If the iPad were only meant to be a computer, running native applications written by whomever you choose (as it should, and cannot) then it would be a shitty, closed experience.
But it's not intended to be a computer (despite duplicating some functionality) - it's a web browser. One that you can hold; one that lets you touch the internet.
Not in the slightest - copyright, in an of itself, is a violation of the First Amendment. By extension, and as illustrated above, the DMCA is clearly in violation of the same.
I think this quote has been taken out of context, though I still find it rather disturbing.
I believe Schmidt was referring to the privacy of your web searches through Google, specifically in regard to how easily law enforcement can obtain those search records if they so desire. He's saying that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when searching for, (for example,) "ways to kill your spouse", as that data is leaving your computer and your home, at which point it essentially becomes public info.
It would mean that, for example, someone who has bought a CD would be able to copy it to their iPod or share it with family members without acting unlawfully.
Is this supposed to be a joke? I swear this shit makes me swing back and forth between disgusted disbelief and apathetic amusement. Peter Mandelson cannot legislate that everyone be as vacant as he - laws that go against common sense are ignored by everyone with any sense.
I jest, but I can certainly tell you that I'll not stop using "plugins" in my day-to-day programming activities.
The USPTO is completely inept, and seemingly corrupt as well. There are, quite literally, stacks of prior art pertaining to both this and Eolas' previously contested patent (re: MS.)
I'd argue that the placebo effect has gotten "stronger" precisely *because* the drug companies are spending so much on r&d. Their increasingly visible, huge investments, combined with more prevalent and "amazing" drugs (like Viagra, etc.) has increased people's faith that the new, expensive drugs are more effective.
I think pharma may be shooting themselves in the foot by doing such a "good" job.
Can't believe that any sane person would assign penalties of that size for copying 24 files, even if she lied about it. Actually makes me sick to my stomach. The jurors responsible for the verdict in this case should be shamed publicly.
Re: SAIC strikes again! It's amazing what a few thousand can buy.
Here's your shiny solution:
http://www.cloudshield.com/
Acquired in Jan of this year, specializing in deep packet inspection gear.
The Real Sponsor Of This Bill
SAIC via http://www.cloudshield.com/
Enough with the ridiculous analogies.
Secondary liability for service providers on the internet amounts to outright censorship (by a private party) of possibly protected speech.
The comparison to Disney is surprisingly relevant, and I agree. Mostly.
If the iPad were only meant to be a computer, running native applications written by whomever you choose (as it should, and cannot) then it would be a shitty, closed experience.
But it's not intended to be a computer (despite duplicating some functionality) - it's a web browser. One that you can hold; one that lets you touch the internet.
Not at all
Not in the slightest - copyright, in an of itself, is a violation of the First Amendment. By extension, and as illustrated above, the DMCA is clearly in violation of the same.
Ron Kirk
There's quite a bit of chaff in this comment thread.
I think the real issue here is that USTR Ron Kirk is as corrupt as they come.
Re:
"No one has any right to promote a third party's copyright."
Are you kidding? Anyone has absolutely every right to "promote" whatever the fuck they like. Crawl back under your bridge buddy.
Re:
All work is derivative.
"resale" rights?!
The concept of royalties from the resale of media is downright humorous .. borders on fucking delusional.
Context
I think this quote has been taken out of context, though I still find it rather disturbing.
I believe Schmidt was referring to the privacy of your web searches through Google, specifically in regard to how easily law enforcement can obtain those search records if they so desire. He's saying that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when searching for, (for example,) "ways to kill your spouse", as that data is leaving your computer and your home, at which point it essentially becomes public info.
That said, I host my own email and always will.
From the article..
Is this supposed to be a joke? I swear this shit makes me swing back and forth between disgusted disbelief and apathetic amusement. Peter Mandelson cannot legislate that everyone be as vacant as he - laws that go against common sense are ignored by everyone with any sense.
Metallica said it best -
Kill 'em All
I jest, but I can certainly tell you that I'll not stop using "plugins" in my day-to-day programming activities.
The USPTO is completely inept, and seemingly corrupt as well. There are, quite literally, stacks of prior art pertaining to both this and Eolas' previously contested patent (re: MS.)
Placebo getting stronger
I'd argue that the placebo effect has gotten "stronger" precisely *because* the drug companies are spending so much on r&d. Their increasingly visible, huge investments, combined with more prevalent and "amazing" drugs (like Viagra, etc.) has increased people's faith that the new, expensive drugs are more effective.
I think pharma may be shooting themselves in the foot by doing such a "good" job.
That's incredibly broad wording.
We really do need to disband the USPTO.
Insane
Can't believe that any sane person would assign penalties of that size for copying 24 files, even if she lied about it. Actually makes me sick to my stomach. The jurors responsible for the verdict in this case should be shamed publicly.
I'm starting a torrent tracker out of spite.
HAHAAHAHAA HAH AH ha ehh.. .
These goons have got to be fucking kidding. A ridiculous upshot of an overly litigious society.
I would tell these guys where to stick it if I were approached.