I don't know about Canada, but here in the States they have the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine that evidence from a constitutionally impermissible chain of investigation is inadmissible in court.

You probably already saw it, but Comcast is trying to weasel around it by calling them overages instead of caps.

That would require the head to be right over both tracks at the right moment. I'm not sure the heads are physically aligned that precisely. Or are you suggesting to separate the head assemblies for the top 3 and bottom 3 platters and do RAID 0 in a box?

lol let your mind go and imagine how many terms become legal terms by that definition. "She ______ on the Judges' _____ in his ____"

As with many things, some regulations are good, and some are bad (if that idea gives you problems, then you need to reconsider your life).

With taxis, we can clearly see two kinds of regulation:
1) Regulations that make customers (and drivers) safer and less likely to be ripped off.
2) Regulations that are designed to limit competition.

Obviously, we want to keep the first type of regulation, because they achieve good results. We want to reduce the second type, because they drive prices up for everyone and reduce quality.

But how would the host detect the redundancy if the guest operating systems use full disk encryption? The cipher modes they use are specifically designed to hide whether a sector is a duplicate of another sector.

High RPM drives tend to have smaller capacity if I remember correctly, and any drive can be short stroked to save on seek time.

They should have fixed the bug as soon as they realized it was there, and not waited until someone proved it was an especially bad bug.

93 Escort Wagon wrote:

If you're replying to a post with a low score, especially Anonymous Coward, it may be a good idea to take a page from e-mail standard practice and state the nickname of the poster to whom you're replying. To fully avoid confusion, it might help to add multiple levels of quoting to provide enough context to interpret your post correctly even in isolation.

What realistically would have happened had one party said "this call may be recorded to ensure quality of service"? Then both parties would be on notice for the remainder of the call.

I think they're moving the mouse a "typical" amount and rounding the predicted move command to either no motion or the predicted amount of motion. Besides, in first person games, screen motion due to mouse panning is easy to predict, as John Carmack pointed out.

A league likely has copyright over recordings of its own matches. But that doesn't mean the league has the legal right to prevent other leagues from playing the same sport. The NFL, for instance, has no legal right to shut down the AFL, USFL, XFL, Arena Football, our the new USFL expected to kick off next year. A video game publisher, on the other hand, can use copyright to keep an online league from broadcasting the league's own matches.

Under the definition you suggest, any WTO member recognizing the legal theory of aiding and abetting infringement would be "partly free".

To my knowledge, the law doesn't recognize an owner of exclusive rights in wrestling, javelin throw, chariot racing, jousting, or gridiron football. The law does, however, recognize an owner of copyright in a video game who has the legal right to pull streams off Twitch. For example, you can broadcast a joust, but Warner Bros. has the right to keep you from broadcasting Joust.