lose it does not hurt the RIAA's effort's to much (especially with the anti-British sentiment whiped up by Obama), if they win it gives RIAA a 10 ton sledge hammer to use in their future endeavours
Guess we are about to finally find out two things, what makes legally Google and the like different from torrent indexing/searching sites (as neither host the “illegal content”) and also what happens when a entertainment cartel goes against someone who can turn up with some seriously expensive legal clout
*Yes they pulled this in the UK before, but only for advertising, not search engine which are essentially two different businesses
Those "extra" expences are minimal in comparison to the cost saving on digital distribution vs hard copy. If you get a decent uptake (which you would get if you just reduce price by just the retailers cut, never mind cutting out and passing on the printing/distribution savings) you would earn those expences back in minimal time
In many ways it already has taken off, just it's limited to PC/internet (skype) because the Telco’s have not got the technical infrastructure in place to handle it even semi reliably
And working around that by limiting video calling to wireless (IPhone) will not make people take it up much more either. If you are near a wireless router you can access for vid calling, you are probably near a PC with a cam where you can get 30 times bigger/better picture
Latest mobile phones with vid calling will be just another useless feature and will remain so until the telco’seriously upping their capacity/reliability, maybe when they start rolling out ‘8G’?