I'm not sure, whether you would seriously have loads of inventory to carry, if you only kept those things around for the couple of hours until the flight has confirmed landed at the other airport - and the kind of swabs used to collect saliva for DNA tests aren't very large, so storage space isn't really an area unless you're really into storing enough of those swaps for several months in advance...
Well - I'm not debating the origin, nor say that the wording would be purely accusatory.
But they might just as well have written "taken the lead", "secured the lead" or (probably) quite a few other wordings that couldn't be misread in such a fashion.
Just look on what kind of thin ice some people and/or companies are skating in fron of media and/or courts... (i.e. SCO's "constructive misunderstanding" of what's linux)
To me, writing "stolen the lead" seems a very clear case of doublespeak (as in William Lutz' book bearing the same title).
Well, I wouldn't put it past American courts to actually pass a judgement FOR this....
So it would be a pretty sad state of affairs, if I just said, I'm going to develop "purely mind controlled/powered teleportation" and by that immediately block any competition from doing something in the same direction.
Just working on something shouldn't prevent others from working on similar ideas - unless it would result in patent clashes.
Question: How will the passport help you establish whether someone actually is a terrorist or not?
Finding a BOMB in his/her luggage, now THAT would be a sign. But a passport reading "Hassan Al Brahimi" (name just made up) is hardly clear indication of a pending suicide bomber, no is it?
Nobody is fighting the governments luggage screening process to make sure that no weapons get on board - but what danger would the passport be (unless - are there any "sharp edged" passport)?
On an interesting side note: Don't you think that it's a tad ridiculous that you'll have to put nail files in your check-in luggage - but a solid metal pen or a single 10-pound Toblerone bar [yes, these exist, and I've taken one on board a flight as carry-on luggage -- all other weaponry was forbidden], now that's not a problem...
Somehow I think a 10 pound Toblerone bar might come in a tad more handy if you want to ram open the cockpit door, than if you tried to "nail-file" your way through the door...
We've seen it - dozens of times - that someone would claim "first post" when it would actually turn out the be second or even third... But to see that the first post would actually be from someone claiming "second post" - now that IS understatement...;-)
But - thank you for the post anyway - it would have been pretty embarassing for me to have had first post in two consecutive stories... *g*
Somehow I like this little press twist on that - as if it was *illegal* for TI to take the market lead on something before intel could get the market for themselves...
I'm sorry - how does having showed your ID actually help in identifying a specific corpse out of all the corpses surrounding a crash site?
If you were after THAT - shouldn't you rather go for DNA samples of each passenger before a flight (and discard the samples unchecked in case the flight landed safely)?
As for the fake IDs - again, the terrorists used their original IDs. Nothing fake to spot there... (Especially if you bear in mind that unlike, say, a thief who might have several previous offences as a thief, a suicide bomber will never have a previous offence as such -- either he succeeded; or in case he didn't - intelligence agencies will probably stay sooo interested as to whom these people deal with that they'll never be in shape to try again [once they're released from prison, that is].
Governments are more interested in how much more power they can get their hands on, rather than what's actually best for the people.
What's best for the people is only important in the last few months before an election - and only then if the issue is a truly popular one and you wouldn't know how to twist it.
[Watch the BBC classic comedy series of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" for some *really* neat insight into politics...;-)
Hmmm... Doesn't that beg the question on whether an alien culture might be able to control (as in modulate) a pulsars "signal"?
That would certainly take a lot of energy - but could it be done? (Even if it's only a minor modulation on top of a pulsars signal)?
(Of course, if you'd find a way to do something like that, I'd think it's imaginable to do something like this to a regular star - but I'd guess that pulsars because of their nature might be more probable targets to attract researchers of different species, and hence might be relatively closer checked than other, "normal", stars)
In effect the ruling gets close to it - because how much of a match will the tag contents have to be?
Also, there is the matter of whom does this apply to?
a) German's websites hosted in Germany? b) Websites hosted in Germany, whose owner is not
located in Germany? c) German's Websites hosted abroad?
I happen to be German, and ONE of my two colocation sites is in Germany (the master is in Switzerland, where I lived up until recently), but I do not live in Germany. Am I still bound by this law? (Especially bearing in mind, that only a MIRROR is operating in Germany)?
Trying to build localised jurisdiction on these issues will turn the whole web into a mess.
I've been dreading this for a loooooong time. The web can hardly improve, if we're starting to get the courts to police what can and can't be put inside HTML tags. I mean, I'm as pissed off as the next guy, when someone abuses meta-tags or any other mechanism in a way just to make them appear higher up in a search engine. But this is NOT the way to deal with it. Forcing people out of using Meta-Tags (and that in ONE country alone), will only make the whole issue of abusing the system move to something new - while the old issue doesn't improve (since it's still perfectly legal to screw up those tags in other countries; or do you think, a search engine would then start handling those tags differently depending on whether they're on a German webpage where they must not be abused, or whether there on a Chinese one, where they can be screwed around with at will?)
While HTML has been around for 10 years or so, I would still consider it a technology that hasn't settled yet. The whole web is still undergoing changes - shortcomings are (partially) being addressed, new things get added.
Getting the courts in at this stage can only stifle further innovation in this sector, because if it continues as it is, in the future we might have to consult legal departments to see whether any changes we might propose will find their acceptance in the ears of judges.:-(
I would hope that the losing side will go into revision and get this whole thing overturned before HTML officially becomes the "HyperText Markup Law".
Short-sightedly (as the Bush government is *g*), there is no gain in this.
In the mid to long term, it could prove very helpful to aid in innovation (if there is more free knowledge spreading around that you can peek into and evolve even further).
It would be interesting if some more countries would come up with an approach that the French practice (or at least used to practise). Sometimes, if there is a good invention that could potentially benefit a lot of people, the government would actually buy it up and put it into the public domain. As happened with Daguerreotypes [the ancestor to modern photography]:
http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/dagu er r.htm
A government could potentially draw more scientists to work on issues based on this (as the scientists themselves have their main interest in getting an idea to work - and hopefully get paid for it; but they usually don't care about legalese around it, and they would certainly like to have a bigger free base of workings that they could freely extend on).
This release also contains UNIX System 5 Release 4 (SVR4) standard components such as the SVR4 Print Subsystem. "
If IBM indeed doesn't have a license for those, then I would doubt they would be allowed to include them. But in that context, IBM would also have been pretty stupid touting these features in public...
Right - but it will eventually touch the linux case as well, if it turns out to be a true assertion.
a) SCO would get money it desperately needs to continue fight its linux battle.
b) They might try and use it to cast a different light on IBM, as a company ignoring laws and contracts, when they return to the linux case.
c) And - that's the interesting question - is there a direct link between the two?
As for the injunction - if there is no direct evident link between the linux case and this issue, then SCO is in safe waters, because the injunction probably doesn't forbid them to mention IBM at all. It'll probably just say, that SCO is forbidden from issuing further claims on its linux case to the media. Something which they haven't done with this...
Well - I don't know - SCO claims, IBM *has* a license for a preceeding version, but *not* for the version they are basing on now...
I don't know whether there is any truth in this, but if it SHOULD be, then IBM has done something wrong. And no matter how much I loathe SCO for what they're doing on the Linux side now, it's no reason to rip them off something in return.
Two wrongs don't make a right...
(I just hope, that this isn't true, but unlike a lot of their previous claims, they are putting up a VERY SPECIFIC claim this time; but yes - they are holding back the actual evidence behind it, as usual).
What would happen to the *Linux* case, if SCO would turn out to be right on this one?
At a glance, this seems like purely an AIX issue - so even if IBM should get into hot water with that one (I'm not saying they are going to be), what impact would it have on the linux case? (Say, besides the fact that SCOs war chest for their lawsuit would get a big refill)
Shouldn't this article immediately point back to other articles on how governments OUTSIDE the US are choosing open source for exactly the same reason (who knows what M$ + NSA put in the closed windows source that might hurt other nations)?
[World Govs Choose Linux For Security & More]
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/12/11/0132213.shtm l
It doesn't matter - the 419scamee would only need extradition if we was after recovering his US$80 (and possible damanges).
BUT - fraud is a punishable offence, and in this case it was committed IN a western country, and as such, it would probably be sufficient to tip off the local authorities (district attorney, or similar) about the scam. In countries like Switzerland or Germany (and I would suspect in most western countries) the district attorney would be OBLIGED to follow up on this, since it is a CRIMINAL offence.
The Nigerian might probably not even have to come to the US as a witness (but just bear witness at an embassy) if he would face prosecution himself!
The question now is just, whether the stupid idiot on the other hand might actually sue those who tricked him for having been scammed for US$80.
There is not much chance he would get anything out of this, as he tried to scam people himself, nevertheless - it might keep the guy here quite busy for a while (because he might STILL have to appear in front of a court).
Now - THAT would be interesting to see...;-)
Always remember - they might be on the "safe side", since THEIR judicial system doesn't care too much about them. But on the other hand, by tricking the 419 scammer out of his money, we are breaking OUR laws (be that in the US, Europe, or wherever you are - and our courts look very different on these issues!). Or - in simple terms: Two wrongs don't make a right!
Also - in comparison, the guy in Nigeria is guilty of ATTEMPTED fraud, whereas the guy who tricked him out of his US$80 is guilty of ACTUAL fraud...
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for making sure that this whole 419 scam thing stops. But I don't think we should simply skip the principles of our 'western world' while doing it!
For one thing - SMS are limited to 160 characters, and secondly - SMS cost money to send. Granted - even email costs money, but you could send probably several thousand emails of a few kb each for less than US$1. With SMS you're paying a few cents for each individual SMS of max 160chars. Therefore for SMS spam to become a real phenomenon, you would need way higher returns for the messages you send.
Yes - you're right - I'm not serious about bringing the government anti-trust watchdogs in on this, but the move to release such a tool certainly is a smart way in staying *AT* the front.
If you're in the lead and make others use your tools to build their demos with, then you're at the advantage in you being able to always use a 'newer' more feature rich tool that will only be released AFTER you release you next latest and greatest demo...
If there was serious money in demos, M$ would probably follow THAT particular road as well. So it looks like Farb-Rausch has learnt from "the masters" in the field of keeping the competition at bay...;-)
Yes - it's been in the media over here in Europe. In Germany apparently a good number of forgeries were even re-distributed through ATMs of some banks, who - for the sake of saving a couple of Euros - reloaded the ATM cartridges themselves, instead of carting of the money to the German National Bank who would check the banknotes and fill the ATM cartridges with absolutely authentic banknotes. The issue behind this is that normal merchant banks and people on the street do not know EVERY security detail of the Euro banknotes. Seven details have been published, the others are being kept secret by the national banks so that forgers will not get to hear about them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure, whether you would seriously have loads of inventory to carry, if you only kept those things around for the couple of hours until the flight has confirmed landed at the other airport - and the kind of swabs used to collect saliva for DNA tests aren't very large, so storage space isn't really an area unless you're really into storing enough of those swaps for several months in advance...
Well - I'm not debating the origin, nor say that the wording would be purely accusatory.
But they might just as well have written "taken the lead", "secured the lead" or (probably) quite a few other wordings that couldn't be misread in such a fashion.
Just look on what kind of thin ice some people and/or companies are skating in fron of media and/or courts... (i.e. SCO's "constructive misunderstanding" of what's linux)
To me, writing "stolen the lead" seems a very clear case of doublespeak (as in William Lutz' book bearing the same title).
Well, I wouldn't put it past American courts to actually pass a judgement FOR this....
So it would be a pretty sad state of affairs, if I just said, I'm going to develop "purely mind controlled/powered teleportation" and by that immediately block any competition from doing something in the same direction.
Just working on something shouldn't prevent others from working on similar ideas - unless it would result in patent clashes.
Question: How will the passport help you establish whether someone actually is a terrorist or not?
Finding a BOMB in his/her luggage, now THAT would be a sign. But a passport reading "Hassan Al Brahimi" (name just made up) is hardly clear indication of a pending suicide bomber, no is it?
Nobody is fighting the governments luggage screening process to make sure that no weapons get on board - but what danger would the passport be (unless - are there any "sharp edged" passport)?
On an interesting side note: Don't you think that it's a tad ridiculous that you'll have to put nail files in your check-in luggage - but a solid metal pen or a single 10-pound Toblerone bar [yes, these exist, and I've taken one on board a flight as carry-on luggage -- all other weaponry was forbidden], now that's not a problem...
Somehow I think a 10 pound Toblerone bar might come in a tad more handy if you want to ram open the cockpit door, than if you tried to "nail-file" your way through the door...
*ROTFL*
;-)
We've seen it - dozens of times - that someone would claim "first post" when it would actually turn out the be second or even third... But to see that the first post would actually be from someone claiming "second post" - now that IS understatement...
But - thank you for the post anyway - it would have been pretty embarassing for me to have had first post in two consecutive stories... *g*
Somehow I like this little press twist on that - as if it was *illegal* for TI to take the market lead on something before intel could get the market for themselves...
Ah - you mean this is an issue of Donald Rumsfelds "known knowns", "known unknowns", and "unknown unknowns"? ;-)
I'm sorry - how does having showed your ID actually help in identifying a specific corpse out of all the corpses surrounding a crash site?
If you were after THAT - shouldn't you rather go for DNA samples of each passenger before a flight (and discard the samples unchecked in case the flight landed safely)?
As for the fake IDs - again, the terrorists used their original IDs. Nothing fake to spot there...
(Especially if you bear in mind that unlike, say, a thief who might have several previous offences as a thief, a suicide bomber will never have a previous offence as such -- either he succeeded; or in case he didn't - intelligence agencies will probably stay sooo interested as to whom these people deal with that they'll never be in shape to try again [once they're released from prison, that is].
You wonder why?
;-)
Two words: PatrIDiot Act
Governments are more interested in how much more power they can get their hands on, rather than what's actually best for the people.
What's best for the people is only important in the last few months before an election - and only then if the issue is a truly popular one and you wouldn't know how to twist it.
[Watch the BBC classic comedy series of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" for some *really* neat insight into politics...
Hmmm... Doesn't that beg the question on whether an alien culture might be able to control (as in modulate) a pulsars "signal"?
That would certainly take a lot of energy - but could it be done? (Even if it's only a minor modulation on top of a pulsars signal)?
(Of course, if you'd find a way to do something like that, I'd think it's imaginable to do something like this to a regular star - but I'd guess that pulsars because of their nature might be more probable targets to attract researchers of different species, and hence might be relatively closer checked than other, "normal", stars)
In effect the ruling gets close to it - because how much of a match will the tag contents have to be?
Also, there is the matter of whom does this apply to?
a) German's websites hosted in Germany?
b) Websites hosted in Germany, whose owner is not
located in Germany?
c) German's Websites hosted abroad?
I happen to be German, and ONE of my two colocation sites is in Germany (the master is in Switzerland, where I lived up until recently), but I do not live in Germany. Am I still bound by this law? (Especially bearing in mind, that only a MIRROR is operating in Germany)?
Trying to build localised jurisdiction on these issues will turn the whole web into a mess.
I've been dreading this for a loooooong time. The web can hardly improve, if we're starting to get the courts to police what can and can't be put inside HTML tags. I mean, I'm as pissed off as the next guy, when someone abuses meta-tags or any other mechanism in a way just to make them appear higher up in a search engine. But this is NOT the way to deal with it. Forcing people out of using Meta-Tags (and that in ONE country alone), will only make the whole issue of abusing the system move to something new - while the old issue doesn't improve (since it's still perfectly legal to screw up those tags in other countries; or do you think, a search engine would then start handling those tags differently depending on whether they're on a German webpage where they must not be abused, or whether there on a Chinese one, where they can be screwed around with at will?)
:-(
While HTML has been around for 10 years or so, I would still consider it a technology that hasn't settled yet. The whole web is still undergoing changes - shortcomings are (partially) being addressed, new things get added.
Getting the courts in at this stage can only stifle further innovation in this sector, because if it continues as it is, in the future we might have to consult legal departments to see whether any changes we might propose will find their acceptance in the ears of judges.
I would hope that the losing side will go into revision and get this whole thing overturned before HTML officially becomes the "HyperText Markup Law".
Solid State MP3?
Why that? At that capacity, most people should be able to access solid state CDDA - so you won't even have to deal with lossy compression any more...
No - this is more of a GNU like "free speech vs. free beer" issue:
Giving the people a ride on the rocket is "free beer", giving them the knowledge about rocketry is "free speech"...
Short-sightedly (as the Bush government is *g*), there is no gain in this.
u er r.htm
In the mid to long term, it could prove very helpful to aid in innovation (if there is more free knowledge spreading around that you can peek into and evolve even further).
It would be interesting if some more countries would come up with an approach that the French practice (or at least used to practise). Sometimes, if there is a good invention that could potentially benefit a lot of people, the government would actually buy it up and put it into the public domain. As happened with Daguerreotypes [the ancestor to modern photography]:
http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/dag
A government could potentially draw more scientists to work on issues based on this (as the scientists themselves have their main interest in getting an idea to work - and hopefully get paid for it; but they usually don't care about legalese around it, and they would certainly like to have a bigger free base of workings that they could freely extend on).
Well, IBM unfortunately mentions some taken over features explicitly on their own website:
t ry .html
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/aix/overview/indus
"About AIX 5L
[...]
This release also contains UNIX System 5 Release 4 (SVR4) standard components such as the SVR4 Print Subsystem.
"
If IBM indeed doesn't have a license for those, then I would doubt they would be allowed to include them. But in that context, IBM would also have been pretty stupid touting these features in public...
Right - but it will eventually touch the linux case as well, if it turns out to be a true assertion.
a) SCO would get money it desperately needs to continue fight its linux battle.
b) They might try and use it to cast a different light on IBM, as a company ignoring laws and contracts, when they return to the linux case.
c) And - that's the interesting question - is there a direct link between the two?
As for the injunction - if there is no direct evident link between the linux case and this issue, then SCO is in safe waters, because the injunction probably doesn't forbid them to mention IBM at all. It'll probably just say, that SCO is forbidden from issuing further claims on its linux case to the media. Something which they haven't done with this...
Well - I don't know - SCO claims, IBM *has* a license for a preceeding version, but *not* for the version they are basing on now...
I don't know whether there is any truth in this, but if it SHOULD be, then IBM has done something wrong. And no matter how much I loathe SCO for what they're doing on the Linux side now, it's no reason to rip them off something in return.
Two wrongs don't make a right...
(I just hope, that this isn't true, but unlike a lot of their previous claims, they are putting up a VERY SPECIFIC claim this time; but yes - they are holding back the actual evidence behind it, as usual).
What would happen to the *Linux* case, if SCO would turn out to be right on this one?
At a glance, this seems like purely an AIX issue - so even if IBM should get into hot water with that one (I'm not saying they are going to be), what impact would it have on the linux case? (Say, besides the fact that SCOs war chest for their lawsuit would get a big refill)
Shouldn't this article immediately point back to other articles on
m l
how governments OUTSIDE the US are choosing open source for exactly
the same reason (who knows what M$ + NSA put in the closed windows
source that might hurt other nations)?
[World Govs Choose Linux For Security & More]
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/12/11/0132213.sht
It doesn't matter - the 419scamee would only need extradition if we was after recovering his US$80 (and possible damanges).
BUT - fraud is a punishable offence, and in this case it was committed IN a western country, and as such, it would probably be sufficient to tip off the local authorities (district attorney, or similar) about the scam. In countries like Switzerland or Germany (and I would suspect in most western countries) the district attorney would be OBLIGED to follow up on this, since it is a CRIMINAL offence.
The Nigerian might probably not even have to come to the US as a witness (but just bear witness at an embassy) if he would face prosecution himself!
The question now is just, whether the stupid idiot on the other hand might
;-)
actually sue those who tricked him for having been scammed for US$80.
There is not much chance he would get anything out of this, as he
tried to scam people himself, nevertheless - it might keep the guy
here quite busy for a while (because he might STILL have to appear
in front of a court).
Now - THAT would be interesting to see...
Always remember - they might be on the "safe side", since THEIR
judicial system doesn't care too much about them. But on the other
hand, by tricking the 419 scammer out of his money, we are breaking
OUR laws (be that in the US, Europe, or wherever you are - and our
courts look very different on these issues!). Or - in simple
terms: Two wrongs don't make a right!
Also - in comparison, the guy in Nigeria is guilty of ATTEMPTED
fraud, whereas the guy who tricked him out of his US$80 is guilty
of ACTUAL fraud...
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for making sure that this whole 419
scam thing stops. But I don't think we should simply skip the
principles of our 'western world' while doing it!
For one thing - SMS are limited to 160 characters, and secondly - SMS cost money to send. Granted - even email costs money, but you could send probably several thousand emails of a few kb each for less than US$1. With SMS you're paying a few cents for each individual SMS of max 160chars. Therefore for SMS spam to become a real phenomenon, you would need way higher returns for the messages you send.
Yes - you're right - I'm not serious about bringing the government anti-trust watchdogs in on this, but the move to release such a tool certainly is a smart way in staying *AT* the front.
;-)
If you're in the lead and make others use your tools to build their demos with, then you're at the advantage in you being able to always use a 'newer' more feature rich tool that will only be released AFTER you release you next latest and greatest demo...
If there was serious money in demos, M$ would probably follow THAT particular road as well. So it looks like Farb-Rausch has learnt from "the masters" in the field of keeping the competition at bay...
Yes - it's been in the media over here in Europe. In Germany apparently a good number of forgeries were even re-distributed through ATMs of some banks, who - for the sake of saving a couple of Euros - reloaded the ATM cartridges themselves, instead of carting of the money to the German National Bank who would check the banknotes and fill the ATM cartridges with absolutely authentic banknotes. The issue behind this is that normal merchant banks and people on the street do not know EVERY security detail of the Euro banknotes. Seven details have been published, the others are being kept secret by the national banks so that forgers will not get to hear about them.