>Explain that if they do not remove their copyright claim within the time allotted that I will revoke their rights to use my footage in their video due to a terms of use violation.
The DMCA states they are filing the take down under penalty of perjury. It's very slippery though.
If Sony says "This is A, and I own A. Take down Small Time's video." Then all is good so long as Sony actually owns A. If the content is B, it's a great inconvenience to Small Time, but there's really no recourse.
However, what Sony did was say "This is B, I own B. Take down Small Time's video." The content IS B. Sony has misrepresented their ownership of B. Now they've perjured themselves.
My understanding is that perjury is punishable by up to five years in prison. It seems like someone at Sony should now be under investigation for this little 'oops.' Even if Small Time is satisfied with the outcome, it sounds like someone at Sony still violated the law.
Interesting article, but I don't think this is entirely restricted to engineers.
I've seen plenty of management decisions where, instead of making a choice which will apply to all users, management decides to make it yet another check box buried in the preferences section of an application.
It takes a week or two before Mgt settles on whether it should be on or off. If 90% of users want off, then off it is.
Then two months down the road, the 10% that like it on now want to extend the feature a bit more. And with that, the process repeats, another check box is nested.
Before long, you're left with a management designed, byzantine architecture of wheels and knobs and checkboxes everywhere.
>Passengers and drivers rate each other and bad ones are removed from the system.
Never used Uber/Lyft, so maybe the answer would be obvious if I had, but...
What stops drivers from giving bad ratings based on race or destination? Likewise, what stops passengers from giving drivers bad ratings based on race or some other prejudice?
I'm leaning toward Kubernetes because that's what fabric8.io has chosen. The others may be great, but I'm not really interested in writing a lot of glue code to make them work well with Jenkins/Gerrit/Nexus/Slack/Docker/Chaos Monkey/OpenShift the way Fabric8 has.
Didn't Microsoft do this with SCO vs Linux though? In that case, it was big incumbent interested in squashing a scrappy start-up disrupting the industry.
In a case like that, it seems like a tool to perpetuate economic inequality.
I've arrived at the opinion that users simply cannot be trusted to keep their own credentials safe. It's literally impossible to secure a system based on trusting the user.
There are very successful businesses (mint.com) built around the concept of sharing extremely sensitive credentials for some reward.
In the tutum intro video I watched yesterday, the pitchman is asking developers within the first minute of video to enter AWS credentials into his website I've never heard of.
If anyone would balk at that suggestion, I would expect it to be developers, yet they are so successful, Docker is buying them for meeellions of dollars.
I'm really surprised no one in the thread has yet mentioned yubico as a solution. I like yubikeys because they are something users can't upload. Keys are a concept everyone understands, and despite what I'm told by friends, I've yet to lose mine. I've never lost my car/house/mailbox keys either though.
Maybe I'm odd in both respects. I keep my credentials and keys close to me.
I'd like to know what Tatum offers in comparison to fabric8.io. It seems the "video intro" and "take it for a spin" links are the same, and not a video introduction. That's disappointing. Maybe someone in charge of the page can fix it please?
Searching for "Tatum video introduction" on a search engine only returns results about a certain movie star, which is not terribly helpful.
This sounds really similar to when the Snowden docs were first leaked. You have to listen very carefully to exactly what is said and read between the lines.
"the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications" means, "Was monitoring up until just now."
Here Apple says "We can't unlock new iPhones." Apple says nothing about their ability to restore iCloud backups or load software to capture evidence from a locked phone.
It seems the Chinese policy is very smart by demanding inspection of software before it goes into deployment/production. It's common sense really. We should demand as much in the US.
Too bad we have laws and agencies that demand the exact opposite:
I wonder who in our government thinks deploying code without review or testing is a good idea? Does anyone know where one might find a full list of these people/agencies?
>the anti-TPP lobbying/campaigning power of American workers in the general election could be neutralized
That goes both ways. By pushing it to the lame duck session, it gives us an opportunity to neutralize TPP. We can vote out anyone who indicates support for it before they get the opportunity to vote on it.
Make it an election issue. Make the candidate go on record. If they won't go on record against TPP, then we can assume they are for TPP and vote them out. Don't even let them through the primaries.
Does this agreement do anything to address the double standard? Is a local dictator still allowed to overrule whatever findings a court makes?
I really don't see how this chapter will be enforceable. If it isn't enforceable, it's hardly free trade. We just enter an era where tariffs are now decided by a court and approved or denied by local government. Much more uncertain and potentially much more expensive that way. "Oh, you sold a bunch of phones? Well, now you owe us a billion dollars. Didn't plan for that? Sorry, take it up with a judge."
The DMCA states they are filing the take down under penalty of perjury. It's very slippery though.
If Sony says "This is A, and I own A. Take down Small Time's video." Then all is good so long as Sony actually owns A. If the content is B, it's a great inconvenience to Small Time, but there's really no recourse.
However, what Sony did was say "This is B, I own B. Take down Small Time's video." The content IS B. Sony has misrepresented their ownership of B. Now they've perjured themselves.
My understanding is that perjury is punishable by up to five years in prison. It seems like someone at Sony should now be under investigation for this little 'oops.' Even if Small Time is satisfied with the outcome, it sounds like someone at Sony still violated the law.