"If a few "customers" come along and take more than they're alloted"
More than they are alloted? Please explain how it is clear that "Unlimited" comes with an allotment. When I see unlimited I think of well.... unlimited as in, without limit.
Also, while they are complaining about those evil people tethering, I can tell you that it is quite easy to use these massive quantities of data on a device. I for example currently have a phone with a screen that exceeds 1080p. So I can jump on a video stream in full HD. Oh, and I have a 64 gig card in my phone, so I can easily download any files direct to my phone and then transfer them to the computer. Of course there is also the fun things you can do like hosting a TOR node on your phone....
Maybe you should go back to school. If after reading this twice, the second time "reading it slowly", you still don't understand it then you have some serious reading comprehension issues.
Let me see if maybe I can explain things a bit simpler for your lower reading level. Dan Bull is not trying to control how copies of his music are used. He is complaining about people claiming copyright on his music. Claiming you have copyright on a song is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from making copies of a song. So the issue here is someone else trying to control copies of his song.
You most certainly could have that policy against abusers. If you are infringing on others copyrights (as in you really are just infringing) then it is reasonable to loose your account after a few strikes.
The very same is true of abusing the system. If you are making copyright claims against content that is not yours, then it is perfectly reasonable to loose that power after a few strikes. It does not matter that your 4th complaint is valid, just as it doesn't matter that the guys 4th video was an original creation.
Not that I really expect you to bother reading this but, you must be really stupid, or you have no trouble twisting things to fit your agenda.
After years of reading the articles here on this site, not once have I found them supporting the idea of "uploading a 100 million dollar movie". The closest they come to that is simply pointing out how stupid it is to waste money fighting a fight you can never win.
The really stupid argument you make though of comparing this with someone sharing a movie just shows how little you understand of what is happening. This is not a case of Dan Bull complaining about someone "stealing" his work. This is about someone claiming ownership and stealing ad revenue, and stealing that money from some kid.
So this is not like me uploading a movie and sharing it. This is like me claiming that I made the movie and demanding all the profits from that movie.
I think the point being made was, Why would you want to wear a representation of a device used to brutally execute thousands of people? One of those people having been your God?
When you stop and think about it, using the cross really is a very weird symbol. After all, someone being executed on a cross was a very common thing for the time. What makes Christ special was that he did not stay dead.
The cross is like the Roman electric chair or gallows. I can't imagine anyone choosing those to honor someone who died from them....
It seems worth it? Really? You are cool with them knowing pretty much everything about your life in exchange for what she offers?
Lets look at this another way, you ask how is she expected to work without all that sharing. My question is, Why does she need to share all that? I can't think of a single thing she does that could not be handled locally on the computer.
If it was smart then it wouldn't incorrectly tag URLs that have nothing to do with the movie it is claiming was being pirated. It really would try to avoid doing something like to URLs belonging to a popular blog that is very likely to call them on it.
Is it just me that thinks at least part of this is extremely easy to solve? All police now have mandatory drug test, anyone positive for weed is fired on the spot. At that point you just have one or two more to identify from the video. As an added bonus, who knows how many dirty cops you will find that have other drugs in their system.
"Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don't get a permit could face fines up to $1,000."
This is a prime example of why I am loosing faith in the government (or well, pretty much totally lost it actually). A permit cost $1,500 but not having it gives you a $1000 fine? So basically I can save $500 by breaking the law?
Well really, who cares about the legality of flying the drone there? Vandalism is definitely illegal already.
I don't get why this should really become an issue. They know who did it, and they know he is an idiot who loves destroying other peoples property. Arrest him, take him to court, make him pay damages, toss him in jail to cool off for a bit.
The one thing they constantly seem to ignore is that if you put a back door in, not matter how complex the key is or how many parts it is in, you have created the 'holy grail' that every hacker in the world is going to try and find.
I don't know about anyone else, but when it is a situation of ______ organization or government VS the world's hacking community, I'm betting on the hackers.... every single time.
It becomes pretty much impossible when your cornered and all of your statements are being recorded and reviewed by a large number of people. Welcome to the internet, a place that does not take kindly to someone telling lies to hide wrongdoing.
Yes, there are some drawbacks to my suggestion and one of those would be that there would be places that you would have to manually drive.
The question though is where these cars would be the most use. To me the answer would be interstates and in cities. These places tend to have better maintained roads. So sure you have to drive manually in some areas, but if you start with major roads you can move out.
Also, admittedly the lines would have issues of being obscured, but putting lines was just the easiest solution to implement. You could also use in ground wires sending a signal much like how dog underground fences work. There are lots of ideas for ways you could guide a car and ideally your system would use at least two systems that were independent of each other.
I for one also would have a really hard time trusting an automated car to deal well with snow and ice no matter what system you have to drive it.
They would be if you made these modifications over time as the roadways were getting regular maintenance anyways. The focus being on modifying the interstates.
Imagine just driving onto the interstate hitting a button and kicking back till you get an alarm telling you your exit is coming up. As you get to the exit you take back control and start driving again, if you don't take control the car parks to the side of the exit ramp. This would certainly make long drives much easier wouldn't it?
Yes, that is how self driving cars should be. They need to be self contained and not rely on the internet.
In fact, if the computer that is driving the car is connected to the internet or has any wireless connectivity at all then I want nothing to do with it. System controlling the car should not be remote accessible.
On another side note. I think this whole self driving car thing is a prime example of looking at a problem backwards. Why are we trying to build automated cars to drive on a roadway that has been built entirely focused on giving ques to a human driver? Slight modifications to our road design would make building a self driving car trivial. Making a robot that can follow a line is something they teach in 'Introduction to engineering' classes. A few painted stripes and some new QR code type signs and suddenly building an automated car is a really simple task.