Just because someone else has a government who are a bigger bunch of bastards than ours doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing something about it our bunch of bastards. It's been made fairly clear over the last decade or so that, no matter how brutal and corrupt a world government might be, the people living under it don't want outside Anglo-European interference. There are plenty of brutal dictatorships the world would be better off without, but there's not a whole lot wikileaks can do about them. When you can make people who disagree with you disappear it doesn't really matter how many of your secrets are revealed. Your people already know and aren't going to say anything and the rest of the world can't do much.
They seem to have some options under the espionage act, but from what there have been a bunch of subsequent Supreme Court decisions with regards to journalists which would make that a bit of questionable tactic. It's always possible that the current court could totally reinterpret the constitution and change all established precedent again, but given the Republicans are unlikely to upset their lord and master Rupert Murdoch by interfering too much with freedom of the press, and it'd be a fairly brave reinterpretation by the court, it's unlikely to stick.
The only option they really have in the end is crucifying Manning to try and discourage future leaks and I don't know, maybe restricting confidential documents further up the chain of command that recently busted down PFC's FFS. It might also be advisable for diplomats to keep evaluations which have personal attacks in them off the official record in future, as that's what has done most of the damage, at least as far as the cables go. Most of the rest of it wasn't exactly unknown even in to the general public, and certainly not to any of the governments involved. Not saying anyone is thrilled with the evidence being out in public, but none of it is really all that surprising.
Not to be pedantic but the other side were a thoroughly nasty bunch too. Not that you don't have a point of course, and to be honest I think a lot of the people in the US who funded the IRA knew full well what they were and just held the same beliefs. You know the old saying, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I know what a slashdot libertarian is. It's a selfish git who could never actually live without any of the government services like police, or roads, or hospitals, but thinks that there's a magical way where they don't have to pay for them. Somewhere there may be libertarians who truly believe in civil liberties, but everyone I've ever met has had a philosophy which basically boiled down to "Hands off my wallet fuck the rest of you". Even the religious right has more integrity than that.
No, but generally the kind of people who own the kind of houses that get turned into crack dens have a pretty good idea what they're doing, and this guy was moving in explosives over the course of years.
I'm not saying there aren't edge cases where an owner is honestly caught out, but seriously.
It is, but if you've ever tried maintaining a patch set for a third party application without any cooperation from said third party you'll know it's bloody painful. If said third party is actively working against you then it's just not worth bothering with.
All you can do with that is track who(for a given value of who) came to your site and when. I don't really have a problem with people hosting a website knowing that I visited it. It's all this cross tracking garbage where someone like Google knows every website I've visited that bothers me.
Ownership comes with responsibility. If you own a crack den, you're responsible for that, if you own a gigantic pile of explosives again, you're responsible for that.
Well, if you're an airline, and you're looking at substantially fewer customers flying that's not so great.
Aside of course from the whole civil liberties thing and then the whole totally destroying the tourism industry from countries which are really uptight about that sort of thing.
This might be true, but the airplanes are a lot less expensive than either the machines they're putting in, or loss of money caused by people not getting on planes.
I think it's more an issue that the robot can't get in because the place is full of junk, and getting humans to do it risks the bomb squad members and doesn't remove any of the actual risk to the neighborhood. Personally I put the lives of the bomb squad over the landlord's property, that might just be me though.
You are responsible for what is done on and with your property, end of story. It's been that way for years. Your tenants run a crack den in your house, the government can seize it, even if you didn't know about it, under proceeds of crime laws, you get no reimbursement. It's designed to motivate landlords to both screen their tenants and actually keep an eye on the place.
It sucks if you're a legitimate owner who hasn't done anything wrong, but a lot of the people who rent to crack dealers are well aware of who they are renting to and won't do anything about it unless there's a risk to themselves.
Apple may or may not have wanted DRM(Steve claims not, but we've no record of the original negotiations), but they sure as hell wanted to lock you into iTunes and the iPod.
You have reasonable discourse, he can send a letter in writing to Google guaranteeing that super pac does not violate copyright. Google can and probably will reinstate said product and will furnish his letter to the copyright holder. Said copyright holder must then take up any further issues with him, and Google is indemnified from liability. Of course this would be a bad idea because the immediate result would be that he would be sued. This is a lawsuit which he would lose, primarily because he cannot afford a lawyer, but also because he's almost certainly actually guilty.
In the unlikely event that what you have done doesn't actually violate any copyright or other intellectual property it's only in the most pedantic and legally technical way. If you are going to play the pedantic game you need to be able to back up your assertion that you are "technically" correct, which means you need to go to court with a lawyer and convince a judge. Since you don't have a lawyer(which is obvious because you did this in the first place) and can't afford one then your best bet is to keep your head down and hope bandai don't take this further. Not even the EFF or FSF will take this case pro bono and if they sue you, you're screwed.
In this particular instance it's more likely to be related to the fact that the tax office had a major problem with their computer systems during fiscal year 2010 and the tax office couldn't actually process diddly squat for several months and therefor these drones had no work to do.
The problem is that the browser vendors are in bed with the advertisers. Google is the advertisers, Firefox is funded by Google who is the advertisers, Opera is trying to do things that make Facebook seem private, Safari on anything but Mac sucks, and Microsoft hasn't released a browser that didn't suck in 10 years.
The unfortunate reality of a world in which all sorts of things are free is that the end user is no longer the customer and therefor no longer right. If we still paid for web browsers I suppose we could complain that we were getting screwed, but I'm not sure if the modern web would exist. Maybe someday micro payments will solve this issue, but the banks seem to be in no hurry to allow that sort of thing to work, so we may never know.
The issue is that for any idea of significant complexity, you're looking at a significant portion of time to develop, a few months if not longer. A freelance programmer worth his or her salt will charge you at least 20 grand for that kind of time(it's one of the failing points of open source software, paying someone qualified to modify it isn't cheap). That might seem expensive to you, but there's a lot of overhead in operating a business even a a sole operator and the work isn't reliable so you've got to charge that kind of rate.
That's not entirely true though. Aside from the fact a lot of these poorly implemented programs run into major stumbling blocks further down the track and get wiped out by better implemented copycats who can actually add new functionality to their programs, you're not actually contradicting the need for a programmer.
When someone implements something with shell scripts and spaghetti code they're programming, maybe not well, but they're still programming. You can certainly make a lot of money hacking together something dirty(see pretty much any application written for a specialist field), but it's a no brainer that if you can afford to hire(or bribe with stock options) a good programmer to make sure your implementation is good you'll be better off in the long run.
For the same reason why your boss can read your work e-mail. These guys are government employees, which is to say they are the employees of the people. If this were some diplomats personal phone logs to his mistress it'd be no one's business, but it's not, it's work activities.
The supreme court doesn't need the power to nullify laws. What they need is the power to determine that there is a conflict between a law and the constitution. The constitution is the ultimate domestic law so any law which contradicts it loses. It's pretty clear the SCOTUS does have the ability to decide conflicts in federal law, and this gives them the right to determine whether such conflicts actually exist. Yes it grants them an awful lot of power, but there's really no way to frame their role which actually functions and doesn't grant them that right. The moment a conflict occurs between the constitution and a domestic law occurs the domestic law loses.
How is that capability secret? All a DDoS is a lot of computers, and the US government certainly has a lot of computers. Even if they didn't want to use their own, all it really takes is paying cash money to the operator of a bot net, again the US government is certainly capable of paying cash money to a bot net operator.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because someone else has a government who are a bigger bunch of bastards than ours doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing something about it our bunch of bastards. It's been made fairly clear over the last decade or so that, no matter how brutal and corrupt a world government might be, the people living under it don't want outside Anglo-European interference. There are plenty of brutal dictatorships the world would be better off without, but there's not a whole lot wikileaks can do about them. When you can make people who disagree with you disappear it doesn't really matter how many of your secrets are revealed. Your people already know and aren't going to say anything and the rest of the world can't do much.
They seem to have some options under the espionage act, but from what there have been a bunch of subsequent Supreme Court decisions with regards to journalists which would make that a bit of questionable tactic. It's always possible that the current court could totally reinterpret the constitution and change all established precedent again, but given the Republicans are unlikely to upset their lord and master Rupert Murdoch by interfering too much with freedom of the press, and it'd be a fairly brave reinterpretation by the court, it's unlikely to stick.
The only option they really have in the end is crucifying Manning to try and discourage future leaks and I don't know, maybe restricting confidential documents further up the chain of command that recently busted down PFC's FFS. It might also be advisable for diplomats to keep evaluations which have personal attacks in them off the official record in future, as that's what has done most of the damage, at least as far as the cables go. Most of the rest of it wasn't exactly unknown even in to the general public, and certainly not to any of the governments involved. Not saying anyone is thrilled with the evidence being out in public, but none of it is really all that surprising.
Not to be pedantic but the other side were a thoroughly nasty bunch too. Not that you don't have a point of course, and to be honest I think a lot of the people in the US who funded the IRA knew full well what they were and just held the same beliefs. You know the old saying, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I know what a slashdot libertarian is. It's a selfish git who could never actually live without any of the government services like police, or roads, or hospitals, but thinks that there's a magical way where they don't have to pay for them. Somewhere there may be libertarians who truly believe in civil liberties, but everyone I've ever met has had a philosophy which basically boiled down to "Hands off my wallet fuck the rest of you". Even the religious right has more integrity than that.
No, but generally the kind of people who own the kind of houses that get turned into crack dens have a pretty good idea what they're doing, and this guy was moving in explosives over the course of years.
I'm not saying there aren't edge cases where an owner is honestly caught out, but seriously.
saying that the guy is being railroaded and it's all just free speech.
It is, but if you've ever tried maintaining a patch set for a third party application without any cooperation from said third party you'll know it's bloody painful. If said third party is actively working against you then it's just not worth bothering with.
All you can do with that is track who(for a given value of who) came to your site and when. I don't really have a problem with people hosting a website knowing that I visited it. It's all this cross tracking garbage where someone like Google knows every website I've visited that bothers me.
Ownership comes with responsibility. If you own a crack den, you're responsible for that, if you own a gigantic pile of explosives again, you're responsible for that.
Well, if you're an airline, and you're looking at substantially fewer customers flying that's not so great.
Aside of course from the whole civil liberties thing and then the whole totally destroying the tourism industry from countries which are really uptight about that sort of thing.
This might be true, but the airplanes are a lot less expensive than either the machines they're putting in, or loss of money caused by people not getting on planes.
This guy is also bat shit crazy.
Presuming you randomize between goes you can theoretically play Russian roulette indefinitely , doesn't mean I'd want to take the next go.
I think it's more an issue that the robot can't get in because the place is full of junk, and getting humans to do it risks the bomb squad members and doesn't remove any of the actual risk to the neighborhood. Personally I put the lives of the bomb squad over the landlord's property, that might just be me though.
You are responsible for what is done on and with your property, end of story. It's been that way for years. Your tenants run a crack den in your house, the government can seize it, even if you didn't know about it, under proceeds of crime laws, you get no reimbursement. It's designed to motivate landlords to both screen their tenants and actually keep an eye on the place.
It sucks if you're a legitimate owner who hasn't done anything wrong, but a lot of the people who rent to crack dealers are well aware of who they are renting to and won't do anything about it unless there's a risk to themselves.
Different lockins.
Apple may or may not have wanted DRM(Steve claims not, but we've no record of the original negotiations), but they sure as hell wanted to lock you into iTunes and the iPod.
You have reasonable discourse, he can send a letter in writing to Google guaranteeing that super pac does not violate copyright. Google can and probably will reinstate said product and will furnish his letter to the copyright holder. Said copyright holder must then take up any further issues with him, and Google is indemnified from liability. Of course this would be a bad idea because the immediate result would be that he would be sued. This is a lawsuit which he would lose, primarily because he cannot afford a lawyer, but also because he's almost certainly actually guilty.
In the unlikely event that what you have done doesn't actually violate any copyright or other intellectual property it's only in the most pedantic and legally technical way. If you are going to play the pedantic game you need to be able to back up your assertion that you are "technically" correct, which means you need to go to court with a lawyer and convince a judge. Since you don't have a lawyer(which is obvious because you did this in the first place) and can't afford one then your best bet is to keep your head down and hope bandai don't take this further. Not even the EFF or FSF will take this case pro bono and if they sue you, you're screwed.
In this particular instance it's more likely to be related to the fact that the tax office had a major problem with their computer systems during fiscal year 2010 and the tax office couldn't actually process diddly squat for several months and therefor these drones had no work to do.
The problem is that the browser vendors are in bed with the advertisers. Google is the advertisers, Firefox is funded by Google who is the advertisers, Opera is trying to do things that make Facebook seem private, Safari on anything but Mac sucks, and Microsoft hasn't released a browser that didn't suck in 10 years.
The unfortunate reality of a world in which all sorts of things are free is that the end user is no longer the customer and therefor no longer right. If we still paid for web browsers I suppose we could complain that we were getting screwed, but I'm not sure if the modern web would exist. Maybe someday micro payments will solve this issue, but the banks seem to be in no hurry to allow that sort of thing to work, so we may never know.
The issue is that for any idea of significant complexity, you're looking at a significant portion of time to develop, a few months if not longer. A freelance programmer worth his or her salt will charge you at least 20 grand for that kind of time(it's one of the failing points of open source software, paying someone qualified to modify it isn't cheap). That might seem expensive to you, but there's a lot of overhead in operating a business even a a sole operator and the work isn't reliable so you've got to charge that kind of rate.
That's not entirely true though. Aside from the fact a lot of these poorly implemented programs run into major stumbling blocks further down the track and get wiped out by better implemented copycats who can actually add new functionality to their programs, you're not actually contradicting the need for a programmer.
When someone implements something with shell scripts and spaghetti code they're programming, maybe not well, but they're still programming. You can certainly make a lot of money hacking together something dirty(see pretty much any application written for a specialist field), but it's a no brainer that if you can afford to hire(or bribe with stock options) a good programmer to make sure your implementation is good you'll be better off in the long run.
For the same reason why your boss can read your work e-mail. These guys are government employees, which is to say they are the employees of the people. If this were some diplomats personal phone logs to his mistress it'd be no one's business, but it's not, it's work activities.
The supreme court doesn't need the power to nullify laws. What they need is the power to determine that there is a conflict between a law and the constitution. The constitution is the ultimate domestic law so any law which contradicts it loses. It's pretty clear the SCOTUS does have the ability to decide conflicts in federal law, and this gives them the right to determine whether such conflicts actually exist. Yes it grants them an awful lot of power, but there's really no way to frame their role which actually functions and doesn't grant them that right. The moment a conflict occurs between the constitution and a domestic law occurs the domestic law loses.
True, and you know how monkeys like to throw stuff.
How is that capability secret? All a DDoS is a lot of computers, and the US government certainly has a lot of computers. Even if they didn't want to use their own, all it really takes is paying cash money to the operator of a bot net, again the US government is certainly capable of paying cash money to a bot net operator.