... is that this "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" has taken aim, directly or indirectly, at a number of currently legitimate practices. Of note, I see fair-use being all but completely shut down by this.
Many people even download software to "try it out" before they commit to purchasing a full license. It seems that is about to be criminalized as well...
And what is this *expletive* about ex officio authority to act against suspected infringers? Now we've gone and devolved the international copyright system's legal arena to the level of the Salem witch hunts.
Disclaimer: I am NOT a particle physicist (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).
We seem to be drawing an overall conclusion that it is antineutrinos that are being sought by these detectors. However, since the neutrino and antineutrino are both neutral (read: they have no charge) particles, is it not possible that they are the same particle, or perhaps simply two variants of a core type of particle?
If I recall correctly, the only differing property between the neutrino and antineutrino is helicity; the neutrino has left-handed helicity, the antineutrino right-handed. Perhaps someone can clarify this a bit better?
... Robert Lazar, perhaps? The guy who everyone thinks is a complete nutter with his claims of everything he was involved in at Area 51 (and those works being the reason he's occasionally chased by the MiB)?
I seem to remember something talking about him also referencing Element #115, though I just can't remember.
The major issue behind the source-code leak is the security surrounding the code. Now that it's out, there is the potential for "unscrupulous players" to find exploits. Anyone familiar with Python will be able to find at least something.
Also, since it is the client code that was released, an intrepid cheater can find ways not just to exploit functions in-game, but find ways to pull various bits of data from straight out of memory. This is a bit like third-party programs that utilize CCP's API code system, though it is a direct violation of the Terms of Service of said game, as it could provide access to information that would potentially give a select few an edge.
My eye's on GoonSwarm now; this might be their "big chance" to ruin the game they declared they would.
Thank you for reclarifying the point of tax records; again, it doesn't seem like this is particularly applicable, but so long as she can prove that the donations are subsequently being put right toward hosting/administration costs, there shouldn't be any issue with regard to that point.
I am the sole proprietor of a number of domain names. All of them are paid for in full by myself, and none of them offer services or goods sold for monetary gain. I don't even collect donations myself, yet my host supports them (offering a means for people to donate directly to the hosting account for purposes of continuing services or upgrading those services.) Point being, were I to own a hypothetical blog in the same position as http://www.neurodiversity.com/ why would donation records need to be subpoenaed in the first place? Should people be in the mind to give to a site they support, shouldn't they be free to do so without having to worry about this? This subpoena seems rather similar to the McCarthy-era Communist witch-hunts in terminology used, such as referring to the turnover of the names of those who have donated.
Also, since when is a blog classed as a taxable entity, and since when are blog owners required to submit tax documents on behalf of their blogs? If this is a necessary thing, it is something I haven't learned during my entire time in the dot-com scene.
Again, IANAL, so tear it up in a respectful manner. I'd like to hear where my shortcomings are.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically an overlay network, then? It's been suggested a number of times already in this discussion. We just need a protocol for it...
If it's in the tubes, it's absolutely, 100% true. Don't you know how the Internet works?
... is that this "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" has taken aim, directly or indirectly, at a number of currently legitimate practices. Of note, I see fair-use being all but completely shut down by this.
Many people even download software to "try it out" before they commit to purchasing a full license. It seems that is about to be criminalized as well...
And what is this *expletive* about ex officio authority to act against suspected infringers? Now we've gone and devolved the international copyright system's legal arena to the level of the Salem witch hunts.
Bravo, society. Bravo.
Disclaimer: I am NOT a particle physicist (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night). We seem to be drawing an overall conclusion that it is antineutrinos that are being sought by these detectors. However, since the neutrino and antineutrino are both neutral (read: they have no charge) particles, is it not possible that they are the same particle, or perhaps simply two variants of a core type of particle?
If I recall correctly, the only differing property between the neutrino and antineutrino is helicity; the neutrino has left-handed helicity, the antineutrino right-handed. Perhaps someone can clarify this a bit better?
... Robert Lazar, perhaps? The guy who everyone thinks is a complete nutter with his claims of everything he was involved in at Area 51 (and those works being the reason he's occasionally chased by the MiB)? I seem to remember something talking about him also referencing Element #115, though I just can't remember.
The major issue behind the source-code leak is the security surrounding the code. Now that it's out, there is the potential for "unscrupulous players" to find exploits. Anyone familiar with Python will be able to find at least something.
Also, since it is the client code that was released, an intrepid cheater can find ways not just to exploit functions in-game, but find ways to pull various bits of data from straight out of memory. This is a bit like third-party programs that utilize CCP's API code system, though it is a direct violation of the Terms of Service of said game, as it could provide access to information that would potentially give a select few an edge.
My eye's on GoonSwarm now; this might be their "big chance" to ruin the game they declared they would.
Thank you for reclarifying the point of tax records; again, it doesn't seem like this is particularly applicable, but so long as she can prove that the donations are subsequently being put right toward hosting/administration costs, there shouldn't be any issue with regard to that point.
Disclaimer: IANAL
I am the sole proprietor of a number of domain names. All of them are paid for in full by myself, and none of them offer services or goods sold for monetary gain. I don't even collect donations myself, yet my host supports them (offering a means for people to donate directly to the hosting account for purposes of continuing services or upgrading those services.) Point being, were I to own a hypothetical blog in the same position as http://www.neurodiversity.com/ why would donation records need to be subpoenaed in the first place? Should people be in the mind to give to a site they support, shouldn't they be free to do so without having to worry about this? This subpoena seems rather similar to the McCarthy-era Communist witch-hunts in terminology used, such as referring to the turnover of the names of those who have donated.
Also, since when is a blog classed as a taxable entity, and since when are blog owners required to submit tax documents on behalf of their blogs? If this is a necessary thing, it is something I haven't learned during my entire time in the dot-com scene.
Again, IANAL, so tear it up in a respectful manner. I'd like to hear where my shortcomings are.