What it comes down to, for me, is: can it be used if you are unconscious? Both face and fingerprint recognition can; meaning that it is a convenience feature and not a security feature.
The problem the RIAA faces, aside from being an unethical organization, is that Bittorrent has a lot of legitimate use. I don't see this going anywhere.
I am a big, big Prince fan. I own every one of his albums and I think he is a musical genius, but when it comes to things like this, he is an freaking idiot. Here's an example:
For those who don't know, Prince is currently working with a band of three women, called 3rdEyeGirl. They have a Twitter account and Prince himself has even tweeted using it:
https://twitter.com/3rdeyegirl
Last year, that Twitter account linked to a really cool YouTube video which featured a cover of Prince's Pop Life by Alice Smith & Citizen Cope. The tweet is here:
So what happened to it? If you go to the YouTube page now, you'll see that Controversy Music, which is owned by Prince, took it down. That's right, they actually took down something that he himself (or those working with him) posted a link to.
Speaking as an ex-military member, I find Manning detestable and I believe he should be convicted. That said, I find the government's treatment of Manning since his arrest equally wrong.
I kind of understand the anger this guy is feeling, especially if he was not using the account in a nefarious manner, but Twitter has the right to do this.
Having worked at a Barnes & Noble, where lots of people treat it like a personal lounge and don't bother to buy anything, I can understand *wanting* to do it, but to actually do it is probably not a good idea.
Being "prepared to take custody of the laptop anytime, or whenever you feel is appropriate", is not the same as being in control of the laptop; at least not to me.
With that thinking, things that are in the public domain but still have trademarks attached to them, like the Tarzan and John Carter of Mars novels, couldn't be distributed either. I don't see how this legal ruling can stand.
What it comes down to, for me, is: can it be used if you are unconscious? Both face and fingerprint recognition can; meaning that it is a convenience feature and not a security feature.
No thank you.
I still don't understand why Netflix counts against the cap as Netflix is paying Comcast and I am paying Comcast.
The Internet Of Insecure Things.
The problem the RIAA faces, aside from being an unethical organization, is that Bittorrent has a lot of legitimate use. I don't see this going anywhere.
The DMCA doesn't apply outside the US. What are they going to do if it's published outside of the country?
So by that logic, crime can only take place if the victim is aware of it?
I am a big, big Prince fan. I own every one of his albums and I think he is a musical genius, but when it comes to things like this, he is an freaking idiot. Here's an example:
For those who don't know, Prince is currently working with a band of three women, called 3rdEyeGirl. They have a Twitter account and Prince himself has even tweeted using it:
https://twitter.com/3rdeyegirl
Last year, that Twitter account linked to a really cool YouTube video which featured a cover of Prince's Pop Life by Alice Smith & Citizen Cope. The tweet is here:
https://twitter.com/3RDEYEGIRL/status/325813286895493121
So what happened to it? If you go to the YouTube page now, you'll see that Controversy Music, which is owned by Prince, took it down. That's right, they actually took down something that he himself (or those working with him) posted a link to.
That's funny because I consider "stop and frisk" to be illegal.
I personally do not consider IBM to be a patent troll but I go question the wisdom of this action.
Speaking as an ex-military member, I find Manning detestable and I believe he should be convicted. That said, I find the government's treatment of Manning since his arrest equally wrong.
I kind of understand the anger this guy is feeling, especially if he was not using the account in a nefarious manner, but Twitter has the right to do this.
Republicans: they care about you before you are born, but after that, they don't give a fuck.
Having worked at a Barnes & Noble, where lots of people treat it like a personal lounge and don't bother to buy anything, I can understand *wanting* to do it, but to actually do it is probably not a good idea.
Being "prepared to take custody of the laptop anytime, or whenever you feel is appropriate", is not the same as being in control of the laptop; at least not to me.
Just because material is not commercially available doesn't mean people have the right to distribute it. Copyright still applies.
It is incredibly stupid and I hope the site owner brings it back up.
With that thinking, things that are in the public domain but still have trademarks attached to them, like the Tarzan and John Carter of Mars novels, couldn't be distributed either. I don't see how this legal ruling can stand.
Speaking as someone who occasonally buy original comic art, what a horrible idea!
I love Nina, but I have to say that I agree with Stallman on this particular issue.
Underlawyered?
"In fact, we're a bit disappointed that Overlawyered would agree to take down historical posts without a court-ordered reason to do so."
You're right; this doesn't make any sense at all.