Why do they not mandate TLS1,2 with PFS?
Why do they not mandate TLS1,2 with PFS?
The law should treat hyperlinks as being equivalent to bibliographical references and citations in printed works. After all, that is all a hyperlink is. That browsers automate the retrieval and display of the referenced work, rather than having to search the stacks or ask the librarian to fetch the book/journal, should not affect the status of the hyperlink. As for banning them, I personally think that most web pages do not take enough advantage of hyperlinks within the body of the pages.
How does people accessing from outside the UK have any affect on how much the BBC is paid? They receive the same income from the TV licence payers whether or not people access iPlayer via a VPN.
Imagine a company were to set up a roadwarrior style VPN in their UK office (which for the sake of argument assume a TV licence) for their UK staff who are visiting abroad to access IPlayer from their hotels in the evening. How would the BBC be able to tell that those staff were accessing it via the VPN and not from computers directly connected to the office LAN?
Most JPEGs are created by ordinary people, with their digital cameras and phones. So will Joe Public who has taken a photo be able to define the rights on the image? Will he be able change the rights depending on where he sends or stores the image? Or will it only be the media conglomerates who are able to manage the rights to their images?
And I wish that updates to he build-in apps (not just those from Google) would be installed into the same partition as the built-in ones rather than taking up space (and why does almost every update have to be more memory hungry than the last?) in the user-installable app partition.
If the encryption uses Perfect Forward Secrecy (eg an ECDHE or DHE cipher suite) then even having the private key to the certificate will not enable anyone to discover the ephemeral session key needed to decrypt the message.
Columbia claim that the works for which they send takedown notices violate the copyright in their new movie. As the works concerned were created and put online before the movie was created, then one of two things can be true. 1) The works do not violate the claimed copyright, or 2) If copyright has been violated, then it is the Columbia movie which violates the copyrights in the earlier work(s). In either case the takedown notices are invalid and abuse of process.
How much automation and technology is there in the bathroom? It would be nice if you could set the shower temperature with the room controls. As for the toilet, for a room of the future one of the hi-tech Japanese ones would not be out of place.
However, barring geolicensing creates a new set of problems by itself. It would mean that licensing costs for movies, tv series and sports events would skyrocket as the potential target audience is multiplied, while the stations will more or less keep the same number of viewers.
Which would not apply to a subscription channel (such as Canal+ or the various Sky packages) as, irrespective of the location of the viewer, the maximum size of the target audience is known - the number who subscribe to (a package containing) that channel. For pay-per-view, the number of viewers is even more accurately known.
Now, you are getting screwed, and he's not going to stop because he has rabid lawyers on his side and if he doesn't "defend" his trademark, he's going to lose it.
But the OP says that the app had been available for 5 years before the trademark infringement claim was made. So either the OP is not infringing because of prior use or the claimant has not been "defending" his trademark.
Hold their phone at arm's length.
Cameron is staunchly anti-freedom. What's tragic is a majority of British liked this and voted for the man and those that didn't are forced at gunpoint to come along for the ride.
No, the majority of the the British people did not vote for him. Firstly, only about 65% of those eligible voted and of those only 36% voted conservative. So less than one quarter of those registered to vote voted for him.
I have dozens of competitors (ISPs) to choose from. Granted that there is only one 'cable' provider (Virgin media) but there are dozens of ISPs offering ADSL or VDSL (normally referred to as 'fibre broadband' even though it is delivered over copper from the street cabinet). Each ISP has their own backbone/peering arrangements and either run their own DSLAM/MSAN in the local telephone exchange or have trunk connections to their Points-of-Presence. Thus, even though the service is provided to the end-user through the 'common' copper connection (which only affects the DSL sync rate), the service parameters, routing, IP address allocation, peering etc are all controlled by the individual ISPs.
So maybe one (or more) of the other sites blocked could go back to the court which ordered the block and request that the court amends the order to require that the original site(s) be blocked without also blocking their site.
Quantum Mechanics is a lovely introduction to Hilbert Spaces! -- Overheard at last year's Archimedeans' Garden Party