It may be perfectly understandable that they want people to go through their site, and thus would want to prevent people from going through third party sites.
What is not understandable: They are either completely ignoring or not smart enough to think up any of the reasons preventing people from going through those third party sites is a bad idea.
IANAL, but following the link from the article to 18 USC 2511, reading 2(d)
"It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State."
Couldn't it be argued that since they are running the TOR server, they are a 'party to the communication', and are thus covered by this exception?
I mean, the client connects to them, they're a party to that communication, they connect to the server, they're a party to that communication...
The fact that Childs attempted to get approval for security policies in the past and was rebuffed does not automatically preclude a newly written security policy from being accepted.
E.G. somebody suddenly realizes 'oh crap, we actually do need that' and gets somebody to do it.
It looks to me like they had no security policy, then a new security guy came on, wrote a security policy, and then found things in the network (like ways for an admin to remotely access and do his job) that violated the newly written security policy.
Boom, instant "unauthorized access". The security policy says it's not supposed to be there, hence it is unauthorized, even though it was put in place before the security policy was written, and he had permission from somebody at the time he put it in place.
No. If Prince made them without permission, then Prince loses the ability enforce copyright restrictions, and Radiohead can pursue action against Prince.
I wasn't being sufficiently clear - I did not intend to imply that they would automatically get to do such a thing, just that if they decided to pursue it that would probably be the end result (assuming there's no agreement in place)
E.G., "Bittersweet Symphony" ended up in the hands of ABKCO records, even though there was an agreement in place for the Verve to use the recording they used (apparently, they used more than the agreement contemplated in the eyes of ABKCO) - given that, the likelihood of the performer retaining control when there is no agreement in place seems very small.
Performance rights for other parties must be negotiated and licensed
That sounds a lot more like 'If I write a song, you have to get a license from me to perfom it' than it does 'If you perform a song, you automatically have the rights to any recording anyone happened to make of the performance (unless, of course, you wrote it)"
and the derivative work then falls under the control of the licensee per the terms of their agreement.
Assuming the agreement gives the licensee control - which it doesn't necessarily have to. Most agreements probably would, but I don't see anything stopping anyone from saying "Yes, you can perform my work, but I get the rights to any recordings".
If Prince didn't ask if it was ok to perform it, and if Radiohead still owns the copyrights, then it sounds like Radiohead gets to say what happens to any recordings made, even if Prince (or anyone else) made them.
You are giving numbers for the original 2001 bill.
The numbers I gave are for the 2005 REAUTHORIZATION, as indicated in the first sentence of my post where I stated "Yes, the Senate approved the reauthorization unanimously."
Perhaps you could read other people's posts a little better before you accuse them of being "wrong on all counts" and obtaining figures by having "pulled them all out of your ass".
No. He's an idiot. You can't reasonably expect him to know that he was wrong when he made the statement, therefore, no matter what statements he makes, they're not perjury.
Except that subpoenas are basically orders from the court to appear, and the courts are government institutions.
If I can exert governmental authority, through the use of subpoenas, to harass you into not saying bad things about me, that is definitely a free speech issue.
If I remember right, when I took my 40 hour OSHA class, there was a specific case where Congress had passed a bill giving a regulatory agency domain over 'solid waste'.
That agency, when it wrote the regs, defined 'solid waste' as 'any waste that is solid, liquid, or gas'.
Even having a DNA database of everyone is not likely to prevent crimes. It just makes it more likely that specific criminals will be caught.
I suppose you could make the argument that it prevents any crime that would be committed after catching and imprisoning the criminal for the first crime committed, but those later crimes are purely hypothetical - the DNA database is basically useless as a prevention measure, it only eases enforcement and punishment, and the amount of help on that front isn't worth the risk.
It may have to verify all the files are patchable, but it most certainly does not have to do that before it displays the dialog box. Normally something like that would be done with a progress bar inside a dialog box.
There is no good reason to not give the user an indication of what is going on. If the system design requires that, then the system design is faulty. Faulty system design is not a 'good reason'.
There's a quote about how circumstantial evidence *is* evidence to smart people, because smart people of capable of making inferences and deductions.
There also quite capable of making incorrect inferences and deductions. The proof of that is in a google search for "DNA freed circumstantial evidence".
With the child, Mom can just look in the kids hands, and will immediately know if her innferences and deductions are correct. In many circumstantial evidence cases, it's not that simple.
While they may have intended to show that, they fell far short.
I might have found it believable if Anakin didn't hesitate to kill Count Dooku. I might have found it more believable if there had been some indication that Palpatine had already been giving Anakin Sith training (obviously, "innocent" things). I would even have found it believable if Palpatine had used Anakin's involvement in Mace's death as leverage to bring him closer to the edge (basically, keep blackmailing him into doing more and more evil things)
As the movie stands, it was completely unbelievable.
I am quite aware of that. It only explains why he stopped Mace from killing Palpatine. It does not explain why Anakin completely ignored Palpatines deception when Palpatine then turned around and killed Mace.
Perfect? It was far from perfect. At the beginning, he's hesitating to kill Count Dooku, and refusing to leave Obi-Wan for dead. Then, he's telling Mace Windu 'he should go to trial - that's not the Jedi Way', and ten seconds later is blithely standing by watching Palpatine kill Mace, after what was at that point obviously a feint ("ooh, I'm so powerless now...")
If he'd told the "younglings" to run away, I'd have found it more believable - then we could have presumed that Vader became more completely evil in the gap between Episode III and Episode IV, as the dark side took hold - but as it stands, you've got an Anakin that was blithely willing to kill children mere minutes after he was attempting to hold to Jedi ideals.
Everyone who has read the books has said 'Oh, there's more to it than that, it was over a long time, you need to read the books... some of it was left out due to time constraints'. To that, I say, bull - you can't expect every moviegoer to have read the books, it's a weak excuse, and a WEAK Anakin -> Vader transformation.
Slashdot Mirror
He explicitly specified heart surgeons who were minorities, women, veterans, and disadvantaged.
I would expect the number of those to be relatively small even if the number who are minorities is large. ;)
It may be perfectly understandable that they want people to go through their site, and thus would want to prevent people from going through third party sites.
What is not understandable: They are either completely ignoring or not smart enough to think up any of the reasons preventing people from going through those third party sites is a bad idea.
IANAL, but following the link from the article to
18 USC 2511, reading 2(d)
"It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State."
Couldn't it be argued that since they are running the TOR server, they are a 'party to the communication', and are thus covered by this exception?
I mean, the client connects to them, they're a party to that communication, they connect to the server, they're a party to that communication ...
The fact that Childs attempted to get approval for security policies in the past and was rebuffed does not automatically preclude a newly written security policy from being accepted.
E.G. somebody suddenly realizes 'oh crap, we actually do need that' and gets somebody to do it.
It looks to me like they had no security policy, then a new security guy came on, wrote a security policy, and then found things in the network (like ways for an admin to remotely access and do his job) that violated the newly written security policy.
Boom, instant "unauthorized access". The security policy says it's not supposed to be there, hence it is unauthorized, even though it was put in place before the security policy was written, and he had permission from somebody at the time he put it in place.
Here's a news flash: Whenever a person or group has an agenda, they will emit a spew of lies and innuendo.
It's about the only non-partisan thing going on, really.
No. If Prince made them without permission, then Prince loses the ability enforce copyright restrictions, and Radiohead can pursue action against Prince.
I wasn't being sufficiently clear - I did not intend to imply that they would automatically get to do such a thing, just that if they decided to pursue it that would probably be the end result (assuming there's no agreement in place)
E.G., "Bittersweet Symphony" ended up in the hands of ABKCO records, even though there was an agreement in place for the Verve to use the recording they used (apparently, they used more than the agreement contemplated in the eyes of ABKCO) - given that, the likelihood of the performer retaining control when there is no agreement in place seems very small.
Performance rights for other parties must be negotiated and licensed
That sounds a lot more like 'If I write a song, you have to get a license from me to perfom it' than it does 'If you perform a song, you automatically have the rights to any recording anyone happened to make of the performance (unless, of course, you wrote it)"
and the derivative work then falls under the control of the licensee per the terms of their agreement.
Assuming the agreement gives the licensee control - which it doesn't necessarily have to. Most agreements probably would, but I don't see anything stopping anyone from saying "Yes, you can perform my work, but I get the rights to any recordings".
If Prince didn't ask if it was ok to perform it, and if Radiohead still owns the copyrights, then it sounds like Radiohead gets to say what happens to any recordings made, even if Prince (or anyone else) made them.
The flying Pinto crashed and burned:
http://www.fordpinto.com/mitzar1.htm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=84720&key=0
You are giving numbers for the original 2001 bill.
The numbers I gave are for the 2005 REAUTHORIZATION, as indicated in the first sentence of my post where I stated "Yes, the Senate approved the reauthorization unanimously."
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll414.xml
Jul 29, 2005: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept. (This link then goes on to give the exact same numbers I gave for the House)
Perhaps you could read other people's posts a little better before you accuse them of being "wrong on all counts" and obtaining figures by having "pulled them all out of your ass".
Yes, the Senate approved the reauthorization unanimously.
However, Congress is two parts, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
In the House of Representatives, Republicans voted 214 for, 14 against, Democrats 43 for, 156 against.
Perjury charge?
No. He's an idiot. You can't reasonably expect him to know that he was wrong when he made the statement, therefore, no matter what statements he makes, they're not perjury.
How were you great at algorithms, in C, being horrible in pointers?
While probably true, it does not obviate the fact that they most certainly did many wrong things while trying to push through a "standard".
The fact that some will complain no matter what you do doesn't give you the right to do wrong.
Except that subpoenas are basically orders from the court to appear, and the courts are government institutions.
If I can exert governmental authority, through the use of subpoenas, to harass you into not saying bad things about me, that is definitely a free speech issue.
That entirely depends.
If I remember right, when I took my 40 hour OSHA class, there was a specific case where Congress had passed a bill giving a regulatory agency domain over 'solid waste'.
That agency, when it wrote the regs, defined 'solid waste' as 'any waste that is solid, liquid, or gas'.
... it wasn't a very good joke, anyway.
IRC == Internet Relay Chat. Apparently, pretending to misunderstand you in an attempt at humor.
Even having a DNA database of everyone is not likely to prevent crimes. It just makes it more likely that specific criminals will be caught.
I suppose you could make the argument that it prevents any crime that would be committed after catching and imprisoning the criminal for the first crime committed, but those later crimes are purely hypothetical - the DNA database is basically useless as a prevention measure, it only eases enforcement and punishment, and the amount of help on that front isn't worth the risk.
It may have to verify all the files are patchable, but it most certainly does not have to do that before it displays the dialog box. Normally something like that would be done with a progress bar inside a dialog box.
There is no good reason to not give the user an indication of what is going on. If the system design requires that, then the system design is faulty. Faulty system design is not a 'good reason'.
There's a quote about how circumstantial evidence *is* evidence to smart people, because smart people of capable of making inferences and deductions.
There also quite capable of making incorrect inferences and deductions. The proof of that is in a google search for "DNA freed circumstantial evidence".
With the child, Mom can just look in the kids hands, and will immediately know if her innferences and deductions are correct. In many circumstantial evidence cases, it's not that simple.
Can't be done without a lawsuit - The planet signed a non-compete agreement with its previous sun.
While they may have intended to show that, they fell far short.
I might have found it believable if Anakin didn't hesitate to kill Count Dooku. I might have found it more believable if there had been some indication that Palpatine had already been giving Anakin Sith training (obviously, "innocent" things). I would even have found it believable if Palpatine had used Anakin's involvement in Mace's death as leverage to bring him closer to the edge (basically, keep blackmailing him into doing more and more evil things)
As the movie stands, it was completely unbelievable.
I am quite aware of that. It only explains why he stopped Mace from killing Palpatine. It does not explain why Anakin completely ignored Palpatines deception when Palpatine then turned around and killed Mace.
It was completely unbelievable.
Sure, he killed the whole Tuscan raider encampment in a rage in Episode II.
That's still not enough to make the Episode III conversion believable.
Anakin's transformation into Vader is perfect
...")
... some of it was left out due to time constraints'. To that, I say, bull - you can't expect every moviegoer to have read the books, it's a weak excuse, and a WEAK Anakin -> Vader transformation.
Perfect? It was far from perfect. At the beginning, he's hesitating to kill Count Dooku, and refusing to leave Obi-Wan for dead. Then, he's telling Mace Windu 'he should go to trial - that's not the Jedi Way', and ten seconds later is blithely standing by watching Palpatine kill Mace, after what was at that point obviously a feint ("ooh, I'm so powerless now
If he'd told the "younglings" to run away, I'd have found it more believable - then we could have presumed that Vader became more completely evil in the gap between Episode III and Episode IV, as the dark side took hold - but as it stands, you've got an Anakin that was blithely willing to kill children mere minutes after he was attempting to hold to Jedi ideals.
Everyone who has read the books has said 'Oh, there's more to it than that, it was over a long time, you need to read the books