... keep holding it down.
Seriously, this is such an unconscionable violation of basic privacy that even people who have done nothing wrong should automatically have that reaction. And anybody who has done something wrong should know better than to use a fingerprint for unlocking anyway. What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?
Don't challenge MLB if you know what's good for you.
I don't know what you're getting at because "challenge MLB" can have any of several meanings. If you start your own league unaffiliated with MLB, do you "challenge MLB"?
Major League Baseball has copyright over broadcasts of matches between MLB clubs or between clubs in MLB-affiliated minor leagues. It does not have copyright over broadcasts of baseball matches in other leagues. Video game publishers, on the other hand, control which leagues are even allowed to exist.
Where does copyright infringement enter into this?
Copyright infringement is an example of a crime-or-tort that's similar to theft but not the same as theft. I was using it to introduce tax evasion, another crime that's similar to theft but not the same as theft.
"That's a wiretap"
No, it's not. It's deep packet inspection for purpose of network management.
"blocking a service without a DMCA notice is criminal."
No, it's not. First, the world is bigger than the US, and second, we do it as sysadmins all the time. We blacklist spammers, and people involved DDoS attacks.
None of this matters, however, to a system like this, which involves watermarking the content, and blocking it on the upstream side. The provider watermarks all the streams of their videos, and when it shows up on the internet somewhere, that subscriber is shut off. Perfectly, completely legal.
"So every single stream is going to have a unique watermark embedded in the audio or visual data? The original will be decompressed, the mark added, then recompressed and streamed to each specific subscriber to allow identification? Tens or hundreds of thousands, simultaneously?"
No. The watermarking technology is put in the decoder - the set top box, the Widevine DRM module (in browsers), in iTunes. The stream is watermarked so capturing it and re-encoding it will have the watermark present.
To help you understand, we will first need to understand your English proficiency. Of the following phrases, which is the first to sound ungrammatical to you? That'll help me craft an explanation.
A. Researchers "who test the theories"
B. Researchers "who test the theories in games"
C. Researchers "who test the theories in game after game"
D. Researchers "who test the theories in game after callus-creating game"
Exhibit B, human nature
From the linked page:
I guess it's human nature to charge for human nature.
Why do people care about sports at all? Why do the Olympic Games exist?
One possible angle that I might accept is that unlike well-known ball sports, notable video games are proprietary. A video game's publisher has state-backed power to dictate whether, how, and by whom its game shall be played in public.
Last time I checked, hotels advertised their vacant rooms on Hotwire or Priceline.
In a scheme to evade hotel tax through early termination, the following happen in order:
1. Previous tenant leaves early.
2. Owner reports to Airbnb that the previous tenant has left early.
3. While the property lies vacant, you book your accommodation.
4. You book your travel.
5. You stay and leave early.
6. Owner reports to Airbnb that you have left early.
7. While the property lies vacant, someone else books her accommodation...
Where, exactly, is the theft in renting the property?
Technically, copyright infringement isn't theft. Offering TV at a negative price to cable Internet subscribers is tying or dumping, not extortion. And in the same way, owner-absent short-term sublets are evasion of hotel tax, not theft. But morally, tax evasion could be thought of as like a theft from the other residents of the state, who have made a decision through their elected representatives to tax a particular behavior.
Joe Sixpack rents a place, but then he "has to cancel" and leave early *cough*. He pays the owner an "early-termination penalty", and then the owner would, of course, relist the room to be rented.
Where is the crime, and how would anyone prove that anything illegal had occurred?
The proof is that the property's owner failed to document good cause for early termination with more than three-fourths of the lease term remaining by five out of six sublessees of the same property. An allowance for "good cause" isn't a bright line, I'll grant, but it's like the difference between an excused absence from school in states with truancy laws and an unexcused absence.
First, no reactors built in the past twenty years (except in China, IIRC) lack those safety features. Passive safety might not be an official standard from a regulatory agency, but is still effectively a standard.
Second, yes, passive safety most certainly does make a plant significantly safer than active safety, particularly when you have two plants right next to one another. Imagine a scenario where a containment accident occurs at one reactor, along with a fire that damages the external power feed to the second reactor. At that point, it is unsafe for people to bring diesel fuel in to keep the emergency generators running to keep the pumps running to cool the second reactor while it shuts down, and suddenly you've gone from one meltdown event to two.
Try `stty 0' -- it works much better.