|
Authored by: om1er on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
The link in newspicks doesn't work. Here is my attempt at the correct link.
http://
blog.simplejustice.us/2013/05/08/jeremy-drew-
awesome.aspx --- March
23, 2010 - Judgement day. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
Article link.
Great thanks to Jonathan Mayer!
Active Privacy
should always be the default with the individual consciously, explicitly
deciding what privacy to relinquish and when.
RAS
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 01:28 AM EDT |
I actually don't have a problem with a company buying a competitor and shutting
them down.
This is very different from what happened with Nokia.
If a company buys a competitor and shuts them down, they are paying the former
owners for the full value of the company (at least they are if it's not a sale
under duress)
for something like Nook Media, if Microsoft buys it and kills it, some other
company, some other company can come along and build a replacement. Employees
can move to the new company (or other competing companies)
What happened with Nokia was very different. The Microsoft did not pay the full
market value of Nokia, instead the paid a tiny fraction of the amount to
influence key decisionmakers to do things to destroy the company.
David Lang[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- yebbut - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 02:43 AM EDT
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 02:20 AM EDT |
Google Framed As Book Stealer Bent On Data Domination In New
Documentary.
See, Google didn’t just want to make a universally
accessible library. It wanted to use all the knowledge to improve its search and
artificial intelligence projects.
It would seem there's this
social exchange where society at large prospers ("...to promote the Sciences and
the Arts") given as a Constitutional reason to authorize Congress to enact
protections for authors (and inventors).
... and others begin to
speculate that Google wants to hoard the books primarily for its own purposes,
not to democratize their information.
If you were to prevent the
Constitutional purpose, what's left? There is no copyright that limits use of
ideas expressed therein. We're seeing emotive lobbying for expansion of
copyright of the moral rights kind.
You have to wonder how many of these
Authors Guild member's works will be extinguished due to neglect before the
expiration of their copyright? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 03:26 AM EDT |
FBI Documents Suggest Feds
Read Emails Without a Warrant
We received two paragraphs from
the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York—part of an unidentified
document stating that law
enforcement can obtain [from ISPs] “opened electronic
communications or extremely old unopened email” without a warrant.
They also got from DoJ
Guidance Regarding the Application of United States v. Jones, 132
S. Ct. 945 (2012), DO NOT bother trying to read this document. It has a
third of a
page of long title and addressees at the top of page 1. The
remaining 53.7 pages are blacked out. I guess that information didn't want to be
free. And no, I
can't be bothered trying to crack their blackout.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 06:11 AM EDT |
The Register: New Zealand to bar
software patents, again
"New
legislation closes loophole, makes it plain Kiwis
won't patent code" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 06:20 AM EDT |
NZ Govt and NZ's largest group of IT professionals say
no to software patents
Approx background: The select committee unanimously
decided that software is not patentable as part of the Patent reform Bill. Then
coincidentally (if you're naïve) an ex MS employee started working with Minister
Foss who shortly afterwards had a brainwave changing the wording such that
software would effectively be patentable, such as. (to be fair he knows little
about software), then a public outcry and now software will hopefully not
patentable, again. The people who own most of the fluffy patents don't come
from NZ, just a big overseas convicted monopolist of 30 years and a few other
big companies. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|