Well, technically companies with patents are not required to license them. I think they're technically hitting the definition of 'open' since they are opening them up to licensing deals. The false equivalency to Tesla in some of these stories is the only error.
A good monitor is much better at displaying text than a large TV. The pixels per inch on TVs, especially 50" ones, is way too low for comfortable viewing and the contrast isn't great either so the text all looks kind of blurry or jagged making it harder to read and increasing eyestrain.
TLDR: Your eyes aren't any better off with the TV. It's probably actually causing more eyestrain for general computer use.
Actually, I think it's because our government doesn't go back nearly as far as yours so our 'traditional' government was much more of a frontier type very loose group as opposed to yours, which at the same period was more of a monarchy-like representative government. You had a strong government getting looser and we had a loose government getting stronger.
DNS doesn't work that way. Your home router or computer never sends a single DNS query to the actual domain you're looking up (unless you're running something like BIND or a Windows Server DNS server). All DNS queries come from DNS servers, not clients, and they cache the results so you only see them at most once per TTL period.
You can only tell whose DNS SERVER is requesting a domain. So you could definitively determine that TWC and Comcast are major copyright infringers via this method. :)
If you were thinking of redirecting that update server to a server that logs connection attempts, even this judge wasn't crazy enough to reassign the registration to the plaintiffs. They only killed it via this order so their registrar had to remove the destination.
No, but it is generally closer to what people actually want to know when they ask that question. Most people want an accurate measure of reasonable expectation when they ask for average (AKA what the average or 'normal' person can expect to see)not the actual statistical average.
You don't need to agree with the conclusion he draws but if you don't even know the cases generally used as relevant legal precedent in these situations then you're not informed enough to argue legal matters.
I think a more accurate comparison is issuing a subpoena for *everything* about *everyone* at *any time* for investigation of *anything*. It's not that they're not getting court approval for this. It's that the court they're using is rubber-stamping something that negates the entire purpose of the courts' involvement.
I don't blame the 3-letter agencies here as much as the court that ruled on this incredibly over-broad order in the first place and keeps renewing it every time it expires. The 3-letter agencies and police are expected to try to do everything they can to ensure they have everything they might possibly need to find criminals. It's the courts' job to keep telling them 'no' when they try to (or do) violate our rights.
Actually, it i remarkably easy to do. All you have to do is check for an @ symbol and if it has one, look up MX records via DNS. If there isn't a mail server for that lookup, you refuse to take the address because obviously it isn't going anywhere.
It's not rocket surgery and it's actually easier than trying to parse the address based on a set of static rules but nobody does it.
Unfortunately, the terms of service for most of these services explicitly prevents other people from doing something like throwing up netflix content in an iframe. Each of these services wants their website, whole and unfiltered, to be the sole source for their content.
They do have legitimate concerns here with people providing poor service wrapped around netflix causing people to feel like netflix is to blame for that other service not working well or companies trying to rebrand netflix but I think they could be a bit more flexible.
The issue with Internet radio is that it often runs over port 80 and therefore is excessively difficult to QoS efectively so that it does not interfere with other users on the network that acre trying to complete critical business functions.
Sysadmins wouldn't mind it so much if they'd run on a port that could conveniently be deprioritized but the current setup means they're competing for bandidth with all of your actual business traffic.
At a bit over 64kb/s each, just 2 people on pandora can cripple a T1 line costing >$200/mo for 1.44mb/s.
No. You would only be guilty of it if one of your buddies actually does rob them via their website.
The goal of raqueteering laws is to be able to punish people who help plan and organize crimes without actively committing them directly. The lack of such laws made it effectively impossible to take down the organized crime families because all the really important people never did anything illegal themselves and there were always more desperate mooks to handle the dangerous work regardless of how many were arrested.
It's the latter. You can come to 500 different conclusions for causality for any situation in which you can't run a control study. Welcome to economicx where your pet theory can be the cause of everything good while the other sides' is the cause of everything bad without interfering with their ability to believe their pet theory is responsible for the good results while yours is responsible for the bad ones.
I think it's a non-transferrable coupon, figuratively speaking. However, if it did work that way...
I'm pretty sure Arson carries more than a few months since it's often punished at the level of attempted murder if it is reasonably possible to be occupied. However, he could probably get away with a minor assault on almost 4 months of 'credit'.
So, your honor, how much time would I be sentenced to if I kicked the prosecutors in the balls? 2-3 months? I'll be back in 5 minutes.
Actually, your understanding of evolution is a bit misaligned.
Random mutation is the only reason the natural selection is possible. Identical copies cannot be subject to natural selection because there is no effect regardless of which survive. Without mutation, there would be no tall or short members of a species to select from, only a handful of simple amino acids endlessly creating perfect 1:1 copies ad-infinitum. The variations you claim drive evolution are, in fact, solely the product of mutations.
Let me phrase it this way, differences in genetic code drive natural selection but mutation is the only method of creating those differences. I agree that natural selection is not a random occurrance but it is a nonrandom process (natural selection) that requires the results of a random process (mutation).
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Brandon Rinebold.