The takedown process established by the DMCA, while abusive, does have provisions to fight back if you get some asshole filing frivolous copyright claims against you. Let's be honest here, many times when these are issued there are often entire classes of content that are infringing.... thus the sometimes automated bots that send out these take-down requests.

If it happens to you, send a counter notification to the ISP demanding the content back.... that is also a part of the DMCA and something that gives you as a content creator to fight back if something like this happens.... even if you are one of the "little guys". If the idiots who sent the original take-down notice want to continue in a court room, make sure everything is kosher first (don't bother if you are simply posting MPEG files of the latest film in theaters) and then simply say "I'll see you in court if you want to continue."

If what you are doing is on the grey side of the law, you know what you are doing anyway. If you get a take-down notice on something you really created yourself and it is original or even something of legitimate fair-use, you can fight the system. The problem is that you need to fight when that happens and push back. You are a victim if you let the bullies win.

While anybody can issue a DMCA take-down request, you can also fire a counter-protest to any such action as a content holder. All it takes is to send a formal letter to the ISP and demand that the content is restored. The ISP is then found blameless and if the person who issued the take-down notice wants to go further they need to take the whole issue to a judge and resolve it through a normal legal process rather than getting the ISP caught in the cross-hairs.

If you do file a counter-protest though, make damn sure you really do have copyright licensing on everything you are asserting is legal, or that you are on the very sunny side of fair-use (such as a legitimate parody or even a review/commentary.... as appropriate) for whatever content you try to issue the counter-protest.

You don't need to roll over and play dead claiming you are helpless with the onslaught of stupid DMCA requests.

While not about GitHub, this article about the DMCA and its application of take-down notices done on YouTube (which is notorious about such things) and what you can do in a similar situation is very informative:

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/StephenMcArthur/20140624/219589/

You really don't need to roll over, especially for something really stupid like a take-down request applied on Linux Kernel code.

This might be one of those many flawed studies.

How many times did they shock themselves? If it was just once and then they sat there without doing it again then perhaps it was more of curiosity than not being able to be alone and deprived of stimuli.

Many people are very curious about stuff.

And some are stupid or rebellious - if you tell them don't push a button many of them will push the button without trying to find out why not e.g. they might ask "You mean this button?" and then push it...

But that's why this "vulnerability" should be fixed:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubu...

Imagine if by default if you don't uncheck a checkbox a popular distro has full disk encryption enabled and/or creates an encrypted container.

Then they can't use the "wrench" on everyone that happens to have that distro, because it really is very plausible that the person doesn't have the keys to the container.

As for the arguments against it - if you're in a country where they are still willing to use the "wrench" on someone who is likely to not have the keys, you're screwed already. In such countries if they're not happy with you, you're in big trouble whether you use crypto or not.

That's why the "bug" I submitted should be fixed: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubu... ;)

That's why I have been proposing that for robot cars they also have cameras/sensors/radars/lidars at bumper height. It's often easier to spot (from a distance) people/animals obscured by vehicles from bumper level than it is to spot them from driver or roof level. But I'm no car or robot car engineer, so someone else will have to actually do it.

You might be able to do something like this for "kiddie" sensors mounted on bicycles/motorcycles, but given the front wheel of those vehicles is movable it's probably a bit trickier :).

I learnt German and French at school, so I know how to learn a language, particularly European ones. I don't recall being frustrated with not knowing why I was wrong. Screenshot of the app showing the same mistake: http://imgur.com/8YzOYof

I found the mobile app really useful for learning some Spanish before going on holiday to South America earlier this year. One press turns off the microphone exercises, either permanently or for the next hour.

It's really not a very good analogy. For the analogy to hold, the courts would have had to rule that a company that manufactures a computer that was used as an exit node is liable. This ruling is more akin to saying that it's illegal to leave the keys in your ignition because someone could take your car and commit a crime with it.

Or what if this email was going to be evidence in a case against Goldman Sachs.

This is exactly why this goes through the courts. Sorting stuff like this out is kinda why courts exist.

This all seems fairly reasonable to me.

You have enough people doing enough things, eventually someone is going to make a stupid mistake. In hindsight there is probably plenty of stuff that could have or should have been in place to prevent this, but then there always is when looking back at a problem.

Google seems to be acting reasonably. Putting a process in place where companies can quickly and conveniently "take back" emails seems like a bad idea. Requiring a court order ensures that this goes through a strict process and is well documented. Google doesn't seem to be "fighting" this so much as saying "get a court to tell us to and we'll happily do it for you".

And I don't get the impression that Goldman Sachs is pounding their fists on the desk here either. They are doing everything they can to repair or prevent damage caused by a mistake they made. They are seeking out the court order and probably other stuff internally.

I think so. The safety briefing / video has been changed in Europe to explain when "small electronic devices" may be used etc.

Certain areas around here they have ridiculously long lights.

The idea is basically everyone gets a turn, so everyone gets a flashing left arrow, then both directions get a green.

Traffic throughput is probably the same and it's probably way safer than the traditional "wait for an opening to turn left" approach, but damn if it doesn't piss off just about everyone.

Context is king.

The fact that he mentions "disabled folks (except deaf folks, naturally)" in the same sentence makes it perfectly clear that "regular" in this context refers to people who are not disabled (excluding deaf folks, who in this context may fall under the category of regular).

It's not politically correct, but I doubt many people were actually confused as to the meaning of "regular" in the OP.

Wonder how well the laser works through glass or plastic windows, or other common transparent stuff you might want to take pictures through.

Reading your kind words is humbling, sir. You honor yourself by being one of the minority who read something like that and try to understand where it is coming from and how it could work, rather than playing the hostile audience and trying your best to tear it down because it opposes a common notion.