Re: No, it's not made by Apple.
If it was an apple device, half the storage would be used with legalese and patent notifications.
409 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Feb 2012
So the US (and it seems no other nation unless the article is making some kind of political statement) artists and rights holders who stand to have works billed as 'orphaned' complain their copyright should remain intact and enforced. They even go as far as to state international laws, which they suggest should supersede individual countries.
Interesting considering their attitude to laws of other nations rights holders. In violation of international laws regarding copyright by a rights-holder (the French operators of the tower), they ignore a 1990 court ruling regarding pictures of illuminations of the Eiffel Tower. Indeed, those stalwarts of net freedom, Wikipedia, allow them with the summation that US laws apply to the Wiki servers, and US law does not recognise French law - implying that uploading anything to a US server may makes the copyright void.
Perhaps they need to consider ignoring or recognising international law, instead of sometimes recognising it, and sometimes not. When they decide either way, the rest of the world might actually give a crap what they think. But until then, let them be hypocritical...it reinforces how prejudiced they are.
Big difference between Joe Bloggs losing a stick with the AGM minutes or a corporate presentation on popular colours for cars, and the plod losing personally identifiable information on members of the public, which could include informants risking their lives to keep scum crims off the streets, and thus be used as a hit-list for drugs barons.
"the best security that tax dollars can buy."
I wouldn't exactly call leaving the default password "the best security"... paid for or otherwise. Frankly, the fact I changed my systems password makes MY system more secure then theirs, and it didn't cost me a thing except 10 seconds of my time... They should be offering ME the job.
Quote: "IMHO, the LASERs that are being shone at aeroplanes, and causing problems, are not the cheap five quid down the market types and more likely the few hundred quid types. There should probably be some sort of registry about the purchase of such devices."
You mean like a firearms registry? That works flawlessly in the US doesn't it? Not sure it will work with things that have non lethal uses though, especially considering the lack of control over things designed SPECIFICALLY to injure, maim and kill!
"So pretty much like drive down an unlit motorway, and having an idiot with full beams on behind you? Or driving down a dark road, when a speed camera flash someone on the opposite side of the road? - except that there is nothing to crash into and you have autopilot to do the real work."
Except for the fact you can stop a car within a few dozen feet, more then one person dies (if indeed its a fatal crash), that a speed camera only flashes you if your breaking the law, and that an auto-pilot is generally not used during take-off and landing, and that a dazzled pilot cant find the switch to turn it on... yes, that's exactly how it is!
...to annoy the sisters cat with, and showed it to my housemate. Lo and behold, within about a week, he showed me this --> www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9220786.Arrests_after_lasers_shone_at_aircraft/?ref=rss
Damn, the planes have their wheels down as they pass overhead and I live not half a mile away from these assholes! They shulda thrown away the key!
Someone I know fell for this and set up a direct debit for ongoing support. When I found out, I told him it was a scam only for him to say that he checked it all out, rang up Microsoft directly and they confirmed it was legit etc. Fast forward a few months and when I mentioned it in passing, he tells me he just cancelled the DD because they didn't seem to be doing anything more since that first support session...
Paris because she needs support...
The PTO is obviously just a bunch of Apple robots... I mean, anyone gonna argue they have a brain between them? Thought not!
All they do is wait till a patent application comes through, the PTO bots then digitally scan and e-mail the patent to Apple servers with full detail then destroys the original application... Thus no prior art is registered. The Apple servers then digitally speak to the engineers detailing from the original application how the 'thing' is built and made workable. The Apple engineers 'create' the thing. And send it and a newly (and fully automatically) Apple letterheaded print of the original Application.
It's the only way I can explain the USPTO not letting anyone other then Apple patent anything, and the only way that anything with clear prior art, obviousness, or in the public domain (hell, even FREEWARE) is suddenly finding its way onto Apples portfolio.
Quote: Incidentally I currently shout at my Xbox regularly to control it surely that rules out them being able to claim it first.
As a bonus, "BACK" will act in a non-fixed manner, reverting to the previous menu or screen (as opposed to a fixed start point). So that also covers the 'contextual' part of the patent.
... last night, and even though the crazy surgeon never actually says it, I think he's found the solution for the global food shortage. 1 meal going through 3 people... I bagsy the front place in my group though...
Paris because, she can eat shit too as far as I care!
... some clarification on how he accessed the military servers.
He didn't HACK them, he simply used the default passwords for the server software they were using.
This would be the same as saying a burglar should be tried for breaking and entering, when he just opened an unlocked door. Yes he accessed the property without authorisation, but his crime was not hacking. The US and it seems reports and articles like this, are fueling the desire for stricter punishment. As a hacker he will be charged under the same rules as war criminals and enemies of the state. That would not be the case if he was charged for his ACTUAL crime of unauthorised entry to (ironically) secure servers, making him merely a cyber criminal. I can't think why the US are telling everyone he is a hacker *rolls eyes*
Paris because, she serves in an insecure manner also.
Quote: I assume Bruce can afford to hire top class lawyers that would give Apple a run for their money.
No amount of lawmanship will change the fact that the MPAA and RIAA have ownership over the government, and when the gov change the laws specifically to thwart any loopholes that may allow licence transfers, who do you think the court will side with?
Not least, this is Apple we're talking about, winners of a 1bn dollar lawsuit citing patents that have been issued retroactively for public domain and prior art. Proof positive right there how any Apple centric case is going to go down!
Paris, because she's always going to go down!
I don't use i* devices/software because as good as they are, I refuse to support a bunch of lying cheating fuckheads the likes they have become!
On the flip side, you could try WinAMP, which can play virtually anything you care to throw at it, and supports i* devices as standard with the newer versions. Even older versions can be upgraded with i* support via this plugin - mlipod.sourceforge.net
I'm not saying that it will work flawlessly as I don't have devices I can test it with. That said, good luck!
Paris because, she too is a fuckhead!
Quote: What Apple got right, was the UI on the iPod - beyond that I cant give them any credit, since the software required on your PC is attrocious.
Fixed: What Apple got right, was the UI on the iPod - beyond that I can't give them any credit, since they stole all the other design specs from other developers.
Paris because, she's compatible with most hardware and software!
... put the words "I've tried" in front of the current name.
"I've tried everything everywhere" keeps the now well known name brand completely intact, as well as conveying their average customers cries when they can't get reception.
Paris because she's had everyone everywhere.
Quote: last weeks episode of Corrie (for example) is never going to be broadcast again or feature in a "Greatest moments of Corrie" DVD or whatever they come out with. So what was the point of them serving notice, except to drive home the point that they're a bunch of worthless fecks.
Its not that simple. After the first showing, within minutes of the episode ending, it could be listed and available worldwide for download. Now, lets ignore the fact that it will be repeated on ITV1+1, ITV2 a few days later, ITV2+1 an hour after after that, there is normally a soap round-up with signing in the early hours at least once a week, a sunday showing used to be available (unsure if now, but certainly less then the 10 years ago that the site was running) and that you absolutely do not know for sure in any way that a scene isn't going to be re-used in a 'best of' in some way. Ignore all that, and you still have the fact that Corrie is a big cash generator in other countries, which are typically showing the episode a few days (some cases even weeks) after it is first broadcast here. Therefore, its still commercially viable for a while after its first screening here.
Which brings me to my next point. Everyone claims that UKNova wasn't listing content available in shops. Are they claiming that not one episode of "Only Fools and Horses", "Red Dwarf", "Soldier, Soldier" etc made it's way onto the site? That's a big claim, considering the booming 2nd hand market DVD box-sets are having nowadays. You can even still buy all the above (and pretty much anything from the last 20 years) brand new on digitally re-masterd and original DVD format on Amazon, eBay, HMV online, let alone them being sold in high street stores... Lets not forget either that a whole slew of DVD content is being transferred to Blu-Ray now also.
Paris, because her 'box-set' is in need of being re-mastered.
... and told you to turn your phones and tablets off during take of and landing, I would expect you to turn your phones and tablets off during take off and landing. As the operator and owner of an airline, I would not expect the gov to interfere in how I run my business on my property, unless I was acting illegally. Since there are no laws regarding phones being turned off being illegal, that would still be my choice to make, and not the gov's.
Paris because, like an airplane, she always levels out with her flaps open, and regularly takes strangers for a ride in her fuselage.
For manufacturers to just not sell their products in the US. When the US have a choice of 10 year old mobiles/tablets or Apple products at $3000 a pop because of no competition, things might start changing patent troll wise.
Paris because I have just applied a regressive patent application on her minge. Now everyone who used it owes me 50 bucks. I'm already a millionaire...
Quote: This coward decide to set up camp in the Embassy he can rot there.
The UK should throw Equador's ambassador and Embassy out of the country for interfering in its legal system and allowing its premises to be used as a pulpit.
So we should just disregard somone seeking political asylum and hand then over to the regime they are fleeing, right?
Obviously by you are American and by taking that tone you are showing us WHY he wishes to avoid US justice, his rights, both human and legal, will be totally disregarded.
On the plus side, perhaps some kind of prisoner exchange can be negotiated. How about we give you Asange, you give us McKinnon?
"Other than idle curiosity, can you tell me why an agreement between two companies should be made public? It's perfectly normal for other companies to carry out commercially sensitive agreements in secret, why isn't this ok for MS?"
How about to prevent a completely seperate body from unknowingly infringing those same patents, then after a few years MS needs a quick money fix and decides to claim on those patents that it could claimed 2 years ago. But in the interim, a huge user base is now using the offending code and you... YES YOU, now have higher usage costs to cover the company losses.
Say, if MS decide that the patent for monitor driver like software they had in the back drawer for 30 years is suddenly called in. Now you have a choice of paying MS for 30 years of patent infringement or not using your monitor as 'driver like software for monitors' is no longer allowed unless you pay.
And before you come up with statute of limitation or too vague bullshit, you know the point I am making.
Its also responsible for the statement that:
The United Kingdom is a unitary state governed under a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system, with its seat of government in the capital city of London. It is a country in its own right[11] and consists of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
I mean, its perfectly fine to assert that a country consists of 4 countries... but who am I to argue? So the 4 countries of the USA would be Mexico, Canada, Afghanistan and China... right?
For what its worth, I am a 'reasonably' busy editor, with all my edits remaining unchallenged except for about 4. And that garners me with about as much respect as everyone here by the sounds.
The thing that REALLY pissed me off only recently however was some fuckhead who argued that me uploading a small gmail envelope icon for use in a user info box was deemed copyright infringement. After I pointed out to that editor (yes, not even an admin, though he is sleeping with and blackmailing some if the result of this exchange is anything to go by) that his own user page contains some copyright logos, he explained that those were OK because they consisted only of simple geometric shapes and were thus not eligible for copyright protection.
I would have been fine with that, had the gmail envelope icon been something other then... a simple geometric shape and thus not eligible for copyright protection. After I pointed this out, he changed his tune saying that single letter logos (such as the Opera 'O') were allowed as they were uncopyrightable under US law. When I pointed out that the Opera 'O' also has a shadow underneath, and thus isn't a single letter, some other editor/admin gets involved, and tells ME to check up on the rules regarding copyright in a somewhat threatening tone.
But all is well. I am a patient guy and one of them will die eventually and the other will revert (pun intended) into the spineless muppet he is and let others get down to actually editing and improving articles instead of dealing with his political fuck buddies.
~~~~
Does it mean that the tab can't be sold in US, or used in the US? Does it mean that it can't be used by Americans, or people living in America. If an American on holiday in Spain buys one there, will it be confiscated on return to the US? If a US citizen tries to buy one online from a UK ebay seller, will ebay just refuse his bid?
Paris, because she is frequently impounded...
Quote: The star itself is Kepler 36 (well, Kepler 36a). You then label planets as b, c, d, and so forth. So we would technically be Sol d, by that naming system!
We are Sol3, you don't give the star the A designation. That goes to first orbiting planet. This particular star is Kepler 36a because there is a different nearby star (maybe locally grouped or optically near to it). So to distinguish between the 2 Kepler 36's, a letter is designated to each. Kepler 36b is therefore a star not a planet.
The system described in the article consists of a star (Kepler 36a) and two planets (Kepler 36a 1 and Kepler 36a 2). If a planet has moons, they are given a letter designation starting with a for the closest moon. Our Moon is therefore Sol 3 a. Spaces are optional, but generally dropped except for a numbered star (Kepler 36a)
... or would any privacy conciliatory user log out from those https login sessions. Which would in effect make FF thumbnail the 'You have signed out' page? They would also clear history at the end of every session, so FF can't use history to thumbnail sensetive data.
Is it an issue, or scare-mongering? From my perspective, the only people who will be concerned about this are people who will already be taking the steps to prevent it. The people who don't already take privacy steps and see this as an issue are kidding themselves if turning this feature off is going to secute your privacy again. And the people who actually don't need to worry about it, say single user on top floor of secured block of flats, won't have anything to worry about anyway.
Paris, because there's a question mark.
Quote: "Virgin Media has a strict policy on its ad placement, so we are concerned about ads appearing against unrelated and unsuitable content on YouTube."
You should have read those T and Cs before signing up then. You know, those 12 pages of legalese that make no sense to someone signing up to your service, which you then use against them when they let their sons mate hook his laptop to the network because he isn't 'a member of the household' as stated under Section 7, paragraph 5...
Paris... she's a dumb-ass, but not a virgin subscriber...