Comment Re:Don't try this in Space (Score 5, Funny) 203
Tomorrow's headline: "RIAA Lobbies Congress to Shut Down NASA"
Tomorrow's headline: "RIAA Lobbies Congress to Shut Down NASA"
Personally, I'm hoping for a catchy musical number that will save The Pirate Bay.
Couldn't be any worse than the plan in TFA...
I find it ironic that product is designed to work with Word. I can see why they would want to sue though, seeing as how MS just bundled in software that removes the need for their add on.
The problem isn't that Microsoft bundled technology into Word. The problem is that i4i had a patent on said technology, and that Microsoft knew about the patent before deciding to "make it obsolete."
From what I've read, the patent is on something which strips the raw text from the surrounding tags -- meaning I can call "open" on a file stream in C++, read in the data as a string, all without worrying about the tags (because the tags are logically separated already in a different location.)
I suggest reading the entire patent before trying to summarize. It's significantly more complex than what you described.
Eitherway, I'm not a fan of copyright, no matter who's getting f'd'n'the'a.
We're talking about patents, not copyrights. There's a big difference.
Learning for the sake of learning doesn't seem to be popular anymore...
Of course, because if you learned for the sake of learning you would be an intellectual, which is considered a bad thing in modern America. You can't have a beer with an intellectual, and intellectuals are not good at bowling.
Let me get this straight: You're equating improperly labeling copyright infringement to saying someone should be burned alive? Both cause one to lose the same amount of credibility? Sorry, that's a bit... ludicrous.
I'm not putting music theft and ID theft on par with each other, merely comparing our culture's attitudes towards each. My point is that we justify one thing which is clearly wrong (stealing music) and condemn another that is clearly wrong (ID theft). In no way did I trivialize ID theft or claim that it isn't a big deal.
And just for future reference, you lose all credibility with reasonable people when you call for the burning of an individual with a differing opinion. Grow. Up.
Sharing copyright files is illegal... Defrauding someone of their hard earned cash is illegal...
You just proved my point. Those two things are essentially the same thing.
The only difference is that you justify one and not the other by claiming it's alright to steal from a large company but not an individual. It's a Robin Hood mentality that, while romantic and popular, is still wrong. You're basically confusing "moral" with "popular".
You might feel better about stealing music from RIAA-affiliated labels, but it's still wrong (legally and morally).
What chain of idiocy determined the computers he accessed to be "protected"?
The U.S. Congress -- More specifically, the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act expanded the definition of "protected computer" to include basically any computer with a network connection. More information is available at:
This is outrageous! Our rights have been trampled on for the last time! We must rise up and fi....
Wait, wait, wait... are we
Sorry, between defending one illegal P2P activity (music "sharing") and condemning another (ID theft), it's hard to know what's what...
Tip: The mod point you're looking for is "-1 offtopic"
TFA links a company's security reputation to whether or not a breach occurred in the first place, not how the company responded to the breach.
There is a subtle difference between a reputation for having no security breaches and a reputation for responding well to security breaches.
I am claiming the former is not as important as the latter.
Remember, the company you see on the news regarding their first ever data breach had a sterling security reputation... until it didn't.
I expect companies I do business with to do everything possible (within reason) to prevent breaches, but I also accept the fact that breaches are inevitable.
Be upfront and honest with me about it. Make sure it doesn't happen again. Repair any damage that was done. Do those things, and you'll have my business.
So it's perfectly legal for customers to make their own backup copies of media...
That is not quite what the judge is saying. "it may well be legal" != "it is legal"
The volume of demand enables lower fuel prices.
Fuel taxes are dramatically higher in Europe. For example, in Norway, 63% of the price you pay at the pump is made up of taxes. In the Netherlands it's 68%. Those numbers seem pretty typical, according to Wikipedia at least.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may bring an individual action in small claims court. YOU AGREE THAT, BY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT, YOU AND AT&T ARE EACH WAIVING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION WITH RESPECT TO ARBITRATION CLAIMS.
This is a big win for the consumer. We can finally rest assured that AT&T cannot enter into a class action against its consumers.
You might laugh, but this is AT&T we're talking about. To quote Angels in the Outfield: "It could happen."
Lobotomies are a bit extreme.
Besides, that's what we have the Thought Police for. Or didn't the telescreen tell you?
Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.
