$39.99? A friend of mine got a cellphone a while ago, asked if it could be linked with a laptop and used as a modem. The person said yes, there is a cable for a few dollars that lets you do that. Now, a few months later she's going away for a while, went to go get this cable for a few dollars. Turns it it actually costs $175 and is just a fucking serial cable without any fancy electronics or converters. $175 for a straight serial cable. Can't get a third party one, either. The shape of the connector is patented.
Yeah, my VCR broke and I tried to buy a new one. I tried Best Buy, Zellers, Future Shop. Each only carried one model, it was all the same model. I had to buy that one, and it saddens me. Its oldschool, it won't record the shows you have scheduled to tape unless you turn the power off and press the "Activate Timer" button. Damn, my parents ancient BETACORD from the 70s works the same way...
Incorrect. In many states, such as Illinois, if a defendant in a civil case dies, the plantif has 90 days to substitute a personal representative. In other words, if you are suing person X because he called you a mean name, and he dies, you have 90 days to file an order to substitute his next of kin or even his lawyer (whoever has taken control of his estate) and sue them instead.
As far as invoking the Patriot Act is concerned, if they invoked that to check up on a job interviewee, it's pretty piss-poor operational security to tell a someone to their face that they're a terrorism suspect -- and if the person involved is not suspected terrorist, it's misuse of the Patriot Act -- isn't that a serious offence?
A serious offense? What? Why? The government promises that the Patriot Act will be and has been used ONLY against terrorists. But...its not a clause anywhere, nowhere are any of the many powers it grants restricted only to "terrorists." In other words, the government lied about the new powers they gave themselves and nobody actually read it. Business as usual.
You are right, they are pure datafiles which arn't executed. They are HTML datafiles through and they are automatically and immediatly rendered via Internet Explorer in the dialog box (It goes and uses the explorer engine, so installing a different browser won't change a thing) So technically the exploit is an IE exploit. If IE was immune to lovely active X and java and javascript and buffer overflowing JPEGs then the DRM would be secure too. But its not. Incredibly stupid design decision? Yes. But thats how their mail client works too with HTML formated messages. Only difference is in Outlook if you look, you can disable HTML messages;) Incredibly stupid is par for the course.
Yes, but that is based on distance of destination, not specific address. Imagine you pay $20 for overnight. 5 days later it hasn't arrived. The reason it hasn't arrived? The business you are sending it to hasn't paid that $100,000 / month priority delivery fee.
You can't trust anything conducted by the media. After all, they have a proven track record of backing the government no matter what, Orwellising headlines and quotations, presenting news pieces as though the person talking was actually their own employee, not a government/corporate employee, or just plain ignoring stories. And firing employees who refuse to report the exact oposite of what they found in their research....Maybe it was a valid poll. But I personally would never believe a single word printed/voiced by CNN ABC NBC FOX, the Washington Post, or New York Times. Ever. They've all been caught lying and forging and misrepresenting too many times.
You're knowledge is out of date. In 2005, a US citizen was charged with a plot to assassinate George W. Bush. The SOLE piece of evidence against him other than the fact that he has brown skin, is the fact that he signed a confession that the government had written up for him after they tortured him for a while. In October of 2005, that confession was ruled admissable by a federal judge. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was sentanced to 30 years in prison for admitting that he had fantasized about shooting George W. Bush. He never discussed it with anybody, he never put his "plan" into motion. But while being tortured, he admitted that he wanted to.
Whoever told you this was incorrect, lying, or talking about a different mod. While this is entierly possible to do as far as I know, it would result in horribly deformed texture mapping. However, there is a texture pack included called "femaleupperbodynude.nif" that differs from the default one ("femaleupperbody.nif") in that this one is topless.
Incorrect. The mod replaces a file named "femaleupperbody.nif", with a file that was also included, named "femaleupperbodynude.nif".
You cannot try to argue that "femaleupperbodynude.nif" is their texture set for their male characters. It clearly is for females, and clearly differs from the default file in that this one is NUDE. And there is no horrible wrapping resulting in things being in the wrong places, they match up perfectly because they are the female textures INTENDED for this purpose.
Oh, also add that a few states have tossed out the partisan owned, private, secret, hackable voting blackboxes as illegal voting devices, but most states still allow them with 0 oversight and with specific laws preventing citizins from making sure votes are being tallied properly, or even at all. Dems and Republicans may not be too different, but who cares if you vote for them by pushing a button, and its top secret classified information how that vote is counted. And of COURSE you can't see how its counted, and verify the numbers, you filthy hippy, don't you trust Diebold Inc. to count it for you? We can't let you see because its a Trade Secret.
In Alaska, for example, the vote tallies, which are suppoed to be verifiable by ANY citizin who cares to make sure its a fair election, are classified. State secret, vital to state security. I think that bares repeating, don't you? In Alaska, they refused to release voting records, which they are required by law to do, because they have been classified for reasons of national security. Isn't that fasinating? Should we brainstorm on why vote tallies are a threat to national security?
Terrorists would see which counties were close, and go on a Republican killing spree to skew the 2008 presidential election and get a Dem into the Whitehouse. (Sounds reasonable. After all, OBL officially endorsed Kerry from beyond the grave, so clearly Al Quada supports the Democrats...)
The Chinese encoded attack orders in the parity of the number of votes in certain counties within Alaska. If these numbers are released, this information will reach the communist chinese who will attack in droves. Without this information from their spies, the Chinese government will be unsure of weaknesses and will hold off their attack.
The classified diebold files show clear signs of vote tampering. Even though this vote tampering didn't affect the results, people would still be irrationally angry and might riot and then we'd have to send in the troops to slaugher them all. That's not good so for their own protection they must never know that the vote was rigged, even though the rigging didn't change anything.
The Diebold files were not tampered with, but a simple analysis shows how they can easily be tampered with while leaving no trace whatsoever. With this knowledge out, people could easily create millions of fake votes per county, and the Government would either have to throw out the machines and use something unhackable (Which would be bad because then they wasted all that money on those machines, and if there's one thing the government doesn't do, its waste millions of dollers stupidly), or just accept that Natalie Portman won the 2008 election with 230,300,340,321 votes, bareley edging out Chuck Norris by a scant 3 billion votes.
Personally, I think its #2, but feel free to make your own choice;)
A biological process can be patented. A gene can be patented, even if it occurs naturally. A corporation can look at your DNA, say "Hey, that's a neat gene, it might help cure cancer one day", and patent it. That way, if anybody ever discovers some medical cure based on that gene, or the protein it encodes, they can wait 5-6 years, then sue them for 125% of their profits for patent infringement.
The good news is that biological patents are granted special exceptions. A living being cannot be charged for infrigement of a patent that it violates naturally. So you can still breath if they patent breathing, and you can still grow new cells if they patent your DNA. Yay!
There is a widely discussed problem called electrosensitivity, or ES. Thousands of people suffer from it. However, searching the internet, I can find no articles on it other than conspiracy sites that claim that millions of people are affected, and the government and medical industries keep it secret because they love their cellphones. In fact, while these website site all of these journal papers and conferences on the subject, there references appear to be completely fabricated to make them seem plausable. The only actual scientific articles have asserted that such a syndrome does not exist. Several groups in the UK and the USA have conducted double blind tests in which sufferers are secretly exposed to EMR of frequencies like that they claim cause their symptoms (Monitors, cell phones, etc), and they did not react. On the other hand, when exposed to a radio device they are told is active, but which is nothing more than a box with a light, they react immediatly. These studies are dismissed by the ES campaign groups, who declare they are secretly funded by the cellphone companies. Some even declare that all scientiests are against them because scientists love computers and other electronic gadgets, and all scientists will forever bury the mounds of evidence.
They don't have profits. Every movie ever made in all of history has been a monumental flop from an accounting point of view. The trick is, if you are making a movie, to give yourself a huge salary after the fact. Then, after paying yourself, your movie at a loss, and you don't have to pay backeres their share of the profits, which there arn't any. After that, you apply to the government for debt relief and they pay you even more money. Sir Allec Guiness, for example, was never paid for his role in Star Wars, because his contraact specified a share of the profits. Since Star Wars was a huge flop and lost millions, he got nothing. He was pretty cheesed about it, too.
It also includes a really grainy picture of what could be a 757. The picture doesn't show it is a plane, it only shows that it could be one, contrary to conspiracy theorists claims that its too small.
On the subject of conspiracy theories, another good one is the theory that the "no plane at the pentagon" and the "pods on planes in NYC" are actually on government controlled websites to descredit the more moderate theories. You'll notice that whenever anybody asks a question like "Why did the president say that he saw footage of the first WTC impact on the school television before entering the classroom, when in fact there was no television and that footage was not discovered and aired until long after" or "Why were escorts not ordered when contact was lost with the pilots, as is standard practice as can be seen in other instances where contact was lost? Was an order issued to disregard procedure? Was it a simple mistake?", or "Why was it stated that the intercepting pilots were not authorized to shoot down, and that only the VP or president can issue the order, when in fact standard orders authorize pilots to shoot down hijacked planes that may pose a threat at their discression or the discression of their superiors?", that instead of answering the questions, the person giving the press conference, or giving the interview, or whatever, will simple say "Hahahaha, you're one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks there were no planes, that the planes were crashed into the ocean and then missiles hit the pentagon!" and then everybody laughs and there is no answer. This evasion is what gives this theory its momentum.
I have seen claims that several of these conspiracy websites that say there were no planes, have domains registered to PR companies employed by the Whitehouse and/or the Republican party. They then say that shortly after this was noticed all of the DNS entry was blanked (Which is illegal isn't it?) This sounds really solid until you realise how easy it is to fake a screenshot of the DNS entry before it was Orwellised. I could quite easily post a link to a conspiracy website that doesn't exsist, with a claim that the DNS entry is registered to an employee of some subsidiary of Manchurian Global or whoever, and lists their work phone#, easily verifiable using their employee list on their own website. Then a few hours later when people say that's not true, and the website doesn't exist, and there is no such domain, I'd say "God damnit, you didn't look fast enough, it was there, they must have agent on/. who saw their cover blown and deleted the DNS entry." Then maybe I'd get a few sockpuppet accounts and/or AC posting to say "Yeah, I saw it right before Homeland Security took it down!" Boom, instant proof! Why would I lie, and why would these other people back me up? Lesson: Be very hesitant to accept a claim that some website said something, then the government erased it, no matter how many "different" people back the OP up. I have, however, seen proof via google cash that a news website ran an article that they then deleted, so its not all faked;)
At any rate, there are many explanations for why the tapes havn't been made public.
There was no plane, and thus, no footage to release. Also the 80+ eye witnesses were paid off/threatened by the government to say they saw a plane. Also the police and fire departments were paid off to claim to have seen plane wreckage. Also all the pictures they took were faked using prop wreckage brought in for the purpose. (I know you didn't claim any of this, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but all of these things are required in order to fit the evidence with the theory.)
Option A: They are just testing the sensor network, not the accuracy of the sensors. They don't really care about false positives, given that airport bomb sensors are routinly set off by new electronics and perfumes.
Option B: Testing the sensor network is how the evil NSA has convinced ignorant higher ups to let them hire arabs to smuggle "fake" bombs in to "test" the sensor network, when in reality these backpacks actually ARE filled with explosives, as well as Iranian passports. Bush then uses the permission he has already been granted by the Senate to nuke Iran, Russia follows through on its promise to attack any country that attacks Iran, and everybody on earth dies in a huge nuclear war, except Australia.
Believe whatever option you want. They're both fine choices;)
The prosecutor noted that the statute defines "child sexually abusive material" as including any reproduction, copy, or print of a photograph depicting a child engaged in a sexual act.
Basically you are calling people illiterate for reading the article, something you clearly have not done, and are arguing about dictionary definitions, rather than about the legal definitions of the specific law in question. If you remove that specific law from the argument...then the entire argument is moot because out of that context, the words do indeed have different definitions. But too bad, the specific law clearly states that creating child porn includes making copies or reproductions of it. You can argue that copying files to a CD is not, in fact, creating a copy of those files. In fact, go right ahead. But because "child sexually abusive materials" are define to include copies, prints, and reproductions of said materials, if he created a copy of them, he did, in the context of this law, create "child sexually abusive materials". You are correct that if I copied an episode of friends to a VCD so I can watch it on my DVD player, you wouldn't say that I produced an episode of Friends. But you would say that I created a copy of it. He's not charged with taking a picture or filming a movie, he's charged with creating a copy. Feel free to argue that burning something to a CD is not copying it, but it would take a pretty compelling argument. A copy is defined as an imitation or duplication of another work. Copying is defined as the act of making a copy. So that's why the judge brought up dictionary definitions. Are you actually saying that putting a CD in a burner, and burning files to that CD, is not creating a copy of those files?
Just to repeat myself, child porn is defined to include a copy, not just original works. Since he made a copy of it, he made child pornography according to the laws definition of making child pornography. The fact that it was child pornographs is not moot. It is in fact critical. If it was any other content, the law wouldn't apply, so it wouldn't matter what its definitions are. But it was and it does and they do.
Even though it was voted against, Bush has stated that he will continue to authorize illegal phone taps and other forms of spycraft on US citizins. NYTimes article here He was, in fact, filled with rage at the tresonous liberal media who dared to leak the fact that he is authorizing such illegal activities in the first place, and that they may well have murdered innocent people through their deplorable actions.:)
This comes right on the heels of the use of torture being approved by the Bush-McCain agreement. Although on its surface it appears to ban the use of torture by US personnel, it in fact grants them 100% immunity from any problems that may arise from the use of torture, under the constraint that they must have reason to believe that such torture is an order. Standing orders are any and all means are authorised, therefore, this law grants immunity from prosecution or court martial to any US troops or CIA agents who with to torture or execute to gain information. Finally, the house and senate have both backed a measure that will make evidence gained through torture admisable in court, as well as holding people, both citizins and not, indefinatly without trial, and without access to a lawyer.
So there you have it. Bush is overriding the Judicial branch and issuing warrants himself, torture is legal, and evidence tortured out of a suspect is admissible in court, you have no right to a speedy trial, nor to confront witnesses. What a week! Ammendments lost this week: I, IV, V, VI, VIII.
Good point, and it got me thinking...I tried looking up how accurate the HIV test is. All the websites I found initially claimed its between 99.99% - 100% accurate, with false positives being essentially impossible. Research papers, however, put it between 98.6%, and 99% accurate. So out of 100 people without HIV, at least 1 will yield a false positive. Note that these errors do not include lab errors and faulty tests, which can be countered by redoing the test, but the actual chance of somebody without the disease reading positive no matter how many tests are done. (In other words, its the accuracy of what you are testing for, rather than how you are testing for it)
The most interesting thing about HIV tests is that they actually check for AIDS instead! The most common test, the one claimed to be false-positive proof, works by counting your white blood cells. If you have HIV but not AIDS (Yet?) it will read negative. If you are feeling under the weather due to job stress and the flu, it will read positive. If you have lukemia, positive. If you have been exposed to radiation, positive. If you are taking certain herbal anti-fungal agents that supress the immune system, positive. In other words, it is all but useless.
That's why they were very careful to say "Private" memory. It wouldn't look so good if they said that the other 292MB (Number made up) used by excel is shared between all office applications;)
With a library provided photocopier, you can recreate the entire text of a copyrighted work. Through signifigant effort, but you can still recreate it. And yet, they still have copiers in them! There is even legal precident that allows them to be there! This is because their intended use is Fair Use, and the fact that an individual can abuse this service is not the fault of the service provider. If somebody puts signifigant effort into using this copier to copy the entire text of a copyrighted work, THEY have broken the laws, even though the library provided them with the work itself, AND the means to copy it.
In the same way, Google is providing small portions of text, and links on where to buy the whole thing. If it can be abused to copy the entire text for you, it is your fault, not theirs. If something is not allowed because it can, with signifigant effort, be used to violate copyright, then photocopiers, cameras, computer, typewriters, and pens are all equally illegal copyright violation devices.
Re:Google owns the GMAIL mark, at least in the US
on
New Legal Threat To GMail
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Here is the UK trademark website. If you search it, you'll find the earliest application is from Google, Inc. on April 14th, 2004. Karen Griffith applied on October 4th, 2004, almost half a year later.
So there you go. In the USA, Google applied first, and with an earlier date of first use to boot. Google quickly followed up and applied in the UK as well. These guys, supposedly BASED in the UK, didn't bother for another 6 months. Further, their only reference in their UK application was to their US application. If that application was rejected, the UK one will be too, I would imagine.
Except for the ruling that if a copyrighted phrase or logo is required for interoperability, than said phrase or logo may be used in that place without paying any royalities. Free Karma for the person who wants to find it (It has something to do with Nintendo GameBoy).
Gameboy? Don't you mean Sega v. Accolade? The Sega Genesis scanned for some copyrighted and trademarked text before it would launch. Accolade made some games that included it, and Sega sued for copyright and trademark violations. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Sega, and set the precident that reverse engineering object code is legal, so long as it is the only way to gain access to some non-copyrighted information. They also ruled that reproducing a portion of copyrighted text for the purpose of compatibility was fair use. They ruled that attempting to use copyright and trademark rules in such a way ran against the spirit of the Copyright Act.
Last I heard, people paid for use of their property, and weren't party to an agreement of "we'll fuck around with the content you access to our heart's content if it might have an impact on our stock prices".
I've never seen a contract that didn't have a "The terms you just agreed to are subject to change without notice" clause. Not that such a clause is legal, of course. My ISP contract said I have unlimited access, and did not place restrictions. I got a phone call saying I was using over my bandwidth limit and had to stop or I'd face additional charges. I told them the contract I signed said nothing about this. They said "Well we changed the contract." So I told them "That's interesting, but you can't do that without my signed consent. Now I see you threw a clause in here that says you can, but I don't think you can do that, but I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps we should find out together?" They left me alone;)
Such clauses are, in fact, 100% not valid. (At least under Canadian contract law, the only one I know anything about) You cannot have a clause that makes a person agree to terms that they cannot read at that very second. This means that if they say you also agree to our Code of Conduct, the Code of Conduct has to be provided at the same time as the contract. Providing directions on how to get it is not enough. It also means that you cannot agree to future changes without reviewing them.
scientists, by definition, work via the scientific method and thus bogus conclusions will be challenged and repudiated.
That's why he's asking for their data. If you say "Yeah I used the scientific method and this is the answer. But no, you can't see the data. Trust us though, we use the scientific method.", you're not a scientist, and bogus conclusions cannot be challenged and repudiated easily. Without their data, you cannot check that the conclusion matches, and you cannot redo any experaments to confirm that the data is true.
Slashdot Mirror
$39.99? A friend of mine got a cellphone a while ago, asked if it could be linked with a laptop and used as a modem. The person said yes, there is a cable for a few dollars that lets you do that. Now, a few months later she's going away for a while, went to go get this cable for a few dollars. Turns it it actually costs $175 and is just a fucking serial cable without any fancy electronics or converters. $175 for a straight serial cable. Can't get a third party one, either. The shape of the connector is patented.
Yeah, my VCR broke and I tried to buy a new one. I tried Best Buy, Zellers, Future Shop. Each only carried one model, it was all the same model. I had to buy that one, and it saddens me. Its oldschool, it won't record the shows you have scheduled to tape unless you turn the power off and press the "Activate Timer" button. Damn, my parents ancient BETACORD from the 70s works the same way...
Incorrect. In many states, such as Illinois, if a defendant in a civil case dies, the plantif has 90 days to substitute a personal representative. In other words, if you are suing person X because he called you a mean name, and he dies, you have 90 days to file an order to substitute his next of kin or even his lawyer (whoever has taken control of his estate) and sue them instead.
You are right, they are pure datafiles which arn't executed. They are HTML datafiles through and they are automatically and immediatly rendered via Internet Explorer in the dialog box (It goes and uses the explorer engine, so installing a different browser won't change a thing) So technically the exploit is an IE exploit. If IE was immune to lovely active X and java and javascript and buffer overflowing JPEGs then the DRM would be secure too. But its not. Incredibly stupid design decision? Yes. But thats how their mail client works too with HTML formated messages. Only difference is in Outlook if you look, you can disable HTML messages ;) Incredibly stupid is par for the course.
Yes, but that is based on distance of destination, not specific address. Imagine you pay $20 for overnight. 5 days later it hasn't arrived. The reason it hasn't arrived? The business you are sending it to hasn't paid that $100,000 / month priority delivery fee.
You can't trust anything conducted by the media. After all, they have a proven track record of backing the government no matter what, Orwellising headlines and quotations, presenting news pieces as though the person talking was actually their own employee, not a government/corporate employee, or just plain ignoring stories. And firing employees who refuse to report the exact oposite of what they found in their research....Maybe it was a valid poll. But I personally would never believe a single word printed/voiced by CNN ABC NBC FOX, the Washington Post, or New York Times. Ever. They've all been caught lying and forging and misrepresenting too many times.
You're knowledge is out of date. In 2005, a US citizen was charged with a plot to assassinate George W. Bush. The SOLE piece of evidence against him other than the fact that he has brown skin, is the fact that he signed a confession that the government had written up for him after they tortured him for a while. In October of 2005, that confession was ruled admissable by a federal judge. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was sentanced to 30 years in prison for admitting that he had fantasized about shooting George W. Bush. He never discussed it with anybody, he never put his "plan" into motion. But while being tortured, he admitted that he wanted to.
Whoever told you this was incorrect, lying, or talking about a different mod. While this is entierly possible to do as far as I know, it would result in horribly deformed texture mapping. However, there is a texture pack included called "femaleupperbodynude.nif" that differs from the default one ("femaleupperbody.nif") in that this one is topless.
Incorrect. The mod replaces a file named "femaleupperbody.nif", with a file that was also included, named "femaleupperbodynude.nif". You cannot try to argue that "femaleupperbodynude.nif" is their texture set for their male characters. It clearly is for females, and clearly differs from the default file in that this one is NUDE. And there is no horrible wrapping resulting in things being in the wrong places, they match up perfectly because they are the female textures INTENDED for this purpose.
Oh, also add that a few states have tossed out the partisan owned, private, secret, hackable voting blackboxes as illegal voting devices, but most states still allow them with 0 oversight and with specific laws preventing citizins from making sure votes are being tallied properly, or even at all. Dems and Republicans may not be too different, but who cares if you vote for them by pushing a button, and its top secret classified information how that vote is counted. And of COURSE you can't see how its counted, and verify the numbers, you filthy hippy, don't you trust Diebold Inc. to count it for you? We can't let you see because its a Trade Secret.
In Alaska, for example, the vote tallies, which are suppoed to be verifiable by ANY citizin who cares to make sure its a fair election, are classified. State secret, vital to state security. I think that bares repeating, don't you? In Alaska, they refused to release voting records, which they are required by law to do, because they have been classified for reasons of national security. Isn't that fasinating? Should we brainstorm on why vote tallies are a threat to national security?
- Terrorists would see which counties were close, and go on a Republican killing spree to skew the 2008 presidential election and get a Dem into the Whitehouse. (Sounds reasonable. After all, OBL officially endorsed Kerry from beyond the grave, so clearly Al Quada supports the Democrats...)
- The Chinese encoded attack orders in the parity of the number of votes in certain counties within Alaska. If these numbers are released, this information will reach the communist chinese who will attack in droves. Without this information from their spies, the Chinese government will be unsure of weaknesses and will hold off their attack.
- The classified diebold files show clear signs of vote tampering. Even though this vote tampering didn't affect the results, people would still be irrationally angry and might riot and then we'd have to send in the troops to slaugher them all. That's not good so for their own protection they must never know that the vote was rigged, even though the rigging didn't change anything.
-
The Diebold files were not tampered with, but a simple analysis shows how they can easily be tampered with while leaving no trace whatsoever. With this knowledge out, people could easily create millions of fake votes per county, and the Government would either have to throw out the machines and use something unhackable (Which would be bad because then they wasted all that money on those machines, and if there's one thing the government doesn't do, its waste millions of dollers stupidly), or just accept that Natalie Portman won the 2008 election with 230,300,340,321 votes, bareley edging out Chuck Norris by a scant 3 billion votes.
Personally, I think its #2, but feel free to make your own choiceA biological process can be patented. A gene can be patented, even if it occurs naturally. A corporation can look at your DNA, say "Hey, that's a neat gene, it might help cure cancer one day", and patent it. That way, if anybody ever discovers some medical cure based on that gene, or the protein it encodes, they can wait 5-6 years, then sue them for 125% of their profits for patent infringement.
The good news is that biological patents are granted special exceptions. A living being cannot be charged for infrigement of a patent that it violates naturally. So you can still breath if they patent breathing, and you can still grow new cells if they patent your DNA. Yay!
There is a widely discussed problem called electrosensitivity, or ES. Thousands of people suffer from it. However, searching the internet, I can find no articles on it other than conspiracy sites that claim that millions of people are affected, and the government and medical industries keep it secret because they love their cellphones. In fact, while these website site all of these journal papers and conferences on the subject, there references appear to be completely fabricated to make them seem plausable. The only actual scientific articles have asserted that such a syndrome does not exist. Several groups in the UK and the USA have conducted double blind tests in which sufferers are secretly exposed to EMR of frequencies like that they claim cause their symptoms (Monitors, cell phones, etc), and they did not react. On the other hand, when exposed to a radio device they are told is active, but which is nothing more than a box with a light, they react immediatly. These studies are dismissed by the ES campaign groups, who declare they are secretly funded by the cellphone companies. Some even declare that all scientiests are against them because scientists love computers and other electronic gadgets, and all scientists will forever bury the mounds of evidence.
They don't have profits. Every movie ever made in all of history has been a monumental flop from an accounting point of view. The trick is, if you are making a movie, to give yourself a huge salary after the fact. Then, after paying yourself, your movie at a loss, and you don't have to pay backeres their share of the profits, which there arn't any. After that, you apply to the government for debt relief and they pay you even more money. Sir Allec Guiness, for example, was never paid for his role in Star Wars, because his contraact specified a share of the profits. Since Star Wars was a huge flop and lost millions, he got nothing. He was pretty cheesed about it, too.
Here is more than a single picture
It also includes a really grainy picture of what could be a 757. The picture doesn't show it is a plane, it only shows that it could be one, contrary to conspiracy theorists claims that its too small.
On the subject of conspiracy theories, another good one is the theory that the "no plane at the pentagon" and the "pods on planes in NYC" are actually on government controlled websites to descredit the more moderate theories. You'll notice that whenever anybody asks a question like "Why did the president say that he saw footage of the first WTC impact on the school television before entering the classroom, when in fact there was no television and that footage was not discovered and aired until long after" or "Why were escorts not ordered when contact was lost with the pilots, as is standard practice as can be seen in other instances where contact was lost? Was an order issued to disregard procedure? Was it a simple mistake?", or "Why was it stated that the intercepting pilots were not authorized to shoot down, and that only the VP or president can issue the order, when in fact standard orders authorize pilots to shoot down hijacked planes that may pose a threat at their discression or the discression of their superiors?", that instead of answering the questions, the person giving the press conference, or giving the interview, or whatever, will simple say "Hahahaha, you're one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks there were no planes, that the planes were crashed into the ocean and then missiles hit the pentagon!" and then everybody laughs and there is no answer. This evasion is what gives this theory its momentum.
I have seen claims that several of these conspiracy websites that say there were no planes, have domains registered to PR companies employed by the Whitehouse and/or the Republican party. They then say that shortly after this was noticed all of the DNS entry was blanked (Which is illegal isn't it?) This sounds really solid until you realise how easy it is to fake a screenshot of the DNS entry before it was Orwellised. I could quite easily post a link to a conspiracy website that doesn't exsist, with a claim that the DNS entry is registered to an employee of some subsidiary of Manchurian Global or whoever, and lists their work phone#, easily verifiable using their employee list on their own website. Then a few hours later when people say that's not true, and the website doesn't exist, and there is no such domain, I'd say "God damnit, you didn't look fast enough, it was there, they must have agent on /. who saw their cover blown and deleted the DNS entry." Then maybe I'd get a few sockpuppet accounts and/or AC posting to say "Yeah, I saw it right before Homeland Security took it down!" Boom, instant proof! Why would I lie, and why would these other people back me up? Lesson: Be very hesitant to accept a claim that some website said something, then the government erased it, no matter how many "different" people back the OP up. I have, however, seen proof via google cash that a news website ran an article that they then deleted, so its not all faked ;)
At any rate, there are many explanations for why the tapes havn't been made public.
Option A: They are just testing the sensor network, not the accuracy of the sensors. They don't really care about false positives, given that airport bomb sensors are routinly set off by new electronics and perfumes.
Option B: Testing the sensor network is how the evil NSA has convinced ignorant higher ups to let them hire arabs to smuggle "fake" bombs in to "test" the sensor network, when in reality these backpacks actually ARE filled with explosives, as well as Iranian passports. Bush then uses the permission he has already been granted by the Senate to nuke Iran, Russia follows through on its promise to attack any country that attacks Iran, and everybody on earth dies in a huge nuclear war, except Australia.
Believe whatever option you want. They're both fine choices ;)
Basically you are calling people illiterate for reading the article, something you clearly have not done, and are arguing about dictionary definitions, rather than about the legal definitions of the specific law in question. If you remove that specific law from the argument...then the entire argument is moot because out of that context, the words do indeed have different definitions. But too bad, the specific law clearly states that creating child porn includes making copies or reproductions of it. You can argue that copying files to a CD is not, in fact, creating a copy of those files. In fact, go right ahead. But because "child sexually abusive materials" are define to include copies, prints, and reproductions of said materials, if he created a copy of them, he did, in the context of this law, create "child sexually abusive materials". You are correct that if I copied an episode of friends to a VCD so I can watch it on my DVD player, you wouldn't say that I produced an episode of Friends. But you would say that I created a copy of it. He's not charged with taking a picture or filming a movie, he's charged with creating a copy. Feel free to argue that burning something to a CD is not copying it, but it would take a pretty compelling argument. A copy is defined as an imitation or duplication of another work. Copying is defined as the act of making a copy. So that's why the judge brought up dictionary definitions. Are you actually saying that putting a CD in a burner, and burning files to that CD, is not creating a copy of those files?
Just to repeat myself, child porn is defined to include a copy, not just original works. Since he made a copy of it, he made child pornography according to the laws definition of making child pornography. The fact that it was child pornographs is not moot. It is in fact critical. If it was any other content, the law wouldn't apply, so it wouldn't matter what its definitions are. But it was and it does and they do.
Even though it was voted against, Bush has stated that he will continue to authorize illegal phone taps and other forms of spycraft on US citizins. NYTimes article here He was, in fact, filled with rage at the tresonous liberal media who dared to leak the fact that he is authorizing such illegal activities in the first place, and that they may well have murdered innocent people through their deplorable actions. :)
This comes right on the heels of the use of torture being approved by the Bush-McCain agreement. Although on its surface it appears to ban the use of torture by US personnel, it in fact grants them 100% immunity from any problems that may arise from the use of torture, under the constraint that they must have reason to believe that such torture is an order. Standing orders are any and all means are authorised, therefore, this law grants immunity from prosecution or court martial to any US troops or CIA agents who with to torture or execute to gain information. Finally, the house and senate have both backed a measure that will make evidence gained through torture admisable in court, as well as holding people, both citizins and not, indefinatly without trial, and without access to a lawyer.
So there you have it. Bush is overriding the Judicial branch and issuing warrants himself, torture is legal, and evidence tortured out of a suspect is admissible in court, you have no right to a speedy trial, nor to confront witnesses. What a week! Ammendments lost this week: I, IV, V, VI, VIII.
The most interesting thing about HIV tests is that they actually check for AIDS instead! The most common test, the one claimed to be false-positive proof, works by counting your white blood cells. If you have HIV but not AIDS (Yet?) it will read negative. If you are feeling under the weather due to job stress and the flu, it will read positive. If you have lukemia, positive. If you have been exposed to radiation, positive. If you are taking certain herbal anti-fungal agents that supress the immune system, positive. In other words, it is all but useless.
That's why they were very careful to say "Private" memory. It wouldn't look so good if they said that the other 292MB (Number made up) used by excel is shared between all office applications ;)
With a library provided photocopier, you can recreate the entire text of a copyrighted work. Through signifigant effort, but you can still recreate it. And yet, they still have copiers in them! There is even legal precident that allows them to be there! This is because their intended use is Fair Use, and the fact that an individual can abuse this service is not the fault of the service provider. If somebody puts signifigant effort into using this copier to copy the entire text of a copyrighted work, THEY have broken the laws, even though the library provided them with the work itself, AND the means to copy it.
In the same way, Google is providing small portions of text, and links on where to buy the whole thing. If it can be abused to copy the entire text for you, it is your fault, not theirs. If something is not allowed because it can, with signifigant effort, be used to violate copyright, then photocopiers, cameras, computer, typewriters, and pens are all equally illegal copyright violation devices.
Here is the UK trademark website. If you search it, you'll find the earliest application is from Google, Inc. on April 14th, 2004. Karen Griffith applied on October 4th, 2004, almost half a year later.
So there you go. In the USA, Google applied first, and with an earlier date of first use to boot. Google quickly followed up and applied in the UK as well. These guys, supposedly BASED in the UK, didn't bother for another 6 months. Further, their only reference in their UK application was to their US application. If that application was rejected, the UK one will be too, I would imagine.
Gameboy? Don't you mean Sega v. Accolade? The Sega Genesis scanned for some copyrighted and trademarked text before it would launch. Accolade made some games that included it, and Sega sued for copyright and trademark violations. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Sega, and set the precident that reverse engineering object code is legal, so long as it is the only way to gain access to some non-copyrighted information. They also ruled that reproducing a portion of copyrighted text for the purpose of compatibility was fair use. They ruled that attempting to use copyright and trademark rules in such a way ran against the spirit of the Copyright Act.
I've never seen a contract that didn't have a "The terms you just agreed to are subject to change without notice" clause. Not that such a clause is legal, of course. My ISP contract said I have unlimited access, and did not place restrictions. I got a phone call saying I was using over my bandwidth limit and had to stop or I'd face additional charges. I told them the contract I signed said nothing about this. They said "Well we changed the contract." So I told them "That's interesting, but you can't do that without my signed consent. Now I see you threw a clause in here that says you can, but I don't think you can do that, but I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps we should find out together?" They left me alone ;)
Such clauses are, in fact, 100% not valid. (At least under Canadian contract law, the only one I know anything about) You cannot have a clause that makes a person agree to terms that they cannot read at that very second. This means that if they say you also agree to our Code of Conduct, the Code of Conduct has to be provided at the same time as the contract. Providing directions on how to get it is not enough. It also means that you cannot agree to future changes without reviewing them.