When it comes to 'consent' the way it was explained to me in college - was that it was your 'choice' to fly, you can after all drive from LA to NewYork on the highways that you tax dollars pay for. Once you consent to flying, your also consenting to all the bull shit.
As for the over all issue of the sexual assault, and I'm sure I will get troll'd for this but I have yet to see anyone bring up the idea that homo sexuals are working for the TSA. It is against the law to screen on sexual preference any more, yet we enforce the idea that women need to be screened by women, and men screened by men - what if that woman doing the screening is gay, or vice versa for a man? I would have to wager a guess that if your turned on, your going to be hard pressed to prove/show that you were *not* groping or molesting someone - its a matter of sexual attraction, end of story... This would go the same for the police, but at least there you have a MUCH more strict code of conduct - from what I gather there simply isn't one for the TSA from the simple fact it's a minimum wage job, if not barely above...
Those VC's certainly do much due diligence.. When you go and sign up, it's broken - you don't even have to agree to the terms of use or privacy policy, let alone fill anything else in after giving them your email. Considering they deal in advertising, and with all the other sneaky/underhanded advertising going on around the net - with out having to agree to the terms and all, I would think that is scary grounds for all kinds of law suits if they give out information, spam you, etc..
While I do agree with this, I don't think that it's the over all problem/concern.. Everyone knows (and elsewhere as well) that practically every large industry, including the government in the US is corrupt - hell, didn't the financial industry (banks -> walls street) almost take out the financial industries of countries all over the world through a domino effect?
These kinds of leaks *will* come back to bite us, although I'm starting to wonder if this is some kind of rebellion starting - with all the corruption with these very large industries, including the legal system and government which is suppose to prevent it, it seems next to impossible to change anything and gain control of our country again - so what's left? Tell the world what is really going on, hand them proof and let the 'best friends' of the elite tell them where to go and what they can do with 'X'.
What are 300,000,000 people to do when 90% of everything they are told is 'crafted' and/or 'fabricated' - and mind you not from the government, but from the for-profit news industry, the advertising that is constantly bombarding them and the legal system that is turning into for-profit only as well..
Corporations run the United States, not the government, and it's corrupt - I can very much see how one could view that the 'normal' process of how to change things could take wayyyy to long, and in the mean time more corruption occurs and gets worse. If your at a loss - what else can you do than to air the dirty laundry of those in power to the world, and let the other 5.7 billion inhabitants help you fight - by having their government(s) telling those in power of you to f' off, and with a big 'F'...
Firstly, will this bring about any (if present) early termination clause in contracts as a "significant change in terms?"
Would it be even possible to break the contract with AT&T, if you no longer agree with the new terms of Apple? I only have the iPod, although from what I understand it would make this fancy smart phone practically pointless with out all the apps..
haha - didn't realize I was actually defending him, I was just replying to Mr Whirly - didn't even know about CrazyJim:-P And no - I'm defiantly not defending him, intentionally at least...
And are you actually saying that since science is "changing all the time" and nothing is 100% proven that zero scientific theories are valid? Whoa. Well, they never will be (at least to folks like you) but to me being 99.99999999% certain of something is good enough.
More power to ya - I'm just saying that when that 0.000000001% discovers something brand new and changes the fundamental understanding on how we understand our surroundings - at least I can say that I wont be dumb founded and lost, as I would have already known that there was still more out there.. With a search I dug up this as a quick example - http://science.slashdot.org/story/08/11/03/2229248/New-Type-of-Particle-May-Have-Been-Found
Wow, a spiritual person having a hard time believing something that can be scientifically proven that contradicts their own personal views that cannot be scientifically proven. There's a first.
Fixed that for you.. Other than that, I'm not so sure I would completely agree with your statement, science is changing all the time, and with the changes more and more doors are opening up - some shedding light and others opening to yet a another deep void that is left to be explained let alone theorized. Science has proven lately to show that previous scientific facts/proofs were flat out wrong because of these new doors that have opened - until 100% of everything is explained/proven and not merely theorized (and not 99.999% either as that remaining 0.001% can open yet another door to endless questions) saying that something isn't so is just plain ignorance. It's ignorant because you've stopped thinking/feeling for your self and has accepted what 'someone' else says is so...
You need to remember that 'religion' is the bureaucratic version of spirituality - two completely different things, like being human and being a corporate lawyer/politician is two completely different things (pun intended). Personally, I believe that science is looking for a needle in a haystack the size of the universe - in which the needle is sitting on your nose. The notion of "God" is so freaking simple it's ridiculous, although due to religion it has become so complicated and intricate that it is taking science to try and unravel it - aka, disprove it (which it won't)..
A simple question - whats *two* things that EVERY human being on this planet has in common, that's not biological or physical and regardless of religion or beliefs - and then ask your self what the relationship is...
I'd be curious to know if there was some kind of unofficial threat from the FBI that if the given operator doesn't comply they will be investigated for impeding the given investigation or something - as we all know we are breaking some kind of law at any given moment, although with the newly in acted laws for national security due to terrorism, we are probably violating these as well at any given time - let alone in the past...
There's something else I don't quite understand - I've had the gas pedal stick on me a more than few times because of the floor mat. The problem I'm having with Toyota's theory though is that in my situation the floor mat simply held the gas pedal where it was on each occasion - so when I went to stop/slow down, letting off the gas didn't do anything - but it sure as hell didn't floor the beast to where I was all the sudden doing 90 and thrown back into the seat (as one of the reports claim) and yes the brakes did still work - just more pressure was required to use them.
Your religion is not the only one, and the Constitution protects all religions equally. My religion recognizes same sex marriages, and performs said ceremonies. By denying me the right to call what my religion does 'marriage' you are infringing on my freedom of religion.
Great, I'm happy for you - seriously, you have a belief that your particular religion 100% supports and backs. Although, how can you possibly believe that you are NOT pushing your beliefs and religion onto others when yours is right and every one else is wrong?!?!
Sorry, you lose and my right to religious freedom wins. Ahhhh, love that US Constitution, don't you?
Ironically, this does have everything to do with religious freedom, and your again ignoring (or it's escaping you) the issue with terminology and the definition of marriage. Some very prominent religions forbid divorce, while others at the same scale allow it with out any issue what so ever - both having very different definitions of what marriage is suppose to be. As such, your beliefs have introduced another core fundamental difference - which from your use of words is obviously perfectly fine for you but apparently others who believe differently not only are the flat out wrong but they are bigots. Again, your the one forcing your beliefs on others - or they are labeled.
This is probably going to go over your head, (again) but I'll say it anyway - this is all about terminology. The government crossed the line a ways back when it endorsed, sanctioned and gives breaks to those in such a union - crossing the line when it comes to "separation of church and state". They should have instead had the "civil union" introduced, since in the eyes of the government the backing of a religion should be irrelevant and not tolerated - otherwise you get BS like this. The governments use of the term marriage instead of civil union, is the cause of everything around this. Since it uses a term from religious backgrounds - it merges church and state. As such, since your religion condones acts that fundamentally change the definition of what marriage is for many others, the terminology needs to be addressed as it's not the religious background that is relevant to the government nor should it be.
As you are proving with the name calling and labeling - ideals, beliefs and religious aspects are being introduced and argued upon solely because you need your beliefs to be accepted by the government due the one word - "marriage". If the government did not use the term, but instead the "civil union" for all religions, this would have come down to yet another splintering of religious sects. But because the gov uses the term, and the term has deep roots in many religions - and because your beliefs differ so much on those core roots, you have no choice but to change those core roots. Your use of name calling and labeling so eloquently proves my point - as petty as it is, your arguing that your beliefs and religion has the right to exist, in which there is no reason why it can't - although it -is- fundamentally different at certain levels and since the government uses the same terminology as this core belief, you have no choice but to re-define this terminology otherwise why in the hell would you care? What did you expect when you tried to redefine such a core belief in so many people? Jeeze, when Pluto was declassified as an actual planet many people flipped out about it and that belief was no where near the scale of what marriage is...
...because you are a bigot who wants to impose your religious values onto other religions besides your own and wants to dictate what ceremonies other religions are allowed to perform.
I oppose it and my reasons have zero to do with any religious or spiritual values/beliefes. Going along with the GP's argument, if your after state sanctioned and recognized "unions" that offer the same perks and legal rights as the state recognized and sanctioned "religious" unions - ie: marriage, then that's one thing and it should be recognized but not because your "gay" - but because the individuals involved are citizens of the given state.
Marriage always has been and always will be a religious matter. Those individuals who are not religious and want the 'perks' of making a commitment to each other - get the states version of marriage which is just a civil union that is happening to be using the same terminology - I'm referring to going to the local court house and getting hitched.
IF you are only after the 'perks' of the state sanctioned civil union, then this is a deal of the state crossing the line of the separation between church and state - and all federal/state government should scratch using the terminology of "marriage" and simply use "union" instead. If this is not the case, then sadly it's you who is trying to impose your religious values on others.
...do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability
Why couldn't other software have this 'listening service' and there for be vulnerable?
From the security bulletin, XP SP2/3 and XP PRO x64 SP2 are vulnerable (DOS). "This security update resolves several privately reported vulnerabilities in Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) processing." - Just because one certain piece of software isn't vulnerable to this attack vector, doesn't mean another wouldn't...
The bug(s) are still there, sounds like they are just searching for reasons not to fix them, FTFA...
Although the two bugs can be exploited on Windows 2000 and XP, Microsoft downplayed their impact. "A system would become unresponsive due to memory consumption... [but] a successful attack requires a sustained flood of specially crafted TCP packets, and the system will recover once the flood ceases."
While this was my original line of thinking, I'd have to also assume that the artist has his copy of the contract and it was gone over with a fine tooth comb before organizing the raid for this - especially against a corporate entity the size of Sony.
Even though it's all agreed here that Sony is going to find some way out out of this, it may still turn out to be a boon for the lowly citizen (world wide) as this as well may be able to be used as a precedent (not a legal one though) just in our favor - even though the laws are different, it comes down to the 'magic' math, and what Sony (RIAA) considers intent and potential profit.
IANAL, although from what I do understand is that the US legal system has little to do with the actual laws, and a heck of lot more on how well the given side argues (civil cases of course) - I wouldn't think it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to point out that the arguments used in their defense of this (Sony), would counter all the arguments used in their prosecution attempts. In other words, even though it's a different country, different laws, different way of doing things - they are still held to their word, and considered truthful - because of that, I would think it could be used as a good argument that they are making everything up, if it counters whats been said to be truthful else where.. There any lawyers on, that could verify one way or the other if this could be possible - not the outcome of the foreign case, but what is said under oath in the foreign case...
I can come home and destroy my liver after a long day at work, but I can't sit down and enjoy some THC?
And thats the whole problem unfortunately, the fact that the U.S. is too dependent on the almighty $$$. Destroying your liver costs you $$$, in both obtaining the liquor and obtaining the resulting medical treatments. There is zero $$$ (all around) in smoking some homegrown free Cannabis, but there are major $$$ in fining and criminalizing you for smoking it. If we were to legalize Cannabis, it would take a big chunk of the $$$ out of the drug cartels world wide - which is desirable, although at the same time there would be the same (if not more) amount in $$$ taken away from the private companies contracted to 'help out' the government in these 'wars/battles' - whether it's in in IT contracts, manufacturing weapons, logistics, medical, testing, etc.. someone rich and powerful is going to loose out. Even if were made legal, and a huge tax added to it - the amount of $$$ it would cost you would drop so much, that the amount of $$$ in taxes would not offset how much is profitable - perhaps for the government it self it could come relatively close, but not for the private companies with the trickle down effect.
It's all about the $$$, and it's just to bad that we are so addicted to it - personally, I'm concerned that this country will have to go bankrupt and implode before this changes. Obama has already had to personally visit our largest creditor (China) and make the case that we are capable of paying our bills, as they are getting concerned about the amount of debt we are racking up and the ability to pay it off...
Kind of reminds me what they got the Universities around the country to start doing - it only took the top Universities with some major $$$ and legal weight/expertise behind them to actually stand up to them (IIRC) - from my understanding, at least the local ISD's neither has anything close to the $$$ nor the legal weight/expertise behind them... I'm not saying the Universities dumped a lot of money into fighting them, but it did take some serious legal expertise to even consider standing up to them - and it goes back to the ISD's having neither..
I'd imagine that they were testing the major configurations of the company they were at, why test configuration X if it's not supported in the first place? Also, I'd be suspicious of the 'image', I've seen what is called an 'image' but in reality formating the drive and 'copying' files over to the new and blank fs.
I would suspect that the initial 'plan' was to start with the common hardware configuration and OS. Upgrade to Vista, make sure it's all good to go and then do the plunge with 7. They would have stuck with very few configurations because that is all that was used, and they opted for the upgrade so the 100's or 1000's of desktops won't loose data/settings of the end users - if you did that your company would come to stand still for at least a few hours and the helpdesk would be buzy for days.
laws written by the RIAA to make it a felony to mask your IP address.
It is a class 3 felony to block caller ID in Michigan.
Wouldn't that make it a felony for the companies using the service to get around the blocking? IE: masking, in a since, the real #? Blocking something isn't the same thing as pretending your something else - IE: masking.
Just think of what you are not advocating for a minute.
I'm not advocating changing a 200 year old document over a software issue.
He's not advocating changing the 200yr old doc over software either - he's advocating changing it over protecting literature...
Hypothetically, if a decade from now - the media stronghold(s) decided that some event 'X' in US history should NOT have occurred, so they decide to release a shit load of media against the idea - and with our lives 100% controlled at the digital level by DRM, after a generation or two - that 'X' part history no longer happened... That's acceptable?
You give someone an inch, they will next go for the mile - until they get that, and then they go for the next mile. Accepting this and not fighting back with a something 'bigger' than them will only give them that inch, and later the mile.
Photoshop inserts itself into the firewall exceptions list? I agree that this should require a UAC elevation, but it is no different to how the firewall works on XP. It is not a Windows 7 issue, nor is it anything to do with DRM. Neither does not being able to move or delete a DLL that is in use. We had that problem back in the day of Windows 3.0!
Kind of going back in time there aren't you? Technology is suppose to advance, not retreat...
Win 3.1 is what I was thinking... If your only allowing 3 apps to run, why not just go back to the simplified OS that uses time slicing instead of true multitasking and likewise you less intelligent hardware and consequently saving money?
The banking industry needs a lot of IT and database people. This is where a lot of H1B hiring goes on I believe.
Recently while talking to the hundreds of head hunters (like so many are these days), one of them explained to me that the over whelming majority of companies that do a credit check are those in the financial industry. We got to joking about it, but the point was that it was very hard to find someone with that good of credit - they were just far and few between. I'd be curious to know if the H1-B workers get preference simply because they are not on our credit system and consequently not having any credit is better than not having bad credit?
If that is the case, talk about a catch-22 - the 'system' got us here, and that same system doesn't want us... One of the halves of my brain are working overtime in that some jack-ass exec came up with the ingenious idea of giving every one easy credit, knowing eventually we would not be able to support it - and now they have the 'reasoning' not to employee their fellow neighbours...
I seriously doubt DELL was approaching Microsoft with - "Come on man, I know your OS can't run on our hardware but can't you give us these stickers anyway?", I would presume to guess that is was more along the lines of DELL telling them that their stuff would not run right, and that they needed to fix it - Microsoft just opted to just give them the sticker instead.
You know, I love a good Microsoft pummeling as much as the next guy, but my concern is that MS is just now starting to come around to a slightly more rational way of thinking about its customers. I'm cautiously optimistic about Windows 7 in this regard.
And? They have been pushing their customers around for decades, and just because they are BEING forced, both legally and finally by their customers to get their act together (possibly to late) - you really want to say, "that's okay - there, there..."
But if you cut an $8 billion hole in Microsoft, you run the risk of making them frantic to patch that hole. And as we know, they have some pretty well-developed skills for being really aggressive at the expense of the end user.
Your friends were still selling what they claimed to be selling - a P4 with 512mb of RAM, if they were able to convince **YOU** to say that your stuff would run on it, and you knew it wouldn't, well that's your problem - not theirs...
You going to walk off a cliff if one of them thought it was safe, when you knew full and well it wasn't?
Nexicon confirms that the files downloaded violate a copyright through its technology...
It also notes that it is policing the newsgroups, my question is on the "downloading" and copyright violation - With P2P when you download, your uploading also although this is not the case for the newsgroups, when you download that is all your doing - this would be more in lines of "stealing" than the copyright violation isn't it? I was under the impression that to violate a given copyright, you need to re-distribute the said material, IE: why the mafiaa goes after P2P and the insane "settlements"... If this is correct, how could they go could after you for a copyright violation if you didn't violate it? This isn't for uploading the material mind you, just leeching it...
Slashdot Mirror
Put the connection in his name, the warning goes to him - the law suit goes to him...
When it comes to 'consent' the way it was explained to me in college - was that it was your 'choice' to fly, you can after all drive from LA to NewYork on the highways that you tax dollars pay for. Once you consent to flying, your also consenting to all the bull shit.
As for the over all issue of the sexual assault, and I'm sure I will get troll'd for this but I have yet to see anyone bring up the idea that homo sexuals are working for the TSA. It is against the law to screen on sexual preference any more, yet we enforce the idea that women need to be screened by women, and men screened by men - what if that woman doing the screening is gay, or vice versa for a man? I would have to wager a guess that if your turned on, your going to be hard pressed to prove/show that you were *not* groping or molesting someone - its a matter of sexual attraction, end of story... This would go the same for the police, but at least there you have a MUCH more strict code of conduct - from what I gather there simply isn't one for the TSA from the simple fact it's a minimum wage job, if not barely above...
Those VC's certainly do much due diligence.. When you go and sign up, it's broken - you don't even have to agree to the terms of use or privacy policy, let alone fill anything else in after giving them your email. Considering they deal in advertising, and with all the other sneaky/underhanded advertising going on around the net - with out having to agree to the terms and all, I would think that is scary grounds for all kinds of law suits if they give out information, spam you, etc..
While I do agree with this, I don't think that it's the over all problem/concern.. Everyone knows (and elsewhere as well) that practically every large industry, including the government in the US is corrupt - hell, didn't the financial industry (banks -> walls street) almost take out the financial industries of countries all over the world through a domino effect?
These kinds of leaks *will* come back to bite us, although I'm starting to wonder if this is some kind of rebellion starting - with all the corruption with these very large industries, including the legal system and government which is suppose to prevent it, it seems next to impossible to change anything and gain control of our country again - so what's left? Tell the world what is really going on, hand them proof and let the 'best friends' of the elite tell them where to go and what they can do with 'X'.
What are 300,000,000 people to do when 90% of everything they are told is 'crafted' and/or 'fabricated' - and mind you not from the government, but from the for-profit news industry, the advertising that is constantly bombarding them and the legal system that is turning into for-profit only as well..
Corporations run the United States, not the government, and it's corrupt - I can very much see how one could view that the 'normal' process of how to change things could take wayyyy to long, and in the mean time more corruption occurs and gets worse. If your at a loss - what else can you do than to air the dirty laundry of those in power to the world, and let the other 5.7 billion inhabitants help you fight - by having their government(s) telling those in power of you to f' off, and with a big 'F'...
Firstly, will this bring about any (if present) early termination clause in contracts as a "significant change in terms?"
Would it be even possible to break the contract with AT&T, if you no longer agree with the new terms of Apple? I only have the iPod, although from what I understand it would make this fancy smart phone practically pointless with out all the apps..
And are you actually saying that since science is "changing all the time" and nothing is 100% proven that zero scientific theories are valid? Whoa. Well, they never will be (at least to folks like you) but to me being 99.99999999% certain of something is good enough.
More power to ya - I'm just saying that when that 0.000000001% discovers something brand new and changes the fundamental understanding on how we understand our surroundings - at least I can say that I wont be dumb founded and lost, as I would have already known that there was still more out there.. With a search I dug up this as a quick example - http://science.slashdot.org/story/08/11/03/2229248/New-Type-of-Particle-May-Have-Been-Found
Wow, a spiritual person having a hard time believing something that can be scientifically proven that contradicts their own personal views that cannot be scientifically proven. There's a first.
Fixed that for you.. Other than that, I'm not so sure I would completely agree with your statement, science is changing all the time, and with the changes more and more doors are opening up - some shedding light and others opening to yet a another deep void that is left to be explained let alone theorized. Science has proven lately to show that previous scientific facts/proofs were flat out wrong because of these new doors that have opened - until 100% of everything is explained/proven and not merely theorized (and not 99.999% either as that remaining 0.001% can open yet another door to endless questions) saying that something isn't so is just plain ignorance. It's ignorant because you've stopped thinking/feeling for your self and has accepted what 'someone' else says is so...
You need to remember that 'religion' is the bureaucratic version of spirituality - two completely different things, like being human and being a corporate lawyer/politician is two completely different things (pun intended). Personally, I believe that science is looking for a needle in a haystack the size of the universe - in which the needle is sitting on your nose. The notion of "God" is so freaking simple it's ridiculous, although due to religion it has become so complicated and intricate that it is taking science to try and unravel it - aka, disprove it (which it won't)..
A simple question - whats *two* things that EVERY human being on this planet has in common, that's not biological or physical and regardless of religion or beliefs - and then ask your self what the relationship is...
I'd be curious to know if there was some kind of unofficial threat from the FBI that if the given operator doesn't comply they will be investigated for impeding the given investigation or something - as we all know we are breaking some kind of law at any given moment, although with the newly in acted laws for national security due to terrorism, we are probably violating these as well at any given time - let alone in the past...
There's something else I don't quite understand - I've had the gas pedal stick on me a more than few times because of the floor mat. The problem I'm having with Toyota's theory though is that in my situation the floor mat simply held the gas pedal where it was on each occasion - so when I went to stop/slow down, letting off the gas didn't do anything - but it sure as hell didn't floor the beast to where I was all the sudden doing 90 and thrown back into the seat (as one of the reports claim) and yes the brakes did still work - just more pressure was required to use them.
Your religion is not the only one, and the Constitution protects all religions equally. My religion recognizes same sex marriages, and performs said ceremonies. By denying me the right to call what my religion does 'marriage' you are infringing on my freedom of religion.
Great, I'm happy for you - seriously, you have a belief that your particular religion 100% supports and backs. Although, how can you possibly believe that you are NOT pushing your beliefs and religion onto others when yours is right and every one else is wrong?!?!
Sorry, you lose and my right to religious freedom wins. Ahhhh, love that US Constitution, don't you?
Ironically, this does have everything to do with religious freedom, and your again ignoring (or it's escaping you) the issue with terminology and the definition of marriage. Some very prominent religions forbid divorce, while others at the same scale allow it with out any issue what so ever - both having very different definitions of what marriage is suppose to be. As such, your beliefs have introduced another core fundamental difference - which from your use of words is obviously perfectly fine for you but apparently others who believe differently not only are the flat out wrong but they are bigots. Again, your the one forcing your beliefs on others - or they are labeled.
This is probably going to go over your head, (again) but I'll say it anyway - this is all about terminology. The government crossed the line a ways back when it endorsed, sanctioned and gives breaks to those in such a union - crossing the line when it comes to "separation of church and state". They should have instead had the "civil union" introduced, since in the eyes of the government the backing of a religion should be irrelevant and not tolerated - otherwise you get BS like this. The governments use of the term marriage instead of civil union, is the cause of everything around this. Since it uses a term from religious backgrounds - it merges church and state. As such, since your religion condones acts that fundamentally change the definition of what marriage is for many others, the terminology needs to be addressed as it's not the religious background that is relevant to the government nor should it be.
As you are proving with the name calling and labeling - ideals, beliefs and religious aspects are being introduced and argued upon solely because you need your beliefs to be accepted by the government due the one word - "marriage". If the government did not use the term, but instead the "civil union" for all religions, this would have come down to yet another splintering of religious sects. But because the gov uses the term, and the term has deep roots in many religions - and because your beliefs differ so much on those core roots, you have no choice but to change those core roots. Your use of name calling and labeling so eloquently proves my point - as petty as it is, your arguing that your beliefs and religion has the right to exist, in which there is no reason why it can't - although it -is- fundamentally different at certain levels and since the government uses the same terminology as this core belief, you have no choice but to re-define this terminology otherwise why in the hell would you care? What did you expect when you tried to redefine such a core belief in so many people? Jeeze, when Pluto was declassified as an actual planet many people flipped out about it and that belief was no where near the scale of what marriage is...
...because you are a bigot who wants to impose your religious values onto other religions besides your own and wants to dictate what ceremonies other religions are allowed to perform.
I oppose it and my reasons have zero to do with any religious or spiritual values/beliefes. Going along with the GP's argument, if your after state sanctioned and recognized "unions" that offer the same perks and legal rights as the state recognized and sanctioned "religious" unions - ie: marriage, then that's one thing and it should be recognized but not because your "gay" - but because the individuals involved are citizens of the given state.
Marriage always has been and always will be a religious matter. Those individuals who are not religious and want the 'perks' of making a commitment to each other - get the states version of marriage which is just a civil union that is happening to be using the same terminology - I'm referring to going to the local court house and getting hitched.
IF you are only after the 'perks' of the state sanctioned civil union, then this is a deal of the state crossing the line of the separation between church and state - and all federal/state government should scratch using the terminology of "marriage" and simply use "union" instead. If this is not the case, then sadly it's you who is trying to impose your religious values on others.
...do not have a listening service configured in the client firewall and are therefore not affected by this vulnerability
Why couldn't other software have this 'listening service' and there for be vulnerable?
From the security bulletin, XP SP2/3 and XP PRO x64 SP2 are vulnerable (DOS). "This security update resolves several privately reported vulnerabilities in Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) processing." - Just because one certain piece of software isn't vulnerable to this attack vector, doesn't mean another wouldn't...
The bug(s) are still there, sounds like they are just searching for reasons not to fix them, FTFA...
Although the two bugs can be exploited on Windows 2000 and XP, Microsoft downplayed their impact. "A system would become unresponsive due to memory consumption ... [but] a successful attack requires a sustained flood of specially crafted TCP packets, and the system will recover once the flood ceases."
While this was my original line of thinking, I'd have to also assume that the artist has his copy of the contract and it was gone over with a fine tooth comb before organizing the raid for this - especially against a corporate entity the size of Sony.
Even though it's all agreed here that Sony is going to find some way out out of this, it may still turn out to be a boon for the lowly citizen (world wide) as this as well may be able to be used as a precedent (not a legal one though) just in our favor - even though the laws are different, it comes down to the 'magic' math, and what Sony (RIAA) considers intent and potential profit.
IANAL, although from what I do understand is that the US legal system has little to do with the actual laws, and a heck of lot more on how well the given side argues (civil cases of course) - I wouldn't think it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to point out that the arguments used in their defense of this (Sony), would counter all the arguments used in their prosecution attempts. In other words, even though it's a different country, different laws, different way of doing things - they are still held to their word, and considered truthful - because of that, I would think it could be used as a good argument that they are making everything up, if it counters whats been said to be truthful else where.. There any lawyers on, that could verify one way or the other if this could be possible - not the outcome of the foreign case, but what is said under oath in the foreign case...
I can come home and destroy my liver after a long day at work, but I can't sit down and enjoy some THC?
And thats the whole problem unfortunately, the fact that the U.S. is too dependent on the almighty $$$. Destroying your liver costs you $$$, in both obtaining the liquor and obtaining the resulting medical treatments. There is zero $$$ (all around) in smoking some homegrown free Cannabis, but there are major $$$ in fining and criminalizing you for smoking it. If we were to legalize Cannabis, it would take a big chunk of the $$$ out of the drug cartels world wide - which is desirable, although at the same time there would be the same (if not more) amount in $$$ taken away from the private companies contracted to 'help out' the government in these 'wars/battles' - whether it's in in IT contracts, manufacturing weapons, logistics, medical, testing, etc.. someone rich and powerful is going to loose out. Even if were made legal, and a huge tax added to it - the amount of $$$ it would cost you would drop so much, that the amount of $$$ in taxes would not offset how much is profitable - perhaps for the government it self it could come relatively close, but not for the private companies with the trickle down effect.
It's all about the $$$, and it's just to bad that we are so addicted to it - personally, I'm concerned that this country will have to go bankrupt and implode before this changes. Obama has already had to personally visit our largest creditor (China) and make the case that we are capable of paying our bills, as they are getting concerned about the amount of debt we are racking up and the ability to pay it off...
Kind of reminds me what they got the Universities around the country to start doing - it only took the top Universities with some major $$$ and legal weight/expertise behind them to actually stand up to them (IIRC) - from my understanding, at least the local ISD's neither has anything close to the $$$ nor the legal weight/expertise behind them... I'm not saying the Universities dumped a lot of money into fighting them, but it did take some serious legal expertise to even consider standing up to them - and it goes back to the ISD's having neither..
...but the law is on our side.
And the money is on theirs, which has a funny way of making/changing these laws...
I'd imagine that they were testing the major configurations of the company they were at, why test configuration X if it's not supported in the first place? Also, I'd be suspicious of the 'image', I've seen what is called an 'image' but in reality formating the drive and 'copying' files over to the new and blank fs.
I would suspect that the initial 'plan' was to start with the common hardware configuration and OS. Upgrade to Vista, make sure it's all good to go and then do the plunge with 7. They would have stuck with very few configurations because that is all that was used, and they opted for the upgrade so the 100's or 1000's of desktops won't loose data/settings of the end users - if you did that your company would come to stand still for at least a few hours and the helpdesk would be buzy for days.
laws written by the RIAA to make it a felony to mask your IP address.
It is a class 3 felony to block caller ID in Michigan.
Wouldn't that make it a felony for the companies using the service to get around the blocking? IE: masking, in a since, the real #? Blocking something isn't the same thing as pretending your something else - IE: masking.
Just think of what you are not advocating for a minute.
I'm not advocating changing a 200 year old document over a software issue.
He's not advocating changing the 200yr old doc over software either - he's advocating changing it over protecting literature...
Hypothetically, if a decade from now - the media stronghold(s) decided that some event 'X' in US history should NOT have occurred, so they decide to release a shit load of media against the idea - and with our lives 100% controlled at the digital level by DRM, after a generation or two - that 'X' part history no longer happened... That's acceptable?
You give someone an inch, they will next go for the mile - until they get that, and then they go for the next mile. Accepting this and not fighting back with a something 'bigger' than them will only give them that inch, and later the mile.
Photoshop inserts itself into the firewall exceptions list? I agree that this should require a UAC elevation, but it is no different to how the firewall works on XP. It is not a Windows 7 issue, nor is it anything to do with DRM. Neither does not being able to move or delete a DLL that is in use. We had that problem back in the day of Windows 3.0!
Kind of going back in time there aren't you? Technology is suppose to advance, not retreat...
Win 3.1 is what I was thinking... If your only allowing 3 apps to run, why not just go back to the simplified OS that uses time slicing instead of true multitasking and likewise you less intelligent hardware and consequently saving money?
The banking industry needs a lot of IT and database people. This is where a lot of H1B hiring goes on I believe.
Recently while talking to the hundreds of head hunters (like so many are these days), one of them explained to me that the over whelming majority of companies that do a credit check are those in the financial industry. We got to joking about it, but the point was that it was very hard to find someone with that good of credit - they were just far and few between. I'd be curious to know if the H1-B workers get preference simply because they are not on our credit system and consequently not having any credit is better than not having bad credit?
If that is the case, talk about a catch-22 - the 'system' got us here, and that same system doesn't want us... One of the halves of my brain are working overtime in that some jack-ass exec came up with the ingenious idea of giving every one easy credit, knowing eventually we would not be able to support it - and now they have the 'reasoning' not to employee their fellow neighbours...
I seriously doubt DELL was approaching Microsoft with - "Come on man, I know your OS can't run on our hardware but can't you give us these stickers anyway?", I would presume to guess that is was more along the lines of DELL telling them that their stuff would not run right, and that they needed to fix it - Microsoft just opted to just give them the sticker instead.
You know, I love a good Microsoft pummeling as much as the next guy, but my concern is that MS is just now starting to come around to a slightly more rational way of thinking about its customers. I'm cautiously optimistic about Windows 7 in this regard.
And? They have been pushing their customers around for decades, and just because they are BEING forced, both legally and finally by their customers to get their act together (possibly to late) - you really want to say, "that's okay - there, there..."
But if you cut an $8 billion hole in Microsoft, you run the risk of making them frantic to patch that hole. And as we know, they have some pretty well-developed skills for being really aggressive at the expense of the end user.
2 wrongs don't equal a right, it never has...
Your friends were still selling what they claimed to be selling - a P4 with 512mb of RAM, if they were able to convince **YOU** to say that your stuff would run on it, and you knew it wouldn't, well that's your problem - not theirs...
You going to walk off a cliff if one of them thought it was safe, when you knew full and well it wasn't?
FTA...
Nexicon confirms that the files downloaded violate a copyright through its technology...
It also notes that it is policing the newsgroups, my question is on the "downloading" and copyright violation - With P2P when you download, your uploading also although this is not the case for the newsgroups, when you download that is all your doing - this would be more in lines of "stealing" than the copyright violation isn't it? I was under the impression that to violate a given copyright, you need to re-distribute the said material, IE: why the mafiaa goes after P2P and the insane "settlements"... If this is correct, how could they go could after you for a copyright violation if you didn't violate it? This isn't for uploading the material mind you, just leeching it...