DVD are still mostly copy protected by the highly ineffective CCS copy protection. blue ray are more effectively protected, but the protection still is breakable by a lot of tools.

by european law is decided:
"the following anti-circumventing rules were implemented in European Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of May 22, 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

This directive states in article 6, 'Obligations as to technological measures':

        Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective.
"

So you may copy it, but if you break ANY technlogical measure, you an still be sued by the content mafia fpr breaking copy protection technology. So think twice before you make a guide on your homepage how to copy a dvd.

That is when i say automakers are for to conservative. Someone will find something against it. THere are litteraary dozen of inventions where you can engage the brake without the interuption where you move your foot.

And this really has been invented dozens of times, and i bet thos patents are expired by now.

http://www.newscientist.com/da...
http://www.mobility-centres.or... (steering wheel, for people wit disability)
http://patentimages.storage.go...
http://patentimages.storage.go...

And the one thing is that this innovation will not come from the racing community, because that is the rare exception that you really need brakes and accelerator together (sometimes)

I do not see any problem with cruise control... To the rest of the car this will still be a seperate brake and accelerator.

The one pedal to do braking and accelarating is already invented a dozen times. it is faster and stops this kind of error.
  It is just that car owners are far to conservative to make this a succes.

like.
http://static.autoblog.nl/imag...

It is not the traffic violation that is so important. The fact is also recorded where you were at the time of the violation. That information could me more valuable. Some terrorist originating from pakistan has no history at all and could be a false indentity. Have some minor traffic violations validates taht you exists.... ;)

Blaming it on a automated system is plain wrong. If you end up on the wrong end of a automated system, you find out that it might be very hard to get of some blacklist.

-Procedure to get off/ timeframe is NOT documented. (someone will look at it sometime),
-The procedure to get you on the list is made by humans. Setting criteria too strict and BOOM..
-if filtering software get too strict porn people will try to fight this.: (combining a political site with some hidden porn links, ask the child porn people exactly how)
-Everyone has enemies. It is easy to report someone to put a site on filter list. I bet the site owner was never notified.

I doubt it.

1. Eat something from shop.
2. Leave shop
3. Noting left to prove you stole it.

Security waits for you to leave the shop, because it is far easier to prove that you had a shoplifting intention, but that certainly not the final rule.

Then the few serious hacks are handled by the capable PHB, Management will barely hear about it, and wonder why 2 expensive PHB and a expensive intrusion system are used. After all, what information could really be hacked.

It is not like that target have to pay the victims. The risk is not at the correct party.

It is not the act of carrying a camera that is the problem. Taking pictures is the problem. Walk into some place with a (big) camera, without asking anything will get you into trouble. In the US it will not get you into legal trouble, but you might be asked to leave/stop filming anyway.

THe difference is that they made a law about this.

And coal is a common good. You can import it from an other country without consequence to the quality. Just add shipping costs.

They should include Dr evil "$100 billion dollar". Just add a bit of inflation and this superevil way of thinking is not so far off.

Asking money for a service would be fine. The simple checkbox is not free. Dell even failed to deliver linux because of the support issues. Linux is also free.....

There are people who sell download links to popular open source software. They charge you for the service Of provinding hosting/pointing to the download.

The cost might be minimal, or might be exceptional (monthly fee of 20$ or so). That clearly is a violation of the trademark.

The mozilla/firefox trademark says you can provide a service, BUT "You must provide a prominent statement that (i) the Mozilla product is available for free and link directly to our site; (ii) the purchase, download, or acquisition of your service is separate from the download of the Mozilla product; and (iii) your service is not affiliated with Mozilla."

I cannot find firefox from dell from my current location, but I bet dell is not very clear about this that this is a service. If that was the case no issue was brought up.

They do sell "firefox installation" 17 $/pound... firefox laptop of firefox t-shirt or firefox installation.... i do not see a difference....

0 Give every item a number.
1 enter the date in excel.
2 Enter the number in excel.
3 Add one other search criteria in excel

4 Sort in excell/

Leave the papers alone. If you need to find a certain date, you know what numbers to look for.

5 swear at person that threw them in the wrong order.

That might be an option.... But that processor would have to be build in into the protocol. Not some website where you would have to deposit your (BC) money, you should only risk the transaction fee.

Beside that I can think of 3 modes.
-Reputation monitor, just like you check e-bay reputation or some BTC website WOT reputation. ( I bet this is feasible very simple, but it would double the transaction log. )
-3th party processer that can validate your transaction... but only risking the processing fee.
-Reversible transaction. If some goods are bought that are also reversible, reversible transaction give little trouble.

You see, by using a escrow service, or someone to investigate the transaction ( tricky, since there is no interface to confirm you own a address) you are introducing a central point of authority again. Just like Mt gox. Would it not be great if the reputation of the receiver of money was maintained at the same time.

Forget the "non"anonymity of bitcoin. The problem is: every transaction becomes final. No reverse.

If i buy a apple, give a (real) coin, i expect a apple in return. If i do not get the apple, I will hold the counter party responsible. (e.g. beat him up/ call the police / etc etc.)

Now the counter party becomes the entire bitcoin public. I give a (fraction of) a bitcoin.... and I fail to get the apple. Now who do i beat up? Who do i call for? How do I tell that the reputation of the apple-seller is bad?

That is where there is no counterparty in the bitcoin protocol. bitcoin only keeps track of the bitcoin transaction, but looses track of the counter-part of the transaction.

For fiat money you can call someone (cop) to mediate the bad outcome of the transaction. For bitcoin you are lost. The coin transaction is deep down in the chain.

That is where the idea of counterparty is born, some way of 2-way commit, or reputation system for party that receives the coin transaction.