So the new status symbol will be constantly complaining that you're being spammed by the Bentley Dealer's Association to come to their annual golf outing to Dubai.
More to the point, how am I supposed to know when someone is violating it?
I can tell when someone fails to use the do-not-call registry or ignores a do-not-email checkbox setting, but tracking me as I browse is a passive activity. Am I supposed to search through my cookies? And how will I know the tracking cookies from the session and configuration persistence cookies?
Take the person who proposed this and send them to Pakistan to look for the tallest man there. Doesn't seem like there are enough people doing that, while this is kind of half-baked.
Her ratings indicate that 2% of the public, max, is watching her show.
While that's impressive for cable, it means that only a small fraction of even just those who call themselves members of the Tea Party are tuning in.
It's hype. Its job is to make someone look a lot more important than they are, because that in itself amplifies their drawing power.
Fox News is an entertainment business, and pretend politics is their market. They're good at it. Which is bad for real politics, but there's nothing we can do but continue to play real politics and defeat them at the polls wherever possible.
He is, however, dumb enough to use Twitter to brag about his sploits, which makes locating and arresting him about as hard for a cop as scratching his own nuts.
In any case they have no case. Filing for copyright makes litigating against infringers easier because it brings in statutory relief and all the case law precedents where people did the paperwork and makes it marginally easier to prove ownership. Not filing for copyright doesn't abrogate copyright, since the Berne Convention long ago adopted by the U.S. states that copyright inures to the creator of a work at the time the work is created, and registration is not necessary. The statutory relief isn't directly applicable (though the suit can ask for the exact same relief) and the case law is a different set of cases, but basically if you can prove it's yours and the thieves stole it* then you win and they lose and pay up.
* - please don't play the "copyright violation is not theft" game; my shoes are still covered in the last victim of that semantic misconception.
If we are to do that then the address field of the packet header should be a null-terminated string, not a fixed or limited size.
Note that if you embed the length in the header you have to decide how wide the length field is, which then limits the string length. Though I'll accept arguments to the effect that an 18e18-character address should be enough for anyone.
This is one of the 2 the major flaws that our founders left us with. ( The other was support for amending the Constitution beyond the first 10 amendments )
Without support for amendments, there would be at least 15 more major flaws that they left us with. (17 minus adoption and repeal of prohibition).
The seeds of corruption of the Supreme Court are sowed early, and their appointments are utterly political. The conservative wing of the court were bought and paid for every time their careers advanced.
Because they make us think they're going to mars so we'll give them money to do the sort of testing necessary to make things work reliably on the missions they actually fly.
US companies used to be relatively free of open corruption.
It seems they're jealous of foreign companies and regimes, and have so corrupted the US government that the corruption is barely veiled, or even legalized, and if not then excused as 'too big to fail' after the fact.
Wikileaks' value so far has been entirely negative. The only thing they're likely to accomplish is that corporate corruption will get a layer of encryption the next time around.
If there was something worth "investigating", they should mail it to the Department of Justice, who could do a proper investigation without telegraphing all of the information.
Assange will expose only the surface of the crimes, and the depths will be cauterized before anyone can discover them.
No, it's embarassing everyone who's involved in the documents it has. That's hardly everyone, and hardly everyone who's involved deserves it. It's also endangering people who were doing good things.
They used to. But good luck finding any of it. Assange has gone round the bend and turned wikileaks into an America-hater. It started out as an exposer of Chinese corruption. Now it's the opposite. It's doing China's job for it.
If he cared about justice, he'd order redaction of identities of innocent parties before releasing any information, and he'd keep his name out of it as well.
It is relevant. He's not Robin Hood, and there's proof.
As for Letterman, it's his show and his top-10 list. It's not Assange's newspaper. Letterman is likely to have the authority to edit an introduction if his writers included something derogatory against him (though he rarely does, which is part of his schtick; in fact he clearly goads and rewards that sort of thing from his staff). Assange, not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
So the new status symbol will be constantly complaining that you're being spammed by the Bentley Dealer's Association to come to their annual golf outing to Dubai.
More to the point, how am I supposed to know when someone is violating it?
I can tell when someone fails to use the do-not-call registry or ignores a do-not-email checkbox setting, but tracking me as I browse is a passive activity. Am I supposed to search through my cookies? And how will I know the tracking cookies from the session and configuration persistence cookies?
Take the person who proposed this and send them to Pakistan to look for the tallest man there. Doesn't seem like there are enough people doing that, while this is kind of half-baked.
Her ratings indicate that 2% of the public, max, is watching her show.
While that's impressive for cable, it means that only a small fraction of even just those who call themselves members of the Tea Party are tuning in.
It's hype. Its job is to make someone look a lot more important than they are, because that in itself amplifies their drawing power.
Fox News is an entertainment business, and pretend politics is their market. They're good at it. Which is bad for real politics, but there's nothing we can do but continue to play real politics and defeat them at the polls wherever possible.
Two words: Tits.
In which case releasing this information to the public will have zero effect, since the public can't prosecute anyone.
It's not the format, it's the effort.
My nick was auto-generated by a failover in an account-request form (mumble) years ago, so there's no effort involved here. Not that any is needed.
He is, however, dumb enough to use Twitter to brag about his sploits, which makes locating and arresting him about as hard for a cop as scratching his own nuts.
In any case they have no case. Filing for copyright makes litigating against infringers easier because it brings in statutory relief and all the case law precedents where people did the paperwork and makes it marginally easier to prove ownership. Not filing for copyright doesn't abrogate copyright, since the Berne Convention long ago adopted by the U.S. states that copyright inures to the creator of a work at the time the work is created, and registration is not necessary. The statutory relief isn't directly applicable (though the suit can ask for the exact same relief) and the case law is a different set of cases, but basically if you can prove it's yours and the thieves stole it* then you win and they lose and pay up.
* - please don't play the "copyright violation is not theft" game; my shoes are still covered in the last victim of that semantic misconception.
Well, yeah. The only question is will we control it or will $advertisers control it?
If we are to do that then the address field of the packet header should be a null-terminated string, not a fixed or limited size.
Note that if you embed the length in the header you have to decide how wide the length field is, which then limits the string length. Though I'll accept arguments to the effect that an 18e18-character address should be enough for anyone.
This is one of the 2 the major flaws that our founders left us with. ( The other was support for amending the Constitution beyond the first 10 amendments )
Without support for amendments, there would be at least 15 more major flaws that they left us with. (17 minus adoption and repeal of prohibition).
All wikileaks needs is a torrent server and they can catch them all.
Oh wait. You mean the corporations. Sorry.
The seeds of corruption of the Supreme Court are sowed early, and their appointments are utterly political. The conservative wing of the court were bought and paid for every time their careers advanced.
Because they make us think they're going to mars so we'll give them money to do the sort of testing necessary to make things work reliably on the missions they actually fly.
US companies used to be relatively free of open corruption.
It seems they're jealous of foreign companies and regimes, and have so corrupted the US government that the corruption is barely veiled, or even legalized, and if not then excused as 'too big to fail' after the fact.
Wikileaks' value so far has been entirely negative. The only thing they're likely to accomplish is that corporate corruption will get a layer of encryption the next time around.
Better pay and benefits is plenty incentive. If it's good enough for the CEO, it's good enough for the guy with the pick.
Probably the right thing to do. Make their employers pay for rehab instead of putting more meth into them.
Actually it doesn't come off all that badly here.
The Saudis seem to take the worst of it.
Wikileaks is clearly not publishing what it can get, it's publishing what gets Assange press.
Anyone with the phone number of Xe and a slush fund has ready access to those things.
If there was something worth "investigating", they should mail it to the Department of Justice, who could do a proper investigation without telegraphing all of the information.
Assange will expose only the surface of the crimes, and the depths will be cauterized before anyone can discover them.
No, it's embarassing everyone who's involved in the documents it has. That's hardly everyone, and hardly everyone who's involved deserves it. It's also endangering people who were doing good things.
They used to. But good luck finding any of it. Assange has gone round the bend and turned wikileaks into an America-hater. It started out as an exposer of Chinese corruption. Now it's the opposite. It's doing China's job for it.
Assange is one of the bastards.
If he cared about justice, he'd order redaction of identities of innocent parties before releasing any information, and he'd keep his name out of it as well.
It is relevant. He's not Robin Hood, and there's proof.
As for Letterman, it's his show and his top-10 list. It's not Assange's newspaper. Letterman is likely to have the authority to edit an introduction if his writers included something derogatory against him (though he rarely does, which is part of his schtick; in fact he clearly goads and rewards that sort of thing from his staff). Assange, not so much.
If you're standing outside the shower holding the shower wand in your hand and you turn on the water, what else do you expect?