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.)
Can I sell prints of the Mona Lisa this way? What about copies of Martin Luther King's dream speech?
IANAL, but short answer, yes and yes.
The Mona Lisa painting is free of Copyright entanglements, and you can always go to where it is hanging and take a picture of it (provided the museum doesn't have any restrictions on photography or you are able to do so without getting caught if it does,) and there are public domain and royalty free pictures of the Mona Lisa already available online.
It's obviously bad to inform companies of their lack of security.
What always bothers me most about this is the belief, on the part of the company, that they are the smartest people in the room, and that nobody will ever be smarter than them about their own processes, procedures, devices, etc.. Then someone comes along and smashes their belief, and they immediately assume that that is the only person on the planet that managed to figure it out.
If someone thought it up, then it is a pretty good bet that someone else has thought it up before, is currently thinking about it, or will shortly be thinking about it. There are 6+ billion people on the planet, and it is a pretty safe bet that more than one person knows about a security flaw.
Hence the reason for open disclosure of flaws in the first place...let everyone know right now that the cat is out of the bag so there is no possibility that "I didn't know" can trump bad security practices and people hurt by not knowing that the companies they are providing data to are being so promiscuous with it (something I automatically assume now.)
Wait. According to the lower court, if they had actually encountered the robbery suspect, they wouldn't have been able to frisk him? Even though they were "ordered to locate and arrest" him? That makes zero sense. I'm pretty much 100% sure that officers are allowed to frisk people they arrest.
The Terry Patdown is only allowed when you have reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, and a reasonable belief that the individual may be a risk to you in that they may have a weapon and may use it against you.
It cannot be used without reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, and the courts determined that no reasonable suspicion existed.
I remember growing up my school district tried several school buses fueled by propane. These were retrofit kits installed on existing buses. The next state safety inspection for those buses resulted in a threat to decertify those buses if the propane kits were not removed. Turns out the laws at that time did not allow propane to be used as a motor fuel on a school bus. Since then the laws have changed and now I see propane fueled school buses all over the place.
Most buses are fueled with LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) which is different than propane.
When we used propane in our forklifts, they were stored in a propane tank outside of the passenger portion of the forklift, so that leaking propane would dissipate harmlessly into the environment. I believe the buses that use LP (Liquified Propane) do the same, usually storing the propane in the same place that LNG buses do (on the roof or outside of the passenger compartment,) but I would have to confirm this since my knowledge of the subject is a few years old.
It turns out that there is a bit of risk, but not of the type that I imagined. Heating propane tanks cause the propane to expand, which increases internal pressure. If that pressure gets too high, then a relief valve opens allowing the propane to escape the vessel.
The most dangerous place to store a propane tank, on a hot day, is inside your house or garage (and less of a risk inside a car.) You should never place a propane tank in an enclosed space, because it may release propane even without being a hot day, but the risk is rarely the tank itself exploding. You are more likely to have problems with lack of oxygen entering an enclosed area with a propane release than you are with fire danger, since propane, being heavier than air, tends to push oxygen out of the enclosed space (same issue with CO2 and other liquified air tanks.) Which is why you should never drive with a propane tank inside the vehicle.
Most people don't think about the danger, but there tend to be a lot of things that have an open flame (pilot light) in both locations, and a release of pressure as a safety mechanism for a tank may result in the propane released igniting, causing a fire and burning down a house.
Re: Wrong - blowing up potential bombs is standard practice
In this case your insights are off base. Applying "strong force" to disrupt a potential explosive device without risking the bomb squad trying to disassemble and or disarm, at literal risk of life and limb, is standard practice. The point is to apply a moderate force to destroy either the triggering mechanism or the primer mechanism.
This is absolutely correct, the standard response to "I think this is a bomb" is sadly, "Lets blow it up to see if it is a bomb." No, "Jeesh, this may not be a bomb, in a matter of fact, it is 99% certainty of not being one, lets check to make sure." No, "I wonder who owns this car, maybe we should check with them to see if this may be a bomb."
Whether the standard response is correct in all circumstances is exactly what this article is about. His insights are spot on.
When I was a lot younger (before 9/11,) I was sitting in a football stadium with a good friend at a sibling's graduation ceremony. His girlfriend was graduating, and we were both there early enough to get good seats. He decided to go and buy some flowers as a present for his girlfriend, and left his backpack sitting on the seat next to me. Within seconds of him leaving, two passing police officers jumped at the opportunity to "search his backpack for explosives". When they grabbed it, I told them immediately that it was my friend's backpack, that he had just left to buy flowers for his girlfriend and didn't want to take the backpack with, and that I was watching it for him. They ignored me, searched his backpack (illegally, I might add, since they didn't have legal authority to do so as it wasn't legally abandoned,) and finding nothing, left. I told my friend when he returned, and he laughed, wondering if they enjoyed looking at his change of clothes (which were the only things in the bag.)
Years later (after 9/11,) at the airport, I noticed a piece of luggage left unattended for quite some time just outside the terminal. I brought it to the attention of the police officer, and he picked up the luggage and brought it into the terminal in order to find any identifying information to contact the person who obviously had lost it (obvious to the officer.)
Looking back on both incidents, neither incident turned out to warrant any sort of extreme response. Neither the backpack nor the luggage contained an explosive. Yet, according to standard policy, both bags should have been destroyed by the bomb squad to determine if the bags contained explosives. Extreme, and hardly justifiable or even reasonable.
Re: Re: Re: Please don't let facts get in your way...
It is legal for the government to print money for use as tender in commercial transactions, try printing your own and see what happens.
Some would argue that Bitcoin is exactly that...printing money for use as tender in commercial transactions. The government has hemmed and hawed about how it is wrong for a while, but so far, it has been legal. If I print out a bunch of paper that says United Bank of Ltlw0lf, and use it as legal tender, and others accept it, so long as the government is receiving their tax, there is no issue with it. It is really no different than writing an IOU or a contract saying you'll do something in exchange for something else.
The problem is when you try to print what looks like the government's money that you get into trouble. The issue is that while most people would look at a piece of paper that says United Bank of Ltlw0lf and laugh (and not accept it as legal tender,) they tend to treat stuff that looks like the government's money as the real deal, since it has the backing of the government which makes it "legal tender".
He obviously should have hacked them and updated their security settings. Being a concerned bystander is no defense
That has been tried in the past. Didn't work so well.
The biggest problem is that even if you manage to hack the system and set the security settings, the FBI shows up at your door for hacking the system and the company presses charges because they can no longer get into their system because you updated their security settings. Nobody has GPG set up on their email browser, so they can't decrypt the email you sent them with their updated passwords and instructions on how to log in and change the passwords.
Hopefully they'll take the high road and fix their stuff without involving poor Ms. Streisand in the mix.