skateboarding can be a crime

Speaking of that, my favorite "contrary to public opinion" was the term MGTOW. Men going their own way
This MGTOW motto is the main motto picked up by most mens rights groups. The MGTOW page was deleted multiple times by feminists who said it wasnt notable, even though it was referenced in main stream press and published books and then the numerous websites and groups. But still deleted, over and over and over.
So what did the feminists do? They created page called MGTOW for maximum gross take off weight that is just a REDIRECT to mgtow. The actual term is MTOW in aviation, so why the redirect and fight in the talk page? Politics.

This was almost 10 years ago since this happened, and still happens today.

History only goes back to 2009, but this MGTOW war is good example of the feminists of wikipedia fighting mens rights. Lucky now that enough mens rights groups and non profits using the term, almost 600,000 websites returned with a simple google search.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:MGTOW
Limited history due to many deletions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximum_takeoff_weight&offset=&limit=500&action=history

There are more wikipedia censoring going on than this one topic, but I'd say this is the perfect example of editors censoring. Also why I think they dont deserve government money with these oppressive and biased editors that seem to be backed by the foundation.

I think my favorite comment by an editor on wikipedia was "we dont have the room for a mens rights page, we cant have a page for everything". Amusing when every episode of very popular shows does.

The more you know!

Any information thats not progressive or trendy will be deleted also. Cant have conservative, right wing, religious, pro capitalism or anti-socialist propaganda. And if anything is any way slightly anti-feminist will be deleted on the spot.

They Who Write History Control History and thus Control the World....

"citation needed", post deleted due to wikpedia rules biased viewpoint. /s

...I seem to recall making that same remark myself in response to the first Aereo message posted here.

Some guy's black robe won't magically prevent everyone from trying to get that rule applied in the lower courts. It will have to be litigated back up to the SCOTUS before 9 guys can declare that "sorry, it doesn't apply to you". Although even that's not assured. By the time it gets back up to the SCOTUS, it could be different guys or case could just come out different.

This is nothing, I once got a Navy Achievement Medal (one step down from a Commendation medal) for setting up a mail alias on my own domain for my reserve unit to use for group communications, and for installing and updating anti-virus software on the unit's laptops. It all literally took me half an hour to complete.

Yeah it's modular and a few years from now they'll upgrade the bus or tweak the dimensions or bump the battery requirements and now that modular phone is as obsolete as all the rest. Or worse, future modules are gimped to conform to the old standard and include circuitry to step down in some way. Either way users get a device which costs more and doesn't deliver something tangibly better.

That's when SDL was developed. More than likely, any of the interesting games used that.

Frontier Elite 2, for instance. Ken Musgrave literally wrote the book on procedural generation and is the brains behind MojoWorld, a procedural world generator that's great fun. If you liked Bryce back in the day, MojoWorld is Bryce on steroids.

Not knocking these guys at all, btw, it looks great. Just giving some background.

no problemo. they will just buy the self-same info from facebook or amazon and it's "affiliates" (anyone with money).

To the extent that this fig leaf is accepted in place of having real security via the simple expedient of a secondary e-mail address for password recents means this is getting baked into the system and hard to unwind later.

to see what I mean look at the silly "application specific password" kludge Google introduced to let you collect e-mail bypassing two-factor ID, and password storage vulnerabilities. nuts.

it should be baked in that all sites that use 2-factor also allow (or require) a 2nd address for all password resets.

currently the paradigm is if someone has control of your cell phone your two factor ID becomes zero factor ID. This is because nearly all cell phones can collect e-mail, allowing a password reset to be performed. Likewise cell phones display text messages with the second factor. So you are hosed. Even if you have a screen lock on your phone, have you ever lent your phone to a stranger to "make a call" or take a photo?

The workaround for this is to have a second e-mail address that you don't have associated with your phone's e-mail program. Then you can send all your finanical accounts to the e-mail address. But that's not really very convenient (e.g. amazon and google wallet would be awkward to use that way).

What needs to be done is to have financial companies send all non-critical e-mails (e.g. paypay receipts and notices) to your general e-mail, but require a second e-mail address for all critical transactions where money is movable.

or even better, they could simply require that all password resets go to a secondary e-mail address. this would be even more convenient.

until then two factor ID using cell phones is just a very vulnerable layer of the security onion.

It's all fun and games until some homeless dude uses it as a private toilet.

Cable companies operate a single antenna for a large group of people.

Thus you have something resembling a public performance.

Aereo didn't do this. They operated single antennas for single individuals. They rented a single piece of hardware to a single individual. There are older cases with DVD rental setups that are very analogous. Those were protected as not being public performances because they weren't really.

Now potentially any file transfer on the web is a public performance.

...and who determines what this "spirit" is exactly?

Is the "spirit" of copyright law to enable abusive monopolies or is it to be fodder for the young starving artist?

The really sad part here is that the victim was going out of it's way to abide by a previous SCOTUS ruling. The idea that you can't cater your business to recent judicial findings is an especially troubling one. It destroys the entire basis for commerce.

No. A better analogy would be transmitting a recording from one Tivo in your house to another.

This ruling potentially makes a whole-home PVR illegal.

Forget about streaming from that Tivo to your tablet while you're on the road. That will likely be "very illegal".