2380 posts • joined 11 Apr 2006
Re: alternate reality??
I'd say that while the US has a greater diversity, almost all countries have the same problem.
He must be a Rangers Fan!!!
Title says it all!!
Re: The Green Brigade
Re: prior art
Do you even know anything about Bose?
Not just the company but the man behind the company? (I believe he's dead...)
The guy was *the* man when it cam to audio (speaker) technology.
An MIT professor who's life work is a list of patents.
Any prior art is from Bose.
Re: May as well save the $1 billion
For there to be a lawsuit, you have to show that you were harmed as result of the infection.
Not an easy thing to do...
@AC Re: Our Mission
If you can afford to drive around in London, then you really can't complain about the cost of parking.
Outside of the tube strike, the tube is extremely efficient in terms of getting around town. Its one of the cities where public transportation does seem to work.
I wonder if Archer will add this as aprt of a plot twist in their next season.
Re: I lie to them
You do realize that they capture enough information from various sources that they know who you are and how old you really are.
First, its against the law for you to connect to a network without permission to do so. (Theft of Service)
Second... you get what you deserve. (You never know who's watching...)
Third, there was evidence in the snarfed data that contained personal information including passwords.
(yes some systems still send passwords and connection data in plain text.)
But back to your point about mapping open wi-fi...
It would essentially be a 'free lunch' for google to track your android devices and then piggyback on unsecured wi-fi to send that information back to google for analysis.
Do you not see how illegal this would be?
Of course we'll never know if they 1) Tried this. 2) intended to try this...
Re: No Shock Here...
I guess commentards who down voted haven't looked at relevant case history.
It gets down to what is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Walking naked on to a bus in the middle of the day and they trying to sue someone for taking a snap... claiming that they violated your privacy? Sorry that's going to fall flat.
Fighting the charges that you got caught listening to your neighbor's 900mhz analog phone. (Again showing my age), claiming that since they were broadcasting over the open air between the handset and base station that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy? Good luck fighting that one.
It goes back to the SCOTUS case where a guy when in to a public payphone to place a call to his bookie in another state. What he didnt know was that the Feds had set up a wire tap, but failed to get a warrant.
SCOTUS tossed the conviction because the recording was obtained illegally. The suspect had a reasonable expectation of privacy by going in to a phone booth to place a call.
That was in the 60's and there are cases going forward that show how SCOTUS feels about protecting one's privacy.
WAR DRIVING, even done by a corporate giant. Is still illegal.
No Shock Here...
Google's arguments fell flat because even if you don't secure or know how to secure your network, there's an expectation of privacy.
If you look at SCOTUS decisions going back to the 60's where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, the courts will always favor it.
Google would be best served by quickly and quietly settling this case.
Expect to see a 10Q filing on the cost of the lawsuit and settlement.
@Paul, Re: @Justin... Flip the coin
The issue isn't the question of storage of your individual copies.
The issue is if you store your copies on the cloud, and then make them available where people pay a fee to view your copies. (Meaning that they don't own their own copies.)
That would be illegal.
Here's a grey area... suppose you offer a service that allows people to upload their videos.
Now suppose you take the checksum of the videos and decide that if they match an already stored video, that you instead of storing an additional copy, you just store a link to the existing copy. If someone removes a video, you remove the link and when a video no longer has any links, you remove the file.
Would this be illegal? I honestly don't know, and I think that it would be legal, as long as the video content itself was legal. But IANAL and that too would have to go through the legal process up to SCOTUS.
@Adrew ... Re: Good. Now it's time to end retransmission fees.
"There is a compulsory license regime for US cable companies - so they can use the free-to-air transmissions and TV companies can't stop them, but they must pay a statutory below-market rate."
This isn't exactly true.
Satellite provider Direct TV can't rebroadcast Over the Air channels like ABC, CBS, NBC in areas where the local affiliate doesn't grant them permission, if there is a local affiliate in the area. So even if you're unable to get the over the air signal from the local affiliate, if they say no, you don't get that channel on satellite.
Its not always a simple thing.
@Anatak Re: @Justin... Flip the coin
Suppose I want to take my over-the-air or any other broadcast that I receive at home and use my computer as a DVR. Then suppose I want to store that copy 'in the cloud'... I then want to play it back on my TV or PC, I should be able to do so. However, the moment you share it... you're going to be afoul of the law.
Yes, if 100's of people does this, then there are 100's copies and each of you are paying for the storage and costs of streaming. But it would be legal.
Re: Pyrrhic Victory
That's pure bunk.
Most people in cities get their TV from either Sat or Cable.
In a condo, where do you hang your antenna? ;-)
(You know what I mean...)
So you get OtA tv already. You're not missing a thing.
@Justin... Re: Flip the coin
In some of the articles, the authors say that the courts saw through the sham.
That is to say that there are 'hundreds' of antennas and that there is one per 'customer'?
Ok and that suppose they all wanted to 'record' the US vs Germany in World Cup action.
How many copies does Aereo actually make and retain?
If you believe 1 per antenna... I've got some swampland in Florida you might be interested in.
The difference between you recording your own shows using hardware so that you can watch it anytime and virtually anywhere... (assuming you have the correct software) is that you're not providing the recording as a service and are charging for that service. Were you to do that, then you'd be on the hook like Aereo.
Note that if you look at what you want to do with 'over the air'... google hulu.
While I agree with your article. I do have to argue that disruption is a term that has significant meaning.
Looking at Hadoop for example, it is a truly disruptive technology. If you've ever walked in to an enterprise where everything is in silos, then introduce a horizontal platform... truly disruptive. In a good way.
Re: But what if I choose to..
you would actually have a stronger argument than Aereo did.
You're not reselling a service. Were you to do that... then you'd be in trouble.
Re: Why fibreglass cows?
Again, you've never been around cows...
While they are usually passive and want to get away... you corner them, any animal, and they will panic.
Not good. I've seen a cow (not a bull) rip apart a pen trying to get out because she was being crowded and spooked by the farmhand trying to get the cow into the chute.
(And yes, I've 'volunteered' to work the cattle when it became time to give them their medicines ...)
Trust me. Even a spooked calf can be dangerous.
Re: Why fibreglass cows?
I guess you've never been on a farm with cattle.
Cattle are herd animals and the herd will wander away from crowds of humans.
So all of your hotspots will be away from you. ;-)
Re: Makes someone happy?
@AC.. whatever floats your boat. :-)
But its not legal in the US.
I could have said "an app that lets me find the spot market price for meth and negotiate a free delivery to my doorstep with no police intervention?"
Would that be better?
Oh wait, its called Craigslist. :-P
Re: Makes someone happy?
Sorry, but when you cut a single sentence taken out of context...
The point was that just because something brings enjoyment to someone doesn't mean it should be made legal or right.
In the UK there was a show on football hooligans. Those who love to go and get in to fights for the sake of fighting. They enjoy it. Should it be legal?
Uncontrolled/Unregulated prostitution. Should that be legal?
By the argument espoused by the company, it should when it shouldn't.
Then there's the city's side. Its illegal to try and profit from a public resource.
Suppose its a very hot day and you want to take a drink from a public drinking fountain. (Yes, I'm showing my age because today you'd buy a bottle of water.) But when you got to the drinking fountain there were a couple of tough guys who told you it would cost you a couple of bucks to take a drink...
You get the idea. So by the company's perspective... that would be legal.
To look at it a different way, under the law, the person who's selling a public spot doesn't own the public spot or rights to the public spot.
Makes someone happy?
""This applies also to companies like Airbnb, Uber and Lyft that are continuously facing difficulties while delivering something that makes users happy," he said."
Sorry but an app that lets me contact an escort of my choosing and negotiate a haggle free price up front? Now that would make me happy, but that still doesn't mean it should be legal.
Food for thought...
i'm sure I'll get massively down voted, even if I am saying something that is factual.
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
Thats right. For one to put Snowden's actions in perspective, one must look back on history and the reasons why things are kept secret. Unfortunately when you look at history, you'll find that its against Snowden. Go back over the past several hundred years of recorded history...
We look at Manning and Snowden, there is no whistleblowing. No purpose, but a smash and grab of confidential (top secret) data and then an eventual dump of data. No crimes were ever shown from the data breech. To use Manning as an example... all of the war documents... not one evidence of a war crime. (And I should point out that war crimes do happen in every war on both sides. The US was guilty on several crimes, however none of them were reported by Manning.) Snowden? No crimes were found also. Note that the current law(s) support the assertion that the NSA could capture the metadata of the phone calls, yet they had to be careful when combining that data. The NSA actually had better security and protocols for data access management than the companies that produced the data itself.
The point is that like Manning, Snowden is a criminal. He joined the company as a subcontractor specifically to go to the NSA and steal their data.
Now Snowden is attempting to defend his actions.
Sorry, but he can rot in Russia. No sympathy here.
Re: Slip of the pen/tongue?
No, he'll be prosecuted under the law
He'll probably piss someone off in prison and get himself shiv'd
He's a total prat.
@Fluffy Re: Why would Sweden send him when we haven't...?
The US hasn't indited him so no charges. No charges, no extradition request.
But, by an accident of birth, he's Australian so you're stuck with him.
Re: >"where he will be persecuted for leaking thousands of American and British diplomatic cables"
What apparently scared Assange is that in the Article 32 hearing the allegation was that Assange helped with the theft.
Small detail that has serious implications.
Re: oh but that's just the start...
Yes, there is an Ecuadorian embassy in Australia.
But Assange has to fly and land in Australia. That takes time.
He has to be processed in.
That takes time.
He could be held for a short period of time by the Aussie government. (He's a bad boy now..)
The Ecuadorian Embassy may not want him after 2 years as a guest.
Lots of things can happen.
Re: oh but that's just the start...
I suggest you go back and check out the charges. He would be charged where the one count carried a maximum of 4 years.
In the US that would be a felony and not a misdemeanor. You don't swear out an EAW for a charge that carries only a fine. (Seems you've been listening to Assange's spin.)
Again, the US hasn't filed any charges so he faces nothing in the US. Right now the threat of US is of a paranoid man child. But then again, only Julian knows what he did and maybe he has a guilty conscience?
And yes, he'll eventually end up in Australia. He's Australian and that probably should scare him the most.
Re: Why would Sweden send him when we haven't...?
They wouldn't send him.
He goes back to the UK and even the UK wouldnt send him.
They'd boot him back to Australia.
That's where the fun begins.
Re: Maybe he could get out by
Then he could try this...
get a ducted fan 'tub' attached to a helium balloon. In the dead of night, he could float silently away to a high enough altitude where the noise of a 'quiet' fan wouldn't be heard by the ground plods. He scoots away far enough... lands, changes with someone else and then high tails it to a ship waiting to take him to another ship off the coast. Then he can take a slow freighter to Ecuador before he's found out.
Hey! It would make a great spy novel escape. To add to it... the Ecuadorian Embassy could help by making an outdoor broadcast of the world cup (noise and all) and then use lighting to hide his escape. (Remember how magicians used lighting to make the Statue of Liberty disappear? Its an optical illusion that creates the blind spot and then the noise and distraction will give him his gap.
Re: Ecuadorian embassy
He wouldn't go to Gitmo.
Obama would have Holder try him in a NY Federal court.
Manning would come out in drag and testify.
(Say what you will, but Manning as weird as he is... still will tell the truth under oath.)
So no Gitmo.
Its the Federal prison system that probably scares Assange. There he will disappear in plain sight.
(He'll be a number in the prison system with no real connection to the outside. Depending on which prison, he'll probably become some guy Bubba's new 'girlfriend'.... ) To Assange, that's not a happy ending ...
oh but that's just the start...
First, had you read the papers lately? The US is in no position to do anything about Assange and could ill afford to interfere especially with ISIS and Iraq.
So he goes to Sweden.
Worst case... he's charged and faces 4 years in prison. (He's still on the hook for that. And under the law, I believe that's the max he would face for that offense.) But the odds are he would face much less than that if found guilty. He could even offer a plea deal where he serves no time.
So after Sweden he's returned to the UK.
He then faces the music.
He will most likely face a stiff penalty and may get jail time.
He is then put on a plane and tossed from the UK back to Australia.
Here's where it gets interesting.
He's probably going to lose his passport and his rights to leave the country.
The US if they decide to charge him, can then easily get an extradition from Australia. Remember he's a convict and he was charged and found guilty of hacking US Computers as a teen. IMHO its probably the best shot the US has of getting him, if they wanted him and of course it depends on who's in office at the time. (US and Aussie).
If he's lucky... he can slip through, get a Ecuador passport and leave Australia before this could happen.
That's the end game. Then he'll be in a country sized prison just like Snowden.
Re: Who cost the taxpayer £6M?
Nope he did commit a crime.
He jumped bail.
He should have been under arrest during his appeals hearing. He should have been in jail however he was given bail.
The minute he walks out of the embassy, he's going to jail with no chance for bail.
Re: Who cost the taxpayer £6M?
Actually if he walks out... he gets nabbed by the UK and then they decide what to do with him.
He could personally be on the hook for the expense of the police circle and at the end... he won't go to Ecuador but to Australia since he entered the country on an Aussie passport.
From Australia... he'll be fair game...
Slip of the pen/tongue?
"The Australia-born computer hacker claims that the Scandinavian country will despatch him to the United States, where he will be persecuted for leaking thousands of American and British diplomatic cables."
The word persecuted should be prosecuted.
Using the term persecuted is intentionally misleading in an effort to say he would unfairly be extradited even though the US hasn't filed any formal charges against Assange.
You must be mistaken. Sounds like you were visiting Ann Arbor Michigan.
Sexism at its worst!
If a woman can take a plastic lover, why can't this guy?
And what if he was caught masturbating while wearing a latex suit? How would that be any different?
@Andrew ... Re: I always knew Tom Hanks' nice-guy image was a sham!!
The contracts of the social networks state that they have rights to whatever you share on their networks.
I think that some state that if you don't explicitly state that you own the works, that the post is freely available under the creative commons licensing scheme.
This is why you should be careful what you put out there and which social media sites you use.
Re: Not subject to copyright laws?
But the big difference is that the copyright holder is the one who posts the work to twitter... ;-)
While I agree with your comment, its a bit more than that.
Place your EU HQ here, hire one person to watch the shop. We'll give you the lowest tax rate in the EU so you can make billions.
Do this and you starve communities of their tax revenue that they need in order to provide infrastructure to their population.
If you looked at it that way... then the budget shortfalls in the state of California would be non-existent because of all of the tax revenue paid by the companies like Apple. In fact one year of repatriated funds to the US would probably clean up a lot of the debt issues in California. (Noting that state taxes are separate from federal taxes.) Of course having said that... politicians will find ways to waste money so its probably a wash. (But you get the point... ;-)
Re: Eu = Articles of Confederation/dysfunction
"Example in the USA: New York pays way more in taxes than it receives in benefits directly paid by the federal government."
This is a fallacy.
Or rather you're not making a clear point.
Are you talking about corporate taxes paid to the US? Corporate taxes paid to NY?
Personal taxes paid to US? Paid to NY? Paid to NYC (If you're talking about NYC?)
Are you talking about all of the NY corporations paying US taxes vs. the federal funds received by the state of NY?
Again, your point is meaningless drivel until you get more specific in your initial statement.
Missing the point...
Does anyone here remember the term Gypsy Cab?
Here's the problem.
You get in to the car and the car is in an accident, you're SOL. Better get a good lawyer who is willing to work on a contingency basis. Driver's insurance company won't pay out on a claim. Driver is on the hook because he was using personal insurance while driving commercially. Sue Uber? Unless they've changed their insurance policy, they won't pay out until after the driver's insurance pays out. So if the driver's insurance refuses to pay, Uber's insurance won't cover it.
Which means you have to go to court against the driver and then Uber.
To me, that's the real issue.
There's more because you have the issue of redlining.
Re: Are They...
They minted money because they jumped on new technology while Cisco milked the old.
Cisco didn't have a 10GbE product offering and what they had was very, very expensive.
Lets see what happens when Cisco wakes up to the competition.
Most clusters don't use storage servers.
Most clusters are built on commodity hardware with the disks local to the box.
So as one moves to Hadoop, you lose the need for the large SANs, NASs whatever you want to call them.
Its one thing to assume that you are being watched and your communications are being monitored.
Its another to actually have proof that it is.
Its a third thing to actually believe that anyone really cares how much internet porn you watch on your own PC at home, or the contents of your emails.
Its definitely no secret that governments spy. Yet its poor form to violate your country's security laws.
@Joe Re: Swift looks...
And this is why I said ... If memory serves... :-)
Sorry, but I'm dating myself when I look at Objective-C it was from my NeXTStep days. Way back in the early 90's.
To the points raised... when a single company owns, controls and is the only adopter of a language... never bodes well in the long run. Even if its Microsoft or Apple.
Re: Swift looks...
If memory serves... objective-C is part of the gcc so that the core of Objective-C is open source. What is closed source is the libraries.
So if you start with the gcc compiler (Apple/NeXT had to open source those bits under GPL) , use the same open APIs, and write your own libraries from scratch, you can do the same thing.
IANAL so don't take this as legal advice, just that you could do it if you wanted to do it. It doesn't mean Apple won't attempt to sue you anyway...
So if you know something is a bad idea, you'll do it anyway just for the experience?
@ckm5 Re: Whoever wrote this article has no idea what he is talking about....
That's pure hogwash mate.
And its piss poor logic.
Did you ever consider that the initial idea for your start up wasn't good enough to be viable?
Had a guy I worked with who left his startup to join another company. Asked him if his startup was so successful, why did he leave? (Note I said leave, not cash out. Bit of a difference there...)
The point is that unless you can show your start up is viable, then its not going to be worth the effort.
Oh and yeah, you can point to Facebook, however... I would suggest you first look at AOL.. ;-)
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- FTC to mobile carriers: If you could stop text scammers being jerks that'd be just great