The copyright is not what was being discussed. It was that Apple wants to control what users can do with their computers after they have bought it. Such as not allowing some programs to run, not allowing apps to be installed unless it comes from their app store (phones and tablets) unless the hardware has been jail broken, etc. Windows users have the freedom to do anything they want with their machines - upgrade graphics cards and other hardware, install any software they want, and if they don't like the OS they can replace it with another. It's telling that it is possible to run Windows on an Apple computer in a VM, but Apple won't allow it's OS to be run similarly on a Windows machine - why? Rhetorical question - it's because if iOS was available separately to be installed in a VM Apple would never sell any hardware.
40 posts • joined 13 Feb 2016
Re: Colin, you have my empathy & sympathy.
You're anti-windows bias is showing a little. I have always used Windows and have been using Windows 10 since about 6 months after it was released. Nothing on my computer has ever 'broken' due to an update - either hardware or software wise. On the other hand, whenever I have had to use an Apple device (iPAD or iPHONE someone else needed help with) nothing on it was 'intuitive'. It was like Apple deliberately looked at how both Windows and Android did something, then purposely did it completely opposite just because. Nothing was intuitive or easy.
Unlike Apple, Windows has to support 10's of thousands, if not millions, of possible hardware configurations. An occasional issue is unavoidable. To say Windows is crap compared to iOS because of those occasion issues is showing a total lack of regard to the difficulty Windows is facing compared to iOS. Even when Apple totally controls the hardware their iOS updates still cause occasional issues for people with older hardware - so Apple is definitely no OS perfectionists. Their requirements are simplicity itself compared to Windows.
Yeah, his point is totally null and void because you don't like the Catholic Churches history. Really? Tell me why his point isn't valid on those "hard-hitting exclusives and investigations" when so many of them have been shown to be either totally false or misrepresentations after more facts were uncovered - facts that could have been found by the publishers of those "hard-hitting exclusives" if they would have bothered to do proper fact checking and diligence before rushing to publication? And the author of this drivel ignores the issue of people accepting the initial news report at face value - and either ignoring or not even seeing the subsequent retractions or updates.
So lets see. You claim that you can't paint Muslims and Islam as bad because of a few rogue extremists - but you have no problem claiming all conservatives are bad because of a few rogue extremists? Get confused in your logic much? And before you say you don't do that, please read all the news articles from multiple sources with multiple different 'liberal' groups claiming that all Trump voters/supporters are racist/Nazis.
Re: One thing is missing here..
Your attempt to create some kind of equivalency where none exists is showing. According to the NY Times "At least 11 people have been killed in attacks on abortion clinics in the United States since 1993" - to help with the math that is 11 people in 24 years. Please total up the number killed by Muslim extremists in the same time period. Your other sarcastic comments are examples of protected free speech. Sorry if you don't like free speech, but despite the whining from the liberals and Antifa fools, the US Constitution protects it - even if it is opinions and statements you don't like/find offensive.
Re: Lets put things in to perspective.
So are you going to hold the alt-left/Antifa crowds to the same standard? You do realize that there were actually non-Nazi types that were there just to protest the statue removals and for freedom of speech, right? And that the vast majority of the free-speech/pro-statue marchers were perfectly identifiable in public, while the violent leftists/Antifa were in masks. So who's the coward? You evidently think it's OK for masked, Antifa idiots to hit someone with a bat, but not for someone to exercise their free speech rights. Remember, in the US there is actually free speech - not like the symbolic version in the EU/Britain. That means that no matter how disgusting their statement is, they have the right to say it. If you don't like what they say then speak out against it or simply don't listen. True free speech means being able to say something the majority doesn't like or want to hear.
Re: Stupid bastards
I read that the North Vietnamese were very close to surrendering due to the bombing. The US stopped the bombing due to the anti-war protesters and that gave the north breathing room to continue. Don't remember where I read that but it is probably findable if searched for. I am pretty sure you can bomb someone enough to get them to quit - worked on Japan.
So a liberal group who say they can tell how close we are to nuclear Armageddon (can they tell me the next lottery numbers?) say that they don't like Trump and we are closer to nuclear war. We should care about what they say why? As was pointed out they sounded the call of doom when Reagan was president - what happened? Nothing. A bunch of liberal alarmists with no clue as to what is actually going on.
Re: Interesting definition of a landslide victory you have there...
You do realize that the US isn't actually a democracy, right? It was designed as a democratic republic on purpose. The US's founders were very wary of true democracies. They felt they had too much potential to cause their own downfall by giving unbridled power to the majority.
One of the situations the US's founding people were afraid of and tried to design around was called 'the tyranny of the majority'. When you allow the majority to have absolute control then they also have the ability to prevent the minority from having any say in what happens. Not to mention that if it is only the majority that controls things, what's to stop them from constantly voting to give themselves free stuff (sound familiar?) and causing economic chaos - after all, someone has to actually 'pay' for all that free stuff, you know, like the minority who actually possess a non-government job and pay taxes. The government doesn't actually earn any money - it only has the money it takes from the citizens in the form of taxes. That offer of free college to all? It would have been paid for on the backs of the working taxpayers.
I've always wondered why the Democrat party hasn't been brought up on vote buying charges. Almost their entire party platform revolves around promising free stuff to various groups in return for their vote.
Re: Interesting definition of a landslide victory you have there...
I think you haven't researched the electoral college system or are deliberately being misleading. Here's a link to a county by county map showing election results - http://metrocosm.com/election-2016-map-3d/. This map displays exactly why the electoral college exists - it is there to prevent large population centers from being able to control the entire country. If that were the case the candidates would only concentrate on them and ignore everyone else. It is obvious from the map that Clinton won the historically Democrat large cities - such as NY, Seattle, LA, Miami, etc. Now, look at the amount of blue compared to the amount of red. Why exactly do you believe that the large cities should be able to dictate to all the rest of the country just on the basis that they have a lot of people? Not to mention that the wants and desires of the large cities are going to be much different from the smaller, more rural, areas (as proven by the map). The electoral college has a valid reason to exist - and is in no way an "archaic counting system".
It cost them money to create that "professional capacity" wifi system. Why exactly do you not think they are entitled to attempt to recover at least a part of that expense? You think all that access is created for free? And no - this is not the same as the hotel. The hotel actively blocked access, here they simply told people to use their access or leave. That's their right - they owned and controlled the venue.
They did not do wifi blocking - this is in now way the same as the Marriot hotel issue. They told people that they would not allow private wifi access and that they needed to use their wifi signal for a price. They owned and controlled the venue - that is their right. They never used any kind of blocking technology. Your article is there simply to create an incorrect account of the events.
I already gave you one. In the US you can deny the holocaust all you want and the government can't do anything against you. Stating an unpopular opinion or one that is completely wrong is protected speech as long as you are not directly inciting violence or similar exceptions. Your other examples - threats to kill, deliberately attempting to cause panic - those fall under the exceptions and aren't protected, but stating that you don't believe in the holocaust - that is protected speech.
Sorry, but you are wrong. At least in the US, free speech means free speech. Only speech that directly incites violence, directly threatens another or imminently endangers others is not allowed. Saying something that offends someone or is against what the majority wants/believes is perfectly legal. Your example "denying the murder of millions of people in an obvious attempt at neo-Nazism" is perfectly legal here. Too many countries (UK among them) have infringed on their citizens right to free speech by passing laws that criminalize speech that offends someone - totally ignoring the reality that virtually anyone's spoken opinion will offend someone, somewhere. And the funny thing about those laws is that when they are actually enforced, it is almost always against someone who is voicing an opinion the liberals oppose - never when a liberal says something a conservative finds offensive.
Doesn't surprise me at all. For decades now, in multiple countries (including many supposed democracies with separation of powers - UK, US as two examples) the justice system - instead of being a check on the power of the executive/legislative systems - has become an active supporter of their policies, even when such support violates individual freedom guarantees in multiple national documents. In the US the Supreme Court has routinely gone along with government policies and laws that clearly infringe deeply into rights guaranteed in the Constitution - with various justifications, most of which boil down to the fact that the policies/laws made the governments job easier - totally ignoring the fact that the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is to make the governments job harder. There have been a few judges who actually supported the Constitution and made decisions against the government, but either at the appeals court level or the Supreme Court their judgements were overturned and the government was again given free reign to abuse it's authority.
Re: 80000 lb truck
None of your examples equate to a driverless car. What kind of decision is a pacemaker making? The heartbeat slowed this much so I'll help it. Not much logic required there - and not in any of your other examples. How are you going to code a driverless car to account for that child standing still on the side of the road? The one who could at any instant decide to run across that same road? Will that autonomous car even see that there is a child standing there? What about that ball that rolls across the street - the one a human driver could infer from that there might be a child running behind? What's the current poor excuse for an AI going to decide? Slam on the brakes and risk a rear-ender? Oh, wait. The human driver sees the child has stopped at the side of the road and is safe and doesn't need such drastic action. Let me know when they invent a real AI. Then they can stick one in a car and we'll go from there.
Re: Horse and cart
To modify a pro-gun saying - cars don't kill anyone, it's the driver behind the wheel. That death statistic is made possible because governments world wide will give pretty much any moron a drivers license, and then not really hold them accountable for how well they drive. The studies have shown that the idiots who text while driving are exactly the same as driving drunk when it comes to being a danger - but how many governments have set the penalties for texting and driving to be equivalent to drunk driving? To my knowledge no one. When the governments who are supposed to be monitoring the behavior of licensed drivers won't do their jobs, why should those who actually drive their cars give up their self- control to a computer? A computer that hasn't been proven to be any better than a human driver except for when driven under limited circumstances?
Re: Teleporting trucks
So who's going to pay to install all that "non autonomous vehicles communicating with regard to location, velocity, direction etc." hardware into existing vehicles? At least here in the US we still have cars that are over 20 years old on the road. Is the government going to pay to retrofit that stuff into existing vehicles? I sort of doubt it.
Re: Teleporting trucks
If that is the solution then you do realize that you have given up any pretense to privacy and anonymity you currently have when traveling in public? Any such communication system will by definition be totally controlled by the government, and you can place a sure bet that they will surround it with a database that tracks every data point they can think of. You better not be planning on making a quick trip to your mistress - because that database will be available to everyone, including divorce lawyers.
Re: I'm not sure I understand
So you're saying the computer can distinguish between a child and an 80 YO better than a person? On what basis? Size? Then what does it do when a child and an older person are the same size? And what are you going to program the computer to do? If it's mow down the 80 YO instead of the child I think there might be some old people out there that would want to take issue with your decision. And whose going to make these decisions? The software companies, the owner, the government?
Re: I'm not sure I understand
The computer can only make decisions it is pre-programmed to make. The human could decide that swerving into the oncoming lane (currently empty) and going into the median is better. If we can come up with real artificial intelligence then completely self-driving cars could be a reality - but as long as we are just using normal old computers that have to have all decisions pre-programmed then I don't think they are viable. Are these cars going to be visually scanning the side of the roadways for something like an animal or child? Something that could be a problem in a few seconds and that need to be evaluated as needing a possible future action? I doubt it. Granted, most of the drivers on the road are so lousy at actually driving that they don't do that either - but you do have the ones who actually actively drive their cars and do look for situations like that.
Are these the NSA patents?
So, are these patents the ones that Cisco used to incorporate "vulnerabilities" in its switches? Maybe Arista removed them and the NSA wants Cisco to get their switches banned so more people use Cisco switches - makes the NSAs spying a lot easier. Good a conspiracy theory as any.
Re: downvote here
Actually it does, at least to a certain extent. There are multiple versions of "conspiracy" crimes. By definition it criminalizes the act of you thinking about and preparing to commit a crime before you actually do it. The problem as far as the cops are concerned (not anyone interested in individual rights and justice) is that it is very hard to get a conviction from a jury when trying someone for conspiracy. Seems to me this SRO stuff you have in Britain is an end run around your individual rights protections.
The article claims 11,000 lines of code were copied. I am pretty sure Java has significantly more than that in total - probably at least a million. It seems to me that Google meets the "Is a reasonable amount of the copyrighted work being used, or is it a substantial amount?" test mentioned in the article for fair use. Evidently at least the second jury felt like that.
The authors previous articles concerning copyright have shown a distinct bias against the concept of fair use. It is no surprise that he dismisses it in this one also.
Re: vexatious litigant, eh?
While you're slamming him for hiding his income maybe you should also acknowledge the fact that his competitor has repeatedly refused to release how much she received from her Wall Street connections. And while he is on trial for a failed (possibly misleading) business attempt she is facing FBI investigation on deliberately violating US security restrictions as a former head of state (something a little more important I am thinking).
Right now in the US we face a choice of voting for a fool or a totally insane liberal. Pretty much the same kind of choice we have had for the last 20 years - vote for the person you hate the least.
Based on the factual results of what the liberals have managed to accomplish (destroy) in the US, anything is better than more of them. Obama's signature accomplishment (ObamaCare health insurance) has caused an increase in everyone's health insurance premiums (at least those who don't get the government handouts) and pretty much everyone who had health insurance prior to this government handout have seen their actual insurance coverage drop - except the women who now are guaranteed free (no co-pay) birth control. I'm thinking those people paying for the drugs to control their actual life threatening health conditions had wished they'd been given a free government benefit.
Re: Ho hum
You made sense until you added healthcare as a service the government is best at. The government may be able to supply it to more people - but that doesn't make it the best. If that were true there wouldn't be as many Canadians traveling to the USA and paying a private entity to have a procedure done because they either couldn't get it from the Canadian system or the waiting time was so long they'd be dead before they received it.
Not saying the government can't do healthcare - but I don't believe it has proven to be the best at it. They might be able to provide a minimal level of health care to the most people, but that is about it. If they can afford it there are a lot of people who will pay for their own care in order to obtain a better level of that care.
That might be true - but look at what each of them did with their money. Steve Jobs kept his to himself. When it came to charity he was a famous miser. Bill Gates is one of the largest donors to multiple charities - including ones he started himself. He might have been after the money from the beginning whereas Jobs grabbed it later, but what each of them eventually did with their money was completely different.
I hope everyone realizes that corporations don't actually pay any taxes anywhere. You could tax a corporation at 50% - they'd just raise the price of their product to compensate. The consumer who buys their product would be the one paying that 50% tax. The exception is if there is a competitor in a country that doesn't have to pay that 50% tax. They can keep their prices low, undercut your company, then your company goes out of business and now your better off - right?
All taxes are paid by the consumer in the end. By taxing corporations the government has basically hired them as a tax collector, they collect the tax from their customers as part of their products price, and then forward that tax on to the government.
It's like those socialist policies where someone gets something for "free" from the government. They might be getting it for free, but the government neither produces a product it sells nor makes money any other way except through taxes. They pay for that "free" support to that person by taxing those who do not need that free support extra to cover the cost. The person paying that extra tax then has less money to use for what they want for themselves.
It's funny how - at least in the US - there's always this call that the rich have to pay their fair share, as if they aren't already. Here's the numbers from the Wall Street Journal. The bottom fifth of earners ($0 to $24K) are 4.5% of the income but pay nothing in taxes (they get back 2.2% more than they paid). The middle fifth ($47 to $89K) paid 5.9 % of all income taxes. And the top fifth (>$134K) paid 83.9% of income taxes. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384).
Everybody always feels they pay too much taxes and that someone else should be paying more so they can pay less. I don't doubt there are issues. Some people and corporations definitely shelter their income in some ways to pay less taxes. If they are doing it in an illegal way they should be punished. But the reality is that for the most part, those who make more - pay more. And if someone's paying less than they should due to a legal loophole they are exploiting - don't complain about them, complain about your politicians - their the ones who wrote the rules.
A few items:
Was the DMCA copied because it was a good idea? Or was it because of threats of retaliation from the US?
This article ignores the fact that copyright has been increasing in expanse for the last 50 or more years. The length an item is under copyright protection is now vastly increased from just a few decades ago. It also ignores the huge number of fraudulent takedown notices filed - such as the dancing baby issue. The author states Google could stop copyright infringement instantly by turning on filters - totally ignoring the concept of "fair-use" long established in copyright law. A filter might be able to instantly remove all instances of a music recording, a video, or a picture - but it won't be able to account for fair-use. And the author totally ignores that right (just as many large rights holders who use bots to create takedown notices do) - the only places the word fair shows up in the article are complaints about how it isn't fair for rights holders.
Then, when the topic of rights-holder abuses of the system comes up it is treated as a false argument. Even to the point of including a rights holders comment asking "why did researchers include this outlier's data in their results?" when talking about the model who is single handedly responsible for 50% of photo takedown notices. I'll tell you why - because it's part of the data set. When you start arbitrarily removing data that doesn't fit your desired results you are just lying with statistics.
Does anyone ever really expect a government agency that is as closely associated with what it is supposed to be overseeing as this to actually come up with any kind of ruling that is actually critical of the suspect actions? It's like here in the states where most investigations into alleged excessive use of force by police are conducted by the police themselves. Any wonder why most accusations are found to be unfounded?