Yeah my bad. Damn slideshow wouldn't run and of course it was after I hit submit that I was thinking "wait.. is that called trigraph or some other cryptic operator?"
Since this operator exists in C/C++, Java and Perl at least, it's hardly obscure
Generalists do better in small shops because they can't afford to hire a specialist in 10 different areas when they only have budget for 4 people.
See bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Scalia has it right, they wanted aereo to be illegal and they waved their hands to make it so. Cloud computing is at risk as a result of the ruling.
Breyer's attitude of "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter if its a robot" is idiotic. If technologic details didn't matter we wouldn't spend so much money designing around existing patents.
That still doesn't help. I've lived in apartment buildings with an antenna on the roof and a coax jack coming out the wall. Not my wire, not my antenna, no cost.
People rent equipment all the time, that doesn't make the company you rented it from a provider of the service you get out of the equipment.
And this was EXACTLY the argument about why this case affects cloud computing. So I use AWS to stream video, now Amazon is a TV service provider because I hired that labor out to Amazon? If not explain the damn difference and stop waving your hands that aereo is just illegal without explaining where the magic is.
So your position is that using Slingbox or a DVR over the Internet (a shared non dedicated connection per user) makes you a CATV company and a copyright infringer as well?
If not, why not? What makes a "dedicated internet connection per user"? Some condos and apartment buildings aggregate their per unit connections before they enter the ISP equipment. WiFi at a public hotspot is certainly shared accessed. People in neighboring apartments often share internet access over WiFI. Is any transmission of video in these shared setups a "CATV company"? and infringing copyright due to a public performance?
It's all well and good to say that CATV companies had to pay because of "shared access", now the SC has made nebulous what exactly can't be shared. Access is by nature shared these days and more shared every day. Aereo gave everyone a dedicated antenna, what more would they have needed to not have "shared access"?
Don't change the subject.
It is not a violation for you and I as individuals to receive broadcast TV for free over the air. I and many others have legal antennas and do so.
I'm surprised to find that I'm on the side of the SC Justices I most abhor, but there has to be a place where your legal antenna is not attached to your house. Where is that place?
I can put an antenna on my TV, I can put it in my attic, I can put it on my roof, I can put it on a mast in my yard....
I can lease a spot in my neighbors yard and erect a mast..
I can lease a spot on top of a nearby hill and use a microwave link back to my house...
I can erect an antenna across town and back haul the signal on the internet...
Where is this magical place where you become a CATV provider? Aereo offered no other programming than what your leased antenna brought in.
The SC screwed up and I'm on the side with the dissenters (whom I almost always disagree with)
Broadcast Television is by definition broadcast to all who can receive it. Just because cable companies pay to rebroadcast it to their customers doesn't change the primary fact. You do not have to pay to watch broadcast TV. It is not a violation of copyright to do so.
So. Given that, what are your options to watch that free Broadcast TV when the reception where you live happens to be poor? and by 'free' I specifically mean without a dime of your cash being given to the TV station.
If your position is that there is no way for a company to charge for something in order to somehow provide you with broadcast TV without paying a TV station, then what is to stop the TV stations from transmitting the most craptastic signal that they can possibly get away with so that it isn't really possible for anyone to receive a decent signal via antenna? Why then they'd be able to monetize those airwaves in more profitable endeavors. Talk about win-win for the TV stations.
This is not news, it was SOP back in the 90's to get your hands on the competitors' new products and figure out how to sell against them, i.e. figure out their weaknesses.
In order to simulate a human brain at the atomic level, first we would have to know exactly which chemicals are in a real brain, and we don't even know that much yet.
This is not a hard problem to solve. You just put a brain in a blender and send the resulting goo through a mass spectrometer.
Way to put words into my mouth.
Not "therefore bad". Nevertheless it IS bad. Their rationales don't make sense (see 'Tabs on top' UX video where they don't list all the cons, and then conclude that because there are more pros than cons the change is therefore good, never mind that the single con by itself outweighs the 3 pros [some of which don't make any sense anyway]) Note also how they promised that tabs on the bottom weren't going away, they just wouldn't be the default. Surprise, now they are gone.
If Mozilla wants to maintain popularity, then fire all your UX people.
ALL of them.
Stop sacrificing your current users on the UX altar, for the mythical other users "improved" UX promises you.
If by "mostly doesn't work" you mean that the engine turns off buy you can't remove the key until you put the car in park, then I guess you're right.
But that's a warped definition of not working.
You're kneejerking. Just because the whole FISA system is bogus doesn't mean that you have to invent facts that don't exist. The FISA order explicitly stated that in the absence of any court ordered retention, the records could not be retained longer than authorized. That is the FISA court ordered the NSA to follow the (bogus) law and not try to bend the rules any further than already (bogusly) allowed.
The fact that there is now a court order requiring some preservation of records is explicitly not in conflict with the FISA order as written. Or did you not read it?
There is no conflict at all.
One court told the NSA that they could not keep the records beyond the law's specified 5 years "just in case" they were sued, i.e. they can't keep it longer merely because they feel that they should.
The other court involves the NSA being sued, and ordering them to keep material for the lawsuit.
Can't you see the difference?