the odd of getting a conviction on anything more than receiving stolen property are a toss up at this time.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. The cables are not stolen property. Data can only be property if it is subject to copyright. US government documents are never subject to copyright. The only way they could get him on receiving stolen property is if the media that the cables were on was US government property. I doubt anyone at wikileaks would have accepted it if that were the case. If the DOJ tries him for receiving stolen property, the case would be laughed out of court by the first judge that saw it.
I also doubt that an Espionage Act conviction would survive. Its pretty clear that the act only applies to actions by people within the United States, otherwise we would be using it to prosecute and execute all of the Gitmo detainees for lying in an attempt to interfere with US millitary forces.
The smoke is primarily from the SRBs. The shuttle main engines, fueled by hydrogen and oxygen don't make smoke, they make water vapor, which is invisible unless it condenses. The SRBs are ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, and iron oxide fueled. The combustion products include aluminum oxide, iron oxide, aluminum chloride, aluminum nitride, water vapor, and nitrogen gas. The first four of those are solid up temperatures to well above the boiling point of water, so they condense out as soon as they get out of the motor. The output of a solid rocket motor is like a very hot sandblasting. Even at ranges where the temperatures are survivable, the aluminum oxide blast would rip your flesh off very quickly. Which make it a pain when you need to design something that needs to survive behind the ignition of a third stage PAM at close range.
The Falcon 9 uses what is essentially expensive kerosene (RP-1) and oxygen, so it will make some smoke due to incomplete combustion. Significantly more than a pure hydrogen-oxygen rocket will make.
That said, the full body scanners and hand jobs are a step or two too far. To make flying as dangerous as driving (per mile), terrorists would need to blow up a plane a month. So if they are blowing up two a year, I'm still going to fly. And if I die in a fireball, that's the price of freedom.
That's weird, because if I buy a subscription to a (paper) magazine, they won't send it to me unless they get my postal address. And I need to pay for it with a credit card (in which case they get my account number and expiration date) or a check (which contains my bank account number).
If anyone didn't know that selling your address and targeting ads towards the people who read their magazine was part of the business model, they just weren't paying attention. So I can understand why they want this info for their electronically delivered subscriptions.
P.S. I'd bet Apple sells your data for targeted advertising, too. They just don't want a competitor devaluing their customer data.
That page is talking about general aviation (private planes) that you would fly yourself. Last real NTSB and HTSA statistic I looked at showed fatalities per passenger mile for autos at 10-30 times those for scheduled airlines depending on the year. In other words, if you need to get to Denver and you want to get there alive, flying is by far your best bet.
The problem with the is there are too many ways for the "insurance" to get out prematurely if you try to spread too many copies around. If you give it to ten people, it only takes one person to release it. Someone at the server hosting company could find it. Once the info is out, nobody would have problems with your death. For that reason I doubt there are very many copies of the AES key out there.
US government documents can never be protected by copyright. They are all public domain. So that kind of kills the whole "property" portion of that argument.
It looks like the best guess is life (probably bacterial or archaic) using arsenic in place of phosphorous in at least some of its active molecules. Maybe it uses ATA instead of ATP as an energy storage and transfer molecule.
Maybe it uses arsenic instead of phosphorous in its DNA. But it's still carbon based terrestrial life. And I'd bet big money that it has evolved from normal phosphate based life, and uses the same triplet codon encoding for amino acids that bacteria do, and uses most of the same enzymes and the same reproduction method.
Someone will probably claim that its a remnant population from when all life was based on arsenic instead of phosphates. They'll need some impressive proof for me to believe that.
And it would be quite simple to identify if your offspring were to mysteriously gain great wealth (through what, babysitting?) at almost exactly the rate the parent/s lost it.
So you propose to outlaw Christmas? And birthday presents. And gifts of any kind.
For that the US a gift tax (paid by the giver rather than the recipient). Gifts in excess of $13,000 per person in a calendar year are taxable, although you get a lifetime gift tax credit of $345,800. But if you're trying to give a way more than a few million, you have to do more legal gymnastics to do it without paying taxes on it.
But giving to charity is a great way to avoid taxes.
That would allow the author to provide for their children, and family, after they are gone.
Why can't authors provide for their children and families the way the rest of us do, by saving, by investing, by buying insurance? Not to mention that owning copyright to a book is a crappy gamble. The copyright to most 50 year old books is worth zero dollars. The copyright to most 30 year old books is worth zero dollars. The copyright to most 5 year old books is worth zero dollars. All copyright for those works does is to make it impossible for someone to distribute them for an appropriate price (which is $0).
The adult response for Greg Bear and his wife would be to recognize that those copyrights have no value and to release those stories into the public domain. Maybe after downloading a Poul Anderson short story from Project Gutenberg, someone will decide to buy one of his few works that is still in print. But no, it's just more, "pay me money. pay me now" complete with stamping of feet.
Because the creator, when alive, is motivated by the knowledge that her dependents will be provided for when she is dead.
Yes, it's so unfair that when I die my employer will stop paying my family for the work I did. I feel I have no reason to work at all.
If you care about what's in your Will (and especially how big your estate is so that your Will matters to anyone), you probably would care about copyright extending beyond your death.
The way I manage that is to acquire assets. Imaginary property isn't a very good asset. "The authors want it that way" does not make a very good case for eternal copyright, because copyright is supposed to be beneficial to both the authors and to the people. Right now the people get nothing out of it. It's time to alter the bargain.
And in this case, the works in question were abandoned because the copyright owners had decided they were essentially worthless. If they weren't worthless they would still be in publication. It's just more "If I can't get paid for it, nobody can have it" whining. "Daddy worked really hard on these old short stories that I couldn't sell if I wanted to. Somebody must give me money! How will I live if nobody will pay me for work that my Daddy did?"
I also wonder how much "Thank you, Project Gutenberg, for putting these into electronic format for me. It will be so much easier to try to sell them this way. Now please stop making this available for download." is going on.
Actually, recording from the radio and making mix tapes has always been illegal for the same reasons as today.
You may actually want to go read the Copyright laws. Recording from the radio for personal use is legal. You probably give away or loan recorded radio recordings, since that doesn't require making additional copies and therefore wouldn't be a copyright violation. If the RIAA say no loaning, but if they wanted to make an issue of that in court, they would probably lose. Making mp3's from your CD and putting them on your computer and your mp3 player is very likely to be fair use, but AFAIK this has not been tested in court, nor would the RIAA want it to be because they again would lose. Keeping a copy of a purchased mp3 on your computer and your mp3 player is also fair use (backup), (and is probably explicitly part of your purchase agreement anyway.) Making mix tapes for personal use probably falls under fair use as well, as long as you don't give them away without destroying your copies of the songs.
Then again, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
The interesting thing was that the lone dissent was Alito, whose dissent make it sound like he was giving serious consideration to protecting innocent infringement.
That one really surprised me. There may be hope for him yet.
It's equally likely that he would like to see a Supreme Court decision concluding that "innocent infringement" doesn't exist and that all infringement is willful.
The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it.
Yes, I'm sure the Supreme Court would never reopen a previously decided case that wasn't even before them for no good reason just because they wanted to overturn a century's worth of precedent. That would be unimaginable. (cough, citizens united, cough)
The truth is the Supreme Court can hear any case it wants. They can bring in a case waiting for initial appeal if they want. They could probably stop an ongoing proceeding that wasn't an appeal and hold the initial trial in the supreme court, in which case the result of the trial could not be appealed. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen to political enemies of some future right wing president. The Supreme Court could just opine that the Supreme Court is a valid jury if it wanted, since their interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that matters.
I believe that makes him an "accused rapist" or an "alleged rapist" rather than a "suspected rapist." The accusers are pretty sure to have identified him correctly. "Suspected" would only be best if there was some doubt as to his identity as the perpetrator or if he had not yet been accused or indicted. The only doubts are whether he did what he is accused of and whether what he is accused of qualifies as rape.
You're completely missing the point. When one diplomat tells another something, the expectation all around is that it will get written down and passed to the recipient's superiors. It is NOT expected that it will fall into the hands of someone like Assange who will release it to the world.
If these were Iranian diplomatic cables would you still have a problem with this release by WikiLeaks? If the answer is yes, congratulations, you're not a hypocrite!
For a dish antenna the gain is inversely proportional to the square of the resolution (or in other words its proportional to the area of the dish)
(IIRC) Cell phone frequencies are all less than 2GHz, so were talking a 53km resolution or a reception area of 2300 km^2. A typical cell phone cell is 25 km^2, so you've got a minimum of 90 cells in your beam. Typically a phone operates on one of 395 channels (which sets a maximum for the number of active phones per cell). What I don't know is the average occupancy of a cell. If it's 3 phones per cell then there's a good chance your frequency can be monitored. If it's 395 per cell then there are 90 phones on the same channel as yours.
Slashdot Mirror
the odd of getting a conviction on anything more than receiving stolen property are a toss up at this time.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. The cables are not stolen property. Data can only be property if it is subject to copyright. US government documents are never subject to copyright. The only way they could get him on receiving stolen property is if the media that the cables were on was US government property. I doubt anyone at wikileaks would have accepted it if that were the case. If the DOJ tries him for receiving stolen property, the case would be laughed out of court by the first judge that saw it.
I also doubt that an Espionage Act conviction would survive. Its pretty clear that the act only applies to actions by people within the United States, otherwise we would be using it to prosecute and execute all of the Gitmo detainees for lying in an attempt to interfere with US millitary forces.
The smoke is primarily from the SRBs. The shuttle main engines, fueled by hydrogen and oxygen don't make smoke, they make water vapor, which is invisible unless it condenses. The SRBs are ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, and iron oxide fueled. The combustion products include aluminum oxide, iron oxide, aluminum chloride, aluminum nitride, water vapor, and nitrogen gas. The first four of those are solid up temperatures to well above the boiling point of water, so they condense out as soon as they get out of the motor. The output of a solid rocket motor is like a very hot sandblasting. Even at ranges where the temperatures are survivable, the aluminum oxide blast would rip your flesh off very quickly. Which make it a pain when you need to design something that needs to survive behind the ignition of a third stage PAM at close range.
The Falcon 9 uses what is essentially expensive kerosene (RP-1) and oxygen, so it will make some smoke due to incomplete combustion. Significantly more than a pure hydrogen-oxygen rocket will make.
We keep doing TARD over and over again. Every time I look, society is reTARDed.
I do not see any basis in thinking that American citizens are trying all that hard to crash planes into buildings.
Crazy people come in all colors, and since there are many more Americans flying each day than foreigners, you might be in just as much danger from Americans as you are from foreigners. It's terrorism either way.
That said, the full body scanners and hand jobs are a step or two too far. To make flying as dangerous as driving (per mile), terrorists would need to blow up a plane a month. So if they are blowing up two a year, I'm still going to fly. And if I die in a fireball, that's the price of freedom.
That's weird, because if I buy a subscription to a (paper) magazine, they won't send it to me unless they get my postal address. And I need to pay for it with a credit card (in which case they get my account number and expiration date) or a check (which contains my bank account number).
If anyone didn't know that selling your address and targeting ads towards the people who read their magazine was part of the business model, they just weren't paying attention. So I can understand why they want this info for their electronically delivered subscriptions.
P.S. I'd bet Apple sells your data for targeted advertising, too. They just don't want a competitor devaluing their customer data.
That page is talking about general aviation (private planes) that you would fly yourself. Last real NTSB and HTSA statistic I looked at showed fatalities per passenger mile for autos at 10-30 times those for scheduled airlines depending on the year. In other words, if you need to get to Denver and you want to get there alive, flying is by far your best bet.
Pro-Linux, anti-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-constraints on downloading free entertainment, etc.
You could probably combine those into a single "pro-freedom" or "pro-individual rights".
With four "SatanLand" franchises already open in Tennessee, how are you going to attract any business to Kentucky?
In the US, punching someone in the face with your fist is generally a misdemeanor. In Canada it's 5 minutes into the family reunion
FTFY.
The problem with the is there are too many ways for the "insurance" to get out prematurely if you try to spread too many copies around. If you give it to ten people, it only takes one person to release it. Someone at the server hosting company could find it. Once the info is out, nobody would have problems with your death. For that reason I doubt there are very many copies of the AES key out there.
It's not property. Like all US government documents, these documents are not covered by copyright.
US government documents can never be protected by copyright. They are all public domain. So that kind of kills the whole "property" portion of that argument.
If it is correct that they have found life completely different that have evolved independently from us
The would be cool, but it's pretty certain that they've just found a weird relative of ours.
It looks like the best guess is life (probably bacterial or archaic) using arsenic in place of phosphorous in at least some of its active molecules. Maybe it uses ATA instead of ATP as an energy storage and transfer molecule. Maybe it uses arsenic instead of phosphorous in its DNA. But it's still carbon based terrestrial life. And I'd bet big money that it has evolved from normal phosphate based life, and uses the same triplet codon encoding for amino acids that bacteria do, and uses most of the same enzymes and the same reproduction method.
Someone will probably claim that its a remnant population from when all life was based on arsenic instead of phosphates. They'll need some impressive proof for me to believe that.
And it would be quite simple to identify if your offspring were to mysteriously gain great wealth (through what, babysitting?) at almost exactly the rate the parent/s lost it.
So you propose to outlaw Christmas? And birthday presents. And gifts of any kind.
For that the US a gift tax (paid by the giver rather than the recipient). Gifts in excess of $13,000 per person in a calendar year are taxable, although you get a lifetime gift tax credit of $345,800. But if you're trying to give a way more than a few million, you have to do more legal gymnastics to do it without paying taxes on it.
But giving to charity is a great way to avoid taxes.
.I
.I
V
That would allow the author to provide for their children, and family, after they are gone.
Why can't authors provide for their children and families the way the rest of us do, by saving, by investing, by buying insurance? Not to mention that owning copyright to a book is a crappy gamble. The copyright to most 50 year old books is worth zero dollars. The copyright to most 30 year old books is worth zero dollars. The copyright to most 5 year old books is worth zero dollars. All copyright for those works does is to make it impossible for someone to distribute them for an appropriate price (which is $0).
The adult response for Greg Bear and his wife would be to recognize that those copyrights have no value and to release those stories into the public domain. Maybe after downloading a Poul Anderson short story from Project Gutenberg, someone will decide to buy one of his few works that is still in print. But no, it's just more, "pay me money. pay me now" complete with stamping of feet.
Because the creator, when alive, is motivated by the knowledge that her dependents will be provided for when she is dead.
Yes, it's so unfair that when I die my employer will stop paying my family for the work I did. I feel I have no reason to work at all.
If you care about what's in your Will (and especially how big your estate is so that your Will matters to anyone), you probably would care about copyright extending beyond your death.
The way I manage that is to acquire assets. Imaginary property isn't a very good asset. "The authors want it that way" does not make a very good case for eternal copyright, because copyright is supposed to be beneficial to both the authors and to the people. Right now the people get nothing out of it. It's time to alter the bargain.
And in this case, the works in question were abandoned because the copyright owners had decided they were essentially worthless. If they weren't worthless they would still be in publication. It's just more "If I can't get paid for it, nobody can have it" whining. "Daddy worked really hard on these old short stories that I couldn't sell if I wanted to. Somebody must give me money! How will I live if nobody will pay me for work that my Daddy did?"
I also wonder how much "Thank you, Project Gutenberg, for putting these into electronic format for me. It will be so much easier to try to sell them this way. Now please stop making this available for download." is going on.
In the case of copyright, it is the rights of the dead's living dependents that meant to be are protected.
How exactly do the rights of the dependents encourage the dead person to go on creating works?
Actually, recording from the radio and making mix tapes has always been illegal for the same reasons as today.
You may actually want to go read the Copyright laws. Recording from the radio for personal use is legal. You probably give away or loan recorded radio recordings, since that doesn't require making additional copies and therefore wouldn't be a copyright violation. If the RIAA say no loaning, but if they wanted to make an issue of that in court, they would probably lose. Making mp3's from your CD and putting them on your computer and your mp3 player is very likely to be fair use, but AFAIK this has not been tested in court, nor would the RIAA want it to be because they again would lose. Keeping a copy of a purchased mp3 on your computer and your mp3 player is also fair use (backup), (and is probably explicitly part of your purchase agreement anyway.) Making mix tapes for personal use probably falls under fair use as well, as long as you don't give them away without destroying your copies of the songs.
Then again, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
would you say the same thing if 90+% of the population were smoking pot or meth?
Weren't you ever a teenager? Were you convinced by that stale argument from your parents?
Kid: Mom, I'm going to the mall to buy a Miley Cyrus Poster. Everyone's got one!
Mom: You don't need one! If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?
Kid: Mom, are you stupid enough to think that buying a poster and jumping off a bridge are equivalent activities, or do you think I am?
WHACK!
The interesting thing was that the lone dissent was Alito, whose dissent make it sound like he was giving serious consideration to protecting innocent infringement.
That one really surprised me. There may be hope for him yet.
It's equally likely that he would like to see a Supreme Court decision concluding that "innocent infringement" doesn't exist and that all infringement is willful.
The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it.
Yes, I'm sure the Supreme Court would never reopen a previously decided case that wasn't even before them for no good reason just because they wanted to overturn a century's worth of precedent. That would be unimaginable. (cough, citizens united, cough)
The truth is the Supreme Court can hear any case it wants. They can bring in a case waiting for initial appeal if they want. They could probably stop an ongoing proceeding that wasn't an appeal and hold the initial trial in the supreme court, in which case the result of the trial could not be appealed. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen to political enemies of some future right wing president. The Supreme Court could just opine that the Supreme Court is a valid jury if it wanted, since their interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that matters.
I believe that makes him an "accused rapist" or an "alleged rapist" rather than a "suspected rapist." The accusers are pretty sure to have identified him correctly. "Suspected" would only be best if there was some doubt as to his identity as the perpetrator or if he had not yet been accused or indicted. The only doubts are whether he did what he is accused of and whether what he is accused of qualifies as rape.
It's important to be precise with our language.
You're completely missing the point. When one diplomat tells another something, the expectation all around is that it will get written down and passed to the recipient's superiors. It is NOT expected that it will fall into the hands of someone like Assange who will release it to the world.
If these were Iranian diplomatic cables would you still have a problem with this release by WikiLeaks? If the answer is yes, congratulations, you're not a hypocrite!
For a dish antenna the gain is inversely proportional to the square of the resolution (or in other words its proportional to the area of the dish)
(IIRC) Cell phone frequencies are all less than 2GHz, so were talking a 53km resolution or a reception area of 2300 km^2. A typical cell phone cell is 25 km^2, so you've got a minimum of 90 cells in your beam. Typically a phone operates on one of 395 channels (which sets a maximum for the number of active phones per cell). What I don't know is the average occupancy of a cell. If it's 3 phones per cell then there's a good chance your frequency can be monitored. If it's 395 per cell then there are 90 phones on the same channel as yours.