Yeah, I kind of figured that out back when I was in one.
Bits and bytes and bombs and bullets are integrated these days. When you compromise the computer systems, you potentially compromise the safety of the troops on the ground, and people die. It's a real war, either way.
Difficult to do across the board, since many, probably most, trademarks only apply for that specific field. If they did, then the words apple, gateway, red hat, and live would have to be disallowed.
Having an IDS hooked up to some missile launchers is starting to look good around now. I don't see any real difference between online war and physical war, and this was an act of war.
Nerds tend to be intelligent and objectively analytical.
That means we realize that the socialism espoused by the left simply never works. It will work with ants and bees, but not humans.
That means we realize that the prosecution of consensual (made-up) crimes like drugs, sodomy and prostitution will never succeed except in an oppressive totalitarian state, and the damage of prosecution will be overall worse than the crime itself.
I can't play FPS games with a joystick anymore. Being able to accurately point and shoot, and being intuitively separated from movement with the nunchuck, the Wii remote has ruined it for me.
half-way through Hillary's first term. A moving speech from her will assure the nation that the "horrible things" that happened will never happen again
Yet the illegal activities will happen again under her reign, but her administration will escape culpability by taking advice from Slick Willie. Somehow not enough evidence will be found to indict (Travelgate), and somehow the media will not have whipped the populace into a frenzy pushing to nail the guilty parties.
He's technically right, but the implication here is that you shouldn't do protests at the one place where it is most appropriate and effective -- where the person you're protesting happens to be.
So I imagine the Antigua would be able to violate copyright on 3.4 billion worth of stuff. If the RIAA and MPAA have their way
The way the MAFIAA has been in the past with judgments against them, I suspect they'd send Antigua 340 million copies of Pat Boone's Greatest Hits "valued" at $10 each and call it even.
Trying to out shout the president during a press conference or speech is not the way these things need to be done.
This isn't necessarily about disruptive behavior. A sign, a T-shirt, will not be allowed within view of the cameras, no matter how peaceful or quiet the protesters are. Any talk about safety or order is a transparent justification for trying to suppress opposing views, which is the clear goal of this manual.
This isn't Big Brother censoring peoples dissenting views, is the police trying to prevent a massive street fight from breaking
Valid general point, except that one of the explicit criteria for removing or minimizing the protesters is whether the media can see or hear them.
As far as protesters mixing with the loyal, their instructions are to send loyalists out to the protesters in order to drown them out. So this policy isn't about safety in a mixed environment. Plus, no matter how disruptive the protesters are, the orders are to leave them alone if confrontation would result in net negative publicity (where's the safety angle in that?).
Notice that within the document, security threats are handled differently -- the Secret Service handles those. These operatives deal with protesters who are, by their own definition, not a security threat, but "likely to cause only a political disruption."
This isn't about safety. This is about controlling what America sees on the news.
Third parties get subpoenaed all the time to provide evidence in cases. Basically, if you have any relevant, specific information to any case, civil or criminal, it is your responsibility to give it up. If the information is sensitive you can get a protective order for it. About the only excuse I can think of right now for not giving it up is attorney-client privilege, and I don't see that applying here.
I HATE seeing the "privacy" shield being thrown up in cases like this. It denigrates the term for everyone else who is really fighting for privacy, not just trying to evade culpability for their illegal actions.
Misappropriation of trade secrets is not necessarily a felony.
It appears Circuit City decided not to file a complaint with the district attorney, and is instead seeking its rightful civil remedies. State laws on this differ, although most have it as a felony, and I believe federal law does too.
but these are basically news sites and would be "journalists"
That's stretching the definition of "journalist" a bit thin.
Their first order of business should be to clean their own house...not sue in court.
I'd bet CC already tried an internal investigation to try to catch the guy, and the court is a last resort. Money's on he works somewhere in relation to the companies that CC contracts to print the ads.
The anti-business hippies are out there, anything that screws "tha man" is a Good Thing. I've been maxxed on karma for years, so I'm not too worried.
I also don't think this case is equivalent to the Best Buy case as mentioned in the article. CC is trying to get to the trade secret thief. Best Buy tried to claim copyright on the information posted at Fat Wallet and sent a DMCA takedown notice to the web site itself. The problem is you can't copyright information (see the Feist decision), so the Best Buy's actions were fraudulent.
A company is trying to go after someone responsible for theft of corporate secrets (a felony, BTW). They are reasonably, and according to legal procedure, trying to get information from a third party to help identify the thief. It is the responsibility of that third party to provide such information.
Let's not confuse privacy with shielding yourself from just punishment for your actions.
Er... the word "denier" was neither created in response to the Holocaust, nor is it exclusively associated with that particular breed of assholes
It is used that way quite a bit these days. You are also using it in the same way -- deriding someone for denying something established as fact. Man-made global warming is a hypothesis, not a fact.
If the problem is CO2 from human activities we might be able to do something about that.
I await "Friend of the Environment" awards posthumously for Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot for their contributions to the environment in eliminating massive sources of CO2 emissions.
The really sad thing is that I can see such an award, given the current political environment in which Che Guevara, a smaller-scale murderous thug, is openly praised.
I love the moniker. It makes skeptics who are wary of relatively recent hypotheses with massive political backing and meddling look like those who deny the Holocaust. You do realize that Jews get offended when others hijack the memory of their attempted genocide for political purposes, don't you?
However, I'm sure the incorrect data above will continue to be used by the chicken littles, fear profiteers (carbon credits, anyone?) and hypocritical power-hungry politicians (paging Mr. Gore). Don't want those nasty little facts getting in the way of a good career.
I wish one day these robots gets in the hands of real humans and used to distribute food and help in some drought affected african countries.
Or even better, use these armed robots to take out the leaders who are really responsible for the starvation and only use drought as an excuse, like Robert Mugabe (president of now-starving former "Breadbasket of Africa" Zimbabwe).
The SCO Group only has UnixWare registered for the UNIX 95 specs. I believe it was actually version 2 registered by Caldera, and SCO registered version 7 a few years back. That should show you there hasn't been substantial change between the versions -- SCO is still working off a 17 year-old standard.
Copyright merely restricts competition from doing better than the originator of that particular product or service, and does the market a disservice by reducing the opportunity for other producers to do something one step better.
It doesn't restrict the others from doing better as long as they write their own stuff. It allows the originator to restrict them from taking his work and passing it off as their own long enough for the originator to make a profit. This worked well way back when the monopoly granted by copyright was of a sensible term.
Ever pondered for a moment that for some odd reason they maybe didn't want to be "liberated"?
This works just like Tito in Yugoslavia. The various ethnic groups there had been killing each other for a long time -- I believe even the Romans commented on how hard it was to keep the peace there. But Tito came in and everybody was so afraid of him they didn't have time or opportunity to fight with each other. We saw the aftermath of Tito's leaving in the 90s, just as we see the aftermath of Saddam leaving now.
Someone mentioned above me that these wings were different since they are composite, but in fact commercial airplanes have had composites in the wings for a long time.
Not to this level for a large plane AFAIK.
Remember, any load past the 1.5 saftey factor just means you made the wing too strong, and thus it has extra weight!
Does a piece of typing paper flop over because it is strong? It does it because it's flexible, and flexible doesn't necessarily cost any weight. My bet is that the wings are strong enough to do the 150% without too much deformation, which would ruin the flight characteristics, but they're flexible enough to deform far past 150% without breaking.
And I want to see the video, too, with sound. This won't be an aluminum wing breaking, it will be part of a carbon fiber wing exploding into billions of pieces.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I kind of figured that out back when I was in one.
Bits and bytes and bombs and bullets are integrated these days. When you compromise the computer systems, you potentially compromise the safety of the troops on the ground, and people die. It's a real war, either way.
Difficult to do across the board, since many, probably most, trademarks only apply for that specific field. If they did, then the words apple, gateway, red hat, and live would have to be disallowed.
Having an IDS hooked up to some missile launchers is starting to look good around now. I don't see any real difference between online war and physical war, and this was an act of war.
Nerds tend to be intelligent and objectively analytical.
That means we realize that the socialism espoused by the left simply never works. It will work with ants and bees, but not humans.
That means we realize that the prosecution of consensual (made-up) crimes like drugs, sodomy and prostitution will never succeed except in an oppressive totalitarian state, and the damage of prosecution will be overall worse than the crime itself.
I can't play FPS games with a joystick anymore. Being able to accurately point and shoot, and being intuitively separated from movement with the nunchuck, the Wii remote has ruined it for me.
He's technically right, but the implication here is that you shouldn't do protests at the one place where it is most appropriate and effective -- where the person you're protesting happens to be.
Funny thing is that for the most part I am politically against what these protesters would be saying and the leftist ideology they represent.
But rights mean nothing unless you're willing to apply them equally to those with whom you disagree.
As far as protesters mixing with the loyal, their instructions are to send loyalists out to the protesters in order to drown them out. So this policy isn't about safety in a mixed environment. Plus, no matter how disruptive the protesters are, the orders are to leave them alone if confrontation would result in net negative publicity (where's the safety angle in that?).
Notice that within the document, security threats are handled differently -- the Secret Service handles those. These operatives deal with protesters who are, by their own definition, not a security threat, but "likely to cause only a political disruption."
This isn't about safety. This is about controlling what America sees on the news.
Third parties get subpoenaed all the time to provide evidence in cases. Basically, if you have any relevant, specific information to any case, civil or criminal, it is your responsibility to give it up. If the information is sensitive you can get a protective order for it. About the only excuse I can think of right now for not giving it up is attorney-client privilege, and I don't see that applying here.
I HATE seeing the "privacy" shield being thrown up in cases like this. It denigrates the term for everyone else who is really fighting for privacy, not just trying to evade culpability for their illegal actions.
The anti-business hippies are out there, anything that screws "tha man" is a Good Thing. I've been maxxed on karma for years, so I'm not too worried.
I also don't think this case is equivalent to the Best Buy case as mentioned in the article. CC is trying to get to the trade secret thief. Best Buy tried to claim copyright on the information posted at Fat Wallet and sent a DMCA takedown notice to the web site itself. The problem is you can't copyright information (see the Feist decision), so the Best Buy's actions were fraudulent.
A company is trying to go after someone responsible for theft of corporate secrets (a felony, BTW). They are reasonably, and according to legal procedure, trying to get information from a third party to help identify the thief. It is the responsibility of that third party to provide such information.
Let's not confuse privacy with shielding yourself from just punishment for your actions.
The really sad thing is that I can see such an award, given the current political environment in which Che Guevara, a smaller-scale murderous thug, is openly praised.
However, I'm sure the incorrect data above will continue to be used by the chicken littles, fear profiteers (carbon credits, anyone?) and hypocritical power-hungry politicians (paging Mr. Gore). Don't want those nasty little facts getting in the way of a good career.
Bad math. 12 = still several generations for most system software.
The SCO Group only has UnixWare registered for the UNIX 95 specs. I believe it was actually version 2 registered by Caldera, and SCO registered version 7 a few years back. That should show you there hasn't been substantial change between the versions -- SCO is still working off a 17 year-old standard.
It doesn't restrict the others from doing better as long as they write their own stuff. It allows the originator to restrict them from taking his work and passing it off as their own long enough for the originator to make a profit. This worked well way back when the monopoly granted by copyright was of a sensible term.
This works just like Tito in Yugoslavia. The various ethnic groups there had been killing each other for a long time -- I believe even the Romans commented on how hard it was to keep the peace there. But Tito came in and everybody was so afraid of him they didn't have time or opportunity to fight with each other. We saw the aftermath of Tito's leaving in the 90s, just as we see the aftermath of Saddam leaving now.
Not to this level for a large plane AFAIK.
Does a piece of typing paper flop over because it is strong? It does it because it's flexible, and flexible doesn't necessarily cost any weight. My bet is that the wings are strong enough to do the 150% without too much deformation, which would ruin the flight characteristics, but they're flexible enough to deform far past 150% without breaking.
And I want to see the video, too, with sound. This won't be an aluminum wing breaking, it will be part of a carbon fiber wing exploding into billions of pieces.