515 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
Developers own the copyright to software unless the developer is the client's employee or the software is part of a larger work made for hire under a written agreement. In order to own the copyright, the client must have an agreement transferring ownership from the developer to the client.
verbatim from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29584.html
I'm not sure that this is what's involved here though. I'd say it's to do with the investment of $1000 and the contract surrounding that investment (as TFA states in the last paragraph)
The replacement of "I" with "We" is a common indicator of a lie being told though.
I love to see the mighty fall
Mainly because the mighty are a bunch of self obsessed wankers who lie cheat and steal to profit themselves.
There is an opinion that this by definition means they are "clever", my opinion is different.
the official Reg phrase was "Jesus phone" and Judas phone was just another part of the parody.
Did I get that wrong?
Jesus was the good guy, Judas the bad guy and all that...
iCall fair use
though I don't suppose that'll stop the iThreats
Who is she then?
They may say that
But now they will have to answer the follow up question of...
"Why did you think the person was a terrorist?"
I somehow doubt that an answer of
"because he was taking photos of the houses of parliament"
would actually be considered reasonable grounds for suspicion, so plod would get a rap on the wrists and told not to do it again.
That's an altogether better outcome than not actually having the question asked in the first place.
Plus the more people who are aware of their rights the less likely people are going to hand over their cameras when plod demands they do so.
It may not stop them
but at least they'll have to answer for their actions.
I've had a look at the thing, and also had a look at replica lightsabers. I've also seen the movies so I'm eminently qualified to make a judgement here.
The similarity is that it's a tube that is about the right size to fit in a hand with a light that comes out of the end. So are torches potentially going to come under copyright scrutiny from Mr Lucas?
it doesn't really look like a lightsaber when examined.
(at least those replicas you can buy)
also ... each lightsaber is as unique as the one who built it so what's to copyright?
I think in fact the laser looks cooler than the toy replica lightsabers....
When I first tried to read and comprehend one of his/her/it's postings. I'm pretty sure my eyes began to bleed and my brain started to seep out of my ears.
Long live amanfrommars1
Does that mean
I can live a "Shut the F*ck Up" lifestyle?
I think you may be missing the subtle point that the reg hack is alluding to there, where your anonymity is an illusion.
One of the best things about the internets is the audit trails and loggings.
Of course I could be wrong and it could be petty vindictive behaviour as you suggest.
1984 because while big brother may not be watching you, your activities are probably being logged somewhere.
New keyboard now please
Where's the competition?
Apple will just take anything decent open source, slap a shiny GUI on it and pass it off as their own, the credit only needs to be in the small print after all.
That's not competition, that's parasitic, unless of course there's some feedback resulting in a symbiosis, I doubt it though, not profitable to just give things away.
Another way of doing it? A lot of websites rely on advertising revenue, those slimy browser developers are trying to muscle in on that turf.
It would be nice if the browser was obliged to indicate whether it was going to render the ads on your site or not.
You could then choose whether to supply the content or not.
Alternatively you could intrinsically link the content and the advert, so the content doesn't render coherently without the ad information. A kind of product placement.
You could make a decision on whether to provide content based on the browser string as a quick and dirty.
So I think I know where this is going, there's ad revenue out there to be made, currently people can make money from adverts on their web pages.
So how best to get a part (or ALL) of that revenue?
Step 1 - Strip websites of advertising
Step 2 - Push advertising through Safari
Step 3 - Profit!
Step 4 - Original content no longer able to generate revenue through advertising thus reduction of original content and a slow dwindling consolidation and death of independant websites into just a few content providers, Apple, Google, Microhoo.
Step 5 - death of t'internet
The plan for Safari probably stops at Step 3, Step 4 is a likely to be an inevtiable consequence of the technology. Step 5 is innacurate as you will still have content providers, but they'll be profiting the few and startups will struggle.
"electrocution from electricity pylons"
That sounds like a similar myth to the whole vulture bone eating thing. The starlings round my way don't seem to mind them, they seem to positively thrive on them in fact.
"Couldn't agree more... Just when did the use of good old fashioned common sense end?"
About the time when the CPS decided that it's a good use of taxpayers money to prosecute the guy who wrote the message.
If (when?) he wins the appeal it'll just cost us more money. Way to go CPS.
I'll slap you if you disagree.
Joke alert, and I'd better make it clear that it's perfectly obvious that I won't slap you or anyone who disagrees, just in case some knob decides to prosecute.
Learn to use the icon
It was discovered by chance because he WASN'T a danger and the threat WASN'T real, it was a JOKE published on the INTERNET.
Of course, it was only a threat if the airport didn't get their shit together, clearly they didn't think they could get their shit together so they felt threatened, yes, well, there you have it.
My brother-in-law was one of the saddos.
You raise an inreresting philosophical point. "Better" is an opinion, opinions are subjective. A statement like "Steak tastes better than Lobster" can never be validated.
Anyway my point is - I am better than you (and in fact better than everyone on the planet) and it's completely impossible to prove or disprove that fact.
Never mind eh? Have a beer.
Is it actrually
That the workers have actually offed themselves at the facility rather than the the fact they've killed themselves?
As in it's the location of the suicides that's the unusual thing rather than the quantity?
I don't actually know, I'm asking the question, I CBA to do the research and I'm hoping someone knows.
People downvoted you because you pointed out a spelling error. I'm curious as to whether that's a personality thing (I think the upvoting/downvoting thing is turning the Register into a bit of a popularity contest)
Or alternatively it could be because he did spell it with just one U, it just happened to be in the wrong place with another couple of letters in there instead.
And I guess you are stuck with the vulture icon instead of the more correct spelling nazi icon
Accursed fat fingers
Damn you McDonalds!!
C'mon where's the edit button?
"rivals who, hypocritically, secretly hope he'll succeed."
What are the opinions in El Reg's offices?
Are we likely to see El Ref behind a paywall if the Times is a resounding success? (That is if it makes more money than it used to)
Nice tags "Numbers" & "Stupid"
Yes, a rather stupid conclusion there, that the number is in some way cursed.
I'm not sure dying of cancer is actually all that suspicious, not unless there was some Polonium & Russian spies involved.
Getting gunned down when you're a Mafia boss/Cocaine Smuggler isn't really that suspicious either and I'd say falls under the "Occupational Hazard" category.
You'd want Gigameters?
That only happened in your mind.
What actually happened is that your point was ridiculed and proved to have very little basis in fact.
Of course you can choose to believe what you want to believe. However I'll carry on living in the real world.
It should be.
It won't be though.
That parasite seem to be too deeply ingrained into Italian society.
Are you going to claim "church" as a trademark?
I don't see Christianity in a particularly different light, preying on the vulnerable and the gullible. They might be less demanding and certainly less overt about it but they still require their tythe.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
I don't get religion, or cults or that sort of crap that seems to seek to change the way I would behave.
I'm quite capable of interacting in society without having to resort to believing in some invisible force.
In fact I don't need to believe in anything.
Scientology is just another way of gaining power and money from people less self assured than me. Another type of organised crime, it's hardly surprising they have many enemies and feel the need to prepare for an offensive type of defence.
Where is the flying spaghetti monster icon?
Probably end up being worth more than they paid for them anyway.
Science is fantastic
Much better than religious twoddle.
F*ck me that's evil.
God that pisses me off
I really hate it when people spell lose as loose.
I don't know why, other spelling mistakes don't wind me up, but that one is just fucking annoying.
Rogers Wireless Rogers woman who Rogers behind husband back?
I bet she wants to keep his name out of the report because it's Roger and it would just get too damned confusing.
How do you get rid of gravity? The only way I know is to get far enough away from the object exerting the gravitational pull, so do it in space then? Easy to do that, get a ticket to the ISS, oh hold on, what's happened to the other part of the experiment, the air pressure. I think we might lose that too.
WTF? I used to read stuff about Paris Hilton and people would say where's the IT angle, now there's a technology story (sort of) and there are where's the Paris Hilton angle comments?
I've read a few posts implying that the main story is the 14 charges of creating child porn, but I don't see that as the case.
I perceive a general mentality when CPS go after someone they go for a spatter gun effect, try them for as many crimes as possible in the hope that something sticks.
The more crimes they're charged with the more likely they are to be found guilty I think is the way it goes.
The other thing this is going to do is justify the law, if the guy makes kiddy porn he's bad, agreed. He also has images of dead squid/octoporn whatever, that's got to be bad (by association) therefore whenever anyone else has these sorts of images chances are they're as bad as this guy.
What do they call it in legalese? Precedent or something?
So lawyers can start quoting case law in "similar" prosecutions.
I don't have any odd porn, but there was a lot flying about when I was at uni, in a sort of goatse way. It seems like it's just another law to slap people with in the event they can't prove you've actually done something wrong, like the occassions when you've not done anything wrong and some dickhead copper (some of them are dickheads) takes a dislike to you.
You're wrong about the Scottish
You've obviously also read about the prosecution of the "going to blow the airport up" tweeter. Best avoid making it look too much of a threat
The one thing for certain is that there's a Con in there somewhere.
"This is not the first review I've read saying the same thing, so there must be something in it."
That's akin to saying X million <insert religious followers here> can't be wrong.
I sold my legs to buy an iPad
But are they married?
My bet is that they are not.
Logic is that it's very rare to find rich & married as a combo.
I don't know where all my money goes, but I'm sure I had more disposable income before I got married, even though I earnt much less.
I suspect the disposable income has been disposed somehow by the other partner
I don't think it's about hate
it's just about peace
Why were you not on the list then?
I watched that Twilight film, I don't really get it.
When I read the original story I assumed he'd (the cleric) been misquoted, or something was out of context.
Has anyone verified that what's being reported are actually the blokes thoughts?
If they are then there's something not right in his head, he's seemingly deranged.
Analysing the words carefully and trying to make sense of the thought process that went into making the original statement leads me to conclude that he's missed the last 800 or so years of scientific developments, not picked up on the fact that one of the most stable geographic regions on the planet (UK) has a vastly more immodest way of dressing than he's used to, and I'm sure the UK is not the only place on the planet where some womed dress tartily and there's a distinct lack of seismic activity.
The test is a fail though, the words actually state it's the adultery that's causing the earthquakes, not the boobage. The assumption he's made is that immodesty increases adultery.
I wonder about that though, I wonder what's more likely to cause adultery, a bit of cleavage on show , or alternatively not actually knowing what your wife looks like until your wedding night and subsequently finding she is not to your taste.
I don't get the way some minds work regardless of how much I try, that much is very apparent.
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Ofcom will not probe lesbian lizard snog in new Dr Who series
- Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
- Episode 9 BOFH: The current value of our IT ASSets? Minus eleventy-seven...
- Too slow with that iPhone refresh, Apple: Android is GOBBLING up US mobile market