Lawyers have a massive hardon for plain old paper. There's also the matter of jurisdiction and court authority, not to mention the courts which don't use common law. I can see something like that existing within certain courts, but not nation wide.
It's marked troll because it's incorrect. Groklaw has the transcripts, he was asked if he was ever involved in any such lawsuits with no time constraints. 10 years was never mentioned or asked
Manning was reckless. He saw evidence of wrongdoing and decided to put more than a quarter of a million sensitive documents including documents with details of people who were working with us. He put lives in danger and it took a while to pick up all the pieces.
You're right, he didn't sign any such contract. I think most people will agree that he has no criminal liability. He didn't just release documents of criminal wrongdoing he [and his cohorts] edited footage to sensationalize it and released documents that did not contain any evidence of criminal wrongdoing solely to make people look bad.
I'm not inclined to take anything posted in the opinions -> political-news section of a foreign newspaper at it's face value. SMH isn't bad but it's been slipping into tabloid territory that's usually reserved for Daily Mail articles that end up getting people killed. The only news outlets reporting this story in this fashion are propaganda outlets and tabloids.
The furor doesn't seem to be that Assange has been declared an "enemy of the state" but rather that there was an investigation into whether or not a service member may have disclosed confidential information to a group that the administration considers to be a threat to security in some fashion, operating in a fashion that could compromise the nations interests, or simply not trustworthy for obvious reasons. This is a military determination to evaluate threats, not a legal determination to bring criminal charges.
The Military doesn't have the ability to bring an indictment against Julian Assange any more than it has the power to deny him a visa. What they can do though is dictate what service members can and cannot say and whom they can and cannot speak to. What they cannot do though is dictate what the recipient of classified information does with it as there's no expectation of confidentiality at that point. This is basically a fancy way of saying that Wikileaks has joined the ranks of communist sympathisers, anarchists, neo-Nazis, the KKK, and of course Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It's a fancy way of saying "don't do what Bradley did".
I don't think that there's any grounds to bring any charges against Julian Assange. If there's evidence that he conspired to steal classified documents rather than was simply given them, then there may be grounds for criminal charges. However, we have no reason to believe that is the case.
I don't like him, I think he's an opportunistic hypocritical asshat whom simply knows how to feed people what they want to hear. He's very smart but that doesn't make him some sort of hero of the people. He's been playing up the extradition card for personal gain for years and continues to do so just to piss people off. He claims to do what he does in the name of transparency and justice yet refuses to face that same system himself.
I dare say that the only people who seem to think that Julian Assange is an enemy of the United States are horrible tabloid writers and Julian Assange himself
Several reasons really,
Free software has a few silly side-effects. Since anyone is able to take a piece of free software, make a derivative of it, repackage it, and redistribute it, a lot of people will do just that. There are a lot of Distributions which are basically just other distributions with a slightly different wallpaper. Similarly, anyone is able to start a project, get everyone worked up with a bunch of ideas, get distracted by a shiny object or irritating bug, and abandon said project. Internal fallouts in the FOSS community have occasionally led to threats of lawsuits over trademarks and domain ownership. I'm sure that there has to be at least one criminal charge related to a dispute over philosophical differences.
Second, there's a reason that people are still using Windows XP. Windows XP still works, it still does what most people need it to do. Microsoft is trying very hard to kill it, but it just wont die. There are only 5 versions of the Windows codebase still in common use and each one has fairly strong forward and backward compatibility. Since application developers write programs that run on Windows NT 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, 6.1, and now 6.2 and package them all in one nice little.exe file that installs and [ideally] runs the same on each and every version of Windows there's really no need to upgrade without a compelling reason.Different versions of Linux not only have very weak forward and backward compatibility, they often have horrible compatibility with other versions of Linux. Software installed from Canonical's apt repository will behave differently than that same piece of software installed from the maintainer's debian package, and naturally redhat packaged software can't be installed on debian style systems or vice versa. Building from source is a good way to avoid some of this nastiness but it's not at all uncommon to find out that an old piece of software won't compile against a version of a library that's currently installed on your system. Replacing that library with the older version would break whatever is installed now, and patching the old code to use the new library is a royal pain in the ass. Sometimes you just have to use the Distro that an application has the best native support for.
Third, there are functional differences between different distributions. Redhat, CentOS, and Fedora are better suited to multi-user environments than Ubuntu is. Ubuntu is more suited to giving system administrators glaring migraines than Redhat is. Redhat has a bunch of really well tested, really stable software that will rarely ever fail but is dated and lacking newer features. Ubuntu has experimental packages which are maintained with the latest code but will occasionally break and render your entire system unusable while you find out what the maintainer screwed up. Even the process of rebooting the computer is different between the two!
I do most of my web development and admin work in xUbuntu because it has good support in VMWare Workstation and all the software I have to use compiles and runs very nicely (including running VirtualBox under VMWare Workstation, which is pretty bomb). I do my Quartus II work in CentOS because that's most stable and I don't like having an hour long compilation crash right in the middle.
The first amendment doesn't need to have an exception for classified information because it doesn't need one. Free speech is a freedom and a party can agree under oath/contract to not disclose certain information that they have been made privy to. Violation of the contract, even after the contract has been terminated, can have criminal penalties. Anyone with security clearance must agree not to disclose that information ahead of time. However, this does not prevent the recipient of leaked information from disclosing it further because they are not bound by any sort of obligation to maintain confidentiality.
I couldn't possibly agree more, but free speech isn't something that we 'give', it's something that we believe is fundamentally inherent and cannot be taken away. The first amendment makes no distinction about whom enjoys the fundamental freedoms because it doesn't have to, we believe that they are enjoyed by everyone in the world including those outside of our legal jurisdiction and congress is explicitly prohibited from creating any restriction on it at all without an extremely good reason.
It's up to Congress to declare war but it is up to the military to decide how it conducts itself, the behaviour of its members, and how to administer its own judicial punishment. A declaration of war is not necessary for the military to say "yeah, you can't talk to these people".
Trade Dress is pretty significant, and Samsung definitely did copy Apple's trade dress in some ways (although it's certainly arguable that Apple copied a lot of it from elsewhere, making the point quite moot in this particular case). However, Trade Dress must be purely aesthetic and thus by definition non-functional. Rounded corners and certain UI elements are functional and thus the applicability of some of Apple's Trade Dress arguments is questionable.
Most website authentication systems use a hash to store passwords. The unhashed string is formed from a salt, some unchanging record information (such as the user's username, or date of registration), and the user's plaintext password. During the hashing process, all of this gets distilled down to a fixed length string regardless of the complexity of the password. Thus, a lengthy password is not necessarily more secure than a short but sufficiently complex password. Any site worth their salt (pun intended) will lock an account after a number of failed logins anyway.
The majority of compromised accounts come from successful phishing and social engineering, not from randomly guessing passwords.
Now, encryption on the other hand should use a very strong and long password.
It's hard to have reliable network access to a central authority while moving on the ground. 3G/LTE services cut in and out at times even while standing still. Dropouts are amplified while on the move and connection quality is similarly degraded. To make matters worse, connection can be lost completely if the vehicle goes underground.
I couldn't possibly agree more. I hate when I get directed to a project website and get bombarded with page after page of non-statements that say absolutely nothing about the project. The first two things I want to know are "what is it?" and "why should I care?". Save the marketing drivel.
It's not your right to decide that. You don't pay the artist, you pay the copyright owner. That "corporation in hollywood" probably spent millions of dollars on funding, casting, scripting, construction, production, post production, marketing, analysis, and unfortunately on IP protection. In exchange for that, they get to choose when and how to distribute the works that they own.
If you don't like that, don't use the product at all because you're part of the problem and not the solution.
Depends on what you bought. Standard editions of Server 2008 and Server 2008 R2 granted two licences. One which could only be used as a Hyper-V host (for any number of licensed VMs) and one which could be used as a virtual guest on that same host. Enterprise editions allowed for one host and 4 guests on the same hardware, datacenter and Itanium allowed for unlimited on the same hardware. Web does not include Hyper-V and as such does not grant this licence.
It seems that they've done away with the Enterprise edition, having just Standard and Datacenter.
Considering that Comcast posted a net income of over 3.5 billion last year I think asking them to reinforce their infrastructure so they can be competitive is not outside the realm of being reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
Lawyers have a massive hardon for plain old paper. There's also the matter of jurisdiction and court authority, not to mention the courts which don't use common law. I can see something like that existing within certain courts, but not nation wide.
I am aware of that
He has or had multiple conflicts of interest that he did not disclose. Samsung has made light of these in their request for a new trial
bah, didn't see the post above yours. /. threading is horrid
It's marked troll because it's incorrect. Groklaw has the transcripts, he was asked if he was ever involved in any such lawsuits with no time constraints. 10 years was never mentioned or asked
The guy with the RF jammer
Drones can be jammed
They didn't, which is why you should read the whole article and not just the headline
Manning was reckless. He saw evidence of wrongdoing and decided to put more than a quarter of a million sensitive documents including documents with details of people who were working with us. He put lives in danger and it took a while to pick up all the pieces.
You're right, he didn't sign any such contract. I think most people will agree that he has no criminal liability. He didn't just release documents of criminal wrongdoing he [and his cohorts] edited footage to sensationalize it and released documents that did not contain any evidence of criminal wrongdoing solely to make people look bad.
I'm not inclined to take anything posted in the opinions -> political-news section of a foreign newspaper at it's face value. SMH isn't bad but it's been slipping into tabloid territory that's usually reserved for Daily Mail articles that end up getting people killed. The only news outlets reporting this story in this fashion are propaganda outlets and tabloids.
The furor doesn't seem to be that Assange has been declared an "enemy of the state" but rather that there was an investigation into whether or not a service member may have disclosed confidential information to a group that the administration considers to be a threat to security in some fashion, operating in a fashion that could compromise the nations interests, or simply not trustworthy for obvious reasons. This is a military determination to evaluate threats, not a legal determination to bring criminal charges.
The Military doesn't have the ability to bring an indictment against Julian Assange any more than it has the power to deny him a visa. What they can do though is dictate what service members can and cannot say and whom they can and cannot speak to. What they cannot do though is dictate what the recipient of classified information does with it as there's no expectation of confidentiality at that point. This is basically a fancy way of saying that Wikileaks has joined the ranks of communist sympathisers, anarchists, neo-Nazis, the KKK, and of course Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It's a fancy way of saying "don't do what Bradley did".
I don't think that there's any grounds to bring any charges against Julian Assange. If there's evidence that he conspired to steal classified documents rather than was simply given them, then there may be grounds for criminal charges. However, we have no reason to believe that is the case.
I don't like him, I think he's an opportunistic hypocritical asshat whom simply knows how to feed people what they want to hear. He's very smart but that doesn't make him some sort of hero of the people. He's been playing up the extradition card for personal gain for years and continues to do so just to piss people off. He claims to do what he does in the name of transparency and justice yet refuses to face that same system himself.
I dare say that the only people who seem to think that Julian Assange is an enemy of the United States are horrible tabloid writers and Julian Assange himself
Several reasons really, Free software has a few silly side-effects. Since anyone is able to take a piece of free software, make a derivative of it, repackage it, and redistribute it, a lot of people will do just that. There are a lot of Distributions which are basically just other distributions with a slightly different wallpaper. Similarly, anyone is able to start a project, get everyone worked up with a bunch of ideas, get distracted by a shiny object or irritating bug, and abandon said project. Internal fallouts in the FOSS community have occasionally led to threats of lawsuits over trademarks and domain ownership. I'm sure that there has to be at least one criminal charge related to a dispute over philosophical differences. Second, there's a reason that people are still using Windows XP. Windows XP still works, it still does what most people need it to do. Microsoft is trying very hard to kill it, but it just wont die. There are only 5 versions of the Windows codebase still in common use and each one has fairly strong forward and backward compatibility. Since application developers write programs that run on Windows NT 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, 6.1, and now 6.2 and package them all in one nice little .exe file that installs and [ideally] runs the same on each and every version of Windows there's really no need to upgrade without a compelling reason.Different versions of Linux not only have very weak forward and backward compatibility, they often have horrible compatibility with other versions of Linux. Software installed from Canonical's apt repository will behave differently than that same piece of software installed from the maintainer's debian package, and naturally redhat packaged software can't be installed on debian style systems or vice versa. Building from source is a good way to avoid some of this nastiness but it's not at all uncommon to find out that an old piece of software won't compile against a version of a library that's currently installed on your system. Replacing that library with the older version would break whatever is installed now, and patching the old code to use the new library is a royal pain in the ass. Sometimes you just have to use the Distro that an application has the best native support for.
Third, there are functional differences between different distributions. Redhat, CentOS, and Fedora are better suited to multi-user environments than Ubuntu is. Ubuntu is more suited to giving system administrators glaring migraines than Redhat is. Redhat has a bunch of really well tested, really stable software that will rarely ever fail but is dated and lacking newer features. Ubuntu has experimental packages which are maintained with the latest code but will occasionally break and render your entire system unusable while you find out what the maintainer screwed up. Even the process of rebooting the computer is different between the two!
I do most of my web development and admin work in xUbuntu because it has good support in VMWare Workstation and all the software I have to use compiles and runs very nicely (including running VirtualBox under VMWare Workstation, which is pretty bomb). I do my Quartus II work in CentOS because that's most stable and I don't like having an hour long compilation crash right in the middle.
The first amendment doesn't need to have an exception for classified information because it doesn't need one. Free speech is a freedom and a party can agree under oath/contract to not disclose certain information that they have been made privy to. Violation of the contract, even after the contract has been terminated, can have criminal penalties. Anyone with security clearance must agree not to disclose that information ahead of time. However, this does not prevent the recipient of leaked information from disclosing it further because they are not bound by any sort of obligation to maintain confidentiality.
I couldn't possibly agree more, but free speech isn't something that we 'give', it's something that we believe is fundamentally inherent and cannot be taken away. The first amendment makes no distinction about whom enjoys the fundamental freedoms because it doesn't have to, we believe that they are enjoyed by everyone in the world including those outside of our legal jurisdiction and congress is explicitly prohibited from creating any restriction on it at all without an extremely good reason.
It's up to Congress to declare war but it is up to the military to decide how it conducts itself, the behaviour of its members, and how to administer its own judicial punishment. A declaration of war is not necessary for the military to say "yeah, you can't talk to these people".
Trade Dress is pretty significant, and Samsung definitely did copy Apple's trade dress in some ways (although it's certainly arguable that Apple copied a lot of it from elsewhere, making the point quite moot in this particular case). However, Trade Dress must be purely aesthetic and thus by definition non-functional. Rounded corners and certain UI elements are functional and thus the applicability of some of Apple's Trade Dress arguments is questionable.
Pretty low. The overwhelming majority of compromised user accounts are a result of phishing and social engineering.
Most website authentication systems use a hash to store passwords. The unhashed string is formed from a salt, some unchanging record information (such as the user's username, or date of registration), and the user's plaintext password. During the hashing process, all of this gets distilled down to a fixed length string regardless of the complexity of the password. Thus, a lengthy password is not necessarily more secure than a short but sufficiently complex password. Any site worth their salt (pun intended) will lock an account after a number of failed logins anyway. The majority of compromised accounts come from successful phishing and social engineering, not from randomly guessing passwords. Now, encryption on the other hand should use a very strong and long password.
It's hard to have reliable network access to a central authority while moving on the ground. 3G/LTE services cut in and out at times even while standing still. Dropouts are amplified while on the move and connection quality is similarly degraded. To make matters worse, connection can be lost completely if the vehicle goes underground.
I couldn't possibly agree more. I hate when I get directed to a project website and get bombarded with page after page of non-statements that say absolutely nothing about the project. The first two things I want to know are "what is it?" and "why should I care?". Save the marketing drivel.
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy and nothing more I'm on the lawyer's side
It's not your right to decide that. You don't pay the artist, you pay the copyright owner. That "corporation in hollywood" probably spent millions of dollars on funding, casting, scripting, construction, production, post production, marketing, analysis, and unfortunately on IP protection. In exchange for that, they get to choose when and how to distribute the works that they own. If you don't like that, don't use the product at all because you're part of the problem and not the solution.
Depends on what you bought. Standard editions of Server 2008 and Server 2008 R2 granted two licences. One which could only be used as a Hyper-V host (for any number of licensed VMs) and one which could be used as a virtual guest on that same host. Enterprise editions allowed for one host and 4 guests on the same hardware, datacenter and Itanium allowed for unlimited on the same hardware. Web does not include Hyper-V and as such does not grant this licence. It seems that they've done away with the Enterprise edition, having just Standard and Datacenter.
it's called robots.txt and it's been around for over a decade and a half
That's actually a really good assessment, thanks.
Considering that Comcast posted a net income of over 3.5 billion last year I think asking them to reinforce their infrastructure so they can be competitive is not outside the realm of being reasonable.