The parent post is almost exactly what I was going to say, but here are a few things I'd like to add:
If you want better advice on your legal rights talk to the Citizen's Advice Bureau and read a consumer law book rather than relying on/. It is probably not worth getting a lawyer for something minor like this, though, unless you have money to burn.
Before looking at the small claims court or sending lots of letters, I would first talk to Trading Standards and see if they are willing to go round to the shop for a chat, or maybe just try again when there are different staff there if you are nearby. Although I doubt Trading Standards would prosecute over an isolated incident like this, they still carry a lot of weight.
If you don't get any luck make sure you've sent everything to them in writing recorded delivery and given them ample time to respond, then take them to small claims court. IANAL, but it seems a pretty straightforward case to me. AFAICC, their possible defences seem to be that 5 months is a reasonable expected lifetime for a laptop or that you've voided your statutory guarantee as installing a new OS is outside of the things one could reasonably expect to do with a laptop (which would only really work if the OS could somehow cause the fault anyway). In other words, I don't see any sane magistrate letting them off.
Also, next time buy from somewhere that has heard of customer service (i.e.: not PC World). Why do you think no professionals will touch them?
Oh...right...ye I guess that is quite newsworthy. At least the US government seem to think so, as they've rolled out their Director of National Intelligence (no less) to tell everyone about it. Am I the only one who finds that a little disturbing?
Don't spoil their fun. It is very simple...it is about France making the US think that France are successfully been made to think by the US that the US think that France think that the US think that France hasn't got the technology to find satellites. Or something like that.
Look the Pentagon have a budget of half a trillion dollars and not many wars on ATM. They're bored and want to play mind games with the French by pretending they think they can hide their satellites by not putting them in some database and the French want the US to think they've fallen for the mind games.
Miguel has been fascinated with Microsoft since long before he started writing Gnome
I notice in his Wikipedia article (which he apparently bemoans on the talk page) that he applied to work for MS on MSIE all the way back in 1997, although he says he tried to persuade his interviewers to liberate the code, so I guess one cannot hold that against him. There's nothing wrong with being MS-friendly. His being so anti-software-freedom is a problem though since the FSF gave him the 1999 Award for the Advancement of Free Software. Can they withdraw that or something?
I probably shouldn't feed the troll (de Icaza) but...what really shocks me about that exchange is not his extreme views, but his childishness, how transparent his trolling is and his inability to hold an argument. I love the way he attacks those who reply by suggesting their English isn't very good (when it is perfect) instead of addressing their concerns when his English is hardly perfect.
I've just read a chapter on accessio (Wikipedia link) in a book I have. That is the principle (originally of Roman law) by which the owner of a greater thing (e.g.: a car) can derive possession and possible ownership of a smaller thing (e.g.: a tracking device) that has been attached to that greater thing. This would occur if a house (lesser) was built on a piece of land (greater), or something was written on, painted or stuck to another object such as a parchment, statue, garment or building. Note that the owner of the less thing doesn't even need to have attached it themselves for their property to fall under this rule. IANAL, but going by the examples that I've seen this seems to be just the kind of situation this rule was designed for.
(BTW, I'm talking about principles of Roman law that have been copied into the law of many modern jurisdictions--I don't know anything specifically about NZ law.) What is interesting is that, though the owner of the greater work usually has to indemnify/compensate the owner of the lesser work for their contribution, this is not the case if the owner of the lesser work was acting maliciously or in bad faith against the owner of the greater work (which would seem to be the case here).
There is also a principle called usucapio or usucaption (Wikipedia link) by which physical possession of a chattel eventually leads to the ownership being transferred to the possessor after a certain time (a year in Roman law). This originally applied to all property, but in many modern jurisdictions principally only applies to movable property (e.g.: cars).
In summary, I'd suggest the police really need to consult a lawyer before getting themselves any deeper.
Also, I found this interesting blog entry on this case that alleges this is part of a dispute over access to his children with his ex-wife in which the police are taking his ex-wife's side.
At risk of stating the obvious, the parent is not public domain. It is a fair use excerpt from the Dead Parrot Sketch which was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is copyright (1989) Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc.
Why don't they just let it go instead of digging a deeper hole for themselves by arresting him and lying. This is almost as bad as the recent incident of the under-not-so-good-cover police agents provocateuse with the rocks trying to start a riot in Montebello, Quebec.
As stated in the article, he asked the police officer whose mobile phone device was contacting if the police had left their property on his car. When they denied they were theirs, he concluded they were fair game to sell as they were on his property. I think the judge might take a dim view of this.
'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
In general, in common law jurisdictions, I think if someone leaves there property on your land (which is a similar sutuation), it is still owned by them. You are supposed to try to return it or, at least, keep it for so many years in case they ask for it back.
Assuming the police are responsible though, and they aren't admitting it is theirs, I'd imagine it is fair game. They can hardly complain about him selling their property if they deny it belongs to them.
They can't be retaining copyrights (note the spelling) as they didn't hold them in the first place. This is more like forcing authors to give up their copyright (what one might consider to be, at least morally, copyright theft--I know, I know, how dare I use that phrase correctly on a sensationalist site like/.). This is another reason for not making copyright transferable. (Sure...you can give someone a lease on your copyright until it runs out, but the implications of what you were doing would be much clearer, you would still be attributed and you could still take a decision to sue infringers yourself).
The only good thing that could happen there would be for it to return to being habitat for desert tortoises.
Bringing this back on topic, unfortunately, many tortoise species (including I think that one) are close to extinction, and studies have suggested this is due in part to light pollution (which seems to affect them a lot more than most animals).
but I also have a bb gun and sometimes it's tempting to turn that light off the country way.
The more pacifistic, karmic solution to your problem is to erect a large mirror on your property that reflects his "security" light back into his own windows. See how long it takes him to fix it then.
More practically, you could also try just talking to him and explaining how he is wasting his money on lighting your property rather than his own, so could he adjust his light. If that doesn't work, look into local (e.g.: planning) bylaws or ordinances against badly directed/shielded lighting. If you're feeling like burning money on lawyers, you could, of course, see whether you could file some kind of civil nuisance or light trespass suit against him in your jurisdiction.
I can sort of see where you are coming from but none of the definitions I can find of pollution imply the contamination must be permanent. Also, people have referred to "light pollution" and "noise pollution" for several decades now and these terms are themselves in many dictionaries. Anyway, I guess you could argue that air pollution and water pollution aren't permanent either because they eventually get dispersed or moved by moving water/air currents.
Exactly; it took me a while to twig the connection between wind farms and light pollution. They don't seem to floodlight them over here in the UK anymore. If they are off-shore obviously limited marker lighting is needed to warn approaching ships though (and in some places the same might be true of planes), but that is all.
I'd suggest you should ask why the lighting is necessary when any applications are made for wind farms and check whether there are local ordinances banning such excessive lighting or any could be introduced. It seems pretty bizarre for a renewable energy generation project waste electricity on lighting it. I guess, it could be for cameras (that they may use to check why a turbine isn't working). But that is a pretty weak argument as they could wait until daylight or turn the lighting on remotely when needed. In practice, they are going to have to go out there to fix the problem in person anyway.
It's 2007. Are there really still people (male or female BTW--you're the one turning this into a sexist issue) out there who are taken in by this myth propagated by the badly-designed lighting industry and a few lazy law enforcement officers (who want to make up spurious reasons they are making the place safer)? I guess so.
As you said, it is just them "feeling safer" (probably due to brain washing). All the remotely independent scientific studies (as in all of them except a few entirely funded by manufacturers of bad lighting who told the researchers what result to come up with) point to the fact that excess lighting does not decrease crime. (I'm not listing them all here; you'll just say I'm being selective. Try googling "lighting crime study" or similar.) Many studies suggest it actually increases night-time crime. (Here are a few reasons why that might be that I can think of. Criminals needing light to work and carrying a torch is a bit suspicious. Lighting up something increases the risk of it being noticed by a thief and stolen or burgled. The big one is, of course, glare. Security and other bright badly directed lighting of the sort that create sky glow and that you are advocating create glare which act to help someone like a thief who is directly under the light see what they are doing but hide their presence from anyone further away as well as temporarily blinding onlookers sometimes for minutes. Once the thief moves out of the light, onlookers cannot see them because of the shadows created by such lighting.)
Talking about safety in a more general sense than the stereotypical propaganda tool of the "terroristic" bad guy who wants to do bad stuff to the local women [Quick tip: next time you use this as a straw man, don't forget the children too...think of the children...they work even better] to which you seem to be vaguely alluding and who is actually very rare in reality, misdirected over-illumination of the sort you are implicitly advocating is linked to many road deaths (mainly due to glare) and other accidents. (This is mainly an issue with drivers being affected by the glare, but I recently experienced this as a pedestrian when walking at night near a large badly lit motorway and couldn't see were I was going at all because of glare.) It has also been linked to cancer through a reduction in melatonin levels and the exacerbation of many visual impairments, and I'm sure if you are been kept awake all night or temporarily blinded by light trespass onto your home it can be pretty stressful too.
I am obviously not against road (or any other) lighting when it is shining on the road or wherever it is supposed to actually go, but I fail to understand why anyone would actually advocate excessive mis-directed lighting that wastes energy and blots out the stars. Well...I did find a Christian fundamentalist religious minister who believed in the power of light and advocated excessive lighting. Unfortunately the relevant articles are no longer available on his web page but they were a good laugh.
Just in case you say they can only trace the cab at the moment, not the passenger (at least if you cover up your face both ends). No; if the NSA wanted to, with a bit of effort, they could probably match up the transcript of your mobile phone calls* with the taxi ride or match the serial numbers of the cash you payed with to your bank account.
Ye. I know they claim they only record and transcribe domestic calls if you are speaking on an international call to someone they suspect has links to a terrorist organisation (whatever that's supposed to mean--basically "someone they suspect has links to an organisation"), but do you really believe that. Anyway, just your call log might tell them enough. Also, some people claim that domestic mobile calls are routed through satellites and that leaving the Earth's atmosphere makes them international, so technically the NSA aren't lying.
I really think you are barking up the wrong tree with this. For a start they say the data isn't recorded if the passenger chooses for it not to be (there's a computer in the back showing the route where the passenger can choose this option) and it is only recorded so the customer can find out where they went when and on what cab (e.g.: to recover lost property). However, how do you know the NSA haven't put their own GPS devices in all vehicles already. Not that they'd need to do since they have cameras on every street corner with number plate and face recognition technology as well as vehicle tracking by recon satellites.
I don't see the fact that the NSA might get hold of data from technology a reason not to use that technology (computers, cars or GPS in taxis) per se. I'm not in the US, but the logical answer would be for you to hold your government to account by forcing them to tell the public how many of your tax dollars are used by the NSA for domestic spying, what data the NSA collect or retain on US citizens and the purpose of any such data collection or retention. As I understand it, the majority of your fellow citizens don't give a dingos kidney about their privacy as long as they get 24-hour TV and the US government still officially denies that the NSA does any domestic spying, so I wish you luck.
If you RTFA, you'll see that they aren't actually been watched by a company but by the government (who will watch all taxi drivers in the city). Specifically, they are being watched by the Taxi and Limousine Commission, the watchdog who license taxis and ensure they don't defraud/mug/&c customers. Not that I have a problem with that if they only do it when they have passengers and the passengers can turn it off (as the article states they will be able to).
They aren't actually been watched by their employer but the government (not that you aren't also been watched by the government of course--HI ECHELON!). Specifically, they are being watched by the Taxi and Limousine Commission, the watchdog who license taxis and ensure they don't defraud/mug/&c customers.
When the insurance companies force their customers to put GPS devices in their own personal vehicles, no one is up in arms, but put them in cabs and there's a strike.
Even though TFA is a bit vague, AFAICC, the GPS transmitter only works when they have a passenger and the passenger wants it to be on. If this is the case, this is a really pathetic excuse for a strike. Maybe the are worried the Commission will take away their licenses for using circuitous routes to defraud customers or something.
Instead of coding open source projects, now we're coding projects to detect license violations. Well one person has as part of some academic research. You see, the beauty of FLOSS development is everyone can code what they enjoy coding, and that you don't have to help anyone but can instead do something you prefer.
I won't even bother addressing your incoherent comment about the Secret Service, but would be interested in what you are smoking.
When is the last time we read anything about open source that wasn't about licensing? In around 95% of stories about it. For instance the last FLOSS story on here was about a new release of WINE and the one before that about possible moral issues in working with Iranians on a UAV project. You see, the beauty of/. is that when you see licensing in the title of a story, you don't have to comment on the story about how boring licensing is but can instead read or comment on something you are interested in.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent post is almost exactly what I was going to say, but here are a few things I'd like to add:
If you want better advice on your legal rights talk to the Citizen's Advice Bureau and read a consumer law book rather than relying on /. It is probably not worth getting a lawyer for something minor like this, though, unless you have money to burn.
Before looking at the small claims court or sending lots of letters, I would first talk to Trading Standards and see if they are willing to go round to the shop for a chat, or maybe just try again when there are different staff there if you are nearby. Although I doubt Trading Standards would prosecute over an isolated incident like this, they still carry a lot of weight.
If you don't get any luck make sure you've sent everything to them in writing recorded delivery and given them ample time to respond, then take them to small claims court. IANAL, but it seems a pretty straightforward case to me. AFAICC, their possible defences seem to be that 5 months is a reasonable expected lifetime for a laptop or that you've voided your statutory guarantee as installing a new OS is outside of the things one could reasonably expect to do with a laptop (which would only really work if the OS could somehow cause the fault anyway). In other words, I don't see any sane magistrate letting them off.
Also, next time buy from somewhere that has heard of customer service (i.e.: not PC World). Why do you think no professionals will touch them?
Ye...obviously...the attachment does need to be done someone who is in lawful possession of the chattel even if not necessarily the owner.
Hows is this news? OMFG! NSA taps bad guy.
Oh...right...ye I guess that is quite newsworthy. At least the US government seem to think so, as they've rolled out their Director of National Intelligence (no less) to tell everyone about it. Am I the only one who finds that a little disturbing?
That's good because I thought it must have been deja vu as /. Search turned up nothing.
Look the Pentagon have a budget of half a trillion dollars and not many wars on ATM. They're bored and want to play mind games with the French by pretending they think they can hide their satellites by not putting them in some database and the French want the US to think they've fallen for the mind games.
If they were Chinese why would the US be denying they existed?
I notice in his Wikipedia article (which he apparently bemoans on the talk page) that he applied to work for MS on MSIE all the way back in 1997, although he says he tried to persuade his interviewers to liberate the code, so I guess one cannot hold that against him. There's nothing wrong with being MS-friendly. His being so anti-software-freedom is a problem though since the FSF gave him the 1999 Award for the Advancement of Free Software. Can they withdraw that or something?
I probably shouldn't feed the troll (de Icaza) but...what really shocks me about that exchange is not his extreme views, but his childishness, how transparent his trolling is and his inability to hold an argument. I love the way he attacks those who reply by suggesting their English isn't very good (when it is perfect) instead of addressing their concerns when his English is hardly perfect.
I've just read a chapter on accessio (Wikipedia link) in a book I have. That is the principle (originally of Roman law) by which the owner of a greater thing (e.g.: a car) can derive possession and possible ownership of a smaller thing (e.g.: a tracking device) that has been attached to that greater thing. This would occur if a house (lesser) was built on a piece of land (greater), or something was written on, painted or stuck to another object such as a parchment, statue, garment or building. Note that the owner of the less thing doesn't even need to have attached it themselves for their property to fall under this rule. IANAL, but going by the examples that I've seen this seems to be just the kind of situation this rule was designed for.
(BTW, I'm talking about principles of Roman law that have been copied into the law of many modern jurisdictions--I don't know anything specifically about NZ law.) What is interesting is that, though the owner of the greater work usually has to indemnify/compensate the owner of the lesser work for their contribution, this is not the case if the owner of the lesser work was acting maliciously or in bad faith against the owner of the greater work (which would seem to be the case here).
There is also a principle called usucapio or usucaption (Wikipedia link) by which physical possession of a chattel eventually leads to the ownership being transferred to the possessor after a certain time (a year in Roman law). This originally applied to all property, but in many modern jurisdictions principally only applies to movable property (e.g.: cars).
In summary, I'd suggest the police really need to consult a lawyer before getting themselves any deeper.
Also, I found this interesting blog entry on this case that alleges this is part of a dispute over access to his children with his ex-wife in which the police are taking his ex-wife's side.
At risk of stating the obvious, the parent is not public domain. It is a fair use excerpt from the Dead Parrot Sketch which was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is copyright (1989) Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc.
Why don't they just let it go instead of digging a deeper hole for themselves by arresting him and lying. This is almost as bad as the recent incident of the under-not-so-good-cover police agents provocateuse with the rocks trying to start a riot in Montebello, Quebec.
As stated in the article, he asked the police officer whose mobile phone device was contacting if the police had left their property on his car. When they denied they were theirs, he concluded they were fair game to sell as they were on his property. I think the judge might take a dim view of this.
Or try the high voltage Destruct-a-tron.
This image shows what it does to a HDD platter. There is also a page with HDD platter warping movies. Enjoy.
'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
Assuming the police are responsible though, and they aren't admitting it is theirs, I'd imagine it is fair game. They can hardly complain about him selling their property if they deny it belongs to them.
The more pacifistic, karmic solution to your problem is to erect a large mirror on your property that reflects his "security" light back into his own windows. See how long it takes him to fix it then.
More practically, you could also try just talking to him and explaining how he is wasting his money on lighting your property rather than his own, so could he adjust his light. If that doesn't work, look into local (e.g.: planning) bylaws or ordinances against badly directed/shielded lighting. If you're feeling like burning money on lawyers, you could, of course, see whether you could file some kind of civil nuisance or light trespass suit against him in your jurisdiction.
I can sort of see where you are coming from but none of the definitions I can find of pollution imply the contamination must be permanent. Also, people have referred to "light pollution" and "noise pollution" for several decades now and these terms are themselves in many dictionaries. Anyway, I guess you could argue that air pollution and water pollution aren't permanent either because they eventually get dispersed or moved by moving water/air currents.
Exactly; it took me a while to twig the connection between wind farms and light pollution. They don't seem to floodlight them over here in the UK anymore. If they are off-shore obviously limited marker lighting is needed to warn approaching ships though (and in some places the same might be true of planes), but that is all.
I'd suggest you should ask why the lighting is necessary when any applications are made for wind farms and check whether there are local ordinances banning such excessive lighting or any could be introduced. It seems pretty bizarre for a renewable energy generation project waste electricity on lighting it. I guess, it could be for cameras (that they may use to check why a turbine isn't working). But that is a pretty weak argument as they could wait until daylight or turn the lighting on remotely when needed. In practice, they are going to have to go out there to fix the problem in person anyway.
It's 2007. Are there really still people (male or female BTW--you're the one turning this into a sexist issue) out there who are taken in by this myth propagated by the badly-designed lighting industry and a few lazy law enforcement officers (who want to make up spurious reasons they are making the place safer)? I guess so.
As you said, it is just them "feeling safer" (probably due to brain washing). All the remotely independent scientific studies (as in all of them except a few entirely funded by manufacturers of bad lighting who told the researchers what result to come up with) point to the fact that excess lighting does not decrease crime. (I'm not listing them all here; you'll just say I'm being selective. Try googling "lighting crime study" or similar.) Many studies suggest it actually increases night-time crime. (Here are a few reasons why that might be that I can think of. Criminals needing light to work and carrying a torch is a bit suspicious. Lighting up something increases the risk of it being noticed by a thief and stolen or burgled. The big one is, of course, glare. Security and other bright badly directed lighting of the sort that create sky glow and that you are advocating create glare which act to help someone like a thief who is directly under the light see what they are doing but hide their presence from anyone further away as well as temporarily blinding onlookers sometimes for minutes. Once the thief moves out of the light, onlookers cannot see them because of the shadows created by such lighting.)
Talking about safety in a more general sense than the stereotypical propaganda tool of the "terroristic" bad guy who wants to do bad stuff to the local women [Quick tip: next time you use this as a straw man, don't forget the children too...think of the children...they work even better] to which you seem to be vaguely alluding and who is actually very rare in reality, misdirected over-illumination of the sort you are implicitly advocating is linked to many road deaths (mainly due to glare) and other accidents. (This is mainly an issue with drivers being affected by the glare, but I recently experienced this as a pedestrian when walking at night near a large badly lit motorway and couldn't see were I was going at all because of glare.) It has also been linked to cancer through a reduction in melatonin levels and the exacerbation of many visual impairments, and I'm sure if you are been kept awake all night or temporarily blinded by light trespass onto your home it can be pretty stressful too.
I am obviously not against road (or any other) lighting when it is shining on the road or wherever it is supposed to actually go, but I fail to understand why anyone would actually advocate excessive mis-directed lighting that wastes energy and blots out the stars. Well...I did find a Christian fundamentalist religious minister who believed in the power of light and advocated excessive lighting. Unfortunately the relevant articles are no longer available on his web page but they were a good laugh.
Just in case you say they can only trace the cab at the moment, not the passenger (at least if you cover up your face both ends). No; if the NSA wanted to, with a bit of effort, they could probably match up the transcript of your mobile phone calls* with the taxi ride or match the serial numbers of the cash you payed with to your bank account.
Ye. I know they claim they only record and transcribe domestic calls if you are speaking on an international call to someone they suspect has links to a terrorist organisation (whatever that's supposed to mean--basically "someone they suspect has links to an organisation"), but do you really believe that. Anyway, just your call log might tell them enough. Also, some people claim that domestic mobile calls are routed through satellites and that leaving the Earth's atmosphere makes them international, so technically the NSA aren't lying.
I really think you are barking up the wrong tree with this. For a start they say the data isn't recorded if the passenger chooses for it not to be (there's a computer in the back showing the route where the passenger can choose this option) and it is only recorded so the customer can find out where they went when and on what cab (e.g.: to recover lost property). However, how do you know the NSA haven't put their own GPS devices in all vehicles already. Not that they'd need to do since they have cameras on every street corner with number plate and face recognition technology as well as vehicle tracking by recon satellites.
I don't see the fact that the NSA might get hold of data from technology a reason not to use that technology (computers, cars or GPS in taxis) per se. I'm not in the US, but the logical answer would be for you to hold your government to account by forcing them to tell the public how many of your tax dollars are used by the NSA for domestic spying, what data the NSA collect or retain on US citizens and the purpose of any such data collection or retention. As I understand it, the majority of your fellow citizens don't give a dingos kidney about their privacy as long as they get 24-hour TV and the US government still officially denies that the NSA does any domestic spying, so I wish you luck.
If you RTFA, you'll see that they aren't actually been watched by a company but by the government (who will watch all taxi drivers in the city). Specifically, they are being watched by the Taxi and Limousine Commission, the watchdog who license taxis and ensure they don't defraud/mug/&c customers. Not that I have a problem with that if they only do it when they have passengers and the passengers can turn it off (as the article states they will be able to).
They aren't actually been watched by their employer but the government (not that you aren't also been watched by the government of course--HI ECHELON!). Specifically, they are being watched by the Taxi and Limousine Commission, the watchdog who license taxis and ensure they don't defraud/mug/&c customers.
When the insurance companies force their customers to put GPS devices in their own personal vehicles, no one is up in arms, but put them in cabs and there's a strike.
Even though TFA is a bit vague, AFAICC, the GPS transmitter only works when they have a passenger and the passenger wants it to be on. If this is the case, this is a really pathetic excuse for a strike. Maybe the are worried the Commission will take away their licenses for using circuitous routes to defraud customers or something.
I won't even bother addressing your incoherent comment about the Secret Service, but would be interested in what you are smoking.
When is the last time we read anything about open source that wasn't about licensing? In around 95% of stories about it. For instance the last FLOSS story on here was about a new release of WINE and the one before that about possible moral issues in working with Iranians on a UAV project. You see, the beauty of