The contract with the photographer was the CC license that granted them the right to use it in a commercial setting provided they attributed him.
The photographer clicked to allow the license most likely without understanding what he was doing, and the legal consequences of his action. If the court finds Virgin liable, then they are opening a huge legal issue in regard to all non-signed contract licenses, including the GPL.
.org was NEVER intended to be restricted to non-profit organizations. It was actually the first catch-all TLD, intended for anything that didn't fit well under the other two, but was not restricted in any way to that rule either. There was NEVER any suggestion or rule that.org be restricted to non-profit use. Even when ICANN handed it to the PIR to manage, they specifically included in the contract that it remain a generic open registration TLD.
It is a common misconception among people who have never really been involved in the domain policy arena that.org was supposed to be for non-profits. That was not, and is not, the case.
You miss the point of the WTO, a blanket ban like that violates the WTO treaty, that is the law of the land as per our constitution once it was ratified by our Senate. The ban is impacting a treaty member, Antigua, and since the ban is a violation of the treaty, they have the right to seek comparable relief against the US. We are prohibited by law from interfering in the exercise of that relief once granted.
We have been under WTO sanctions before. As recently as 2004, trade partners sought WTO relief because the US enacted a law that granted a percentage of duties collected on foreign products to go to the American companies who compete with those foreign products. Canada, European Union, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, India, Japan and Chile asked the WTO to impose penalties on a range of U.S. products such as cod, textiles, glassware, mobile homes and apples as retaliatory sanctions that would amount to more than $150 million annually. Those penalties would have hit American businesses hard, making them less competitive in those markets, and thus providing some pressure on the US to comply with their treaty obligations.
The ban on online gambling was a not very well thought out law, nor was it subjected to the kind of review that would have brought these kinds of concerns to the attention of the Congress and maybe stopped them from passing bad law.
As for consumer protection against potential shady practices of online casinos, honestly, there is only so much we can, or should, do to protect consumers from their own bad behavior. Most counties that have legalized online gambling operations VERY closely regulate them. Canada and Antigua both have been very aggressive in this, but so have many other counties. The pressure that can be brought to bear on nations who allow rogue casinos to operate is great. Using the potential of rogue casinos as a justification for passing bad law is a case of bad logic as well.
Antiguan casinos are also closely regulated, something their country has taken a lot of effort with. They have pretty much been leading the way in their regulations of their online gaming licensees.
You should check it out, before jumping to conclusions...oh wait, forgot what site we were on, nm, carry on.
There are way too many reports of this to be discounted as possibly something else going on....but that said, I'm a comcast customer and have seen none of these things. My torrent seeds have been running without problem, and without playing any cat and mouse games.
I've also in the past not found myself suffering from the other things I've heard reported that Comcast has done.
I figure it could be that I am in an area that was not originally a Comcast area, it went from Mediaone, to ATTBi, to Comcast. Or it could be that they treat their users a bit different based on what tier of service they are on. I've always paid for the full TV package, the highest tier of internet service they offer, and I'm a digital voice customer with two lines. So yeah, my bill is more than a bit higher than the normal user I'd guess. But I doubt that Comcast really is that discriminating when it comes to who they give the shaft to. My bet is that its because this area isn't part of the original comcast network, so we've not seen as much of the bad behavior spill over to us....yet.
That said, I've always said that I find it pretty darn stupid for the cable customers to go after their power users. Most of us not control the purchasing decisions in our own household, but usually influence if not control the purchasing decisions in many other households within our extended families and friends and their families, who look to the family "computer guy" to make these decisions for them.
Having not had a problem, I've continued to strong recommend Comcast to family and friends, and clients, in the area, but the day they start playing games with me, that will change.
Also, about the billing comment, the "unification" of all services under one brand and thus one single billing is something the tree huggers should be up in arms about. The billing has gotten more complicated, and the bills are much larger and more confusing for consumers (which is the same story as the iPhone billing records, they are doing that same type of thing with all of their services).
SBC has always engaged in port 25 blocking, from almost the start. I've run alternate port SMTP for business clients on SBC for years.
SBC's President was one of the first to stand up against Net Neutrality and argue that popular site operators should be paying them, and has been long before the AT&T and BS acquisitions.
And btw, you have the order all wrong.
SBC bought AT&T for over 16 billion in Jan 2005, almost a year after merger talks with BellSouth went sour. In Dec of 2006 they bought Bellsouth (there was no merger, it was completely acquisition in both cases)
SBC decided to take advantage of the AT&T brand and renamed itself.
Bellsouth was the remaining partner in Cingular, NOT AT&T, and that acquisition enabled them to make the rebrand of all the services they owned as the AT&T brand they had already acquired.
Nearly the entire modern AT&T board is nothing but the same former SBC board members, including the Chairman and CEO.
AT&T itself before acquisition was opposed to Net Neutrality, but never as loudly and adamantly as SBC was before.
Just making sure some facts are laid out in this discussion.
Remember that the Wilsons lied about the entire thing that started this whole process in the first place.
The British Government's own investigation into the connection confirmed the US claims on Iraq seeking nuclear material. And multiple African nations have since also confirmed attempts from the Saddam regime to seek uranium from Africa. The 9/11 report (a bipartisan commission) casts significant doubt over Wilson's 'findings' and over his methodology, as well that he lied about how his trip was arranged, by denying his wife's involvement in sending him there. They arranged for him to go there, and ask around a few questions and buy drinks for diplomats, and come home and deliver a report that jived with their own politically motivated agenda.
We all know Slate isn't exactly leaning to the right, and even their investigative reporter Christopher Hitchens came to the same conclusion. That Wilson was wrong about Nigeria and about almost everything else he has stated publicly, and not only wrong, but deliberaly dishonest.
Ok, even if the myth of her being undercover is granted to you, the fact is that it was one of the worst kept secrets in Washington long before this. And the person who "leaked" it was NOT Libby. He was NOT convicted for leaking her status or identity.
The only person who talked to the reporter in question about Plume's status as a covert officer was someone who, under the law, is PERMITTED to disclose it, and that was Armitage.
So no law was broken in that disclosure at all.
And Libby was not convicted for that, but for lying about something during the investigation that had no significance whatsoever to the disclosure of Plume's supposed covert status.
Better adjust your plans. Druids do not in fact get the regular flying mount for free, they get a flight form at level 68 however. But in order to get your Epic Flying Mount Training, you will need the regular flying mount training as a prerequisite (like all other trained skills require the lower level skills to obtain the next higher one).
So there is really no way to "skip" the regular flying mount's expensive, even for druids who get the flight form.
Delete this non-story. Bliz never promised no more maintanence days, just reduced them for normal maintanence tasks. This Tuesday is a patch day (or have you not noticed the 140+M file you've been background downloading recently, that should have been your first clue), and thus NOT "normal maintanence."
Non-story, should never have been posted, and full of misinformation.
ask yourself if this is right, if it is necessary, and if it even works.
I have no doubts that it is right, and I am convinced that the way the President implimented it, with required review and renewals at short intervals, and with rigid rules about what is and is not covered by this order, that it is within the President's powers, and does not in any way EXTEND his powers, because these powers have been recognized by the courts for a long time.
There were checks and balances the whole time. The leaders of both parties in both houses, plus the members of the intelligence oversight committee, were informed, and regularly kept abreast of this. The New York Times and a couple other publications discovered it more than a year before the Times irresponsibly decided to publish their story. It was a move intended to affect the outcome of the Patriot Act renewal, a POLITICAL move by a well known liberal biased newspaper. If they thought the public had a right to know, and that this was truly illegal, then they would have done it when the first discovered it, instead of holding it as a political card to play when it best suited their political leanings. The Congressional democrats bemoaning this policy also could have proposed legislation, without referencing the classified information, to make this type of wiretap illegal, but not a single one of them did. Why is that, do you think? Strange how angry they have gotten all of a sudden when they knew about it from the beginning.
What I know for a fact is that the day before the NY Times published that story, our enemies did NOT know that we were listening to both sides of an international conversation they may be having with a contact or operative inside our borders. They believed that only their side was being listened to if at all, and could coordinate their conversations accordingly. The next day, they knew a method we used to collect intelligence on their actions, and you can bet they changed their methods to make it harder for us to collect that intelligence.
Then you asked if it even works.
I just watched the movie Flight 93 on A&E tonight. One thing I do know, is that no airline passengers or flight crew has had to make the horrible choice that brave crew had to make. No other families in the US have had to watch a drama unfold on television knowing that their family members were being murdered in a terrorist attack on our soil. And I don't believe it is because the terrorists are not trying.
I am proud of the way this Administration has found a way to balance the need to protect our privacy, with the need to take the steps necessary to make sure that in the future, we are much better informed, and better able to thwart such attacks. And I am all for the courts and the congress having oversight, just as they did over this issue.
Do i want my privacy? CERTAINLY. Do I recognize that if a terrorist misdials the number of his contact, and reaches my cell phone, that the government may monitor my calls until they realize it was a mistake? Sure, but I don't see the harm in it. The fact is that any information gleaned could ONLY be used for specific purposes, that is the restriction of the President's power here. And I sleep well at night knowing they are watching, and listening, for intelligence to stop and thwart those who might be inside our country right now at the behest of the irrational terrorists who would try to bring this country to its knees through terror.
They didn't just tap the phones of immigrants? but of US citizens who were communicating with people abroad. This includes noted journalists, politicians, and others. The taps invaded the privacy of thousands of people.
Bull. How do you know that any "noted journalists" (I'll avoid the question of whether any journalists today deserve the term 'noted') or politicians, or any specific person was listened to?
The fact is that you don't, and are just spouting off like most of the liberal anti-GWB'er Michael Moore succubants who look for any reason, real or imagined, to bash this administration. The FACT is that only calls where the NSA supervisors had reason to believe were somehow linked to Al Qaeda were listened to. If the other end was in America, the could have been subject to brief eavesdropping to determine if they were in any way involved with Al Qaeda. The number of calls was not substantial by any account.
Clinton himself authorized these types of wiretaps under the SAME conditions. Both properly notified the members of Congress of BOTH PARTIES that are required to be notified of such intelligence related activities. But Clinton went MUCH further with them than the Bush Administration...
Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's 1994 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee: "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." This led the way for President Bill Clinton's Echelon program, which unleashed a far greater "invasion of privacy" during peacetime by intercepting millions of communications, often between American citizens -including Senator Strom Thurmond.
As to the legality, the 4th Circuit Court of appeals [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
John Schmidt, President Clinton's associate attorney general from 1994-7, wrote that NSA surveillance against al-Qaeda "is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents"; FISA "did not alter the constitutional situation." He quoted Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's 1994 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee: "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." This led the way for President Bill Clinton's Echelon program, which unleashed a far greater "invasion of privacy" during peacetime by intercepting millions of communications, often between American citizens - including Senator Strom Thurmond.
By calling this "warrantless" the liberals try to imply they are illegal. But the facts are that many government actions are legal under the law without warrants.
Here is a non-exhaustive list: Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant
Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant
Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained
Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, wh
They don't have to post facts. The law doesn't require them to. It only requires them to be RIGHT. There is sufficient evidence in the public purview of the issues he raised that he is not required to cite them.
There is a vast amount of information out there that there are in fact problems, and even the game publishers are starting to recognize it.
Perhaps your view is because you are not aware of the very extensive evidence that has previously been posted in highly respective technical forums in the past about this subject.
Ubi has received numerous emails from registered users of their games who have experienced this problem and are investigating them. Check their forums for more details on that.
Starforce regularly LOCKS and even deletes threads on their own forums whenever someone posts requesting for help with problems related to those discussed here, so they can keep up the pretense of not having any legitimate reports of problems.
I completely agree with Aaron's letter. When copy protection seeks to do modification to a person's system, regardless of what kind of "permission" they confuse the end user into giving them, then copy protection is going too far.
And making non-specific overstated threats to silence public critics is one of the must surefire signs that a company is trying to hide something.
You can also rest easy since the registrar originating the transfer is required to validate the request with the current registrant, using the information in whois, and get an affirmative resposne from them before even initiating the transfer. All this new policy does it set out the reasons why a losing registrar can deny an outgoing transfer. In domain transfers, since the registry/registrar split happened, the gaining registrar has ALWAYS been responsible for validating the transfer request with the proper registrant, and not assume that the data given in a transfer order is corrent.
The article is not thorough or complete in explaing what is really happening here.
Nothing has changed really. This has ALWAYS been the way the system ran, only some registrars choose to ignore it, and setup abusive transfer blocking mechanisms, and called them "Safety" measures for their customers instead of the lock-in attempts they really were.
The problem with the old way was that some unscrupulous registrars (NetSol for instance)made it harder to get your domains away from them, forcing you to jump through hoops, and making them harder and harder to accomplish, and then deny them for wrong reasons.
The new policy only sets out EXPLICIT rules about what are allowed reasons for a domain transfer to be rejected by the current registrar, and a process by which disputes over transfers will be handled.
Other than that, nothing has changed really at all, and any news articles saying otherwise are less than properly informed, and listening to alarmist rhetoric instead of understanding how the system worked until now, and how it will work in the future.
As a previous poster pointed out, the best thing to do is to lock your domains with your current registrar, just make sure that they provide an easy means to unlock them when you need to make changes, or when you really do want to go to a new registrar.
Another option, pickup a Grandstream HandyTone 286 (from here for instance) or a Sipura SPA-2000 (from here for instance) (SIP devices, plug a regular phone, or fax, into it) instead of the asterisk box, but it gives you less flexibility. Both devices would work with the Voicepulse services, or most any other true SIP based VoIP service.
You are exactly right (see #9), about toll free numbers anyway. The FCC does not permit it.
Does that mean it doesn't happen? No. It happens. But companies can be penalized for doing it.
And if you read the article in question, at least one Telco says that they have no problem with people transferring regular phone numbers. I know SBC allows it. I had a roommate several years ago, I moved out, and the phone was in my name. Roommate moved into a smaller apt, and I had the number transferred to her name and her new place, and SBC did it without any problems at all.
You are not "selling" the phone number per se, but you are selling the right to use that number, no different than a domain name.
For toll free numbers, it's a different game altogether because of FCC rules and concerns about number scarcity.
Re:Not necessarily the war yet
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Yes, you can protest the war and support the troops, but once action starts, the time for protest has passed. I am glad to see that so far (I haven't read all the comments, just those +2 or higher) most of those posting intelligent comments are taking that tact, regardless of their position on the events leading up to the war.
Add up the traffic in his message, it's not costing anyone "lots of money." That's a fiction used to justify these overreaching actions.
(expecting moderators to use their points abusively on this post, because they don't like what it says. Oh well, my karma will survive it)
I see that I was correct, moderators just can't resist modding based on their agreement or disagreement with a viewpoint, and moderate down unpopular viewpoints. What a sad commentary.
This isn't about overall totals. The UDP against telstra will not effect the overall totals. This is about the effect of this single UDP against this single ISP. The spams/cancels/whatnot that are being complained about as originating from Telstra are a drop in the bucket.
If you want to address the larger problem, find a way to do that. Targetting specific ISPs with overreaching actions like the UDP, which will have such little effect when you look at the broader picture, is an extreme and unnecessary act. It is being done to make those who want to come up with a solution feel a bit better about their failure to come up with one. They can all pat themselves on the bat for their "major accomplishment."
But in the bigger picture, its like stopping a single raindrop from hitting your suede shoes, the flood of the rest of them will still ruin those shoes. So why did you try to stop that single raindrop, and waste time that could have been spent coming up with a way to protect them from all of the rain?
Slashdot Mirror
The contract with the photographer was the CC license that granted them the right to use it in a commercial setting provided they attributed him. The photographer clicked to allow the license most likely without understanding what he was doing, and the legal consequences of his action. If the court finds Virgin liable, then they are opening a huge legal issue in regard to all non-signed contract licenses, including the GPL.
"Later reports" were not what she said at the time of the first inquiry, they were what she said AFTER her arrest when she finally began to cooperate.
.org was NEVER intended to be restricted to non-profit organizations. It was actually the first catch-all TLD, intended for anything that didn't fit well under the other two, but was not restricted in any way to that rule either. There was NEVER any suggestion or rule that .org be restricted to non-profit use. Even when ICANN handed it to the PIR to manage, they specifically included in the contract that it remain a generic open registration TLD.
.org was supposed to be for non-profits. That was not, and is not, the case.
It is a common misconception among people who have never really been involved in the domain policy arena that
You miss the point of the WTO, a blanket ban like that violates the WTO treaty, that is the law of the land as per our constitution once it was ratified by our Senate. The ban is impacting a treaty member, Antigua, and since the ban is a violation of the treaty, they have the right to seek comparable relief against the US. We are prohibited by law from interfering in the exercise of that relief once granted.
We have been under WTO sanctions before. As recently as 2004, trade partners sought WTO relief because the US enacted a law that granted a percentage of duties collected on foreign products to go to the American companies who compete with those foreign products. Canada, European Union, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, India, Japan and Chile asked the WTO to impose penalties on a range of U.S. products such as cod, textiles, glassware, mobile homes and apples as retaliatory sanctions that would amount to more than $150 million annually. Those penalties would have hit American businesses hard, making them less competitive in those markets, and thus providing some pressure on the US to comply with their treaty obligations.
The ban on online gambling was a not very well thought out law, nor was it subjected to the kind of review that would have brought these kinds of concerns to the attention of the Congress and maybe stopped them from passing bad law.
As for consumer protection against potential shady practices of online casinos, honestly, there is only so much we can, or should, do to protect consumers from their own bad behavior. Most counties that have legalized online gambling operations VERY closely regulate them. Canada and Antigua both have been very aggressive in this, but so have many other counties. The pressure that can be brought to bear on nations who allow rogue casinos to operate is great. Using the potential of rogue casinos as a justification for passing bad law is a case of bad logic as well.
Antiguan casinos are also closely regulated, something their country has taken a lot of effort with. They have pretty much been leading the way in their regulations of their online gaming licensees.
You should check it out, before jumping to conclusions...oh wait, forgot what site we were on, nm, carry on.
There are way too many reports of this to be discounted as possibly something else going on....but that said, I'm a comcast customer and have seen none of these things. My torrent seeds have been running without problem, and without playing any cat and mouse games.
I've also in the past not found myself suffering from the other things I've heard reported that Comcast has done.
I figure it could be that I am in an area that was not originally a Comcast area, it went from Mediaone, to ATTBi, to Comcast. Or it could be that they treat their users a bit different based on what tier of service they are on. I've always paid for the full TV package, the highest tier of internet service they offer, and I'm a digital voice customer with two lines. So yeah, my bill is more than a bit higher than the normal user I'd guess. But I doubt that Comcast really is that discriminating when it comes to who they give the shaft to. My bet is that its because this area isn't part of the original comcast network, so we've not seen as much of the bad behavior spill over to us....yet.
That said, I've always said that I find it pretty darn stupid for the cable customers to go after their power users. Most of us not control the purchasing decisions in our own household, but usually influence if not control the purchasing decisions in many other households within our extended families and friends and their families, who look to the family "computer guy" to make these decisions for them.
Having not had a problem, I've continued to strong recommend Comcast to family and friends, and clients, in the area, but the day they start playing games with me, that will change.
Also, about the billing comment, the "unification" of all services under one brand and thus one single billing is something the tree huggers should be up in arms about. The billing has gotten more complicated, and the bills are much larger and more confusing for consumers (which is the same story as the iPhone billing records, they are doing that same type of thing with all of their services).
SBC has always engaged in port 25 blocking, from almost the start. I've run alternate port SMTP for business clients on SBC for years.
SBC's President was one of the first to stand up against Net Neutrality and argue that popular site operators should be paying them, and has been long before the AT&T and BS acquisitions.
And btw, you have the order all wrong.
SBC bought AT&T for over 16 billion in Jan 2005, almost a year after merger talks with BellSouth went sour. In Dec of 2006 they bought Bellsouth (there was no merger, it was completely acquisition in both cases)
SBC decided to take advantage of the AT&T brand and renamed itself.
Bellsouth was the remaining partner in Cingular, NOT AT&T, and that acquisition enabled them to make the rebrand of all the services they owned as the AT&T brand they had already acquired.
Nearly the entire modern AT&T board is nothing but the same former SBC board members, including the Chairman and CEO.
AT&T itself before acquisition was opposed to Net Neutrality, but never as loudly and adamantly as SBC was before.
Just making sure some facts are laid out in this discussion.
Armitage's comments to Woodward were in mid-June, not July. And Armitage's comments to Novak were on July 8th.
http://cbs5.com/politics/local_story_183194040.htm l
Remember that the Wilsons lied about the entire thing that started this whole process in the first place.
The British Government's own investigation into the connection confirmed the US claims on Iraq seeking nuclear material. And multiple African nations have since also confirmed attempts from the Saddam regime to seek uranium from Africa. The 9/11 report (a bipartisan commission) casts significant doubt over Wilson's 'findings' and over his methodology, as well that he lied about how his trip was arranged, by denying his wife's involvement in sending him there. They arranged for him to go there, and ask around a few questions and buy drinks for diplomats, and come home and deliver a report that jived with their own politically motivated agenda.
We all know Slate isn't exactly leaning to the right, and even their investigative reporter Christopher Hitchens came to the same conclusion. That Wilson was wrong about Nigeria and about almost everything else he has stated publicly, and not only wrong, but deliberaly dishonest.
http://www.slate.com/id/2146475/
Ok, even if the myth of her being undercover is granted to you, the fact is that it was one of the worst kept secrets in Washington long before this. And the person who "leaked" it was NOT Libby. He was NOT convicted for leaking her status or identity. The only person who talked to the reporter in question about Plume's status as a covert officer was someone who, under the law, is PERMITTED to disclose it, and that was Armitage. So no law was broken in that disclosure at all. And Libby was not convicted for that, but for lying about something during the investigation that had no significance whatsoever to the disclosure of Plume's supposed covert status.
Better adjust your plans. Druids do not in fact get the regular flying mount for free, they get a flight form at level 68 however. But in order to get your Epic Flying Mount Training, you will need the regular flying mount training as a prerequisite (like all other trained skills require the lower level skills to obtain the next higher one). So there is really no way to "skip" the regular flying mount's expensive, even for druids who get the flight form.
Delete this non-story. Bliz never promised no more maintanence days, just reduced them for normal maintanence tasks. This Tuesday is a patch day (or have you not noticed the 140+M file you've been background downloading recently, that should have been your first clue), and thus NOT "normal maintanence." Non-story, should never have been posted, and full of misinformation.
I have no doubts that it is right, and I am convinced that the way the President implimented it, with required review and renewals at short intervals, and with rigid rules about what is and is not covered by this order, that it is within the President's powers, and does not in any way EXTEND his powers, because these powers have been recognized by the courts for a long time.
There were checks and balances the whole time. The leaders of both parties in both houses, plus the members of the intelligence oversight committee, were informed, and regularly kept abreast of this. The New York Times and a couple other publications discovered it more than a year before the Times irresponsibly decided to publish their story. It was a move intended to affect the outcome of the Patriot Act renewal, a POLITICAL move by a well known liberal biased newspaper. If they thought the public had a right to know, and that this was truly illegal, then they would have done it when the first discovered it, instead of holding it as a political card to play when it best suited their political leanings. The Congressional democrats bemoaning this policy also could have proposed legislation, without referencing the classified information, to make this type of wiretap illegal, but not a single one of them did. Why is that, do you think? Strange how angry they have gotten all of a sudden when they knew about it from the beginning.
What I know for a fact is that the day before the NY Times published that story, our enemies did NOT know that we were listening to both sides of an international conversation they may be having with a contact or operative inside our borders. They believed that only their side was being listened to if at all, and could coordinate their conversations accordingly. The next day, they knew a method we used to collect intelligence on their actions, and you can bet they changed their methods to make it harder for us to collect that intelligence.
Then you asked if it even works.
I just watched the movie Flight 93 on A&E tonight. One thing I do know, is that no airline passengers or flight crew has had to make the horrible choice that brave crew had to make. No other families in the US have had to watch a drama unfold on television knowing that their family members were being murdered in a terrorist attack on our soil. And I don't believe it is because the terrorists are not trying.
I am proud of the way this Administration has found a way to balance the need to protect our privacy, with the need to take the steps necessary to make sure that in the future, we are much better informed, and better able to thwart such attacks. And I am all for the courts and the congress having oversight, just as they did over this issue.
Do i want my privacy? CERTAINLY. Do I recognize that if a terrorist misdials the number of his contact, and reaches my cell phone, that the government may monitor my calls until they realize it was a mistake? Sure, but I don't see the harm in it. The fact is that any information gleaned could ONLY be used for specific purposes, that is the restriction of the President's power here. And I sleep well at night knowing they are watching, and listening, for intelligence to stop and thwart those who might be inside our country right now at the behest of the irrational terrorists who would try to bring this country to its knees through terror.
They didn't just tap the phones of immigrants? but of US citizens who were communicating with people abroad. This includes noted journalists, politicians, and others. The taps invaded the privacy of thousands of people.
Bull. How do you know that any "noted journalists" (I'll avoid the question of whether any journalists today deserve the term 'noted') or politicians, or any specific person was listened to?
The fact is that you don't, and are just spouting off like most of the liberal anti-GWB'er Michael Moore succubants who look for any reason, real or imagined, to bash this administration.
The FACT is that only calls where the NSA supervisors had reason to believe were somehow linked to Al Qaeda were listened to. If the other end was in America, the could have been subject to brief eavesdropping to determine if they were in any way involved with Al Qaeda. The number of calls was not substantial by any account.
Clinton himself authorized these types of wiretaps under the SAME conditions. Both properly notified the members of Congress of BOTH PARTIES that are required to be notified of such intelligence related activities. But Clinton went MUCH further with them than the Bush Administration...
Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's 1994 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee: "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." This led the way for President Bill Clinton's Echelon program, which unleashed a far greater "invasion of privacy" during peacetime by intercepting millions of communications, often between American citizens -including Senator Strom Thurmond.
As to the legality, the 4th Circuit Court of appeals [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
John Schmidt, President Clinton's associate attorney general from 1994-7, wrote that NSA surveillance against al-Qaeda "is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents"; FISA "did not alter the constitutional situation." He quoted Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's 1994 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee: "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." This led the way for President Bill Clinton's Echelon program, which unleashed a far greater "invasion of privacy" during peacetime by intercepting millions of communications, often between American citizens - including Senator Strom Thurmond.
By calling this "warrantless" the liberals try to imply they are illegal. But the facts are that many government actions are legal under the law without warrants.
Here is a non-exhaustive list:
Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant
Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant
Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained
Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, wh
They don't have to post facts. The law doesn't require them to. It only requires them to be RIGHT. There is sufficient evidence in the public purview of the issues he raised that he is not required to cite them. There is a vast amount of information out there that there are in fact problems, and even the game publishers are starting to recognize it.
Perhaps your view is because you are not aware of the very extensive evidence that has previously been posted in highly respective technical forums in the past about this subject.
Read this from Tom's Hardware's Aaron McKenna:_ pirates/index.html
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/01/the_war_on_game
Read the follow up letter by Starforce:h tml?c=256&id=658
http://www.star-force.com/protection/protection.p
Read Aaron's response letter to Dennis Zhidkov at:
http://www.glop.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=93
Ubi has received numerous emails from registered users of their games who have experienced this problem and are investigating them. Check their forums for more details on that.
Starforce regularly LOCKS and even deletes threads on their own forums whenever someone posts requesting for help with problems related to those discussed here, so they can keep up the pretense of not having any legitimate reports of problems.
I completely agree with Aaron's letter. When copy protection seeks to do modification to a person's system, regardless of what kind of "permission" they confuse the end user into giving them, then copy protection is going too far.
And making non-specific overstated threats to silence public critics is one of the must surefire signs that a company is trying to hide something.Discovery as you seem to define it does not apply in criminal cases. The defendents 5th amendment rights against self incrimination would trump that.
You can also rest easy since the registrar originating the transfer is required to validate the request with the current registrant, using the information in whois, and get an affirmative resposne from them before even initiating the transfer. All this new policy does it set out the reasons why a losing registrar can deny an outgoing transfer. In domain transfers, since the registry/registrar split happened, the gaining registrar has ALWAYS been responsible for validating the transfer request with the proper registrant, and not assume that the data given in a transfer order is corrent. The article is not thorough or complete in explaing what is really happening here.
Nothing has changed really. This has ALWAYS been the way the system ran, only some registrars choose to ignore it, and setup abusive transfer blocking mechanisms, and called them "Safety" measures for their customers instead of the lock-in attempts they really were. The problem with the old way was that some unscrupulous registrars (NetSol for instance)made it harder to get your domains away from them, forcing you to jump through hoops, and making them harder and harder to accomplish, and then deny them for wrong reasons. The new policy only sets out EXPLICIT rules about what are allowed reasons for a domain transfer to be rejected by the current registrar, and a process by which disputes over transfers will be handled. Other than that, nothing has changed really at all, and any news articles saying otherwise are less than properly informed, and listening to alarmist rhetoric instead of understanding how the system worked until now, and how it will work in the future. As a previous poster pointed out, the best thing to do is to lock your domains with your current registrar, just make sure that they provide an easy means to unlock them when you need to make changes, or when you really do want to go to a new registrar.
Setup an asterisk pbx server, and signup with any number of VoIP providers who support G.711 codecs (like Voicepulse or their no bells service, Voicepulse Connect service). Plug your fax machine into a TDM400p card from digium.
Another option, pickup a Grandstream HandyTone 286 (from here for instance) or a Sipura SPA-2000 (from here for instance) (SIP devices, plug a regular phone, or fax, into it) instead of the asterisk box, but it gives you less flexibility. Both devices would work with the Voicepulse services, or most any other true SIP based VoIP service.
This works, been able to fax to people over Pulver's Free World Dialup service without any problems using both types of setup.
You are exactly right (see #9), about toll free numbers anyway. The FCC does not permit it.
Does that mean it doesn't happen? No. It happens. But companies can be penalized for doing it.
And if you read the article in question, at least one Telco says that they have no problem with people transferring regular phone numbers. I know SBC allows it. I had a roommate several years ago, I moved out, and the phone was in my name. Roommate moved into a smaller apt, and I had the number transferred to her name and her new place, and SBC did it without any problems at all.
You are not "selling" the phone number per se, but you are selling the right to use that number, no different than a domain name.
For toll free numbers, it's a different game altogether because of FCC rules and concerns about number scarcity.
Yes, you can protest the war and support the troops, but once action starts, the time for protest has passed. I am glad to see that so far (I haven't read all the comments, just those +2 or higher) most of those posting intelligent comments are taking that tact, regardless of their position on the events leading up to the war.
Add up the traffic in his message, it's not costing anyone "lots of money." That's a fiction used to justify these overreaching actions.
(expecting moderators to use their points abusively on this post, because they don't like what it says. Oh well, my karma will survive it)
I see that I was correct, moderators just can't resist modding based on their agreement or disagreement with a viewpoint, and moderate down unpopular viewpoints. What a sad commentary.
This isn't about overall totals. The UDP against telstra will not effect the overall totals. This is about the effect of this single UDP against this single ISP. The spams/cancels/whatnot that are being complained about as originating from Telstra are a drop in the bucket.
If you want to address the larger problem, find a way to do that. Targetting specific ISPs with overreaching actions like the UDP, which will have such little effect when you look at the broader picture, is an extreme and unnecessary act. It is being done to make those who want to come up with a solution feel a bit better about their failure to come up with one. They can all pat themselves on the bat for their "major accomplishment."
But in the bigger picture, its like stopping a single raindrop from hitting your suede shoes, the flood of the rest of them will still ruin those shoes. So why did you try to stop that single raindrop, and waste time that could have been spent coming up with a way to protect them from all of the rain?
Add up the traffic in his message, it's not costing anyone "lots of money." That's a fiction used to justify these overreaching actions.
(expecting moderators to use their points abusively on this post, because they don't like what it says. Oh well, my karma will survive it)