Comment Re: DMCA (Defamation) (Score 1) 245
Finally, some on who gets it,
Set your client up right and stop all this hand wringing. Its a tempest in a teapot.
Finally, some on who gets it,
Set your client up right and stop all this hand wringing. Its a tempest in a teapot.
Hey, if I write an email, I own the copyright, correct?
The encryption is a method I use to keep others from reading said copyrited work, correct?
This means that removing the encryption is in effect, circumventing a copywrite protection, and illegal under the DMCA.
No, you misunderstand what is going on here.
StartTLS is something that happens when your email client connects to the mail server with an insecure protocol on a non-ssl port, and then asks the server to switch to a secure connection. Its your clue that you are doing it wrong,
Connect on a secure port over ssl (usually 465) instead of 25. Set your client up right to use a secure port and they can't deny a secure connection. (Unless they don't support security at all, in which case run away from them like your hair is on fire).
WITHOUT doing it right, your email was never secure, never encrypted, so no DMCA violation.
They aren't denying you a secure connection, they are just putting the burden on you to do it properly instead of having their servers to the extra work of switching an insecure connection to a secure one, which usually entails a whole bunch of handshake-security dance.
Set your client up the right way on the right ports.
The Jedi were cool and popular and mysterious. Once you got to see them in council meetings... well, takes a bit of the mystique out of it.
What kid wouldn't dream of being a Jedi once he finds out they use their incredible powers and wisdom to go around the Galaxy sorting out tax disputes?
The second and third films are much better.
Joking, surely. Attack of the Clones is unwatchable.
I agree. It was completely unrecognizable as Star Trek. It was blasto-shoot-em-up-mega-action-wowzer-movie IN SPACE. There were no characters and it had the barest shreds of a plot.
Masters of only one (Let Kindle Slide). Online Shopping. I simply do not understand all of these devices that Amazon is trying to pimp.
I think you do. You just don't realize that these are tools for online shopping. Buy a Kindle, get all of your ebooks from Amazon because it doesn't support Epub, which is what all of the other online bookstores are using. Buy a Fire or a Kindle HD, get your apps and your movies and your music from Amazon because even though it's Android, it doesn't come with Google Play. Amazon sells a lot of real-world things, but if people are buying digital things now then Amazon wants to make sure it sells a lot of those, too.
If you don't know how it works, it's only because you haven't bothered to look it up.
Not exactly. You only know how PageRank worked at the very beginning, when it was patented. That is far from "the" Google search algorithm these days. It remains one of the most important ones, and possibly one that's fundamental to how Google's whole search engine works, but they have many, many other algorithms that govern search results today. Most of these are not patented, mainly for the reasons mentioned earlier: If Google patented them, it would have to disclose how they work. Instead, they maintain them as trade secrets, like the formula for Coca-Cola.
In Disney's case, I think it's not really interested in competing with Google. It would much rather Google, Bing, etc look at its patent, say "OK, I can do that if it will get Disney off my back" and implement the patent for little-to-no royalty fees.
Well I assure you someone will have complete visibility into the cloud.
Money from government. We're here to help.
The copyright for a movie character belongs to the production team that created that character, rather than an actor who simply portrayed them in one or more films. Actors own the right to their own image, but when they play a character they are portraying an image that the production company owns - presumably this is covered in their contracts. They can't simply walk down to the mall and hold out a hat dressed as Captain Jack, even if they played that role once.
Whatever you're describing, it has nothing to do with copyright.
What is really sad if the inventor of Wolverine or any of the original characters were to draw and post them online to sell, perhaps in retirement for extra cash they'd be sued into bankruptcy.
Totally false. I'm not sure there's a single pro who won't take commissions. Many publish and sell sketchbooks full of drawings of characters owned by companies; nothing happens. If they were to try to sell actually comics stories featuring the companies' characters, that would probably get noticed very quickly, but just drawing characters has never been considered a big deal.
You know that you don't have to just add useless and uninteresting words to something that already had substance, right? At least borrow some quotes from Socrates' Dialogues to spice things up: There is admirable truth in that. That is not to be denied. That appears to be true. All this seems to flow necessarily out of our previous admissions. I think that what you say is entirely true. That, replied Cebes, is quite my notion. To that we are quite agreed. By all means. I entirely agree and go along with you in that. I quite understand you. I shall still say that you are the Daedalus who sets arguments in motion; not I, certainly, but you make them move or go round, for they would never have stirred, as far as I am concerned. If you're going to say _nothing_, at least be interesting about it, post anonymously, or risk looking more clueless / foolish. This is why the moderation system is in place, and mods typically don't listen to inanities like "Well said" when deciding on what to spend their points.
1. I'm too busy to sit around thinking up additional words to throw in so I can score "mod" points
2. The people I like on Slashdot are too busy to read a bunch of additional words I only threw in so I can score "mod" points
3. It's not in my nature to waste words, or to waste time
If other posts here on Slashdot are any indication, "Mr. Councilman" is just as likely to lose political points by supporting the poor.
Actually this particular councilman represents an extremely high-rent district--Manhattan's upper east side. I doubt there are many wealthier neighborhoods in the world. He's not doing this to 'score points', he's doing it to do the right thing.
It is my opinion that poverty is partially systemic. Our economic system depends on there being a pool of available workers (unemployed and underemployed). So as long as there is capitalism and a functioning free market, there will always be poor people. That being the case, we have a responsibility to make sure the basic needs of everyone are met. Increasingly in order to succeed in school and in life, Internet access isn't really a luxury.
Well said
Time and again, history has shown a healthy middle class is the best road to alleviate poverty on a grand scale.
Let me fix that for you:
Time and again history has shown the way to have a healthy middle class is to alleviate poverty on a grand scale.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
