You know, the coffee is starting to kick in now. I just remembered that thickness of the shielding material isn't that big of a deal in a faraday cage. As long as you have a thick enough layer to ensure proper coverage (No tears/holes).
I would think that the lining wouldn't be able to form an effective Faraday cage due to it's thickness. Shoplifters use multiple layers of aluminium foil in a bag/purse to attempt to steal RFID tagged items. I would assume that an active GPS transmitter would require a lot more shielding. I'm also assuming it would be actively transmitting, since a passive device would only be able to know where it is, but not tell anyone (including Nestle). This also then begs the question on how they are powering the thing. I'm fairly sure the person will know when they find it. Would be funny as hell if the person that buys the candy bar happens to be a fugitive, spy, paranoid or conspiracy theorist. I would love to see them freak out over finding a GPS device in the chocolate. =P
I've tried to disprove that rule so many times only to be horrified at the results. I have now given up on that quests due to the financial pressures caused by frequent psychotherapy sessions.
This comment is no longer available because the TechDirt account associated with this comment has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of silliness from claimants including:
- Anonymous Coward
- Inspector Fox of the Light Entertainment Police, Comedy Division, Special Flying Squad
- He who shall not be named
I wonder how long it will be before the lawyers start jumping to the other side... If things continue down this path, a lot of lawyers will be out of jobs since there won't be any online infringement to shake down. So it's in their best interest to stop the automated take-down bots. Which would actually be funny, since they'd be trying to protect their business model... =P
I think the content bots still need some more work. They seem to be slowly working in the right direction, but there is still some media left online. That means there is still work to be done. Eventually they'll get to the point where all online media is blocked, then we at the MPAA/RIAA can rejoice!
I think defacing a portrait of His son then also even thinking about trying to dip her hand into the donation box has already got herself a nice warm seat reserved in the afterlife...
Assuming that she can't repent or otherwise clear herself of sin before then. (I'm not very good with religious doctrine. I don't know the in and outs about what can and can not be forgiven)
Wouldn't this be more like vandalism? I don't think the Church ever gave her permission to attempt the restoration. She took it upon herself. I may be wrong though, I only saw a news summary when it happened and what people said about it.
The summary I read said that an appraiser went to the church to take a look at the painting to determine the cost to restore the original damage. When the appraiser was shown to the painting by church staff, they were stunned. They originally thought someone intentionally vandalized it, until the women eventually came forth and admitted what she had done.
I'm not overly fond of the Church myself. I tend to identify myself as agnostic, though I'm think I'm technically Christian (Baptized, attended church at a young age, etc).
But looking at the bigger picture, the Church is a large entity. From my understanding, they are also very protective of their donations/collections. Trying to sue the Church, in my mind, would be like trying to sue a large corporation like Apple. Both will have a large army of lawyers that will crush you. They both also have fanatic fanbases that will torment you.
I personally would not try my luck at attacking a bees nest only to get a small lick of honey. But then again, I would never have attempted to restore something beyond my skill level and without permission. Though, I think both of these thoughts fall into that "common sense" category that seems to be on the endangered list. =P
But ignoring the fact that she ruined the original painting, which I think she should be charged with vandalism, and also that she's trying to claim partial ownership of the item she defaced. Trying to dip your hand into the church's coin purse is one of the craziest things I think you could do.
1) If she's religious, I hope she enjoys a very warm afterlife. I doubt He would be too happy about defacing a portrait of His son. I'm also sure He wouldn't approve of her taking money for her personal use that could be used to help those who need the help the most.
2) I have a feeling that the Church has a whole arsenal of lawyers that will crush this lawsuit faster then a blackhole could.
3) If she thought the anxiety she suffered from the original criticism was bad, I hope she has a group of health care professionals on 24 hour standby, this next anxiety attack will be going nuclear.
Not saying I agree with the lawsuit or the copyright or anything but...
Since the mint uses a different cast/mould/stamp for coins approximately every other decade, wouldn't the copyright be applicable to that version? Like the 1920–1941 penny is different in metal composition and design than the 1982–1996 penny which is also different than the 2000–current penny. So wouldn't the 2000 penny design be covered until 2050?
Same thing happens with the bills, they change the artwork and security features every decade or so, like our new polymer bills.
From my understanding, they are filing the lawsuit now, but have also put it on hold until the appeals of the patent invalidation is heard. Something about them needing to get the filing date now (Maybe a statue of limitations or something?) This way if the patents are made valid again they can continue this suit. If the patents remain invalid they can modify this suit to drop the invalid patents but continue with the valid patents.
I think this is more to just get some publicity so that they can try to shake down other smaller fish. They could then tell them that they are serious because they are suing the big guys!
Now this is likely because I'm not a very religious person, but I can't understand how people could think that even though someone on the other side of the world made a video that they thought was insulting, that the right course of action is to storm the embassy of that producer's country and kill their ambassador.
A lot of the great scientists were called insane. When people propose ideas that don't conform to the standard way of thinking, others think something is not right with them.
Earth is round and revolves around the Sun? You sir, are mad! =P
On the post: Senator Wyden Introduces Bill To Bring Some Sanity To Webcasting Royalty Rates
On the post: More Evidence That Legacy Gatekeepers Just Don't Understand Modern Business Models
Re: Re: Tactfully yours...
=P
On the post: More Evidence That Legacy Gatekeepers Just Don't Understand Modern Business Models
Re: Well...
On the post: Nestle: Buy Our Candy So We Can Hunt You Down
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Nestle: Buy Our Candy So We Can Hunt You Down
Re: Re:
On the post: Nestle: Buy Our Candy So We Can Hunt You Down
Re: Re:
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
Re: Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
- Anonymous Coward
- Inspector Fox of the Light Entertainment Police, Comedy Division, Special Flying Squad
- He who shall not be named
On the post: New Filesharing Index Shows Filesharing Is Now Mainstream
=P
On the post: Old Lady Ruins Fresco, Claims Copyright, Demands Money
Re:
I also have a ton of priceless items at home, but nobody seems to want to pay me to come take a look at them... =P
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
/s =P
On the post: Old Lady Ruins Fresco, Claims Copyright, Demands Money
Re:
Assuming that she can't repent or otherwise clear herself of sin before then. (I'm not very good with religious doctrine. I don't know the in and outs about what can and can not be forgiven)
On the post: Old Lady Ruins Fresco, Claims Copyright, Demands Money
Re: Re: A weird twist to this
The summary I read said that an appraiser went to the church to take a look at the painting to determine the cost to restore the original damage. When the appraiser was shown to the painting by church staff, they were stunned. They originally thought someone intentionally vandalized it, until the women eventually came forth and admitted what she had done.
On the post: Old Lady Ruins Fresco, Claims Copyright, Demands Money
Re: Re:
But looking at the bigger picture, the Church is a large entity. From my understanding, they are also very protective of their donations/collections. Trying to sue the Church, in my mind, would be like trying to sue a large corporation like Apple. Both will have a large army of lawyers that will crush you. They both also have fanatic fanbases that will torment you.
I personally would not try my luck at attacking a bees nest only to get a small lick of honey. But then again, I would never have attempted to restore something beyond my skill level and without permission. Though, I think both of these thoughts fall into that "common sense" category that seems to be on the endangered list. =P
On the post: Old Lady Ruins Fresco, Claims Copyright, Demands Money
But ignoring the fact that she ruined the original painting, which I think she should be charged with vandalism, and also that she's trying to claim partial ownership of the item she defaced. Trying to dip your hand into the church's coin purse is one of the craziest things I think you could do.
1) If she's religious, I hope she enjoys a very warm afterlife. I doubt He would be too happy about defacing a portrait of His son. I'm also sure He wouldn't approve of her taking money for her personal use that could be used to help those who need the help the most.
2) I have a feeling that the Church has a whole arsenal of lawyers that will crush this lawsuit faster then a blackhole could.
3) If she thought the anxiety she suffered from the original criticism was bad, I hope she has a group of health care professionals on 24 hour standby, this next anxiety attack will be going nuclear.
On the post: Royal Canadian Mint Claims Copyright On One Cent Piece, Threatens Indie Musician Over Album Art
Since the mint uses a different cast/mould/stamp for coins approximately every other decade, wouldn't the copyright be applicable to that version? Like the 1920–1941 penny is different in metal composition and design than the 1982–1996 penny which is also different than the 2000–current penny. So wouldn't the 2000 penny design be covered until 2050?
Same thing happens with the bills, they change the artwork and security features every decade or so, like our new polymer bills.
On the post: University Of California Won't Give Up: Sues Facebook Over Already Rejected Patents
Re: Penalty for EOLAs?
I think this is more to just get some publicity so that they can try to shake down other smaller fish. They could then tell them that they are serious because they are suing the big guys!
On the post: YouTube Restricts Access To Anti-Islam Movie Trailer In Egypt And Libya
Now this is likely because I'm not a very religious person, but I can't understand how people could think that even though someone on the other side of the world made a video that they thought was insulting, that the right course of action is to storm the embassy of that producer's country and kill their ambassador.
On the post: Don't Downplay The Importance Of Tweakers In Innovation; Excerpt From 'The Knockoff Economy'
Re: Re: Re:
Earth is round and revolves around the Sun? You sir, are mad! =P
Next >>