How do you think that almost every paper got wind of that blog site?
While it is not your classic press release from a company something was sent out to all theses newpaper companies. Maybe public releations release would of been a better choice.
For anything to be sent via avalanche will require that it is DRM signed, this is part of the design.
It is a guess that microsoft will sell the signature s, so that you can track you put the file up, also preventing people from taking a file compressing it and posting it on this P2P network.
This system will have no use for illegal material however it will mainly be sold to companies for the distribution of updates, patches and demos, since the end user can have verification that it can from an authentic source.
I get a totally different reading from the web site and press releases.
For me it sounds like it is something they are about to start working on and already have plans to market as a way for producers of music, video, etc to distribute the product with DRM; along with a way for companies to distribute patches, updates,etc that are signed so the user knows they are authentice ie this part came around when bittorret was being used to share windows xp SP2 and microsoft put a stop to that.
and almost certainly would have cost Bush his re-election
Well if you want to get into that, President Bush wrongfully removed the restriction in early 2004(FYI the election was in late 2004).
The restriction had been put in place in late 1980 and in place during the 1990 except for small incidents and primarily used for Kosovo, Bosnia and a few places.
This is always an interesting question, and makes pops in all these "what-if" war books. It does ignore that Russia and Italy were facing major defeats, and that france was requiring unconditional surrender which was not going to happen; and Germany was still ready for a fight.
However to put the quote into place. This was said 20 years after WW1, when it was looking like what became WW2 was going to happen.
In his books on WW1 he never makes this comment or anything similar to it. In his on WW2 books he never makes a comment like this or anything similar.
During this time period Churchill made his living by writing, and he wrote numerous article which he personnally disagreed with in addition to some he later disagreed with.
Also there was a lawsuit over this because Churchill claims he never said it. IIRC the lawsuit was finally settled in Churchills favor because the other person never showed up in court.
Not allowing the photos taken of the coffins before returned to the families is done for respect of the families.
If the families wanted the pictures to be seen they are free to have as many people as they want to photograph them.
Most libraries with automated circulation systems only keep records of what you currently have checked out.
I have work or volenteered in libraries for over 8 years. In the older ones with paper based circulation system thoses the card or other records where available for every or until they decided to throw away the boxes they put them in. With the electronic systems one library kept records for 3 years the other just deleted old records as they ran out of space the last kept them 6 months after the library cards was considered to have "expired" and they had a long explaining of what caused that to happen.
If libraries are not government agencies then what are they? They are not a private enterprise given a public monopoly by local city. Check your phone blue pages the library will show up in there, if not what city?
It was not cancelled it was suspended, Iraq was in breach of the creasefire which caused hostilities to be increased.
That is the option of many international law experts such as Lord Goldsmith the UK Attorney General
Perle has also said that going against Iraq in the initial conflict right after Iraq invaded Kuwait was also illegal under the same international law.
Iraq was not invading any other countries.
Kuwait, what is happening now still stems from that. Sadam was not fullfilling his obligations that put a cease fire of the last time. The U.N. had not explicitly authorized invasion.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949. Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102-1) has authorized the President ''to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677''. In December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ''supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ''constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ''supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688''. -- From http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/hgop_ir aq_resolution.shtml
And also note that the government has given itself the power to strip citizenship from anyone at any time.
The US government right to strip citizenship has always been around for 60+ years(probably pre-dates this but I don't feel like looking it up), and is very common for people who lie about criminal activies on thier citizenship form.
So I presume you are talking about the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and the case of Kelbessa Negewo, Carl Dorelien and others. Frankly it was about time that such a bill was passed and allowed for the removal of theses people.
According to the librarians in the libraries they used, yes they did. It was primarily for internet access such as ordering the plane tickets, but some other research was also performed.
So you want to block my free speech to say that "Mr. XXX would make an excellent president." as often and in as many forms as I want?
You are worse then anything else that is currently happening.
1) they are required to get a judge to approve "secret" search warrents.
2) Are you upset that someone business man served by theses judges order cannot call you up and offer to sell you this information? If you are the person under investigation you would not be served with "secret" warrent(BTW they pre-date the PA), since thye are only used when there is a valid reason(has to be explained at time judge signs) and a valid amount of time(also has to be explained) why they need to keep them secret form the person being investigated.
3) You have yet to show any with your "insightful" comment
Or alot easier.
Step 1: Build time machine.
Step 2: Go to day before google submitted patent, submit google patent as your own.
Step 3: Return to present, sue google.
Step 4: Profit.
What some enforcement agencies are wanting is that they have the abaility to not get court approval if thier is an urgent need, such as the individual is in the middle of destroying records, much in the same way police can break into your house right now if they have reason to believe that you currently in the act of murdering someone else.
In addition to still having to prove that they would of been able to get a warrent at that time, they would also have to prove that going in with the warrent was required to preserve the records.
Any time they want to request a "secret" search warrent they are required to give a reason why they need to keep it secret and for how long, historicly("secret" warrent pre-date the USA PATRIOT act) this has been limited to a max of 2 months and usally is just 1-2 weeks.
If they want an extension to this they have to re-request the time proving again why it is needed.
name one US citizen that was secretly taken away by the US government never to be seen again, or even not permitted a have a lawyer plead thier cause.
Also the USA PATRIOT act does not cover what you are talking about, it deals with business records.
Terrorism is defined in the U.S. by the Code of Federal Regulations as: "..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorists:
Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
International terrorism involves violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which the perpetrations operate or seek asylum.
So are you really upset that anyone served by theses judges orders cannot call up the person being investigated and offer to sell them this information?
Also they are not forbidden from "talking to anyone" they can contact lawers and others as needed, also these "secret" potions have time limits placed on them and reason why they need to be kept secret has to be well explained to the judge. The main problem is that people have not been informed about what thier rights are in theses cases and that is one thing that multiple people are planning to have added to this new bill.
You really do not know much about the current law.
The US PATRIOT act does require that a judge review the information and allow the warrent. It also placed the additional requirement that the number of times they request this action under this law that it be fully reported to other agencies. Something that is not required for other search requests.
If that is a really scare for you answer this question.
Why are you not upset that some government agency(library) or some private agency(bookstore) is recording your purchases, keeping them linked to your information, and not destroying them after they have ensure you have returned the book or your payment has been approved?
There is no library section of the US PATRIOT act there is only an area that allows the FBI to request from a business records under certain circumstations and only after approved by a judge, and that was an extention of when the same thing could be done with the same records, just not under thoses circumstances.
You really do not know much about the current law.
The US PATRIOT act does require that a judge review the information and allow the warrent. It also placed the additional requirement that the number of times they request one of theses from theses judges be fully reported to various agencies. Something that is not required for other search requests.
First off I was one of thoses that had WoW preorderded months in advance, I later quit and have been happily playing EQ2, and only went with that because of the bad experiences I had from WoW and EQ2 was the other newest thing on the block, and from the public beta is was actually good.
WoW initial sales and pumping was all fanboies and based on Blizzards reputation, even after warcraft III. You don't sell out like they did from the casual person who sees the new box in the store and decides to purchase it, you get it from people going to the store for the purpose of buying it. WoW had the MMORPG market word of mouth that it was ready to be released, was fast, and had excellently balanced classes.
then one you start getting the press releases of it selling out, that helps fuel the game. You get a lot of impuse buy from the "I heard it sold out it must be good, lets purchase it."
people where not looking at EQ2 because of sony on-line, the experience of SWG. For all purposes at release it was the underdog that had to release early in order to advoid the big name recognition of WoW. However its population is nicly increasing without the current expansions into new countries.
For companies if they have not upgraded it is probably because the computer will not run xp, and for large companies the upgrade cost really does not matter that much, since most of probably covered by enterprise licenses. If they do have end user computers that could run XP but are not it is probably because the user has not wanted to spend the time to get the computer migrated.
The smaller companies they are not going to upgrade if everything is working, and they will use the licenses that come with the computer they purchase, or they would already upgraded.
fwiw, reading other peoples' experiences that it took a number of printouts before the generic ink replaced the original in the printer heads, and to expect smearing and poor quality until then, didn't exactly engender confidence that the inks were of comparable makeup.
Even on our orginal HP ink it says to run some test copies and to expect some initial smearing.
For most people purchasing refilled cartridges are well worth it, vendors that resell cartridges do a really good job indicating the amount of ink, that is one of thier selling points. Purchase our 40 millliters for $15.00 verses the 19 millliters you get from vendor for $29.95.
Since printing pictures that last a long time, you really should check the 3rd party ink makers, some of them sell special manufactured inks just for this purpose that are suppose to last even longer then the original manufacturers inks. Granted the y charge more then they do for the normal ink but for you that is something you want.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you think that almost every paper got wind of that blog site?
While it is not your classic press release from a company something was sent out to all theses newpaper companies. Maybe public releations release would of been a better choice.
For anything to be sent via avalanche will require that it is DRM signed, this is part of the design.
It is a guess that microsoft will sell the signature s, so that you can track you put the file up, also preventing people from taking a file compressing it and posting it on this P2P network.
This system will have no use for illegal material however it will mainly be sold to companies for the distribution of updates, patches and demos, since the end user can have verification that it can from an authentic source.
I get a totally different reading from the web site and press releases.
For me it sounds like it is something they are about to start working on and already have plans to market as a way for producers of music, video, etc to distribute the product with DRM; along with a way for companies to distribute patches, updates,etc that are signed so the user knows they are authentice ie this part came around when bittorret was being used to share windows xp SP2 and microsoft put a stop to that.
and almost certainly would have cost Bush his re-election
Well if you want to get into that, President Bush wrongfully removed the restriction in early 2004(FYI the election was in late 2004).
The restriction had been put in place in late 1980 and in place during the 1990 except for small incidents and primarily used for Kosovo, Bosnia and a few places.
This is always an interesting question, and makes pops in all these "what-if" war books. It does ignore that Russia and Italy were facing major defeats, and that france was requiring unconditional surrender which was not going to happen; and Germany was still ready for a fight.
However to put the quote into place. This was said 20 years after WW1, when it was looking like what became WW2 was going to happen.
In his books on WW1 he never makes this comment or anything similar to it. In his on WW2 books he never makes a comment like this or anything similar.
During this time period Churchill made his living by writing, and he wrote numerous article which he personnally disagreed with in addition to some he later disagreed with.
Also there was a lawsuit over this because Churchill claims he never said it. IIRC the lawsuit was finally settled in Churchills favor because the other person never showed up in court.
Not allowing the photos taken of the coffins before returned to the families is done for respect of the families.
If the families wanted the pictures to be seen they are free to have as many people as they want to photograph them.
Most libraries with automated circulation systems only keep records of what you currently have checked out.
I have work or volenteered in libraries for over 8 years. In the older ones with paper based circulation system thoses the card or other records where available for every or until they decided to throw away the boxes they put them in. With the electronic systems one library kept records for 3 years the other just deleted old records as they ran out of space the last kept them 6 months after the library cards was considered to have "expired" and they had a long explaining of what caused that to happen.
If libraries are not government agencies then what are they? They are not a private enterprise given a public monopoly by local city. Check your phone blue pages the library will show up in there, if not what city?
It was not cancelled it was suspended, Iraq was in breach of the creasefire which caused hostilities to be increased.
That is the option of many international law experts such as Lord Goldsmith the UK Attorney General
Perle has also said that going against Iraq in the initial conflict right after Iraq invaded Kuwait was also illegal under the same international law.
Iraq was not invading any other countries.r aq_resolution.shtml
Kuwait, what is happening now still stems from that. Sadam was not fullfilling his obligations that put a cease fire of the last time.
The U.N. had not explicitly authorized invasion.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949. Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102-1) has authorized the President ''to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677''. In December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ''supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ''constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ''supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688''. -- From http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/hgop_i
In what way?
It was not an unlawful attack, which removes it from the definition.
And also note that the government has given itself the power to strip citizenship from anyone at any time.
The US government right to strip citizenship has always been around for 60+ years(probably pre-dates this but I don't feel like looking it up), and is very common for people who lie about criminal activies on thier citizenship form.
So I presume you are talking about the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and the case of Kelbessa Negewo, Carl Dorelien and others. Frankly it was about time that such a bill was passed and allowed for the removal of theses people.
According to the librarians in the libraries they used, yes they did. It was primarily for internet access such as ordering the plane tickets, but some other research was also performed.
So you want to block my free speech to say that "Mr. XXX would make an excellent president." as often and in as many forms as I want?
You are worse then anything else that is currently happening.
1) they are required to get a judge to approve "secret" search warrents.
2) Are you upset that someone business man served by theses judges order cannot call you up and offer to sell you this information? If you are the person under investigation you would not be served with "secret" warrent(BTW they pre-date the PA), since thye are only used when there is a valid reason(has to be explained at time judge signs) and a valid amount of time(also has to be explained) why they need to keep them secret form the person being investigated.
3) You have yet to show any with your "insightful" comment
Or alot easier.
Step 1: Build time machine.
Step 2: Go to day before google submitted patent, submit google patent as your own.
Step 3: Return to present, sue google.
Step 4: Profit.
What some enforcement agencies are wanting is that they have the abaility to not get court approval if thier is an urgent need, such as the individual is in the middle of destroying records, much in the same way police can break into your house right now if they have reason to believe that you currently in the act of murdering someone else.
In addition to still having to prove that they would of been able to get a warrent at that time, they would also have to prove that going in with the warrent was required to preserve the records.
Any time they want to request a "secret" search warrent they are required to give a reason why they need to keep it secret and for how long, historicly("secret" warrent pre-date the USA PATRIOT act) this has been limited to a max of 2 months and usally is just 1-2 weeks.
If they want an extension to this they have to re-request the time proving again why it is needed.
name one US citizen that was secretly taken away by the US government never to be seen again, or even not permitted a have a lawyer plead thier cause.
Also the USA PATRIOT act does not cover what you are talking about, it deals with business records.
Terrorism is defined in the U.S. by the Code of Federal Regulations as: "..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorists: Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. International terrorism involves violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which the perpetrations operate or seek asylum.
So are you really upset that anyone served by theses judges orders cannot call up the person being investigated and offer to sell them this information?
Also they are not forbidden from "talking to anyone" they can contact lawers and others as needed, also these "secret" potions have time limits placed on them and reason why they need to be kept secret has to be well explained to the judge. The main problem is that people have not been informed about what thier rights are in theses cases and that is one thing that multiple people are planning to have added to this new bill.
You really do not know much about the current law.
The US PATRIOT act does require that a judge review the information and allow the warrent. It also placed the additional requirement that the number of times they request this action under this law that it be fully reported to other agencies. Something that is not required for other search requests.
If that is a really scare for you answer this question.
Why are you not upset that some government agency(library) or some private agency(bookstore) is recording your purchases, keeping them linked to your information, and not destroying them after they have ensure you have returned the book or your payment has been approved?
There is no library section of the US PATRIOT act there is only an area that allows the FBI to request from a business records under certain circumstations and only after approved by a judge, and that was an extention of when the same thing could be done with the same records, just not under thoses circumstances.
You really do not know much about the current law.
The US PATRIOT act does require that a judge review the information and allow the warrent. It also placed the additional requirement that the number of times they request one of theses from theses judges be fully reported to various agencies. Something that is not required for other search requests.
First off I was one of thoses that had WoW preorderded months in advance, I later quit and have been happily playing EQ2, and only went with that because of the bad experiences I had from WoW and EQ2 was the other newest thing on the block, and from the public beta is was actually good.
WoW initial sales and pumping was all fanboies and based on Blizzards reputation, even after warcraft III. You don't sell out like they did from the casual person who sees the new box in the store and decides to purchase it, you get it from people going to the store for the purpose of buying it. WoW had the MMORPG market word of mouth that it was ready to be released, was fast, and had excellently balanced classes.
then one you start getting the press releases of it selling out, that helps fuel the game. You get a lot of impuse buy from the "I heard it sold out it must be good, lets purchase it." people where not looking at EQ2 because of sony on-line, the experience of SWG. For all purposes at release it was the underdog that had to release early in order to advoid the big name recognition of WoW. However its population is nicly increasing without the current expansions into new countries.
For companies if they have not upgraded it is probably because the computer will not run xp, and for large companies the upgrade cost really does not matter that much, since most of probably covered by enterprise licenses. If they do have end user computers that could run XP but are not it is probably because the user has not wanted to spend the time to get the computer migrated.
The smaller companies they are not going to upgrade if everything is working, and they will use the licenses that come with the computer they purchase, or they would already upgraded.
fwiw, reading other peoples' experiences that it took a number of printouts before the generic ink replaced the original in the printer heads, and to expect smearing and poor quality until then, didn't exactly engender confidence that the inks were of comparable makeup.
Even on our orginal HP ink it says to run some test copies and to expect some initial smearing.
For most people purchasing refilled cartridges are well worth it, vendors that resell cartridges do a really good job indicating the amount of ink, that is one of thier selling points. Purchase our 40 millliters for $15.00 verses the 19 millliters you get from vendor for $29.95.
Since printing pictures that last a long time, you really should check the 3rd party ink makers, some of them sell special manufactured inks just for this purpose that are suppose to last even longer then the original manufacturers inks. Granted the y charge more then they do for the normal ink but for you that is something you want.
Look into JSRS it has been around for 5 years and provides full support for everything for IE or NS 4+