If the same control codes for device A implanted in patient Q would work with device B implanted in patient R. Specifically, disclosing the information to patient Q would disclose private health information for patient R, since the health information in this case is common to everyone with the same implant.
See my other posting relative to cryptography to see ow giving both cleartext and cyphertext to the same person would be tantamount to providing similar HIPAA protected information about another patient, if the control and/or reporting channel keys and algorithms were disclosed.
This is probably a case where "security through obsurity" is in line with Federal law, based on their (arguably poor, yet approved by the FDA) design choices.
If it's encrypted, then this would give them access to both the cyphertext and cleartext of the data, which is the essentials of what you need to reverse engineer the cryptography.
Now ideally, the control and reporting cryptography would use different keys, but there is only so much code you can fit into a small embeddable medical devices, and it's likely they are the same code, if not the same key pair.
In this case, it's reasonable to not give samples of both sets of data out to prevent reverse engineering of the control channel which could then be used on someone else's implanted medical device.
(1) It's going to be added to the list of over 200 signals, whic meands that if they were equally weighted and there were exactly 200 of them, you are talking about a 0.5% difference in ranking
(2) It may reduce where it appears in the results (read this as: it will not remove it from the results).
Google dropping something from search results because of some editorial policy would make them legally liable when something bad gets through anyway (check out the disclaimers on the "safe search" setting). And given the general bent, they are doubly unlikely to do anything simply to make RIAA/MPAA happier about what's generally acknowledged to be an obsolete business model.
But "he" doesn't have to integrate your contributions in the first place. So "he" can keep his repository clean of any non-assigned code and relicense (i.e. I own all this, iDevice store compatible, etc.) as needed. Note that I am not suggesting he can re-close the source, just that as the copyright holder he can ALSO do whatever he likes with it.
True.
However, then that begs the question of "why release it as open source in the first place, if you are not going to accept contributions?". I supposed that it's plausible it's a form of exhibitionism, but that's an unlikely motivation. I think he just didn't think through the consequences to the primary market for his product, in combination with the distribution model Apple is moving towards.
Kinda reminds me of Fukushima. Those guys didn't bother to figure out what would happen if they were wrong either.
Quantum physics is a bogus comparison. Considering all the accidents we have had during handling and storage of nuclear waste in the past it seems reasonable to at least think about how we might deal with them in the future.
A better comparison to Fukushima would be the Challenger disaster, where the engineers knew better, and the management, having been informed of the engineers information, proceeded to make stupid decisions anyway.
There have been a lot of stupid decisions regarding materials which, if properly handled, would not have posed a risk to anyone. This incident comes to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
The absolute worst case for nuclear waste is that someone with no adverse history and a high security clearance throws away a 30 year career to steal 4 barrels of the stuff, relocates to Battle Creek, Michigan, and starts poisoning Kelloggs cereals with the stuff. Of course, they could just skip the security clearance and the nuclear materials and buy out all the Lucky Strikes at a local tobacco store and soak them to extract the nicotine and poison the Corn Flakes with nicotine instead.
So... who exactly would want Goldman Sachs software, which directed them to engage in illegal practices? I mean, other than federal prosecutors, who have decided not to prosecute anyway?
Using scrambling rather than cryptography gets around cryptographic export and import restrictions. This is why it was possible to decypt a lot of Windows and Microsoft Word scrambled content, and why Windows NT password recovery tools existed.
Unless you want to lock yourself out of most Asian countries where videogaming comes close to a religion, and is therefore worth gobs of money, you will not build something which violates their import restrictions. See also:
The licensing was shut down because the NRC issued a report indicating that existing solutions are safe and effective, and didn't report what would happen if they were wrong.
This is sort of like the stupidity around "the LHC dragons":
Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.” He pointed out that because of the dice-throwing nature of quantum physics, there was some probability of almost anything happening. There is some minuscule probability, he said, “the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.”
Here, let me help them out: "If we're wrong about being able to store nuclear waste, we could all be turned into Super Mario characters. If that doesn't work out, we'll have to reprocess the spent fuel, with the down side that energy becomes cheap and abundant and we have power forever.".
You're right, "you" won't. But he can license his code any way he likes, including as required for the iDevice stores.
And he doesn't have to accept anybody's contribution back to the main code base, without demanding assignment of rights as you suggest.
The particular venue he picked for the release requires that he not restrict contributions in this fashion. A dual license would have allowed him to meet the free GitHub hosting terms while at the same time requiring an assignment of rights for committers.
If I make contributions to the code under the GPLv3, then the code as a whole is GPLv3, and he cannot license it however "he" wants unless he gets an assignment of rights, or excises my contributions.
This lack of foresight is the same reason Linus doesn't have assigns for Linux, and therefore why it's impossible for Linux itself to move from GPLv2 to GPLv3, or for a third party to offer Linux under the terms of GPLv3.
When contributing to GCC, you have to execute assigns as well, as the FSF is well aware of this issue. See:
The problem with putting it out there where he did, without a dual license + assigns clause, is that he can't act as a gatekeeper for "Legally Signifcant Changes".
Note that dual licensing doesn't necessarily require that the alternate license permit distribution, so it's not like it would undermine the GPLv3.
You should have dual licensed it, or licensed it under GPL3, but with an assignment of rights back to you for contributions. As things sit, you will not be allowed to sell this in the App store for either desktop of iDevice use.
It lies in the difference between "penal system" and "corrections system". Here's a good quote by Mary Stohr which reflects this: "Earlier scholars were more honest, calling what we now call corrections by the name penology, which means the study of punishment for crime." [reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections%5D
The terminology change came about in the 1950's, when psycho pharmacology had reached the point that we believed everyone was capable of being rehabilitated, and insufficient study had gone into the sociopathy and psychopathy to discover that the conditions are in fact not (yet) correctable by any known means.
It's ridiculous, but most prisoners in the U.S. are there for non-violent offenses, including drug use, and other that legalization, which I think is a nonviable approach for economic power reasons related to acquisition and distribution. It has been suggested that criminal organizations and cartels actively lobby against legalization efforts in order to protect the profitability of the drug economies in which they operate (just as I suspect you will never see a Jacksom Hewitt or H&R Block lobbyist in favor of a flat tax).
I think my bottom line is that (a) there are in fact people who can not be fixed, no matter how much effort is expended, and (b) there are powerful economic interests in favor of not fixing their customer base or reducing the economic value of their products by keeping a fraction of their customer base from going to prison.
They are coming back as UnXis, and they are still asserting that Linux is infringing their intellectual property, including the McBride letter: http://www.sco.com/5reasons/#5
It's a coventure between Stephen Norris Capital Partners and MerchantBridge Group. Stephen Norris' biography includes the former presidency of the Carlyle Group, who tried to invest in SCO in 1998, in a deal netting his group 51% ownership with a court filing that included the statement "provides that the reorganized SCO will pursue the Novell/IBM litigation and other pending litigation claims aggressively,". http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_8267122
MerchantBridge Group is a very deep wallet: http://www.mbih.com/ Eric le Blan of MerchantBridge is Chairman at UnXis.
So $1.9 million/month works out to just under 0.07%, less than 7/100ths of a percent of the total drug trade. That's presuming that the current economic climate hasn't resulted in higher drug use in the 9 years intervening since 2003. Judging by the increases in cigarette smoking and alcohol sales, I'm going to go out on a limb and say other drug use hasn't remained stable at 2003 levels.
Well, then you criminalize the actual CRIME - driving while impaired
When has criminalizing something actually stopped it from happening? Criminalizing and sentencing only exists to give victims some sense of justice, after it's all over and can never be undone.
This is about *prevention*.
Criminalizing something doesn't prevent it by way of disincentive. Swift, public punishment of perceived transgressors, however, does.
The intent of the penal system is to demonstrate to the rest of society that those who transgress societies rules will be punished, and therefore deter future events by people other than the people being punished. It's kind of lost its value as a deterrent these days, at least in the U.S., since punishment is neither swift, nor is it public, and we take great pains to protect the rights of the accused, rather than the purpose of the process, which could care less if you occasionally string up the wrong person.
We've also been steadily eroding available punishments for a while now, since anything you ban for a little bit is suddenly the "unusual" in "cruel and unusual", and enacting an "unusual" punishment is therefore "cruel". Depending on which side of Rousseau's argument you come down on, there's probably a certain level of "oops" that should be tolerable for the benefit of the larger society: "Bummer of a social contract you got there, Hal, thanks for fulfilling it for us, though...".
Lest you think corporal punishment is no longer alive and kicking...
In the rest of the world, it's pretty much alive and well, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore which is a punishment on a par with public stocks in colonial U.S., or "birching", which was used as a punishment in British prisons through 1962 (and continued on the Isle of Man through 1976), and still in use in Trinidad. Jusicial Corporal Punish is still in use in 33 nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_corporal_punishment , and caning was still in use in schools in Britain and Wales until 1987 - 5 strokes for poor exam results. Paddling is still in use in schools in 22 U.S. States, 24 if you include Ohio (school board procedures require; parents may refuse) and Utah (with prior written permission to act in loco parentis - in place of the parent).
And we seem to have no problems with waterboarding, although we try to do it under the cover of extraterritoriality.
This lacks the require fine notice from 22511.7(2), and since public parking is specifically prohibited by posted notice (otherwise that whole lot would be filled by people trying to eat at B.J.'s), it's also missing the 22511.8(3)(e) notice. But even if it were so posted, as a private facility, it would have to be Apple security reporting the infraction under 22511.8(3)(d), which would be about as career limiting for the reporting employee as the security person who denied Steve entrance to IL1 because he forgot his badge.
Woz played a joke on Andy Hertzfeld once by calling Jobs car into the Cupertino police department pretending to be Andy, and they called him back and told him they investigated, but couldn't tow the car because the spot was improperly marked. Here's Andy's recounting of the story:
Amazon allowed a bogus card to be added to the account because all they did was check the check-digit, rather than doing that as step one, and then doing an authorization hold/authorization release after requiring the security code from the back of the card as step 2. This would have correlated the billing address and card number in the credit card company database, which would have failed, flagging it as a bogus card.
After this, a second call to Amazon using the bogus card information plus the (already known) billing information got them a password reset, again without them issuing an authorization hold/authorization release. And THAT is where they got the last 4 digits of the (actual) non-bogus credit card number to give to Apple. Admittedly, it's possible that this would cost a web site (other than Amazon, who owns their own payment provider) a transaction fee to do, but they could always require a transaction fee billed to the card being used as identification as part of the recovery process. For example, it looks like Norton Antivirus allows the same thing (just do a quick search for the phrase "the credit card number ending in", you'll see a bunch of people wondering about charges to cards they never registered with various services).
Apple using the last 4 digits as an identity verification was screwed up, but it wasn't information the bad guys had without Amazon's help, in this case.
He ended the Vietnam war which Kennedy got us into (see chapter 4 of The Pentagon Papers), normalized relations with China, signed the ABM treaty with the former Soviet Union, got Eisenhower to sign the Civil Rights Act, desegregated Southern US schools, and established the Environmental Protection Agency,
Spectrum is not the issue, it's cell density. When you have 3 cells in a triangle, and you put another cell in the center of the triangle, you reduce traffic per cell by 1/3, and they serve a smaller radius.
Their argument that "no one wants ugly cell towers because of NIMBY" is specious, since they can be placed on the top of any building inside a weather dome, and even if they're not in a dome, they don't have to be ugly:
He owned the building complex, and you are only required to have a legally mandated number of handicapped spots. Steve insured that there were more than the legally mandated number of spots available so that he was never in technical violation of the rules.
He was perfectly within his rights, so long as there was not a sufficient number of other people gaming the system at the same time. I suggest you avoid trying to do the same thing, unless you are the property owner and the single largest tax payer in a given municipality, however.
You'll likely eventually win, unless you are a total dick, but the lawyer costs will exceed just paying the fine, since it isn't a moving violation and therefore will only cost you the fine.
It's currently on hold because of their current president and parliament, as part of trying to keep Russia from coming unglued at them. However, if their stated intention to join the EU goes through, it's likely they will become a NATO member state (21 of the 27 EU member states are currently members of NATO). Currently, they engage in joint military exercises with NATO.
Slashdot Mirror
If the same control codes for device A implanted in patient Q would work with device B implanted in patient R. Specifically, disclosing the information to patient Q would disclose private health information for patient R, since the health information in this case is common to everyone with the same implant.
See my other posting relative to cryptography to see ow giving both cleartext and cyphertext to the same person would be tantamount to providing similar HIPAA protected information about another patient, if the control and/or reporting channel keys and algorithms were disclosed.
This is probably a case where "security through obsurity" is in line with Federal law, based on their (arguably poor, yet approved by the FDA) design choices.
If it's encrypted, then this would give them access to both the cyphertext and cleartext of the data, which is the essentials of what you need to reverse engineer the cryptography.
Now ideally, the control and reporting cryptography would use different keys, but there is only so much code you can fit into a small embeddable medical devices, and it's likely they are the same code, if not the same key pair.
In this case, it's reasonable to not give samples of both sets of data out to prevent reverse engineering of the control channel which could then be used on someone else's implanted medical device.
Here's the high points from the blog posting:
(1) It's going to be added to the list of over 200 signals, whic meands that if they were equally weighted and there were exactly 200 of them, you are talking about a 0.5% difference in ranking
(2) It may reduce where it appears in the results (read this as: it will not remove it from the results).
Google dropping something from search results because of some editorial policy would make them legally liable when something bad gets through anyway (check out the disclaimers on the "safe search" setting). And given the general bent, they are doubly unlikely to do anything simply to make RIAA/MPAA happier about what's generally acknowledged to be an obsolete business model.
But "he" doesn't have to integrate your contributions in the first place. So "he" can keep his repository clean of any non-assigned code and relicense (i.e. I own all this, iDevice store compatible, etc.) as needed. Note that I am not suggesting he can re-close the source, just that as the copyright holder he can ALSO do whatever he likes with it.
True.
However, then that begs the question of "why release it as open source in the first place, if you are not going to accept contributions?". I supposed that it's plausible it's a form of exhibitionism, but that's an unlikely motivation. I think he just didn't think through the consequences to the primary market for his product, in combination with the distribution model Apple is moving towards.
Kinda reminds me of Fukushima. Those guys didn't bother to figure out what would happen if they were wrong either.
Quantum physics is a bogus comparison. Considering all the accidents we have had during handling and storage of nuclear waste in the past it seems reasonable to at least think about how we might deal with them in the future.
Fukushima is a bogus comparison: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20110714a2.html
A better comparison to Fukushima would be the Challenger disaster, where the engineers knew better, and the management, having been informed of the engineers information, proceeded to make stupid decisions anyway.
There have been a lot of stupid decisions regarding materials which, if properly handled, would not have posed a risk to anyone. This incident comes to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
The absolute worst case for nuclear waste is that someone with no adverse history and a high security clearance throws away a 30 year career to steal 4 barrels of the stuff, relocates to Battle Creek, Michigan, and starts poisoning Kelloggs cereals with the stuff. Of course, they could just skip the security clearance and the nuclear materials and buy out all the Lucky Strikes at a local tobacco store and soak them to extract the nicotine and poison the Corn Flakes with nicotine instead.
Won't someone, please, think of the children!
So... who exactly would want Goldman Sachs software, which directed them to engage in illegal practices? I mean, other than federal prosecutors, who have decided not to prosecute anyway?
Using scrambling rather than cryptography gets around cryptographic export and import restrictions. This is why it was possible to decypt a lot of Windows and Microsoft Word scrambled content, and why Windows NT password recovery tools existed.
Unless you want to lock yourself out of most Asian countries where videogaming comes close to a religion, and is therefore worth gobs of money, you will not build something which violates their import restrictions. See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_the_import_of_cryptography#Status_by_country
The licensing was shut down because the NRC issued a report indicating that existing solutions are safe and effective, and didn't report what would happen if they were wrong.
This is sort of like the stupidity around "the LHC dragons":
Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.” He pointed out that because of the dice-throwing nature of quantum physics, there was some probability of almost anything happening. There is some minuscule probability, he said, “the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.”
Here, let me help them out: "If we're wrong about being able to store nuclear waste, we could all be turned into Super Mario characters. If that doesn't work out, we'll have to reprocess the spent fuel, with the down side that energy becomes cheap and abundant and we have power forever.".
On the moon. And on the asteroids. Safer for the chipmunks living there. Good thing they are using cleaner fuels.
You're right, "you" won't. But he can license his code any way he likes, including as required for the iDevice stores.
And he doesn't have to accept anybody's contribution back to the main code base, without demanding assignment of rights as you suggest.
The particular venue he picked for the release requires that he not restrict contributions in this fashion. A dual license would have allowed him to meet the free GitHub hosting terms while at the same time requiring an assignment of rights for committers.
If I make contributions to the code under the GPLv3, then the code as a whole is GPLv3, and he cannot license it however "he" wants unless he gets an assignment of rights, or excises my contributions.
This lack of foresight is the same reason Linus doesn't have assigns for Linux, and therefore why it's impossible for Linux itself to move from GPLv2 to GPLv3, or for a third party to offer Linux under the terms of GPLv3.
When contributing to GCC, you have to execute assigns as well, as the FSF is well aware of this issue. See:
https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legal-Matters
The problem with putting it out there where he did, without a dual license + assigns clause, is that he can't act as a gatekeeper for "Legally Signifcant Changes".
Note that dual licensing doesn't necessarily require that the alternate license permit distribution, so it's not like it would undermine the GPLv3.
You should have dual licensed it, or licensed it under GPL3, but with an assignment of rights back to you for contributions. As things sit, you will not be allowed to sell this in the App store for either desktop of iDevice use.
Screenwriter and author of Buckaroo Banzai.
It lies in the difference between "penal system" and "corrections system". Here's a good quote by Mary Stohr which reflects this: "Earlier scholars were more honest, calling what we now call corrections by the name penology, which means the study of punishment for crime." [reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections%5D
The terminology change came about in the 1950's, when psycho pharmacology had reached the point that we believed everyone was capable of being rehabilitated, and insufficient study had gone into the sociopathy and psychopathy to discover that the conditions are in fact not (yet) correctable by any known means.
It's ridiculous, but most prisoners in the U.S. are there for non-violent offenses, including drug use, and other that legalization, which I think is a nonviable approach for economic power reasons related to acquisition and distribution. It has been suggested that criminal organizations and cartels actively lobby against legalization efforts in order to protect the profitability of the drug economies in which they operate (just as I suspect you will never see a Jacksom Hewitt or H&R Block lobbyist in favor of a flat tax).
I think my bottom line is that (a) there are in fact people who can not be fixed, no matter how much effort is expended, and (b) there are powerful economic interests in favor of not fixing their customer base or reducing the economic value of their products by keeping a fraction of their customer base from going to prison.
"Corporal punishment remains legal when used by parents, except in Scotland, which has legislated to ban parental corporal punishment."
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/corporal-punishment
How dare you claim your country is not OK with corporal punishment?
Is the distribution curve simmetric?
Why wouldn't it be measurable by the little people who live in your computer?
They are coming back as UnXis, and they are still asserting that Linux is infringing their intellectual property, including the McBride letter:
http://www.sco.com/5reasons/#5
It's a coventure between Stephen Norris Capital Partners and MerchantBridge Group. Stephen Norris' biography includes the former presidency of the Carlyle Group, who tried to invest in SCO in 1998, in a deal netting his group 51% ownership with a court filing that included the statement "provides that the reorganized SCO will pursue the Novell/IBM litigation and other pending litigation claims aggressively,".
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_8267122
MerchantBridge Group is a very deep wallet:
http://www.mbih.com/
Eric le Blan of MerchantBridge is Chairman at UnXis.
I do not expect this saga is over.
It's not a viable currency, even for this particular illicit use.
Total 2003 was $321.6 billion/year in illegal drug trade:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/06/30/un_report_puts_worlds_illicit_drug_trade_at_estimated_321b/
So $1.9 million/month works out to just under 0.07%, less than 7/100ths of a percent of the total drug trade. That's presuming that the current economic climate hasn't resulted in higher drug use in the 9 years intervening since 2003. Judging by the increases in cigarette smoking and alcohol sales, I'm going to go out on a limb and say other drug use hasn't remained stable at 2003 levels.
Well, then you criminalize the actual CRIME - driving while impaired
When has criminalizing something actually stopped it from happening? Criminalizing and sentencing only exists to give victims some sense of justice, after it's all over and can never be undone.
This is about *prevention*.
Criminalizing something doesn't prevent it by way of disincentive. Swift, public punishment of perceived transgressors, however, does.
The intent of the penal system is to demonstrate to the rest of society that those who transgress societies rules will be punished, and therefore deter future events by people other than the people being punished. It's kind of lost its value as a deterrent these days, at least in the U.S., since punishment is neither swift, nor is it public, and we take great pains to protect the rights of the accused, rather than the purpose of the process, which could care less if you occasionally string up the wrong person.
We've also been steadily eroding available punishments for a while now, since anything you ban for a little bit is suddenly the "unusual" in "cruel and unusual", and enacting an "unusual" punishment is therefore "cruel". Depending on which side of Rousseau's argument you come down on, there's probably a certain level of "oops" that should be tolerable for the benefit of the larger society: "Bummer of a social contract you got there, Hal, thanks for fulfilling it for us, though...".
Lest you think corporal punishment is no longer alive and kicking...
In the rest of the world, it's pretty much alive and well, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore which is a punishment on a par with public stocks in colonial U.S., or "birching", which was used as a punishment in British prisons through 1962 (and continued on the Isle of Man through 1976), and still in use in Trinidad. Jusicial Corporal Punish is still in use in 33 nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_corporal_punishment , and caning was still in use in schools in Britain and Wales until 1987 - 5 strokes for poor exam results. Paddling is still in use in schools in 22 U.S. States, 24 if you include Ohio (school board procedures require; parents may refuse) and Utah (with prior written permission to act in loco parentis - in place of the parent).
And we seem to have no problems with waterboarding, although we try to do it under the cover of extraterritoriality.
The spots are technically (and intentionally) improperly designated. See the sign here:
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/misc/jpg/2042280931_cd407b3ee4.jpg
This lacks the require fine notice from 22511.7(2), and since public parking is specifically prohibited by posted notice (otherwise that whole lot would be filled by people trying to eat at B.J.'s), it's also missing the 22511.8(3)(e) notice. But even if it were so posted, as a private facility, it would have to be Apple security reporting the infraction under 22511.8(3)(d), which would be about as career limiting for the reporting employee as the security person who denied Steve entrance to IL1 because he forgot his badge.
Woz played a joke on Andy Hertzfeld once by calling Jobs car into the Cupertino police department pretending to be Andy, and they called him back and told him they investigated, but couldn't tow the car because the spot was improperly marked. Here's Andy's recounting of the story:
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Handicapped.txt
Amazon allowed a bogus card to be added to the account because all they did was check the check-digit, rather than doing that as step one, and then doing an authorization hold/authorization release after requiring the security code from the back of the card as step 2. This would have correlated the billing address and card number in the credit card company database, which would have failed, flagging it as a bogus card.
After this, a second call to Amazon using the bogus card information plus the (already known) billing information got them a password reset, again without them issuing an authorization hold/authorization release. And THAT is where they got the last 4 digits of the (actual) non-bogus credit card number to give to Apple. Admittedly, it's possible that this would cost a web site (other than Amazon, who owns their own payment provider) a transaction fee to do, but they could always require a transaction fee billed to the card being used as identification as part of the recovery process. For example, it looks like Norton Antivirus allows the same thing (just do a quick search for the phrase "the credit card number ending in", you'll see a bunch of people wondering about charges to cards they never registered with various services).
Apple using the last 4 digits as an identity verification was screwed up, but it wasn't information the bad guys had without Amazon's help, in this case.
He ended the Vietnam war which Kennedy got us into (see chapter 4 of The Pentagon Papers), normalized relations with China, signed the ABM treaty with the former Soviet Union, got Eisenhower to sign the Civil Rights Act, desegregated Southern US schools, and established the Environmental Protection Agency,
He also was the first president to propose a national healthcare plan:
http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/09/ted_kennedy_richard_nixon_and.html
"Asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care."
Ted Kennedy also shot it down when Carter tried to do the same thing, according to a 60 Minutes interview:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/jimmy-carter-ted-kennedy-health-insurance_n_720356.html
Spectrum is not the issue, it's cell density. When you have 3 cells in a triangle, and you put another cell in the center of the triangle, you reduce traffic per cell by 1/3, and they serve a smaller radius.
Their argument that "no one wants ugly cell towers because of NIMBY" is specious, since they can be placed on the top of any building inside a weather dome, and even if they're not in a dome, they don't have to be ugly:
http://gizmodo.com/304357/ericssons-tower-tube-give-cell-towers-a-touch-of-scandanavian-design
He owned the building complex, and you are only required to have a legally mandated number of handicapped spots. Steve insured that there were more than the legally mandated number of spots available so that he was never in technical violation of the rules.
Here's the ADA requirements for parking spaces:
http://www.ada.gov/adata1.htm [ada.gov]
Here's a more accessible interpretation, with a table indicating the number of spots required per number of total parking spaces:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Disability-Law-917/Handicapped-Parking.htm [allexperts.com]
He was perfectly within his rights, so long as there was not a sufficient number of other people gaming the system at the same time. I suggest you avoid trying to do the same thing, unless you are the property owner and the single largest tax payer in a given municipality, however.
You'll likely eventually win, unless you are a total dick, but the lawyer costs will exceed just paying the fine, since it isn't a moving violation and therefore will only cost you the fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
It's currently on hold because of their current president and parliament, as part of trying to keep Russia from coming unglued at them. However, if their stated intention to join the EU goes through, it's likely they will become a NATO member state (21 of the 27 EU member states are currently members of NATO). Currently, they engage in joint military exercises with NATO.