I'd like to see a ruling saying "Yes mugshots should be publicly available. However, entities providing [i]incorrect[/i] information about persons arrested and charged, even where only implied, are still liable for that information. If an entity publishes the mugshot of a person who was subsequently found not guilty or had the charges dismissed without making that fact at least as prominent on the mugshot as the mugshot itself, that entity has committed libel and has been criminally negligent in allowing the incorrect information to persist.". That should make most of those sites drop the whole thing rather than take on that kind of liability.
Perhaps the FCC should require phone systems to provide the ANI data to the receiving party instead of or in addition to CID. CID may be spoofable, but ANI's used for billing and very few originating phone systems are going to allow forging of billing information.
Random selection. You have a list of arbitrators, each party chooses 5 from the list (presumably based on their decision record and reputation). Then one is chosen at random to handle the case. Arbitrators have as much incentive to favor the individual as the company, and neither side can stack the deck in their favor. Neither side is allowed to reject the arbitrator after they've been chosen. I'd bet that arbitration suddenly becomes a lot less popular with companies.
We see some batshit-insane stuff out of individual plaintiffs and massive footgun maneuvers out of corporate plaintiffs vs. small defendants, but for truly epic-scale stupidity (the kind that makes for tales that could've been written by Doc Smith and that'll still be told an age from now) you need two massive, implacable bureaucracies set on a collision course.
Keep the app up, just have it email the dispute letter to the user and let them mail/FAX it in. Let the city try to argue that people are entitled to dispute the tickets but they aren't entitled to use the city's process for disputing a ticket. Even local judges aren't going to fall for that one.
Reading what the lawyers actually said, it's LG's claim that 'integer' has the ordinary meaning that's nonsense. The patent is talking about "an integer multiple of the transmission time interval", symbolically "n * TTI". While a negative multiple is mathematically possible, when dealing with data transmission it's excluded (if you transmit packet 1 and then packet 2, packet 2 can't be transmitted at a time prior to packet 1's transmission). Similarly for a zero multipler, a device can't normally transmit 2 packets at the same time (and if it can, that's explicitly spelled out which it isn't here). And as for n=1, the patent owner's lawyers note that the exact phrase in the patent specification is "The MAC-e PDU is sent to the physical layer every n*TTI, instead of once every transmission time interval (TTI).". That logically excludes n=1, since that would make the transmission once every TTI and the patent's talking about sending it at some interval other than every TTI.
So yes, it's clear from the language of the patent that they're talking about an integer n where n is greater than 1.
"Your ISP does not wish to carry traffic from Google on their network. Per their wishes, we are not sending traffic into your ISP's network. If you wish to receive traffic from Google, please contact your ISP about allowing traffic from Google."
The problem there is that any company wanting to market another version has to either prove their version is identical to Daraprim (right down to the impurities, by chemical analysis and comparison of the results to those from Daraprim) or go through the entire FDA approval process as a new formulation. And Shkreli locked down distribution of Daraprim so competitors can't get samples of it for the comparison (which is also making the FDA unhappy on top of everything else).
I think it's not that Smith got a warrant, but that the warrant was not supported by probable cause and Smith included no evidence in his application for the warrant to support a finding of probable cause. The second half of the 4th Amendment says that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".
I think it's time for a little user engagement here, of the sort usually covered by "rules of engagement". :) First, prime a browser so AT&T's serving up the most offensive, undesirable ads possible. Then hit some major news sites like CNN or the New York Times. Screen-grab the ads. Send them and dumps of the web page source to the site's complaints or abuse department attached to a complaint about the ads they're serving up, and topping it off with a complaint about how your antivirus software complained about other pages on their site as well and you're afraid it's those ads since you only have the problem when those ads show up. Slip in a mention somewhere about how it only happens when you're using AT&T's WiFi and can they check if they're doing something special for AT&T customers. I'd think even a few dozen complaints about bad ads and malware would get some attention, and attention from major news sites'll be a lot harder for AT&T to ignore.
I dunno about that. If I say "automobile control interface", does anyone think I'm talking about an interface made out of automobile controls? No, people are more likely to think I'm talking about an interface to control automobiles.
Nobody would confuse the arrangement of the control pedals in a car with the mechanism used to link the gas pedal to the engine throttle setting. But mention software and everyone's brains turn to mush.
The controlling rule: you don't want critical military infrastructure to be controlled by your opponent. So any country who's not absolutely 100% positive their interests will always align perfectly with those of the US wants their own GPS system that the US can't interfere with or degrade at will. I consider it good, the more GPS networks there are the more redundancy there is and the harder it'll be for anyone to degrade/kill GPS capability without being forced to annoy someone big enough to swat them and willing to swat them.
All it'd take is a judicial rule that the plaintiff has to either present a trademark registration in the industry category the defendant operates in, or identify the specific activities or marketing of the defendant's product that encroaches on the industry category the plaintiff's mark is registered in. The PTO has standardized industry categories, so it shouldn't be that hard to nail down. It just requires judges who're willing to do their jobs even if it inconveniences the plaintiff.
Then again, a lot of cases could be readily dismissed if Iqbal standards were applied the way it's been ruled they should apply.
This is actually a good response to be able to give in general. Law enforcement may not understand tech or TOR exit nodes, but they understand "we don't have any records to give you, never had them". I've always thought that was a good reason to keep logs and such only for as long as you needed for technical reasons (eg. unless you have a problem you're troubleshooting you keep them for 24 hours at most) unless the law specifically requires you to keep certain logs longer than that and then you keep only what the law requires and dump the rest.
This is why I don't consider Github a primary repository for anything important. I don't trust any other party further than the explicit wording of my contract with them. Things like this just reinforce my reasons for that.
I do see a difference here. Brooks was talking about used CDs, where the royalty had already been paid when it was first sold. Swift is talking about new sales/streams, where a royalty hasn't already been paid. Suppose I sign a contract with a publisher giving me an X% royalty per book on a fixed cover price, no exceptions and no terms allowing for any sort of distribution at a discounted price. Then one day I walk into a bookstore and find copies of my book being given away for free in a publisher-sponsored giveaway program, I haven't been asked to agree to this and I'm not being paid any royalty on the theory that X% of zero is zero. These aren't used copies, they're brand-new books. Am I not entitled to take the position that my publisher owes me royalties on those copies based on the agreed-on cover price and they'll just have to chalk those royalties up as a cost of running the promotion?
The software's probably DD-WRT like seemingly every consumer-grade router uses these days, and the ISP's just using the guest-network capability already built in. The VLAN separation's built into the switch hardware, so I wouldn't be so worried about that (any bugs there would also show up in the switch maker's managed switches and they couldn't let it go very long without sales tanking).
As secure as your regular router is. Bear in mind that if you dig into the technical internals your router does not have a WAN port and 4 LAN ports. What it has is a 5-port switch. The firmware just configures 2 VLANs on the switch, usually assigning the 4 LAN ports and the WiFi interfaces to VLAN 1 and the single WAN port to VLAN 2. If there's a way to breach the VLAN separation then your router's already vulnerable to someone outside doing that and gaining access to the local VLAN through the WAN port. Which VLAN they start from won't change the vulnerability.
Getting full control of this easily requires flashing DD-WRT, but since most router firmware's a modified version of DD-WRT anyway someone with enough knowledge and patience (or someone using a packaged exploit kit) can pull an NVRAM backup from the router, edit the VLAN setup and other configuration items and load in the new settings without having to flash new firmware. And if the router's running stock firmware it's probably outdated and has unpatched vulnerabilities in it.
I think the theory is that it worked to get the French aristocracy out of power so it's good enough for anything else. What's annoying is that often I find myself agreeing with the protester's points, but that agreement's overwhelmed by the desire to smack them up the side of the head for their idiotic antics.