They can't do that, the DMCA very clearly says that the provider must remove the infringing material, then the poster can challenge the takedown, failing to remove the content as requested removes their safe harbor and opens them up to copyright infringement claims with statutory damages of $100,000 per violation, never going to happen.
All takedowns have to be sworn under penalty of perjury. Next time google gets one that points to a page with no infringement (just happened) (just happened again) (oops, and again, okay, I'll stop counting now) whoever sent it needs to be prosecuted for perjury. The infringement notice bots would be shut down in 10 minutes when those behind them are suddenly facing prosecution.
As I've said time and again: we don't need a new law - we need to enforce what we've got.
Why would they need to create a new hate conflict? There's plenty of that to go around as is. Arab vs. Jew, black vs. white, East vs. West...it's not like conflict wasn't around before banking cartels, you know.
Fusion would break the stranglehold of petro-exporting countries in the Middle East as well as belligerent exporters like Russia and Iran.
You're assuming said fusion plants would be radically cheaper to construct and operate than existing fission plants...something the anti-nuclear activists would probably complicate despite the obvious benefits of fusion over fission. Never underestimate the public fear of the word "nuclear" even if the processes involved are ridiculously different.
I can hear the rallying cry now: "They want to build a plant that works the same way as a thermonuclear bomb! Do you want a nuclear bomb IN YOUR BACKYARD???"
People are still terrified of fluoride in their water. Can you imagine their reponse to the above?
Fusion power is roughly 20 years away from being viable...and has been for the last 40 years LOL.
Seriously, I'll start worrying about proliferation risks when a commercially viable fusion reactor DESIGN is created. Building one -- assuming it's ever viable to begin with -- would take years, which is plenty of time to address proliferation concerns before it came online.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% the fault of the person making an unsafe lane change if there is an accident, NOT the person who was driving too slow for your taste. You still have not given a single legitimate reason why low speed limits (by themselves), or slow drivers (by themselves) are dangerous.
People who are driving at a speed that is far outside the average speed on a particular road are a danger simply because the difference between their speed and others is likely to be large. Note that whether they're going "faster" or "slower" doesn't matter - it's the difference in speed.
If I'm going 90MPH and I bump someone going 89MPH we'll be fine and have minimal damage to our cars. If I'm going 45 and bump someone going 44 it's the same. But bumping someone who's going 45 when you're going 90 will result in a major accident.
I remember reading something a few years ago said by a patrol officer. Basically, fast drivers and slow drivers cause the same number of accidents. But in his experience the fast drivers were part of the accident while the slow drivers caused other people to have an accident (trying to avoid the slow poke) and drove off possibly unaware that they had caused an accident.
You make a good point. I am sure that HP would never, ever compromise the legendary high quality of their notebook computers by failing to adhere strictly to the standards of the Windows Logo Program.
I must have confused them with another computer manufacturer with lower standards who might be willing to sacrifice the usability of their product just to squeeze a few more dollars our of every sale.
They're already the second largest Iaas provider after Amazon (EC2 vs Azure) and the second largest business Saas provider after Salesforce (SF vs Office365/Dynamics cloud). As they cloudify more of their offerings they'll be able to capture plenty of revenue from mobile, and since they'll actually be eating their own dogfood their tools for large customers should get better and more and more small customers will just host with them.
So only 32gigs of storage on the device eh? Hmm. I dunno, seems kinda limited with no way to expand it without buying my own storage.
I'm afraid that very few computers of any kind offer a way to expand the storage without buying storage.
You could try stealing three USB drives and a high capacity SDXC card and fitting them into the available ports on the Stream 14, easily expanding the storage by as much as you want, but speaking as your attorney I would have to advise you that that could cause you some legal difficulties in the future.
It doesn't matter in this case, since -- per the fucking summary -- the computer in question is using an AMD A4 (which is x86).
The fucking summary said nothing about whether or not the system used "Secure Boot" or whether it would continue to allow the end user to add a custom bootloader or new trusted certificates. The CPU can understand whatever instruction set it wants, but that won't make any difference if the system firmware won't allow you to run code that isn't signed by Microsoft or HP.
You don't want to cut off their web browsing, you want to cut their power. Get the electric companies to cut the power till they pay up. Can't download or watch them infringing files with no power.
Cut the power!!!!
Actually the analogous action would be to drop their line voltage to 30V and perhaps change the frequency to 20Hz.
You cannot prove a negative.
Sure you can. I was once falsely (and maliciously) accused of something, and was able to prove that I was 100 km away in a different city for the extended weekend, with hundreds of witnesses. 7 witnesses was more than sufficient.
So, you proved that you were somewhere else, which is a positive.
Oh for fucks sake, you KNEW what he meant by the post.
Of course he knew what the OP meant, but I have to side with mrchaotica and I'll tell you why. A large part of the population thinks that copyrights are something that only big companies own. When people say "it's illegal to download copyrighted content" they perpetuate that myth. Nearly everything I download in a given day is copyrighted, it's just that the author has given permission for it to be downloaded. All the posts on
So the issue is about whether it's unauthorized sharing, not whether it's copyrighted. I make that distinction simply because I don't want to help lay the groundwork for a fundamental change in copyright law at some point.
Right, so let's cite the website perhaps second or third best known on the Internet for having lots of trolls as an example.
...of a site that already tried this, and failed. Isn't this exactly the kind of example that the article was asking for?
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has been suggesting this approach for years with this and other invasive species. Ultimately it's the only way to go. When you say the fish "has no natural predators" - well, I know a *bunch* of potential predators....