I'm usually off to work before Sofia the First comes on, so I haven't seen many episodes. But are they really guesting Princesses into Sofia's timeline? Does Cedric have something to do with it?
I mean, what are the odds two earthlings and two Betelgeusians would meet not once but twice in an interstellar backwater only to go off on an adventure spanning time and space? At least as big as Zaphod's ego anyway...
Arthur: Who would want a computerized rock?
Ford: Another computerized rock?
I'll take my towel and be off now...
Why would you slap a single line atop someone's letter and send the entire thing back?
Because we can and bytes are cheap? Hiya! I promise I'm not trying to start a religious war over top-versus-bottom posting or the like, but I'm genuinely curious:
I save all emails. Always have. I can usually find a thread easily enough, but there are times when multiple people are in a thread and the subject gets manually mangled, so Outlook won't incorporate those in its "conversation" search. So having the whole thread, TOP-POSTED, makes it simple to quickly review what was said about whatever we were discussing. As long as the email client clearly marks each message's beginning, how hard is it to read the top one and only scan down if needed?
That said, I'm all for stripping out inline images on reply, and if the topic shifts I have no problem [snip] -ping out the completed thread to make room for the new one. Or if an email thread goes marathon and bounces more than like 10 times...
If someone got phished leading to trojan installation, *BAM* alerts go off in the NOC. If phishing led to credential leakage, eventual usage of the credentials by the outside attackers would set off alarms in the NOC, assuming we aren't dealing with valid external staff. If phishing led to credit card / invoicing info loss, unauthorized purchases would set off alerts in Finance.
This also assumes an environment where credentials are not shared (the norm everywhere I've ever worked and none of those were DoD postings). It also assumes that pretty much anything of power is tied 1:1 to a person so any kind of abuse (use off-hours or in excess of limits, etc.) would be detectable.
As to Aereo, I thought the core issue came down to the public performance threshold. Multicasting is in effect, a public performance, right? Requiring cumpulsory licensing?
If Aereo truly is private performance, bolstered by previously-approved technical measures like remote DVR, I don't get the issue other than the broadcasters aren't getting paid for something they have to give away already.
The original purpose of a cable TV system was to provide reception of OTA broadcasts to areas [...]
I get this part. But the difference I see is that the CATV operator is taking a good OTA signal and MULTICASTING that signal to whomever wants to tune to that channel out of the total channels in the pipe. Aereo is NOT multicasting - they're maintaining a one-to-one relationship between a received OTA signal and the user tuned to it. Only one channel's signal is in Aereo's feed to the customer at any given time. Unicast, as it were.
Again, they do the same sort of thing a CATV does, but by aggregating several discrete receptions across several discrete connections. This to my IANAL eyes is why Aereo should have been allowed to continue until someone changed laws regarding OTA reception and access.
I *still* don't see how any of what they did violated the LETTER of the law. And as Number 1.0 said, technically correct is the best kind of correct.
Maybe what I need to see is this clarified: Could I, as a New Yorker, rent a rooftop in the city, put up an antenna and run a wire to my ground floor apartment several blocks over? If the answer is yes, then why can't Aereo do the same thing on my behalf? Where does it say I have to OWN the antenna and transmission medium versus RENT?