Exactly. Too many people (both businesses and home users) say "Well, I don't have anything that 'those hackers' would want so why bother with protections?" The thing is, though, you DO have something they want. At the very least, a home user has bandwidth. If a malware author hijacks a computer, he can use it to pump out tons of spam. The user might notice an annoying slowdown but otherwise wouldn't know what was up. In the case of businesses, infecting your customers with malware (due to being hacked) or your site slowing down to a crawl (because it is a spam bot and is spending precious resources spamming people) is a sure method to lose customers. I'd wager that the money "gained" by not doing a proper firewall network is more than lost by the "lost sales" of customers fleeing after the servers have been hacked.
Exactly. You could remove the "in car entertainment system" and substitute a normal laptop computer and the scenario would be exactly the same. (If not worse. There might be no way for the in car entertainment system to export the ripped files somewhere else but a computer can do that easily.) If the in car entertainment system is deemed illegal, you might as well call all computers illegal as well.
And, I do believe the courts have ruled in favor of copying music from CD's to MP3 and similar (i.e iPod) devices for personal use.
This was decided way back in RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia. Diamond came out with an MP3 player (before the first iPod was ever released) and the RIAA attacked them for facilitating piracy. In the RIAA's view, having a device that played MP3s meant that you were encouraging people to download illegal MP3s and thus should be banned. The courts, thankfully, did not agree. Diamond got to continue to sell their devices. The RIAA were denied the opportunity to destroy a fledgling market so as to better keep progress from happening and to retain absolute control.
In fact, this lawsuit was decided on the basis of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 - the very act that the music industry is suing based on now. This proves that, after 15 years, the music industry has learned nothing and still wants to stifle that upstart MP3 industry for daring to change the music industry's precious status quo.
The summary said that the system could hold about 2,472 tracks of music. Since copyright law grants infringement penalties starting at $750, this makes a system full of music "worth" $1,854,000. Of course, the maximum is $150,000 so clearly this is costing the recording industry $370,800,000 per car sold with the system!
So any ripping of CDs to MP3 format (or any other format) is illegal also? (We'll keep things simple by assuming you don't share these rips out with anyone.) When I ripped my CD collection to MP3 so that I could play it on my computer, I was breaking the law? I guess I need to pay at least $750 per song ripped. Half a million ought to cover it.
Perhaps you are based somewhere other than the United States where ripping is illegal, but in the US (where this lawsuit seems to be based) it has been accepted for quite some time that ripping CDs is legal. Yes, people can use ripping of CDs in a less-than-lawful endeavor. They can rip others' CDs. They can rip the CDs and then share the resulting files online without the permission of the copyright owners. However, the ability to perform an illegal action with X doesn't make X illegal. If that were the case, all computers would need to be banned. Or, at the very least, all disc drives in computers.
If I buy a CD and want the music in MP3 format, I'll rip the CD to MP3 without any fear of the recording industry sending a lawsuit my way.
I don't even know how you would violate the law with this thing. It'd probably involve a custom firmware.
Person A buys a hot new CD and lends it to Person B. Person B puts it in their car and rips it to the car's hard drive. Person B then returns the disc to Person A. Repeat both ways and with a dozen other people.
All that being said, though, this doesn't make the in-car ripping illegal. You could do the same thing with any computer with a CD or DVD drive. I could lend you a CD and you could rip it - keeping the digital copies of music you never paid for. The legal test is supposed to be whether the primary purpose of the device is piracy, not whether it can be used, under certain circumstances, for piracy. In the case of the former, the car's system is legal. In the case of the latter, all computers with CD/DVD drives would be illegal.
Don't worry. He's called the parole board and says that they said he should be released as per override code number 12345.
The proportion of people who want slide-out keyboard phones might not be zero, but manufacturing slide-out keyboard phones requires monetary investment (design the phone, manufacturer it, ship it to stores, market it, etc). If the market for these phones is too small, the money spent on creating one might not be made back by sales. Therefore, manufacturers would be more likely to invest in a virtual keyboard model which has a bigger market.
No, the market might be non-zero, but if it is small enough, it may as well be. If a market is too tiny to be profitable to serve, you can't blame the manufacturers for not serving it. The horse-and-buggy demand is non-zero (Amish still use them). Does this mean that all car manufacturers should come out with a horse pulled buggy model? (The new 2015 Chevy Tahoe Buggy!)
Bit of history in the "creation" of the Palestinians (as they stand today): When Israel was formed and the Arab nations that surrounded it declared war, the Arab nations told the Arabs who lived in Israel: "Flee from Israel to us. When we drive Israel into the sea, we'll give you your land back."
Many fled, but not all. When Israel won the war, the Arabs who fled found they were blocked from returning. (Would you allow someone back if they supported the people who just tried to destroy you?) The Arabs who stayed, though, kept their land and businesses. Today, they (or their descendants) own businesses, are full citizens, and one even is on the Israeli Supreme Court.
The idea that Israel kicked the Palestinians out is completely false.
Another piece of evidence towards this point: After the wars with Israel, Jordan found itself with a good amount of Palestinian refugees. Publicly, Jordan bemoaned the horrible fate of these Palestinians. They were living in tents and looked horrible. However, Jordan could have easily settled them within their territory. They chose not to because - for all of their claims of caring about the Palestinians - their "care" was about how the Palestinians could be manipulated to make Israel look bad.
This conflict has not only been exasperated by people on the Israeli and Palestinian sides, but it has been egged on by Arab states who either hate Israel or who use hatred of Israel to distract their populace from their own misdeeds. (Or both.)
Hamas hides military weaponry in schools, hospitals, civilian homes, etc. They use civilians as cover.
When Hamas launches their rockets, they don't give any warning. The rockets just rain down and it is up to the Israeli defense systems (both the missile defense system and the alerts/bunkers) to protect their people. Hamas also doesn't target just military locations, but anywhere their missiles can hit.
When Israel launches a rocket, they give warning. They send out text messages, drop leaflets, announce in any way possible that X compound will be hit at Y time for Z reasons. They warn everyone to clear the area. It might seem counter productive to warn your enemy that you are coming, but when your enemy is hiding in a hospital, there is no way to get to him without hurting civilians. So Israel warns the civilians ahead of time and tries to target their strikes to just the areas hiding Hamas rockets.
When the cease fire was in effect and Hamas stopped firing rockets at Israel, Israel stopped firing rockets back. If Israel stops firing rockets at Hamas, Hamas doesn't stop their attacks.
Let's be honest here. Suppose here in America, some native American group got a hold of a bunch of rockets and began firing them from their reservation onto American cities. Suppose those rockets were housed in hospitals, houses, places of worship, etc. Would the American government sit down and ask the group nicely to stop firing? Or would they send in the troops? Even if they tried diplomacy, how long would the politicians hold out against the populace who would be screaming for some kind of action to stop the rockets?
Is Israel perfect? Of course not. There's a lot of policies of theirs that I take issue with. (e,g, Tolerating settlers who venture into the West Bank/Gaza/etc to set up "claims" for that land to be part of Israel. Those settlers should be forcefully removed and imprisoned for inflaming the conflict and thus risking people's lives.) However, when it comes down to Israel's reactions to the rockets heading towards them, there is no perfect response. There is no way for them to respond that a) stops the bombs, b) stops future bombings, and c) doesn't hurt innocents. They have a system in place to reduce collateral damage as much as possible, but it doesn't help when Hamas acts in a manner designed to intentionally INCREASE collateral damage.
The short story ends as Nightfall is starting. The book extends past into the nightmare of the stars.
I remember reading the book once and I was completely absorbed in the story. I finally looked up and noticed it was dusk. For a brief moment, I felt panic rising because the stars were going to come out soon. It took a moment to disentangle myself from the story.
Being able to completely lose yourself in a book can be a good thing most times - other times, it can backfire.
They have intelligence and nasty beaks/claws. If their wings aren't clipped, they can also fly and attack from all angles. That's a very bad combination for anyone an African Grey (or Macaw, Cockatoo, etc) decides to attack.
My in-laws have a cockatoo thus my choice of that bird. (They used to have two but one died about 10 years ago.) These birds' jaws are powerful enough to crush bone and intelligent enough to plan out actions. Like you said, a reptile might strike you but you'd see it coming. My in-laws' cockatoo does what that macaw you mentioned did. She will act all sweet and want you to pet her... until she decides to bite your finger off. She hasn't succeeded yet, but that's because we're extra cautious about body parts in cockatoo range. They've also broken small metal locks with their beaks and escaped their cages.
My wife was once on jury duty on a rape case. The defense attorney made a point of how the woman, after the perpetrator fled, took her cockatoo out of its cage. My wife knew just why she did this. The bird had witnessed the crime and the rapist was someone who lived in her building. If he decided to come back before the police arrived, having the bird free would mean the rapist might just lose some precious body parts. (The defendant was convicted. The evidence against him was overwhelming.)
I'd rather face and angry dog than an angry cockatoo or macaw. The idea of a 15 foot tall cockatoo with huge teeth and a taste for meat? That would be frightening beyond comprehension!
You think a T-Rex "chicken" wouldn't be scary? Imagine a 15 foot tall, 40 foot long bird of prey with a 4 foot jaw and 9 inch long teeth. Your average adult human would be finger food - a bite or two and then gone. This gets even more terrifying if you imagine them as giant cockatoos (and if you know how nasty cockatoos can be).