Does the UK have that stupid digital-lock law?
Does the UK have that stupid digital-lock law?
Yup - a promise about future behaviour would be good.
Perhaps formal guidance to prosecutors that posting an http link should not generally be seen as 'republishing'
In the UK, there has been controversy around various twitter cases (particularly the bomb joke case).
The end result is that the director of public prosecutions has issued new guidance on how and when to charge people with crimes based on what they say on Twitter.
"... [they are] like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out; those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."
Against that background, prosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication in question is more than:
Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.
If so satisfied, prosecutors should go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.
In the UK, BT has partnered with FON and automatically advertises BT-Fon hotspots on consumer routers.
I haven't seen any objections to this.
One upside (which I did occasionally find useful when I was on BT) is that they allow the homeowner free access to any wifi hotspot in the BT-Fon network.
unacceptably high for whom?
There are plenty of cases where the cost/risk might be acceptable.
If I want to buy something for $100 and anonymity is important, then I may well be happy to risk losing my $100.
Similarly if I have a bunch of illicit cash and I can convert it into bitcoin - I might be willing to risk losing it rather than risk it coming to the attention of the authorities.
Is bitcoin suitable for your average person to store their pension savings? Almost certainly not. That doesn't mean the cost (risk) is unacceptably high for everyone though.
After the technological meltdowns consistently failed to appear, IPv4 was finally replaced when IPv7 was adopted globally in the year 2017 as a result of a world trade agreement.
The incongruous IPv7 clause was widely seen as the result of an unlikely alliance between the RIAA, MPAA and various repressive regimes such as China, Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom.
Frustrated by the inability to trace internet usage to a single user via IPv4, these organisations lobbied for IPv7 to be adopted so that individual phones and computers could be mapped permanently to a single device and user. Unlike IPv6, IPv7 includes a direct mapping to the mac address of a device and the user's global internet ID, so that (in theory at least), all downloads can be linked to a specific person.
Although the EFF and various other organisations campaigned vigorously against IPv7, the arguments around catching terrorists and preventing pedophilia prevailed.
This seems like a clear case of extortion and theft.
At the very least, the police ought to be able to recover the stolen property via Twitter.
The cinema clearly doesn't forbid you from taking a camera in. I'd wager that 95% of patrons have a phone that with a video camera.
What makes this one different is that it was pointing at the screen.
The interesting issue here is that the video camera is attached to his prescription glasses - so he can turn it off (which he did) but he can't turn it away.
It looks like when it comes to TERRORISM, the authorities are taking a hard line on where discussion becomes planning.
'The men, from Luton, admitted one count of engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism between 1 January 2011 and 25 April 2012 at a hearing on 1 March.'
I have found the expensive hotels in the USA to be the worst for nickel & diming you. After you pay $600, they want extra to look after a bag, $15 if you want to drink the bottle of water beside your bed, etc.
Meanwhile down the road at the $60 place - water, wifi and service are included.
Having said that - there may be something in the fact that the luxury hotels were the first ones to install wifi throughout the building - back when it was really expensive to do. They installed it on the basis that they would be able to charge, and haven't updated their assumptions in the face of widespread free wifi.
Why do people insist on using PayPal for high value accounts?
because doing anything else is significantly harder / more expensive / less successful.
whilst it is clear that Paypal act like dicks on a frequent basis, they also provide an easy way to accept money from people all over the world in a way that is easy for the customer to use, and cheap/quick for the receiver to set up.
or to put it another way - can you suggest a better alternative?
The holodeck looks like fun. I'd like to spend most of my evenings playing there with my friends.
Also, I'd like a big cabin with a large forward facing window.
Both of those are scarce. How are they allocated?
What if I'm willing to take a smaller cabin in return for more holodeck time?
the smartphone market isn't necessarily a great baseline.
making up numbers completely, It could be argued:
they had 90% of the corporate_mobile_email_phone device market.
They now have 60% of the corporate_mobile_email_phone device market.
the broader smartphone market has exploded, and apart from a few niches where bbm is valued highly, they have almost completely failed to succeed in the new market.
not that I don't think they're dead - just that I like alternate perspectives!
This would just reassert the point that Google's TS are discriminatory, since they don't abide by them themselves, and the end result is that they can pick and choose which platforms get a full-fledged YouTube experience and which don't.
I don't see a problem with Google treating themselves differently to people who want to use their API. It would be entirely reasonable for them to have YouTube and offer no API at all.
Amongst other reasons - Google have the ability to update their own apps if they feel a need to change things in the future; They have less control over third parties, so they have a legitimate reason to care more about how third parties implement critical functionality like displaying adverts.
Yes, they pick and choose which platforms get full-fledged YouTube, just like the way Microsoft pick and choose which platforms get full-fledged Office. I don't have a problem with that either.
Can you give an example of a specific HTML5 feature in IE that YouTube would require? It supports a great deal of the standard as of IE10, you know.
In an official statement YouTube said:
"We're committed to providing users and creators with a great and consistent YouTube experience across devices, and we've been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service."
If you mean basically hosting the mobile YouTube page as is in a web browser control and calling that an app, then this is precisely what several dozen YouTube players for Windows Phone already do.
One sticking point seems to be their ad-serving code. Presumably, this is exactly how Google want it implemented (in a browser control).
The problem with this approach is that it plainly sucks, which makes the users annoyed. Google was asked to write an official app for WP, but refused, citing low market share. Hence the attempt by MS to fix this themselves.
So MS signed up to the google API terms and conditions, then thought they could break them.
I don't see what the controversy is here, Google doesn't want to release a windows phone app - they don't have to. I released one for one of my apps, and frankly it was a waste of my effort - the platform is insignificant (~3% smartphone sales).
If MS want to release an app, then they have to use the API and follow the terms like anyone else unless Google gives them special dispensation.
declared reason: because that's what the ts&cs require
my hypothesised reason: because that requires MS to implement html5 features in IE, and Google wants to have those features available for their own web-apps
possible additional reason: html5 player incorporates code which is under Google control, and provides them with greater control in the future if they need to update/change how some things work.
It's kind of embarrassing if your head of state gets killed.
Even if you don't particularly care for them - you might not want to face the political/pr fallout of such a visible fail.
A person with one watch knows what time it is; a person with two watches is never sure. Proverb