A cookie is not by definition in any way a session identifier. A web page can use a cookie to store a session identifier, but you can use a cookie to store something as simple as a language preference (eg, "lang=en") and that is a cookie that in no way identifies a specific person, or their specific interaction with a web page (or site) in the way that a session cookie can.
I hate this kind of fuzzy thinking and manipulation of our technology to make a political point in a report. Too many reports avoid using accurate enough language to be right, whilst giving reporters (who're generally not specialists) and therefore the readers of their reports an inaccurate understanding of a simple technology.
Cookies are a Good Thing(TM) in general, that can be used to less-than-spotless purposes, but they are not by definition dangerous. Just like computers.
The pressure point here is not the courts. We all know that the vast majority of lawyers and judges are specialists in their subject ... the law. However, almost all of them have terrible blind spots when it comes to understanding the real world (just like physicists!). So it's no wonder the lawyers don't get it ... and just want to keep on making money out of making sure nobody quite gets it.
The people we should be ripping apart here are ORACLE! They're the idiots who don't understand that their own products implement published APIs. Specific example: Oracle sell WebLogic - a web application server (let's not get into the merits, or otherwise, of the technical capabilities of the product). This HAS to respect the 2.5 or 3.0 web application API (or specification, if you prefer), otherwise no developer is going to use the tool to deploy their applications.
To the best of my knowledge, Oracle don't own the web application API, but do they really want to license the use of the spec from those that do?
This is, of course, just one example. Oracle's products also implement JDBC and ODBC APIs, and many others in the course of implementing various interfaces. Most fundamentally of all, they use APIs to talk to the OS and disk systems upon which the Oracle DB must run.
Oracle are the BIGGEST idiots here. This WILL come back and bite them in the proverbial. And it won't take long, either.
It's not the courts who need to see sense, it's Oracle that need to grow some balls and get over themselves.
Hasn't anyone noticed? You can export your feeds from Google, and go BACK to Bloglines - it's still there, and although they have a 'widget layout' version, there's a little switch at the top of the screen that takes you back to a layout a lot like Google Reader (at least in functional terms).
The core of the problem really appears not to be the blog, but the stupid way in which the Daily Record (a tabloid published only in Scotland, I've read it, it's crap, but then I think that about most newspapers) 'reported' the blogging ... THAT'S what made the staff fear for their jobs - sensationalist reporting.
No wonder the newspapers are struggling to get the internet generation to care about their demise.
Education is run by the local authority. The board is not elected as such, though that's not to say that there was no 'lubrication' of the procurement process by various means, but given that Argyll and Bute is a pretty small (population-wise) area of Scotland, I can't see that we going to be talking about any more than a few lunches on expenses and a round or two of golf.
Do you really think anybody at Google personally cares to read YOUR email? How arrogant!
Google's SYSTEM looks for patterns in the content of your emails as it displays them to you - they have to read your emails of disk to display them to you in the first place, so they might as well automatically see if there's any hints in there that you might be interested in a particular advert. Hardly a major invasion of privacy, and certainly one that isn't very costly anyway... and you never know when the right advert will turn up just when YOU need it.
They're not "legos" (grief, that was hard to write!), they're "LEGO bricks" (bricks made by the LEGO company). Using the term "one lego, two legos" is like saying "one sheep, two sheeps" - just makes you sound ignorant.
But the point of the Stig is to set fast times with all the cars. Now they have to start over, because the new Stig's times won't be comparable with the old Stig's times, because we'll all know they're being set by a different driver.
I do like the idea of a female Red Stig, however. And none of this 'blonde wig and a pair of oranges' malarkey. Let's have a real woman (most people can tell the difference in silhouette anyway!) to do the driving - the power to weight ratio is likely to be better anyway.
If the 'anti-counterfeiting' reason is true, then you've just wrecked it as the counterfeiters now know about the error, and can adjust their versions appropriately. And you've taught them to look out for such tricks if they hadn't spotted one before!
It's 15 years for me, and about 12 years ago I *did* consider membership of the BCS... for about 15 minutes, until I realised just how pointless it was... I've seen no need to change my opinion since then.
It is clear that what BATracer were doing is a trademark violation, but given that BATracer is a free-to-play game (and therefore it is unlikely the owners are getting significant income from it, especially with a mere 2-3000 users), one has to ask if the negative publicity generated for Ferrari by the cease-and-desist behaviour is the right thing to do. Perhaps Ferrari should have suggested a low-cost (or free-as-in-beer) way for BATracer to license the marque for non-commercial purposes?
Now wouldn't that generate *positive* publicity instead? Whilst still 'protecting the trademark'.
Most people I know leave bluetooth disabled (because of the comparatively massive power drain) unless they're specifically connecting to another device... so any virus using bluetooth as a vector will have a serious constraint over timing and opportunity of transit.
Quote: "It's a model that works today and works well for musicians of all stripes (though, you actually have to be good... no new model works that well for bad musicians)."
Perhaps this is really the nub of the matter to the record companies. Whilst they hold all the promotional controls and the influence with the radio & TV, they control who gets promoted and who does not. The bands that they throw together (because they look the part) in the recording studio to make standard pop crap, are cheap to manage & produce, sell millions, earn millions for record company and earn peanuts personally (because of their lack of real contribution and contractual rape-age by the record companies).
Is this perhaps a large part of that over-old business model that the record companies want to perpetuate? I wonder why.
Roll on the days when real talent and an open attitude gets you the fans and support you deserve.
A question regarding this proposed reversion of rights to the musician(s)... which musician(s)? Composer? Lyricist? Arranger? Recording engineer(s)? Producer(s)? Session musician(s)? Featured artist(s)?
I include the recording engineer & producer roles because there are many cases where they have a very significant contribution to the final work - think of the likes of Phil Spector, Trevor Horn, or Stock, Aitkin & Waterman.
Sounds like a recipe for yet another round of painful court cases... and once more, the only winners are the lawyers.