"intentionally commented to the news media about Sagehorn’s conduct, stating “that’s a crime” and adding that Sagehorn “could face felony charges” for the post."
I'd love to see what crime Beahen is referring to when he talks about Sagehorn being charged with felony charges. False reporting of a crime (MN PC 609.505) is a misdemeanor charge, and it is very specific in the fact requirements (materially and known false statement made to a uniformed police officer.) Even a false report of child abuse (MN PC 509.507) is a misdemeanor. Of course, MN PC 609.77 makes it a misdemeanor to provide false information to the news media:
609.77 FALSE INFORMATION TO NEWS MEDIA.
Whoever, with intent that it be published or disseminated and that it defame another person, communicates to any newspaper, magazine or other news media, any statement, knowing it to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Seems at the least to be exaggeration and at the worse to be defamation of character. Wonder if they can prove that Beahen knew that what he was saying to the media was false.
"We produce perfect code. You don't need to check it over for bugs. There AIN'T none!"
Sadly, her boss (Larry Ellison) said it nearly 12 years ago, and at that time she visited my company and did a song and dance at the time about how he didn't really mean it the way everyone heard it and that "Oracle is unbreakable, you can't break it" really depended on what the meaning of "is" is.
We laughed her out of our company then and sadly, we still have idiots in our company that still use their product to this day despite numerous requests from the security team and the management to avoid the software like the plague, after they told us that they wouldn't release software patches unless we paid the ridiculous software support agreements for software we had already purchased at far more than we should have.
I am with John on this one...if you still trust Oracle, after all these years, than you deserve all the pain you are feeling. Bush's "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me... you can't get fooled again" works really appropriately here.
Do the Yankees have any motivation to let MLB cannibalize the YES network? Their biggest revenue stream would dry up overnight.
Why would they need to cannibalize the YES network? All they need to do is pipe the YES network through their streaming network, the same way they currently do. Does the YES network own the cable infrastructure and actually run a cable company? If not, then why are they beholden to a cable company? Seems like they could sell their stream competitively to multiple cable companies and to MLB.TV. They are in a much better position than other teams that use cable company assets (Fox cameras, Fox announcers, etc.) to tape and stream the video.
If you're a baseball fan and you don't have MLB.TV, you clearly enjoy self-masochism in a way that I will never understand and may God have mercy on your soul.
I have MLB.TV (got it as part of the season ticket deal,) but I can never watch the games I want to watch due to blackouts (yes, I know, proxies FTW.) Once the industry realizes that penalizing their fans (with season tickets, none-the-less,) doesn't win more fans. Note, you can't watch MLB.TV to see games played by your home team away from your home field...which I see as the best selling point for MLB.TV for season ticket holders, so you can watch the game when it isn't played at home.
MLB.TV is great if you live in San Diego and your favorite team isn't playing the Padres (because everyone in San Diego loves any team other than the Padres, just watch the stands during any Padres Game and you'll see that, at least until this year, most of the people in the stands came to watch the team playing against the Padres,) but it isn't helpful for those who want to watch their team play in-market games.
What is absolutely criminal about this, is that they sell the hell out of MLB.TV as a way to see every game of your favorite team, but then they throw in the tiny disclaimer that MLB.TV is subject to local blackouts without telling you that the money you are paying means that you need to pick a team far away from your home market in order to enjoy most of the games (except the ones that are played in your home market.) It is only after you pay for the service that you realize that you can't watch the games you want to watch and that $120 is gone, not refundable.
I certainly agree that had NHL dropped this crappy policy, they would have cleaned up...there are many just like me happy to throw down full price on MLB.TV to watch every game in baseball...not just the ones played elsewhere by teams we aren't interested in watching.
Vizio SmartTVs come with a built in Wifi Access Point, DIRECT-PO-VIZIOTV, which uses some sort of bastardized WPA encryption scheme, and includes WPS (though I have yet to be able to crack it.) This AP seems to be related to the Vizio TV's wireless remote control which can be disabled, but the AP in the TV cannot and according to Vizio, other devices can also be attached to the AP though I couldn't get them to elaborate on what could.
Thus, anyone driving by your house knows you have a Vizio TV, and if they know how to connect to it, they can likely download the data stored on the TV (either directly or via some sort of vulnerability.) After talking with Vizio about this, they told me there was no way to turn off the AP, and that I really should plug it into the network in order to get periodic updates they release to fix security issues with the TV (that shouldn't exist if I could properly disable everything I didn't need or want.)
A little more difficult than getting it directly, but if Google can pay folks to map the networks in your area, Vizio could pay someone to periodically drive around and access people's TVs remotely.
Damn, you guys found me wearing my tin foil again!
You would think the trolls would eventually learn not to fuck with NewEgg!
Greed. Pure, unadulterated greed mixed with crony-capitalism. (Not that I have a problem with greed, it is what makes us work our asses off in pursuit of greater things so long as it is tempered with hard work, which Warner doesn't actually do here.)
Trolls going after newegg have bought the laws that allow them to do no work and yet collect millions off of the backs of others, so in their mad pursuit to have it all their blind greed gets them to bite off more than they chew.
In the immortal words of a good movie, "Sometimes you get the shark, sometimes the shark gets you." Most animals realize that there is a point in which you should stop, not go any further, at risk to your life or future profits. They think they're on top of the food chain and are blind to the companies who actually want to fight back.
The upside is that such a suggestion would require pushing gigabit fiber to every household...
Not necessarily. 320x200 video, at 1/5 time (so, about six frames a second,) mp4 encoded, doesn't use that much bandwidth. I routinely push 12 streams to a remote site using around 1-1.5 mbps. That works perfectly fine on a 10 mbps connection. Sucks if you actually want to use the line for something else (like watch netflix,) but it is do-able. Whether that would be enough for prosecution (usually all they need is a single frame showing the suspect and the victim,) would depend on the courts, the video is pretty watchable and should be useful.
As much as I'd love gig, this probably wouldn't need that much bandwidth.
I think most people are far more damaged by what they're putting into their bodies than by the technology they use every day.
I am just waiting for them to include warning labels on Bananas. After holding one up to a geiger counter to test whether it was working, I was surprised at the counts. Still way too little to kill, but the count did go up some.
Well, she DOES think public shaming is the proper response to bad behavior...
I think public shaming is the correct response for when you use copyright as a sword to abuse your customers because they weren't lucky enough to be born somewhere else. Now only if public shaming of this nut would result in her finding herself on the unemployment line and the company facing stiff competition that gets them out of the morality industry and back in the providing your customer what your customer pays you for market.
ContentID simply matches music, and cannot deal with such subtleties as fair use.
That's ok, copyright lawyers working for the entertainment industry can't deal with the subtleties of fair use either.
Apparently, the only way to really deal with it is to get sued and eventually have to courts rule in your favor. The deck is so stacked against you that you'll probably run out of money and be forced to settle before you are vindicated, and even if you are vindicated, you'll likely not have any recourse to get the money back that you spent defending yourself.
Better yet, refuse to licence it. Copyright gives you the right to lock it up completely.
That and derivative works are the two concepts of copyright I can't stand. I'd be happy if copyright was used solely to provide an author with compensation for their work, but the ability to lock something in a vault, never to be seen again, and the ability to prevent others who in many cases have already purchased your work to embrace and extend (and not in the Microsoft way,) seem to be the exact opposite goals than what the Constitution spells out in the Copyright Clause.
Even when you get stuck using a set-top box (all of which suck), the operation is relatively simple, but more importantly, fully automated: PVR software pokes the set-top box to go to the right channel, waits several seconds (because who wants to change channels quickly?), and then the set-top box provides a usable unencrypted video/audio stream to a capture card. The capture card provides an unencrypted stream to the application, which can write it to disk or show it live.
Absolutely agree. When I was a cable subscriber, before I cut it, I would often use this method to space/time shift videos in order to watch them at a time that was more appropriate to my busy schedule. At least until they started encrypting the video/audio stream and my video capture card broke and I replaced it with one that didn't ignore the "do not copy" bit.
Your remark about some content not being available on Netflix is a good one, and is another example of how copyright combined with obnoxious contracts leads to Netflix being unable to serve willing customers.
Most of the streaming companies/options are difficult in this regards. Don't get me started with the blackout stupidity with MLB.tv. I'd happily pay them for content, but no dice if I want to actually watch the team I have season tickets for.
I do not necessarily blame Netflix for making Linux use so painful, but whether they do it voluntarily or contractually, the point remains that they do it, and until they stop doing it, they are not a valid choice for some would-be cord-cutters.
As a Linux user, and one that has had to deal with the pain that is Netflix, I agree with everything you have said, but I am a cord cutter that is doing perfectly fine. I've found that those shows I couldn't live without are things that I am living without perfectly fine. Youtube has replaced a great deal of my entertainment, along with Netflix (which works fine on many DVD players and other set-top boxes, though not on my chosen platforms, as a workaround,) Amazon, and Spotify/Pandora.
I wish companies cared more for their consumers, and would not implement stupid restrictions based on obnoxious contracts by people with a vested interest in maintaining their monopoly rents and status quo, but that is where we are now.
Getting rid of copyright, or at least making it more in line with the original goal of giving an author (not a large multi-national corporation,) a reason to produce, and restricting stupid restrictions like being able to prevent someone who buys or rents a product from viewing it on their chosen platform instead of being forced to buy something they don't need or want in order to view said product would be the ultimate goal.
No. People have tried to get Netflix to publish their work without DRM, and have been unable.
DRM is built into the Netflix client, which is likely not possible to remove for one product but keep for others. Since you appear to be a word lawyer, let me fix my statement by saying "I suspect that if Netflix could get away with it, their DRM built into their client would disappear." with the caveat that the majors won't let them get away with it.
Another reason: unusably painful competition. Netflix goes out of their way to be difficult for Linux users, as evidenced by the absurd complexity of trying to use it.
A valid reason, but certainly not Netflix's fault. You can blame the MPAA and the studios for that. I suspect that if Netflix could get away with it, their DRM would disappear.
Ordinarily, I would not bother to post this, but the claim that people stick with cable out of laziness or Luddite-ism is just wrong in my case.
Not sure how this would actually *keep* people on Cable (except maybe for premium channels,) since most of the cable content doesn't even appear on Netflix until months or even years after it shows on cable (if ever, try streaming Game of Thrones on Netflix.)
Though I suspect, if a legal streaming company existed that had all the content anyone would want, cable wouldn't exist any more.
Did anyone else read Rapiscan as Rapescan or is it just me?
It certainly isn't just you. I read it that way too.
Though I think a better name for it, based on the context would be Pillagescan (as in how much money is lost on these useless devices,) since it is really the only part of the process where you don't get fondled (though that comes after they get to see you naked.)