That's about the most ignorant comment ever... the added stress and financial burden a massive failure puts on an organization is not just a simple "meh... we'll deal."
Insensitive, yes. Ignorant, probably not. The truth is that when tools fail, people adapt. Has been happening since man appeared on the earth 80k years ago, and it will likely continue happening long after we are gone. Whether or not people lose jobs or it makes life tough for the next couple years isn't going to stop people adapting.
Sucks to be the guy who has to manually check the no-fly list.
I suspect they treated the no-fly list for what it was, meaningless "feel-good" pandering that doesn't actually stop terrorism but makes a small portion of the population's lives miserable. They probably didn't have anyone checking it, and amazingly (or better, unsurprisingly,) no terrorists got on board any United planes.
Yup. That is me. What, snipers are allowed in warfare, but not computer simulated warfare in video games?
I spent a lot of time in covops ships or picket in EVE too...but there, camping was something that everyone enjoyed. Nothing better than to enter into enemy held space and hear the soft, non-threatening voice of "jump out of here as quickly as you can because there are three capital ships in here with you and they are quite pissed about something!" Always adds to the pucker factor, but at least you knew they were there due to the camper.
Either way, they are evoking / inviting a response.
Yeah, but certainly not the over-response we see here. I am sure if Guha thought he would get this response, he would have worn another shirt. But hind-sight is 20-20, and if we lived our lives worrying constantly about how someone might over-react to something we did, we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.
Actually the proper way to deal with it and the way it's been dealt with in the past is to have the case heard in court.
This, my friend, is not even remotely true. The founders of this country didn't go to court to deal with the King of England. They recognized that the courts would see them without standing, being a colony of England. Nor did it work during the Woman's Suffrage or during the race marches. Action has always occurred outside of the courts, then unfortunately dragged into the courts after the fact.
People who are being oppressed and having their human rights violated by the states have no requirement to handle their grievances via the courts, though it usually ends up there, but it never starts there. The four boxes of liberty have always been: soap box (what the t-shirt represents,) ballot box, jury box, and cartridge box. Going to court is number 3 on that list, and nobody wants to get to 4.
Maybe, but that is poor execution since the most valuable item there was removed by TSA policy and placed on the conveyor belt on its own. A thief doesn't need to open the bag when the laptop is sitting there waiting for them.
Except maybe to prevent theft by the TSA, since they do have a tendency to take items from luggage while it is in their custody and outside of view of the owner, but again, seems like zipping up the bag won't prevent that from happening.
..annnd thank you for giving a big middle finger and an 'up yours' to anyone who has ever suffered and/or died defending any of your rights and freedoms. Really, I'm sure they'd be proud of what you've done with them.
This! And an old dead guy from our $100 bill has the following to add:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.
Obviously, this guy decided to wear that shirt to the airport hoping to evoke a response. Hopefully it was worth his while.
I often wear a Rooster Teeth shirt that has a picture of a tent with a sniper rifle coming out of it, next to a campfire with the words "It's a legitimate strategy." I also camp in real life, sans the sniper rifle, so people usually just laugh when they see it. So you are saying that if I happened to walk into a theater wearing that shirt, I was hoping to evoke a response?
Sometimes we wear a shirt because it matches a particular statement, (I tend to camp in video games, and I've been called a camper before, and have had many an argument about the different playing styles,) but it doesn't necessarily mean we are hoping for a response. Most people just laugh...
Because those HD copies don't already exist within an hour (maybe two) of the show airing already...
Considering their own statistics and personal experience, it isn't the ones that exist within an hour that they should be concerned about, but the ones that appear 8 hours before the show airs anywhere, because a friend of a friend got a copy from a friend that knew someone in the production company.
I wish they would just give up on DRM already. They are only fooling themselves when they think DRM prevents infringement, since everyone else knows it happens regardless to DRM. The only way they are going to stop it is to give their customer a chance to buy it using a fair (to the customer) process.
Re: Coppy Right Applies to Public Domain...not monotarily.
You can easily make money off of public domain. It is how it is arranged that makes the copyright.
True, if the arrangement is substantially different (called "Original work of authorship" by the US Copyright Office.) It is still a derivative work, so you can't copyright someone-elses' work that is still under copyright. According to Circular 14: "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must differ sufficiently from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify a work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and formatting are not copyrightable."
But while you own the copyright on the new work, you can not legally prevent someone else from accessing the original work, at least not unless you are Disney.
Yet another author who borrowed from culture with a huge sense of entitlement. I don't have a problem with Mr. Morrison borrowing his ideas from culture. But then to have the balls to come up and say that others who borrow from culture are less creative if they base the premise on someone-elses' work, that is rich. There are highly creative fan fics out there, just like there is highly uncreative "original" fiction out there.
Reading the summaries and reviews of his work, as I couldn't care less about reading his books, I can think of a couple authors he "borrowed" his ideas from. Luckily, borrowing ideas is not against the law or he might be explaining his books to the Huxley and Nolan estates. Too bad derivative works and fan fiction based works don't fall into the same realm, especially when they create an entirely new work even though they are based on a few concepts from the original.
good grief... you are making apple's case... if people are actually confusing Apple and Samsung products, that's what you DON'T want to have happen and is the basis for Apple's case ugh... [facepalm]
I believe confusion is a trademark issue, not a patent one.
Have to agree I have a Samsung Galaxy S and a Toshiba tablet and am extremely happy with both, Toshiba has Jelly Bean.
You can install Jelly Bean on Samsung too. I don't believe they have an OTA for it yet (I don't know for sure, as mine is rooted and running Cyanogenmod 9.) I believe That Anonymous Coward had Jelly Bean running on his.
I know DRM is a bad word on this site, but it really isn't evil. Unless you don't believe copyright should exist, it's illogical to hate people for using technological tools to protect their work, as long as that's all they're doing.
As others have said, all DRM is evil, and it has nothing to do with copyright. When I purchase something, the terms of the sale should be right up and in front of me. With DRM (which is usually hidden,) the terms of sale are usually not included and when they are, they can always be changed after the fact by poor business practices and greed. I've purchased way too many games that didn't allow me to use the game after some years, or didn't even install on my computer right after I purchased it.
While the company has no legal or ethical requirement to support their product years later, it should still be able to be installed and used on like equipment and operating systems to what it was intended to be used on, yet I've had quite a few games which I had to break the DRM in order to play them even 5 years after they were sold.
While I tolerate Steam DRM, even Steam DRM is evil.
If you deal drugs, traffic stolen property, etc. that property is seized until the trial. So are you arguing that property shouldn't be seized before the trial, and crimes should be allowed to continue?
So they seize the server which contains the illegal items, right? No, they don't? They just take away the domain and you can still get to the site using the IP address?
Usually when law enforcement seizes something, it is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or further harm, but in this case, they aren't preventing further harm or preventing the destruction of evidence. They are only making it marginally more difficult for the person who is alleged to be breaking the law. The person gets another domain or publicizes the IP address to the server and the problem continues. And it opens the process to abuse, ala Dejaz1. If they have enough evidence to prosecute, get a search warrant to seize the server. Seizing the domain does nothing.
Break room coffee is killing Starbucks. We must give them a monopoly to save em.
7-Eleven coffee is killing Starbucks. Break room coffee is killing 7-Eleven coffee.
If you offer a monopoly to Starbucks, 7-Eleven will be unhappy, but the break-room will just switch to tea.
People buy $4 coffee because of convenience and taste and those who don't care as much about taste will spend $2 for the convenience. Last time I checked, someone had to make the break-room coffee, and if you take the last bit and don't make a new pot, there will be hell to pay.
The same mindset can be found in most other hierarchies, from corporate to government.
This.
We have a President who has absolutely no qualms about disclosing national security information for the sake of politics who in turn is allowing his administration to prosecute people who have legitimate complaints about fraud, waste, and abuse within the government and report it through their chain of command and get threatened for whistle-blowing. We have companies who participate in schemes to defraud their customers and their producers alike (copyright infringement) while complaining that the pirates are ruining their business, even when that does not appear to be the case.
Honestly, I don't know how some of the ethically challenged sleep at night.
Very easily, apparently. What keeps us awake at night doesn't seem to effect their sleep at all.
On the post: United Airlines Massive Computer Crash Leads To Handwritten Boarding Passes
Re: How wrong...
Insensitive, yes. Ignorant, probably not. The truth is that when tools fail, people adapt. Has been happening since man appeared on the earth 80k years ago, and it will likely continue happening long after we are gone. Whether or not people lose jobs or it makes life tough for the next couple years isn't going to stop people adapting.
On the post: United Airlines Massive Computer Crash Leads To Handwritten Boarding Passes
Re:
I suspect they treated the no-fly list for what it was, meaningless "feel-good" pandering that doesn't actually stop terrorism but makes a small portion of the population's lives miserable. They probably didn't have anyone checking it, and amazingly (or better, unsurprisingly,) no terrorists got on board any United planes.
On the post: TSA Declares Themselves Fashion & Funny Police
Re: Re: Re:
Yup. That is me. What, snipers are allowed in warfare, but not computer simulated warfare in video games?
I spent a lot of time in covops ships or picket in EVE too...but there, camping was something that everyone enjoyed. Nothing better than to enter into enemy held space and hear the soft, non-threatening voice of "jump out of here as quickly as you can because there are three capital ships in here with you and they are quite pissed about something!" Always adds to the pucker factor, but at least you knew they were there due to the camper.
On the post: TSA Declares Themselves Fashion & Funny Police
Re: evoke a response
Yeah, but certainly not the over-response we see here. I am sure if Guha thought he would get this response, he would have worn another shirt. But hind-sight is 20-20, and if we lived our lives worrying constantly about how someone might over-react to something we did, we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.
On the post: TSA Declares Themselves Fashion & Funny Police
Re: Re: Re:
This, my friend, is not even remotely true. The founders of this country didn't go to court to deal with the King of England. They recognized that the courts would see them without standing, being a colony of England. Nor did it work during the Woman's Suffrage or during the race marches. Action has always occurred outside of the courts, then unfortunately dragged into the courts after the fact.
People who are being oppressed and having their human rights violated by the states have no requirement to handle their grievances via the courts, though it usually ends up there, but it never starts there. The four boxes of liberty have always been: soap box (what the t-shirt represents,) ballot box, jury box, and cartridge box. Going to court is number 3 on that list, and nobody wants to get to 4.
On the post: TSA Declares Themselves Fashion & Funny Police
Re: Re:
Maybe, but that is poor execution since the most valuable item there was removed by TSA policy and placed on the conveyor belt on its own. A thief doesn't need to open the bag when the laptop is sitting there waiting for them.
Except maybe to prevent theft by the TSA, since they do have a tendency to take items from luggage while it is in their custody and outside of view of the owner, but again, seems like zipping up the bag won't prevent that from happening.
On the post: TSA Declares Themselves Fashion & Funny Police
Re: Re:
This! And an old dead guy from our $100 bill has the following to add:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.
On the post: TSA Declares Themselves Fashion & Funny Police
Re:
I often wear a Rooster Teeth shirt that has a picture of a tent with a sniper rifle coming out of it, next to a campfire with the words "It's a legitimate strategy." I also camp in real life, sans the sniper rifle, so people usually just laugh when they see it. So you are saying that if I happened to walk into a theater wearing that shirt, I was hoping to evoke a response?
Sometimes we wear a shirt because it matches a particular statement, (I tend to camp in video games, and I've been called a camper before, and have had many an argument about the different playing styles,) but it doesn't necessarily mean we are hoping for a response. Most people just laugh...
On the post: HBO Go Goes Everywhere... Except Your TV Set
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: HBO Go Goes Everywhere... Except Your TV Set
Re:
Considering their own statistics and personal experience, it isn't the ones that exist within an hour that they should be concerned about, but the ones that appear 8 hours before the show airs anywhere, because a friend of a friend got a copy from a friend that knew someone in the production company.
I wish they would just give up on DRM already. They are only fooling themselves when they think DRM prevents infringement, since everyone else knows it happens regardless to DRM. The only way they are going to stop it is to give their customer a chance to buy it using a fair (to the customer) process.
On the post: Major Labels Claim Copyright Over Public Domain Songs; YouTube Punishes Musician
Re: Coppy Right Applies to Public Domain...not monotarily.
True, if the arrangement is substantially different (called "Original work of authorship" by the US Copyright Office.) It is still a derivative work, so you can't copyright someone-elses' work that is still under copyright. According to Circular 14: "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must differ sufficiently from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify a work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and formatting are not copyrightable."
But while you own the copyright on the new work, you can not legally prevent someone else from accessing the original work, at least not unless you are Disney.
:
On the post: Fan Fiction: A Revisionist History And Future
Re: Re: Re: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead
No embarrassed cough. Mr. Morrison is a Mr. The picture is of the author who wrote 50 shades of grey.
On the post: Fan Fiction: A Revisionist History And Future
Entitlement Generation...
Reading the summaries and reviews of his work, as I couldn't care less about reading his books, I can think of a couple authors he "borrowed" his ideas from. Luckily, borrowing ideas is not against the law or he might be explaining his books to the Huxley and Nolan estates. Too bad derivative works and fan fiction based works don't fall into the same realm, especially when they create an entirely new work even though they are based on a few concepts from the original.
On the post: Apple/Samsung Verdict Advertising Samsung As A Viable Alternative To iPads & iPhones
Re: Re:
I believe confusion is a trademark issue, not a patent one.
On the post: Apple/Samsung Verdict Advertising Samsung As A Viable Alternative To iPads & iPhones
Re: Re: Re:
You can install Jelly Bean on Samsung too. I don't believe they have an OTA for it yet (I don't know for sure, as mine is rooted and running Cyanogenmod 9.) I believe That Anonymous Coward had Jelly Bean running on his.
On the post: MPAA Joins RIAA In Having Budgets Slashed
Re: Re:
I wish I got that. All I get from them is free services in exchange for ads. And they keep killing off the free services that I like using the most.
On the post: The DVD Is Dying. Hollywood's Plan? Do Nothing And Cede Ground To File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Tougher than we think
As others have said, all DRM is evil, and it has nothing to do with copyright. When I purchase something, the terms of the sale should be right up and in front of me. With DRM (which is usually hidden,) the terms of sale are usually not included and when they are, they can always be changed after the fact by poor business practices and greed. I've purchased way too many games that didn't allow me to use the game after some years, or didn't even install on my computer right after I purchased it.
While the company has no legal or ethical requirement to support their product years later, it should still be able to be installed and used on like equipment and operating systems to what it was intended to be used on, yet I've had quite a few games which I had to break the DRM in order to play them even 5 years after they were sold.
While I tolerate Steam DRM, even Steam DRM is evil.
On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So they seize the server which contains the illegal items, right? No, they don't? They just take away the domain and you can still get to the site using the IP address?
Usually when law enforcement seizes something, it is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or further harm, but in this case, they aren't preventing further harm or preventing the destruction of evidence. They are only making it marginally more difficult for the person who is alleged to be breaking the law. The person gets another domain or publicizes the IP address to the server and the problem continues. And it opens the process to abuse, ala Dejaz1. If they have enough evidence to prosecute, get a search warrant to seize the server. Seizing the domain does nothing.
On the post: Apps Are Not Coffee
Re: Re: Re:
7-Eleven coffee is killing Starbucks. Break room coffee is killing 7-Eleven coffee.
If you offer a monopoly to Starbucks, 7-Eleven will be unhappy, but the break-room will just switch to tea.
People buy $4 coffee because of convenience and taste and those who don't care as much about taste will spend $2 for the convenience. Last time I checked, someone had to make the break-room coffee, and if you take the last bit and don't make a new pot, there will be hell to pay.
On the post: Emory University's Dishonest Data Reminds Us That Ethics Don't Come From A 'Policy'
Re:
This.
We have a President who has absolutely no qualms about disclosing national security information for the sake of politics who in turn is allowing his administration to prosecute people who have legitimate complaints about fraud, waste, and abuse within the government and report it through their chain of command and get threatened for whistle-blowing. We have companies who participate in schemes to defraud their customers and their producers alike (copyright infringement) while complaining that the pirates are ruining their business, even when that does not appear to be the case.
Honestly, I don't know how some of the ethically challenged sleep at night.
Very easily, apparently. What keeps us awake at night doesn't seem to effect their sleep at all.
Next >>