> Not via legal action. Lying is not illegal per se, and he's not defaming anyone or anything like that.
I believe Ray Tomlinson's estate would disagree with you. Mr (not)"theinventorofemail" was really nasty to Ray and the companies who announced his death. He certainly defamed Mr. Tomlinson in stating that he wasn't the "Father of Email" and arguing Mr. Tomlinson wasn't instrumental in the development of the electronic mail system we all use, instead of some pet project a 14 year old came up with that nobody (beyond a small medical college) has ever used.
Think about all the video games that haven't entered the public domain after 28 years. It is doubtful that any video game company would have renewed their copyright after 28 years, and most video games from 1989 and earlier would now be in the public domain.
NES Roms would all be in the public domain, as would many MAME Roms, SEGA Master System Roms, Atari 2600 Roms, and a slew of other ones.
Yeah, there is a huge market for all those pre-1989 games out there right now that we have to lock everything up for 70 years (of course, the real reason is so that current vendors of games can "maximize" their profits by not having to compete with retro games.)
Re: I appreciate how Microsoft handled the Windows 10 rollout
As an added bonus, it's so much more fun when that guy from "windows support service" calls.
I got tired of playing with them. Was like shooting fish in a barrel. Now I just ignore their calls.
Still, the funniest call (with about 45 minutes of their precious time scamming people eaten) with them was them trying to get me to click on the Windows start box (I kept telling them my icon said "LM Menu" and I didn't have a windows symbol like the keyboard has...Windows+R worked fine, but it kept giving me eventvwr: command not found messages. Finally the guy just hanged up on me.
That's true. Mom does her own kernel development. Bob in shipping writes his own video drivers. The local florist created their own systemd alternative. Such is the freedom of Linux.
True, but Mom, Bob, and the local florists don't have to do any of those things on Linux, and can't on Windows. The simple fact is, Mom, Bob, and the local florist can do that stuff if they want, but even if they don't they have far more freedom using Linux. Try doing any of that on a Windows box.
And with Windows, you have to rely on the hardware vendor to provide support and drivers for your hardware. I can't count the number of times (because it is damn close to the hundreds at this point) I've upgraded Windows only to find out that the vendor of some hardware isn't supporting the latest version. I plug that device into Linux, and that shit just works.
The silence about why it was burning so much data, constant scans for telemetry, no idea whats happening to their computer & MS deciding they know best and customers should have no options or information.
That is the problem I've had with Windows 10, especially on my AMD A10 game system (with an external video card setup.) It runs Linux extremely fast, but I play Windows games, so I tend to dual boot it. Windows 10 is dog slow on the 3.0Ghz/16 GB RAM AMD A10 (a 2 year old computer) and there are times where I see the system 100% idle and nothing responds fast, and times when srvhost has the CPU pegged at 90% running appmodel or some other process. I finally got it to work flawlessly by killing the appmodel process, disabling a bunch of windows tasks, and turning off cortana (which was using 25% of the processor regardless to it being "off"). Windows 7 never had this problem.
Even had to disable some of this stuff on a brand spanking new Intel laptop, because it would go off and start doing stuff in the background that wasn't necessary.
If it wasn't for the game market still heavily invested in Windows, I'd have no Windows machines at all.
> Not everyone is a pen-tester, but people should be security conscious about the stuff they buy (especially if the item happens to be a security camera!). I'd prefer education to regulation.
I totally agree with your thoughts here, security education is a far better way of dealing with this, though there are limits to education as well. I tell friends and family why they shouldn't buy something all the time, giving facts and rational, but most of the time I get "so, who cares, I don't have anything a hacker would ever want." This even after I explain that the criminals out there want their identity, their credit, their bank accounts, etc., and most of those exist on their computer.
But the issue is that most manufacturers won't even open up their firmware so that security researchers can look at them, much less let their customers know of potential risks. They don't want to loose their profit margin by being able to "expire" equipment less than a year old by no longer supporting it, making their customers get on the endless device obsolescence model they currently have. There are some niche groups, including security camera vendors, where all you can get is cameras with clunky, closed source, and poorly supported firmware, and unless someone goes in and makes this illegal, the companies aren't going to change.
> "My first reaction to the letter was 'FFS.' HBO should get a life or stick something where the sun doesn't shine," Wilcox said.
A sentiment shared by nearly everyone else not paid by HBO or in the pocket of the "un-intelectual monopoly"/intellectual property ("we gots to collect it all") business.
It is a remarkable picture for the artwork of a 13-year old, and maybe this is an education for artists everywhere about how HBO and the "un-intelectual monopoly" business value their contributions to society. If you are making them money, you are a cow which shortly will be slaughtered for their taste/waste. If you aren't making them money, you are the dirt they walk on.
Re: Re: PACER charging at all is wrong....should be covered by filing fees
Unlike many state-level courts, Federal courts don't charge motion fees. Cases can last for years with tens or hundreds of motions and hearings and docket entries and all the court might get is that $350.
I know this is government, and I've worked with government long enough to know that government is fundamentally broken. But I always wonder why there isn't someone smart looking at this and saying "we aren't getting enough money, lets raise the rates and offer rate plans for folks who can't afford a lump sum payment" instead of "lets create a brand new and highly illegal tax which we can use to offset our costs."
Than I remember, I know this is government, and I've worked with government long enough to know that anyone smart enough to fix this problem has long ago decided not to work with government.
Except Getty has been caught on more than one occasion claiming (and attempting to enforce) copyright on images it doesn't own or are in the public domain.
Sadly, I think this may actually be what they want to do. They know that there are folks out there now using search engines to search for their copyright material on Getty, and shutting down this avenue reduces their headaches.
They are complaining that robots.txt, a simple, industry standard, and used by every web admin out there is just too darn difficult for them to understand. Photographers that cannot understand robots.txt should hire a good company to run their online business for them.
I wonder if their automated scanners searching for copies of pictures they stole (yes, unlike their whines about infringing copyrights, when they take something that doesn't belong to them and sell it, and turn around and use DMCA to force the original photographer's works offline, that is stealing,) respects the robots.txt on the websites they crawl...I doubt it.
Cheaper in the short term does not mean cheaper in the long term, changing it from a larger, single payment to a 'smaller' but repeated payment is likely to bring in quite a bit more money.
I have basically ignored the advice to register myself mainly because most of my vanity domain sites are run by a single, trusted, individual, and mostly because I am paying for all my websites. There are no corporate backing on my websites, and I make no money off of them, so why should I pay the government yet another fee to deal with something I doubt I'll ever see. Besides, my ISP has a registered DMCA agent.
But if they are now making it a 3 year thing, why don't they just get together with ICAN and throw that as an additional requirement on the fee I already pay for the domain name registration?
Thats not how Holywood accounting works, milk will cost even more when they own the cow, because they have to pay for its feeding, and that makes it more expensive to sell milk compared to buying it from a cow owner to sell on.
I know this is Poe, but I'll run right into it anyway.
Hollywood accounting is a fabrication made up by Hollywood, and it is entirely within the sphere of their control. If it wasn't profitable for them to use Hollywood Accounting, it would go away in a heartbeat. AT&T can decide, once it owns the cow, how much it is going to cost. They will, of course, continue to use Hollywood Accounting because they believe their customers and content providers aren't smart enough to figure out what they are doing, even though cord-cutting and independent production of high-quality (hollywood-level) material is proof that their customers and content providers are far smarter than they think they are.
Besides, what you said makes absolutely no sense, except to a Hollywood Accountant, since in the real world, the price you pay for milk includes the cost of the feed. The rest of the world has awaken to the stupidity. It's only a matter of time before the courts and Congress wake up and see this for the fraud it is.
I have business class in my area. It's $10 more per month than consumer-grade (if you're not also getting cable TV and, well, of course I'm not getting that garbage) and WONDERFUL service.
Hope you don't move. In my area, my cable provides the cheapest business class level at $181 a month (I pay $110 a month for the top tier consumer class, unbundled.) For the cheapest business class, you get a dynamic IP address, no QoS, and about 1/5th to 1/25th of the bandwidth. I get 250mBps on a good day, typically about 50 mBps and the lowest tier commercial plan gives you 10x2 (yes, lower than broadband levels set by FCC.) But at least they give you 5 more email addresses for free, and you get the same amount of cloud storage (5GB) that the consumer class gives you.
For the same level I currently have now, via business internet plan, it's $270/month.
I know, because my cable company has been complaining for the last two years that I should be paying for business internet (despite not having a business,) because I "have servers" (I don't) and require the network to have some quality of service levels (like not be down more than an hour a month, according to my network monitor, they are over 2 hours down at the moment.) Of course, for that $270, you still don't get QoS or a static IP...that costs even more.
I know Taco Tuesday. Here in California I have to ask who is Taco John? Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!
That is because we don't have Taco John's here (I doubt they would do well here either, there is an authentic taco shop on every corner which makes better and less expensive food.) I've been to one in the Midwest, and if you want more expensive and less authentic Mexican food than Taco Bell, you go to Taco John's.
And apparently Taco John's doesn't believe in California, since just about every restaurant has Taco Tuesdays and I haven't heard a single one of them getting a letter. We should be safe.
I would only note that I have spoken at great length with the former head of the RIAA, and with the relevant exec at the MPAA, and their position REMAINS that making a copy of a CD, even on an obsolete form such as a cassette, and making a copy of a movie, even on such an obsolete form as a VHS tape, is actually a violation of copyright!
Except that, according to the legal statement they seem to like putting on those CDs, they sold me a license, not the physical medium. Sure, the legal statement also says that it is illegal to make unauthorized copies of the medium, but seems like they are playing both sides of the fence here.
The MPAA guy told me he scolded his own mother for making a copy of an album to play in her car!
And yet when her car gets broken into and all of her CDs are stolen, or when they melt due to heat, he makes no attempt to replace them without repaying the license fee.
I just love how two-faced they are...everything in the name of greed. Which is why I tend to avoid their little aluminum and plastic coffee coasters.
In theory fraudulent transactions can be removed from one's credit history, though I have never tried it.
From personal experience, they can, but usually it takes quite a bit of work and some money. The earlier you catch it, the easier it is to take care of. If you have enough money or a lawyer on retainer, it is a lot easier, but at first you need to know the problem exists and it doesn't look like a lot of people caught it. What really hurts is when the company who fraudulently claims you owed them money goes out of business or is bought out by several successors of interest before you catch it, in which case, good luck.
If DirecTV is on their own network, and not going across the internet, AT&T doesn't have to pay their ISP for that traffic.
AT&T doesn't pay their ISP for traffic (unless things have really changed in that business,) AT&T likely has peering agreements with most, if not all, of their interconnections, and as a result, they don't pay to move traffic back and forth, and only pay for the care and feeding of the connection itself. AT&T might have to pay to upgrade connections or add more, but they don't pay for the traffic.