The comma changes the meaning of the sentence, but I think your measures go way beyond what is, in all likelihood, just a goddamned comma. Even with the comma there, the letter still shows that AOL believes Defendant owns the account using IP address X at time Y. The comma changes the meaning from "AOL believes they were sharing" to "We believe they were sharing." If Plaintiff can still show that IP address X was used at time Y to share files, then Defendant's in trouble. If they can't, then Plaintiff is in deep shit. I'll leave open the question of whether the judge misunderstood or was misled, but he's gonna be pissed if he thinks he was intentionally misled.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the creepiest thing about the AOL letter: that Defendant's account was one of ninety nine IP logs Plaintiff requested. The damned thing goes on for seven pages. All but the Defendant's identity is redacted, but the spacing on the left side makes me think that most of the IP logs were unknown or unavailable. Fishing expedition indeed.
The model BB has adopted isn't "work whenever you want." They have abandoned the clock and measure productivity exclusively on outcomes. Those who abuse the system aren't productive and sooner or later get called out.
TFA says productivity is up 35% on average in departments that have adopted the open schedule, abusers or no.
How are Americans taxed on assets owned overseas? Because I see no way the IRS can justify taxing assets in WoW any differently than assets in, say, Micronesia. And I can't see them taxing virtual assets until and unless they're converted into something tangible, like money. And finally, if I have to create a corporation in the Cayman Islands and let that own and pay for my player characters, well, how the hell are they going to tax the overseas virtual assets of an overseas corporation?
Hell, some country like Elbonia could make a small fortune by letting gamers create anonymous little $50/year corporations that "own" all that virtual real estate for them. If Bob Guccione can publish Penthouse out of the Cayman islands, why shouldn't I stable all my virtual race horses there, too?
This sounds like a wonderful excuse for gaming companies relocate relocate their entire operations, servers and all, to Costa Rica.
I disagree. The only thing they could do to damage their reputation is to abandon their client. They've probably tried talking sense into SCO, but since the client decided to go down swinging, BSF works with what is has. So long as the lawyers are acting in good faith, the high-profile nature of this case works in their favor no matter the income.
Resorting to experimental tactics and novel theories is hardly dishonorable when they're the only way to save your case. Look at it this way: You're the coach of a football team that's down 38-zip in the 4th quarter. You can't win, but they won't let you quit. You might as well resort to unorthodox plays with a high risk and high payoff, just on the off chance that even if you can't win, you can at least close the margin a bit. But you don't quit just because you're client's an asshole with a rapidly disintegrating case, who probably misled you from the start.
There will probably be a lot more than just one sentence handed out, when all this is over. Somebody might want to seize Darl's passport, because the SEC will be wanting a Very Meaningful Chat with him about the Lanham Act, not to mention running a pump-and-dump scheme from his own board room.
So, free speech for Corporations & Christians is good, but free speech for Muslims is bad.
Somebody want to explain to me why this is insightful instead of a troll? Or is it merely sloppy thinking?
The question Gingrich is examining is hardly new: It is okay to restrict speech when it's designed to incite violence? If I say to you, "I will give your family ten thousand dollars if you set off a bomb on a city bus," that is not free speech. Why is it free speech if I say it through a website? If an anti-abortion website posts a list of abortion doctors, along with their addresses and photographs of all their family members, and the words "Murder these Murderers" across the top, and there's a phone number at the bottom of the page that will put you in touch with someone who knows how to make letter bombs, is that free speech? What Gingrich is saying is that such a website is not protected by the First Amendment, even if it's accompanied by a religious tirade. And if the religous tirade is used as a recruiting tool for a terrorist organization, it's also on shaky ground, because there's no difference between saying "Kill all the X" and saying "In the name of God, kill all the X."
Incidentally fuck you for saying saying "Muslim" when the GP said "terrorism." Plenty of terrorists have used Christianity to justify their actions, too. Look at Eric Rudolph. Look at the Klan. I suspect a law against saying "We must destroy America in the name of Allah" would apply to one saying "We must bomb abortion clinics in the name of Jesus."
As for Gingrich's other two points, have you noticed that laws restricting how people can spend their money on political campaigns have reduced the quality of political debate in the US? Why does my right to voice political opinions end when I pitch in to buy a TV spot? And when discussing the separation of church and state, "church" means any religion, not just one you're feeling petulant about.
It's not uncommon for pages working in Congress to come from a representative's home district. If the page Mark Foley sent explicit IMs to is from Florida, he may be in big trouble, on account of having having used IM to transmit "harmful" material to a Florida minor.
Now try telling the RIAA and MPAA their copyrights are secured "for limited Times." That limited time has been bumping up decade after decade. There's a (MS Word) paper tracing the history of copyright in the U.S., noting how copyright profiteers have lobbied relentlessly for increased control and rights they never had before.
To be honest, I think the GPL actually protects re-users because otherwise copyright would work against them. The Linux kernel, for example, contains the original work of hundreds of individual developers, each of whom has copyright over his code. If you use their code without agreeing to the GPL, well, you're using a lot of copyrighted source code without the authors' permission, aren't you? In fact this is how GPL challenges against companies like Linksys and Cisco have worked:
Developer: You're using my code in your product.
Company: So? You open sourced it. Your loss!
Developer: So you agreed to publish *your* source code.
Company: Piss off!
Developer: My source code is copyrighted by me...
Company: Wait a minute...
Developer:...and your product is a derivative work based on my product. Shall we discuss royalties now, or in front of a judge? Oh, and I'm just one of about sixty people you'll be having this same conversation with.
Company: *grumble* Err, let me just run this by my lawyer.
Lawyer: You did *what*?
And that's how it's gone, every single time.
Copyright can be use for both good and evil. But copyright protection these days is usually a synonym for profit protection.
You mentioned that you're writing software for an embedded system. Is it your own hardware you're selling? If so, open sourcing your software -- or a version of your software -- could be a big win. Here's how: One of your customers has been bitching to himself that your product is pretty good, but really wishes it could _________. Now he has the source code, and he rewrites some drivers and now your product has a new feature. And everybody in your market says, "Holy shit! You mean it can actually _________? I never realized we needed that until now. Let's double our order!" Your customers are happier and more productive, and you sell more hardware.
It could also be a big loss -- at least, if all the video card vendors are right. They seem to think that by distributing the source to their drivers they'll reveal all their proprietary secrets even though hardware secrets are best protected by patents (unless they're hiding the fact they're already stealing somebody else's patented ideas). Of course, their players in that market are all sophisticated enough to reverse engineer the cards anyway.
It's different if you sell software to support someone else's hardware. Successful open sourcing depends on your license. Under GPL or another "pure" license, your business model shifts from software+support to support only. Of course, you could release the source under tighter terms, maybe even a signed DNA, so that customers get the source and can alter it to their hearts' content, but can only share it with other licensed customers. That way you can create a community but (theoretically) lock out outsiders. That may be a tougher sell, but it's a perfectly normal, decades old business practice that has enriched customers and vendors alike. The source itself is the lure.
Something similar was done in World War II. Telegraph operators tend to develop individual styles in how they operate the key. This style is called a "fist." Radio intercept operators listened to enough Morse code traffic that they could readily identify the sender of a message by the fist of whoever was sending it. A lot could be learned about a message by knowing who sent it: Operator A only sends messages to the sixth fleet, Operator B seems to be an officer because when a message is critical he always sends it himself, and best of all, Operator C always sets his Enigma machine rotors to "GITA" at the start of each message.
For things like telnet traffic, it may be trickier to do this: When your IP stack receives multiple single characters from an application within, say, a fifth of a second, it will put them in a single packet before sending them. This is specifically intended to handle things like SSH and telnet traffic -- there's no sense sending three 55 byte packets over the net when you could send one 57 byte packet, right? But the consequence is that we can no longer do fine-grained timing analysis of keystrokes received over the 'net. Of course, this may make things easier when our wiley hacker types particular strings very fast because they always arrive as a single packet.
Unless you're a professional, or even a dedicated amateur, a digital press-here-dummy camera is probably all you'll ever need:
Price: A midrange DPHD costs less than half what the most basic DSLR is going for.
Size: Most DPHDs will fit in your shirt pocket.
Weight: Big, clunky DSLRs are also heavy. Your hands get tired dealing with it, and your neck hurts from carrying it on a strap.
Single unit design: The whole camera is a single entity. No lenses to take on and off, no lens caps to lose, no equipment bags to lug around. The only accessory is a little cable you leave at home next to your laptop -- same as with the DSLR.
Ergonomic simplicity: A DPHD is designed for one-handed operation.
LCD viewfinder: You'll be amazed at how often you want to take a picture, but have no way to get your head in the right position to take a shot. The LCD lets you hold the camera away from you, to the side, wherever, just as long as you can see the display. Some even have flip-out displays so you can take pictures of things behind you.
Ease of use: Okay, DSLRs have pretty efficient automatic modes. But switching to manual mode is like turning off the autopilot on a fighter jet -- you better know what you're doing or everything goes to hell at once.
You can hand it to your kid: The entire instruction set is "look here and push this button."
You can hand it to a stranger: "Can you get a picture of me and my honey in front of the manatee tank? Just look through here and push this button."
Durability: Knock a DSLR and a DPHD off the patio table and see one bounces and which one turns to rubble.
You ain't that good: Probably one camera owner in ten is skilled enough -- or willing to take the time to become skilled enough -- that they can take advantage of the capabilities a DSLR has over a PHD camera. For the rest of us, the real magic of any digital camera is that you can play the odds: Take a dozen snaps at a time, without spending a dime on film, and see which one turns out right.
At your education and experience level you may be hard-pressed to find a coding job that will offer you many experience points. You'll end up doing uninspiring, grinding crap with uninspiring, grinding tools for uninspiring, grinding purposes. My suggestion, therefore, is to find a job that pays something you can live with but that is mentally untaxing. Why? So that you'll have some mental energy left over between school and work to do something you enjoy and that will challenge your brain.
Find an interesting Open Source project to attach yourself to. Or think up some project you've always wanted to see done and do it yourself. Many great things have been accomplished by people with a little free time and an itch they just gotta scratch. You may be able to leverage off of, or extend, an existing tool, or find a tool that works like you want and pick it apart to see how it's done.
But I worry that the kinds of jobs you'll be offered at this point will be disgusting, to the point you'll be turned off from any further career. This happened to me with biotech lab work. In high-school I excelled in chemistry and biology, so I landed a job at a snappy little biotech firm that was developing a test for Legionnaire's disease. My job? Weighing toothpicks and putting exactly 20 in each little plastic envelope. And using a pump to put exactly 50ml of solution into little plastic bottles. It was tedious and taxing. The next summer I worked in a car wash, made good tip money and had enough brain left at the end of the day to get a little reading and writing done and enough money at the end of the summer to buy my first PC complete with Turbo Pascal and the Zork Trilogy.
Perhaps an easy compromise would be writing cleartext to the swap partition but overwriting it as part of system shutdown, and writing hibernate memory encrypted. That way you're only in trouble if the laptop is stolen while running.
If swap space is only written to when you're running out of RAM, then I agree that adding crypto is a no biggie in that the application being swapped is waiting on I/O to finish anyway. However, many Unixes, such as the BSD family, do preemptive swapping, constantly writing swap pages in the background so that when you finally do swap, there's no disk write -- you just free the corespace and keep going. This suggests to me that there will be a lot of CPU utilization if swapspace is encrypted, draining batteries and keeping the CPU from doing "real" work.
Preemptive swapping is probably a bad thing in general for laptops -- it keeps the disk spun up and active -- but I think adding encryption would send power consumption through the roof.
About 20 -- 25 years ago, Scientific American did a similar article. They picked several American structures like the St. Louis arch, the World Trade Center, and the Hoover Dam, and for each one asked an expert, "What will happen to this if all the humans suddenly disappeared?" For most, the answers were fairly straightforward ("A hurricane will eventually take it out," "An earthquake will knock it over"), but the one for the Hoover Dam was fascinating:
Eventually, the dam's power systems would notice nobody was around and close all the penstock gates. But the dam needs power to hold the gates closed, and it's no longer making power. Once external power fails (yes, electricity flows to the dam as well as from) and the battery backups fail, the penstock gates will open about a quarter of the way, and the turbines will start to spin up. But the breakers have all tripped, so there's no electricity coming out of the generators. This is important, because without electric power, you can't lubricate the generators' bearings. So after a while the bearings seize, which is guaranteed to be dramatic.
After the powerhouse destroys itself, the dam itself will probably survive until the end of the next ice age. That's when a lake the size of Montana eventually bursts through the ice and about half its contents slam into the dam all at once, tearing its top off and chewing apart the rock all around it. There will be enough rubble left over for Lake Mead to partially and permanently reform, at a third its original depth.
Has anybody else ever read this article? That's all I remember from it.
I'm starting to believe that the reason American children are unhealthy fatasses is not videogames or television, but fear. For fear of injury, assault, or lawsuit, parents and teachers won't let children out of their immediately supervised play areas, and all of these are either small or indoors. Mommy won't let junior walk down the street for fear of child molesters. The McMansion's fenced-in back yard is the size of a pool table. The school board won't let junior play outside for fear of injury. Playground equipment is being replaced with smooth-cornered ergonomic junk. Swing sets are gone. See-saws are gone. The low branches of trees are sawed off. Bicycles? In this traffic? Pretty much anything requiring or allowing a child to expend energy is gone.
And it's all because of raving paranoia fuelled by media reports and overzealous politicians. Fifty million children in this country, and if one of them --- a photogenic white one, anyway -- gets killed it makes national news. An Amber Alert goes out in Anaheim and a mother in Topeka decides to drive her kid to get ice cream instead of sending him out on his bicycle.
And the sad thing is I can see myself being the same way around my kids, suckered in by the marketing of fear.
This was in 1993, so be careful about using the present tense. And all that it says about the legal system is that somebody being sued by an obsessive crackpot did the math and decided that paying him $20K to STFU made much more economic sense than fighting it out in court. It was a smart move, actually: The Bar admitted no wrongdoing, and by taking the money the asshat probably signed away his right to pursue any of those points ever again, or even mention them in public. Crackpot silenced.
The full phrase is "the accused is innocent until proven guilty" and the scope is trial in a court. Guilt, not innocence must be established, and all that's required for innocence to be maintained is that guilt not be proved.
This is an unspoken bit: If a trial in the U.S. concludes with a verdict of innocence, the accused can never be retried for the same offense. For example, O.J. Simpson could have walked out of the courthouse and said "I killed her and I'm glad I did it" and never again be tried for her murder (though I must defer on the question of a trial for assault with a deadly weapon).
I believe that in some countries there are three possible verdicts: "guilty", "innocent" and "not proven". "Guilty" and "innocent" conclude the matter, while "not proven" allows the state to try and prove it again.
it's a remarkably difficult problem with a lot of applications (including, methinks, applications to space-station engineering
Due respect, gard, but I'm not worried about whether my space station breaks into two pieces or three and I'm not going to spend much spare time trying to snap space stations in half. Any event such that my station is in N > 1 pieces has produced N - 1 too many pieces.
I think he was basically toying with O'Reilly. But he's run roughshod over a couple of guests. Bill Bennett had his ass handed to him, but he pretty much asked for it. Stewart is a very bright man, quick-witted but generally civil. The occasions when he tears into somebody are rare and an awful lot of fun.
I'd nominate Collateral. I was about twenty minutes into it when I thought, "That's the fist time I've ever seen an actor hold a pistol correctly." About twenty minutes later there's a wonderful demonstration of competent versus showy gun handling. Tom Cruise actually trained with a retired SAS officer for his role, and everything about his character, from the weapons themselves to where his finger is on the trigger, reveals someone very familiar with firearms.
I'd cheerfully claim fair use on any papers already in the system. If the system is designed so that papers can go in, but all that can come out is possible matches, then the system can't be used for improper, copyright-violating purposes.
If they get any legal traction at all, which they won't, I'd suggest that schools explicitly reference Turnitin.com in their student handbook.
And with all this talk of intellectual property, where's the outrage that their work is being plagiarized? Why aren't they getting pissed off that papers are being presented as someone else's original work? In addition to flunking or suspending plagiarists, perhaps schools should inform the original paper's author, so he can get all RIAA on their asses.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the creepiest thing about the AOL letter: that Defendant's account was one of ninety nine IP logs Plaintiff requested. The damned thing goes on for seven pages. All but the Defendant's identity is redacted, but the spacing on the left side makes me think that most of the IP logs were unknown or unavailable. Fishing expedition indeed.
TFA says productivity is up 35% on average in departments that have adopted the open schedule, abusers or no.
Hell, some country like Elbonia could make a small fortune by letting gamers create anonymous little $50/year corporations that "own" all that virtual real estate for them. If Bob Guccione can publish Penthouse out of the Cayman islands, why shouldn't I stable all my virtual race horses there, too?
This sounds like a wonderful excuse for gaming companies relocate relocate their entire operations, servers and all, to Costa Rica.
Resorting to experimental tactics and novel theories is hardly dishonorable when they're the only way to save your case. Look at it this way: You're the coach of a football team that's down 38-zip in the 4th quarter. You can't win, but they won't let you quit. You might as well resort to unorthodox plays with a high risk and high payoff, just on the off chance that even if you can't win, you can at least close the margin a bit. But you don't quit just because you're client's an asshole with a rapidly disintegrating case, who probably misled you from the start.
There will probably be a lot more than just one sentence handed out, when all this is over. Somebody might want to seize Darl's passport, because the SEC will be wanting a Very Meaningful Chat with him about the Lanham Act, not to mention running a pump-and-dump scheme from his own board room.
The question Gingrich is examining is hardly new: It is okay to restrict speech when it's designed to incite violence? If I say to you, "I will give your family ten thousand dollars if you set off a bomb on a city bus," that is not free speech. Why is it free speech if I say it through a website? If an anti-abortion website posts a list of abortion doctors, along with their addresses and photographs of all their family members, and the words "Murder these Murderers" across the top, and there's a phone number at the bottom of the page that will put you in touch with someone who knows how to make letter bombs, is that free speech? What Gingrich is saying is that such a website is not protected by the First Amendment, even if it's accompanied by a religious tirade. And if the religous tirade is used as a recruiting tool for a terrorist organization, it's also on shaky ground, because there's no difference between saying "Kill all the X" and saying "In the name of God, kill all the X."
Incidentally fuck you for saying saying "Muslim" when the GP said "terrorism." Plenty of terrorists have used Christianity to justify their actions, too. Look at Eric Rudolph. Look at the Klan. I suspect a law against saying "We must destroy America in the name of Allah" would apply to one saying "We must bomb abortion clinics in the name of Jesus."
As for Gingrich's other two points, have you noticed that laws restricting how people can spend their money on political campaigns have reduced the quality of political debate in the US? Why does my right to voice political opinions end when I pitch in to buy a TV spot? And when discussing the separation of church and state, "church" means any religion, not just one you're feeling petulant about.
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
It's not uncommon for pages working in Congress to come from a representative's home district. If the page Mark Foley sent explicit IMs to is from Florida, he may be in big trouble, on account of having having used IM to transmit "harmful" material to a Florida minor.
To be honest, I think the GPL actually protects re-users because otherwise copyright would work against them. The Linux kernel, for example, contains the original work of hundreds of individual developers, each of whom has copyright over his code. If you use their code without agreeing to the GPL, well, you're using a lot of copyrighted source code without the authors' permission, aren't you? In fact this is how GPL challenges against companies like Linksys and Cisco have worked:
And that's how it's gone, every single time.Copyright can be use for both good and evil. But copyright protection these days is usually a synonym for profit protection.
It could also be a big loss -- at least, if all the video card vendors are right. They seem to think that by distributing the source to their drivers they'll reveal all their proprietary secrets even though hardware secrets are best protected by patents (unless they're hiding the fact they're already stealing somebody else's patented ideas). Of course, their players in that market are all sophisticated enough to reverse engineer the cards anyway.
It's different if you sell software to support someone else's hardware. Successful open sourcing depends on your license. Under GPL or another "pure" license, your business model shifts from software+support to support only. Of course, you could release the source under tighter terms, maybe even a signed DNA, so that customers get the source and can alter it to their hearts' content, but can only share it with other licensed customers. That way you can create a community but (theoretically) lock out outsiders. That may be a tougher sell, but it's a perfectly normal, decades old business practice that has enriched customers and vendors alike. The source itself is the lure.
For things like telnet traffic, it may be trickier to do this: When your IP stack receives multiple single characters from an application within, say, a fifth of a second, it will put them in a single packet before sending them. This is specifically intended to handle things like SSH and telnet traffic -- there's no sense sending three 55 byte packets over the net when you could send one 57 byte packet, right? But the consequence is that we can no longer do fine-grained timing analysis of keystrokes received over the 'net. Of course, this may make things easier when our wiley hacker types particular strings very fast because they always arrive as a single packet.
Find an interesting Open Source project to attach yourself to. Or think up some project you've always wanted to see done and do it yourself. Many great things have been accomplished by people with a little free time and an itch they just gotta scratch. You may be able to leverage off of, or extend, an existing tool, or find a tool that works like you want and pick it apart to see how it's done.
But I worry that the kinds of jobs you'll be offered at this point will be disgusting, to the point you'll be turned off from any further career. This happened to me with biotech lab work. In high-school I excelled in chemistry and biology, so I landed a job at a snappy little biotech firm that was developing a test for Legionnaire's disease. My job? Weighing toothpicks and putting exactly 20 in each little plastic envelope. And using a pump to put exactly 50ml of solution into little plastic bottles. It was tedious and taxing. The next summer I worked in a car wash, made good tip money and had enough brain left at the end of the day to get a little reading and writing done and enough money at the end of the summer to buy my first PC complete with Turbo Pascal and the Zork Trilogy.
Perhaps an easy compromise would be writing cleartext to the swap partition but overwriting it as part of system shutdown, and writing hibernate memory encrypted. That way you're only in trouble if the laptop is stolen while running.
Preemptive swapping is probably a bad thing in general for laptops -- it keeps the disk spun up and active -- but I think adding encryption would send power consumption through the roof.
Eventually, the dam's power systems would notice nobody was around and close all the penstock gates. But the dam needs power to hold the gates closed, and it's no longer making power. Once external power fails (yes, electricity flows to the dam as well as from) and the battery backups fail, the penstock gates will open about a quarter of the way, and the turbines will start to spin up. But the breakers have all tripped, so there's no electricity coming out of the generators. This is important, because without electric power, you can't lubricate the generators' bearings. So after a while the bearings seize, which is guaranteed to be dramatic.
After the powerhouse destroys itself, the dam itself will probably survive until the end of the next ice age. That's when a lake the size of Montana eventually bursts through the ice and about half its contents slam into the dam all at once, tearing its top off and chewing apart the rock all around it. There will be enough rubble left over for Lake Mead to partially and permanently reform, at a third its original depth.
Has anybody else ever read this article? That's all I remember from it.
I'm starting to believe that the reason American children are unhealthy fatasses is not videogames or television, but fear. For fear of injury, assault, or lawsuit, parents and teachers won't let children out of their immediately supervised play areas, and all of these are either small or indoors. Mommy won't let junior walk down the street for fear of child molesters. The McMansion's fenced-in back yard is the size of a pool table. The school board won't let junior play outside for fear of injury. Playground equipment is being replaced with smooth-cornered ergonomic junk. Swing sets are gone. See-saws are gone. The low branches of trees are sawed off. Bicycles? In this traffic? Pretty much anything requiring or allowing a child to expend energy is gone.
And it's all because of raving paranoia fuelled by media reports and overzealous politicians. Fifty million children in this country, and if one of them --- a photogenic white one, anyway -- gets killed it makes national news. An Amber Alert goes out in Anaheim and a mother in Topeka decides to drive her kid to get ice cream instead of sending him out on his bicycle.
And the sad thing is I can see myself being the same way around my kids, suckered in by the marketing of fear.
Recess, or what's left of it, is rapidly becoming a period where children are permitted to trudge around in a circle once their doctor signs a note.
Anybody wonder why the U.S. is becoming a nation of fatasses?
This was in 1993, so be careful about using the present tense. And all that it says about the legal system is that somebody being sued by an obsessive crackpot did the math and decided that paying him $20K to STFU made much more economic sense than fighting it out in court. It was a smart move, actually: The Bar admitted no wrongdoing, and by taking the money the asshat probably signed away his right to pursue any of those points ever again, or even mention them in public. Crackpot silenced.
This is an unspoken bit: If a trial in the U.S. concludes with a verdict of innocence, the accused can never be retried for the same offense. For example, O.J. Simpson could have walked out of the courthouse and said "I killed her and I'm glad I did it" and never again be tried for her murder (though I must defer on the question of a trial for assault with a deadly weapon).
I believe that in some countries there are three possible verdicts: "guilty", "innocent" and "not proven". "Guilty" and "innocent" conclude the matter, while "not proven" allows the state to try and prove it again.
It's somewhat more accurate to compare them to the Taliban than Al Qaeda, trolling or no.
I think he was basically toying with O'Reilly. But he's run roughshod over a couple of guests. Bill Bennett had his ass handed to him, but he pretty much asked for it. Stewart is a very bright man, quick-witted but generally civil. The occasions when he tears into somebody are rare and an awful lot of fun.
I'd nominate Collateral. I was about twenty minutes into it when I thought, "That's the fist time I've ever seen an actor hold a pistol correctly." About twenty minutes later there's a wonderful demonstration of competent versus showy gun handling. Tom Cruise actually trained with a retired SAS officer for his role, and everything about his character, from the weapons themselves to where his finger is on the trigger, reveals someone very familiar with firearms.
If they get any legal traction at all, which they won't, I'd suggest that schools explicitly reference Turnitin.com in their student handbook.
And with all this talk of intellectual property, where's the outrage that their work is being plagiarized? Why aren't they getting pissed off that papers are being presented as someone else's original work? In addition to flunking or suspending plagiarists, perhaps schools should inform the original paper's author, so he can get all RIAA on their asses.