That'd never happen because it would damper all of the "See something, say something" advertising campaigns that all law enforcement has been working on to turn everyone against their neighbors.
Few people cared that Google was doing it with their cars, and only a few more cared when they found out that they were reading the in-the-clear data being transmitted. If Google had only ever recorded the location of wifi access points there would never have been any kerfuffle.
If it was the law, it would need to be applied uniformly (not just against residential internet accounts).I like you. Naive, innocent, starry-eyed and optimistic. Keep that up and someday you just might save yourself from crushing cynicism.
Plot twist: Call Me Maybe was actually written by the guys in Pyongyang as a first attempt to destroy civilization.
And the score? NK 1, USA "Here's my number"
What does cyberhacking have anything to do with intellectual property theft? If they're talking about patents or trademarks, those are available free of charge to anyone directly from the USPTO. If they're talking about copyrights, most of those are available from Amazon.com for a very small fee or torrent sites for free. No hacking needed (cyber or otherwise). It seems it would be far cheaper for China to simply webcrawl the USPTO and/or torrent a bunch then to hire a bunch of decent crackers.
I know they say satellites, but I think they can make an exception since satellites only stay in in orbit because of the earth's gravitational pull, therefore the satellites are supported by the ground.
Problem solved. Next please.
I've been to Costco. They glance at both my receipt and cart. If they're matching everything up, then those people have some super human abilities. We're talking John-Henry-man-versus-machine-xray-vision type abilities. Maybe they look more closely for expensive items, but if you walk out with a cart full of bread, milk and eggs, you'll get nothing but a glance.
I'll get a patent for doing it on the Internet. I've just doubled the innovation on this forum.
If you are a hater of the UN, and a proponent of the free market, you go to the free market. If that fails you, you get ronpaul.org. Seems fairly straight forward.
Anecdote time: I used to buy a lot more but stopped when I saw how ridiculous people were about the whole thing. I used to buy games a lot but stopped caring when Bioshock only allowed a limited number of installs. I used to buy movies the day of release but now rarely get around to even renting from Redbox. I used to buy songs, but haven't bought one in years now. I have not turned to piracy. I started off boycotting and now I just hardly care anymore. The efforts put in to stop piracy actually turned me off from buying.
Eventually, those studies won't show that infringers spend more, not because infringers will get wise and stop buying, but because the infringers that also buy will get tired of being treated like scum when they do buy and just stop being interested at all. Sure infringement will drop when they quit, but so will spending, word of mouth, etc. And that's all because of the anti-piracy measures.
Yes, and John Hancock should have been arrested as well. There was a parliament that he could have aired his grievances to. No need to go and start a revolution. The bastard.
There's this thing called a monopoly that breaks the free market principles where two parties mutually agree to a price. Copyrights fall under that. Only worse, because they require the removal of other's rights in order to grant that monopoly. No economist is in favor of monopolies, but change the name to copyright and suddenly idiots trip over themselves trying to justify how it's the basis for an efficient market-based economy.
Copyright slows the spread of ideas by definition. Innovation, both in science and culture, thrives on the sharing and copying of knowledge. Copyright slows that sharing, and hinders innovation.
HERE'S THE IMPORTANT BIT:
None of that matters in this case. JSTOR refused to press charges. The charges against him weren't about copyrights, but the CFAA, which has nothing to do with copyrights.
True, but they left out public domain as an excuse, so I find it only fair that we also don't let them use mistakes as an excuse as well.
It is best to get rid of copyright altogether, but that discussion has nothing to do with what Mike said. Mike didn't say copyright makes it possible, he said the DMCA as-is makes it too easy. You could eliminate the DMCA, or change it to be more difficult, and copyright would still exist.
You could make it more difficult to send in bomb threats so that fake threats are reduced, but there doesn't seem to be a rash of fake bomb threats to make doing so worth either the risk or even the effort. The DMCA on the other hand, is abused so regularly that it might as well just be tossed out, but perhaps it might be fixable.
Please, tell us how it can be fixed rather than be eliminated. That would be how you could be a productive commenter, rather than idiot you seem to want to be.
Just because they are outside US jurisdiction for perjury purposes, does not mean they are outside for purposes of copyright. I can have a copyright on something in India, but they can't extradite me for perjury on a whim.
If the car can drop you off and go park itself, why would it park illegally? People park illegally now so they are closer to where they want to go. If the car drops you off and then drives a mile or ten away to find the nearest parking spot, I only care because I have to tell it to come get me earlier than I would have. Heck, if the time at the destination is short, the car could just drive around the block and not park at all.
Suspensions are worthless. I just read a story today about an officer in Seattle (Shandy Cobane) who was caught on video saying he would "kick the (expletive) Mexican piss out of you" to a Latino man and then proceeded to kick him for no reason. He was given 30 days of no-pay, but then allowed to do overtime to make it up. Just recently he was rewarded by being put on a more prestigious unit, even though the public was told he would be demoted to patrol duty. The police chief said he wanted to fire him right after the incident, but a few months later when people were starting to forget about the story, he decided against it.
There is no punishment for police that isn't eventually rectified by the people supposedly punishing them. They wait for the story to blow over, and then make it all good again. Police look out for other police long before they look out for the public. It's why all cops get a deserved bad rap. They don't need to be bad themselves, they just need to harbor the bad ones and pretend that they are still good.
Plot twist: They arrive in Antigua and the WTO approves even further sanctions against the US for exporting that garbage.
I can see already that this is one goes all the way to 11.
Re: Re: Re:
I was hope you are write in his same tone = You are hurt my daughter you scum.