Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:And in other news (Score 1) 139

by Richard_at_work (#47405739) Attached to: Uber Is Now Cheaper Than a New York City Taxi

If I am hit by your acquaintance while they are giving you that free lift, their private insurance will cover my medical bills for as long as needed.

If I am hit by a taxi from a regulated company, their business insurance will cover my medical needs for as long as needed. The fact that they have adequate insurance is something that is checked by the taxi licensing people.

If I am hit by an Uber driver, well who knows how much insurance they have - Uber covers them for $1Million but that doesn't necessarily cover even a year in medical expenses or long term care, so I am left recouping the cost of my care from the Uber driver themselves. Uber drivers are not regulated or inspected (yet - wait for that shitstorm to hit Slashdot when it happens) so there is no guarantee that when you get into that Uber car you are actually insured at all.

Comment: Re:Power? We dont need no stink'n power! (Score 1) 464

No they dont, aircraft hand on zero visibility all the time - heavy fog, torrential rain etc etc. If the conditions are right, you can be non-visual right up to the point where your main gear touches down - you can do that either manually or you can do that on autoland and have the autopilot put it down for you.

Comment: Re:Well, duh... (Score 4, Insightful) 210

I think the main issue I have is that this EC spokesman is expecting Google to make decisions regarding the public interest rather than erring on the side of caution and removing everything - the moment they do make decisions regarding the public interest, you can bet your arse they will be hauled back into court and have to justify themselves.

So by going to the extreme and implementing the ruling across the board (barring obvious requests that can be rejected), Google is protecting themselves and showing what a stupid ruling it is in the first place. There is no alternative approach that Google can take that doesn't open them up to further legal action.

Comment: Re:Big Difference (Score 3, Insightful) 210

They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.

Users have the right to record TV content for personal use.

Then users should record TV content for personal use - which isn't the same as what Dish are doing, as they are retransmitting their own recording of the content. Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.

Comment: Re:The right to read. (Score 3, Informative) 72

by Richard_at_work (#47344215) Attached to: Want To Resell Your Ebooks? You'd Better Act Fast

Authors have right to be paid for their work. They do not have a right to be paid for paying customers selling the customers' property.

Not entirely applicable here due to the type of property being resold, but the European Union disagrees with you under the 2001 Resale Rights Directive 2001/84/EC which entitles artists to receive a royalty on the resale of their original or limited works up to a total of 12,500 Euros. The directive sets out a sliding scale of royalty levels, from 4% up to a resale price of 50,000 Euros, to 0.25% for greater than 500,000 Euros.

This right is seen as an inalienable right of the artist.

news: gotcha