They wouldn't. And didn't. Read my comment again--I began and ended it by dismissing the conspiracy theory. I was simply pointing out, in response to the prior poster (who requested a cite), that the BBC did, in fact, jump the gun.
I don't mean to suggest that any of the conspiracy theories are accurate, but the BBC did, in fact, report WTC 7's collapse before it happened. They've basically admitted as much:
The BBC erroneously reported the collapse at 4:53 p.m., as acknowledged in the above-linked article. The actual collapse occurred at 5:20 p.m., as confirmed by FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
At the time of the BBC's report, however, WTC 7 had been on fire for some time, and was already in danger of imminent collapse, so I don't find it too hard to believe that they simply made an honest mistake in the midst of all the confusion.
The summary is misleading on multiple fronts...
First, according to the 2002 story, the "hacker" spent considerable time writing the trojan used to access the judge's porn stash---he's hardly a "script kiddie," as the summary dubs him.
And "anonymous"? The guy was identified by name in both of the TFAs:
"Brad Willman, the Canadian hacker, forwarded the information to an anti-pedophile watchdog group, which then sent the information to Irvine police detectives."
"Dubbed 'Citizen Tipster' by police, Brad Willman, spent night after night writing a Trojan Horse program that gave him complete control over every computer that downloaded it. "
The record companies' expert witness examined her hard drive, and somehow determined that two "disk-cleaner utility programs" (as the court put it) had been used to delete data intentionally. Specifically, he noted that iMesh and BearShare were installed at one time, and were configured to use the handle, "ugotburnedby21".
The defendant's own expert witness, who also examined the hard drive, conceded that data had been deleted, but suggested that a defrag utility was to blame. The court didn't buy this explanation, however.
If you're interested, read the court's order (please be gentle with my server:-).
The 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination applies only to the government (to the federal government directly, and to the various state governments by virtue of the 14th Amendment). Thus, you can't assert this right against a private employer, who is perfectly free to fire you for refusing to answer such questions.
Probably OT, but in most jurisdictions, the answer is yes, he DOES get to keep it.
Generally speaking, a bona fide purchaser (i.e., one who is not in cahoots with the thief; has no reason to know the item is stolen; and pays good money for the item in an "arms-length" transaction) is immune from any claims by a prior victim of theft.
That makes little sense. Isn't EVERY discussion on Slashdot "online"? If your interpretation is correct, then why aren't the other topics "Google Online," "Apple Online," etc.? Surely the "O" in "YRO" modifies "R".
Slashdot Mirror
Group C: "Directions unclear; penis stuck in mac book." EMS on scene.
I read that as "penis stuck in mac book. RMS on scene."
They wouldn't. And didn't. Read my comment again--I began and ended it by dismissing the conspiracy theory. I was simply pointing out, in response to the prior poster (who requested a cite), that the BBC did, in fact, jump the gun.
I don't mean to suggest that any of the conspiracy theories are accurate, but the BBC did, in fact, report WTC 7's collapse before it happened. They've basically admitted as much:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html
See also: https://archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736
The BBC erroneously reported the collapse at 4:53 p.m., as acknowledged in the above-linked article. The actual collapse occurred at 5:20 p.m., as confirmed by FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
At the time of the BBC's report, however, WTC 7 had been on fire for some time, and was already in danger of imminent collapse, so I don't find it too hard to believe that they simply made an honest mistake in the midst of all the confusion.
Sorry; I hadn't seen your other post.
In the Al Alwaki case the missile was targeted at Al Alwaki killing him and his son was close enough to the blast to be killed as well.
Sorry, but that's simply false. In fact, Al Alwaki's son was killed in a separate drone strike two weeks later:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN
Google "Newton" and "Leibniz" (at the same time)
That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Same here--particularly in light of Apple's decision to shed Firewire ports on the newest Macbooks.
That's not correct (assuming that by "our Constitution" you mean the "U.S. Constitution"). Look at Article VI of the constitution. Or Google "supremacy clause." Or take a look at this article, for starters: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm
The summary is misleading on multiple fronts... First, according to the 2002 story, the "hacker" spent considerable time writing the trojan used to access the judge's porn stash---he's hardly a "script kiddie," as the summary dubs him. And "anonymous"? The guy was identified by name in both of the TFAs: "Brad Willman, the Canadian hacker, forwarded the information to an anti-pedophile watchdog group, which then sent the information to Irvine police detectives." "Dubbed 'Citizen Tipster' by police, Brad Willman, spent night after night writing a Trojan Horse program that gave him complete control over every computer that downloaded it. "
The record companies' expert witness examined her hard drive, and somehow determined that two "disk-cleaner utility programs" (as the court put it) had been used to delete data intentionally. Specifically, he noted that iMesh and BearShare were installed at one time, and were configured to use the handle, "ugotburnedby21".
:-).
The defendant's own expert witness, who also examined the hard drive, conceded that data had been deleted, but suggested that a defrag utility was to blame. The court didn't buy this explanation, however.
If you're interested, read the court's order (please be gentle with my server
The 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination applies only to the government (to the federal government directly, and to the various state governments by virtue of the 14th Amendment). Thus, you can't assert this right against a private employer, who is perfectly free to fire you for refusing to answer such questions.
TFA makes it clear that the fired employees worked at Apple's retail stores.
I can't get yours to load. . . Here's a copy on YouTube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=A8L4wbXWKN8&search=big% 20brother
Probably OT, but in most jurisdictions, the answer is yes, he DOES get to keep it.
Generally speaking, a bona fide purchaser (i.e., one who is not in cahoots with the thief; has no reason to know the item is stolen; and pays good money for the item in an "arms-length" transaction) is immune from any claims by a prior victim of theft.
THIS is why I read Slashdot.
omg it works!!!!1!1
Please mod parent up. It's by far the best explanation of the 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS curiosity (see, e.g., http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_s ee.htm ).
That makes little sense. Isn't EVERY discussion on Slashdot "online"? If your interpretation is correct, then why aren't the other topics "Google Online," "Apple Online," etc.? Surely the "O" in "YRO" modifies "R".
Yeah, that's exactly what (s)he's saying... Are you trolling, or just simple?
Star Trek pr0n. Now that's an uncomfortable thought.
Indeed.
forget this... fuck the napkin!
From the 419 eater website:
419 fraud is named after the section of the Nigerian penal code which addresses fraud schemes.
are you okay?
In Soviet Russia, f1rst ps0t gets GNAA!