Go watch Fox News. The attitudes that senator McCarthy embodied and fostered are alive and well, and frighteningly accepted by some listeners. And dear god, if you actually read the Patriot Act, you see the fostering of exactly the same sort of star chamber and secret political monitoring "to stop terrorism" that McCarthy rode on "to stop Communism".
Nonsense. The big difference is that Terrorism isn't legal and no one with a sound mind thinks it should be legal. The programs on fox news or any other news show is nothing more then ideologue bullshit spouted by idiots with no real power over anyone or any establishment.
I'm not saying it's gotten as bad as it was in McCarthy's hey-day, but given the AT&T fiber-optic spying and similar behavior, and the clear use of domestic and foreign intelligence and security resources for political uses (especially under Bush and Cheney), it's hard to ignore the continuing risks. (Go review what happened to the protesters of the Republican national convention in 2004 for examples.)
Let's see, where to start. ATT's Fiber optic spying was because of a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. The FISA bungle that is the NSA TSP isn't McCarthyism at all unless you can somehow justify terrorism. But then I would suggest that says more about you then the government.
Finally, what spying was used for political gain? Sure, government agents infiltrated political protest organizations and gathered intelligence in order to prevent them from committing crimes. I'm not sure why you are pretending it only happened to republican protesters as it's been happening to democrat rallies for the longest time. In fact, the free speech zones were started by democrats not wanting a repeat of the Chicago riots during their national convention in 1968. Again, the biggest difference is that it's being used to prevent illegal behavior which was illegal long before terrorist or your disdain for republicans or fox news ever existed.
Your trying to make something of nothing and it isn't working to well for you. Perhaps you seriously don't see the difference which is why I suggest you get more then the cliff notes version of McCarthyism.
Disagreement in ideology is not McCarthyism. I suggest you spend a little more time understanding what McCarthyism actually is/was. I'll give you a hint, it's government sponsored or pressured and not the free expression of ideologues by idiots. The fact that people are elected while being called socialist or that ideas from elected officials can be called socialist is living proof that McCarthyism is long dead.
Listen, the right or wrong of software patents or copyright aside, the only thing he is refrained from here is the involvement of ideas and technology originating with other people. It's not a matter solely of his own ideas so do not pretend otherwise. And claiming to want to implement a completely open source DVD player when the DVD standard is someone else idea as well as his wanting to implement it directly is nothing but indicative of that concept. If anything is hypocritical, it would be ignoring that very fact in order to pretend a different scenario is unfolding.
Perhaps not in the form of protecting us from communists but it will undoubtedly come back in one form or another. With complacency like yours it will come back even quicker.
Not at all. There has been ample opportunity for it since then and it didn't happen. Stop being afraid of the dark. Keep your eyes open so you do not trip over something but quit being afraid.
The DMCA makes it illegal to publish an entirely open source DVD player. It effectively grants a limitless patent to the DVD CCA which controls who can make a DVD player and under what conditions. Software patents limit my ability to publish ideas I developed on my own having never heard of an obvious submarine patent that will bar me from publishing my software.
No it does not. The DMCA prevents you from publishing an entirely open source DVD player that uses other people's technology. You can make an open source player that plays DVDs that does not use their encryption. It won't play commercial DVDs until they start using the open scheme but that's not my problem. Also, software patents do no stop you from publishing your ideas. They stop you from publishing other people's ideas. I don't agree with them, but your acting like you are the one who developed the tech which is patented and your not otherwise a software patent would be a non-issue for you. And yes, I have heard of submarine patents. Those are problems with standards boards more so then with patents in and of themselves. But they do not stop you from publishing your software, they stop you from creating and publishing software using their patented technology. In short, everything you just complained about revolves around you not thinking it's fair that you can't take someone elses ideas and products and copy them.
What makes you so sure the protesters did that? COINTELPRO was an FBI program in which agents infiltrated protest groups and started riots to make the group look bad, and to give the authorities an excuse to interfere with the group's free-speech rights.
In video footage of protests, it's clearly the entirety of the protesters not just some agents. Even if agents were instigating the violence, the rest of the crowd was happily joining in. If you help rob a bank because a FBI agent starts doing it, you are no less of a bank robber then if you had taken the actions entirely on your own. If you haven't watched the footage were in the middle of it then I'm not sure why you feel competent enough to talk about it. Christ, it's only some of the most documented times in the recent history of the US. And if you were part of it or seen the footage, then you wouldn't have made the statement you did.
Your pretty much right. I know a preacher that got hit on taxes because he would take a pay form the church to get insurance coverage but donate the entire pay back to the church. He did that for about 10 years and all the sudden an audit came along and screwed that up for the same reasons you explained. Once you receive it, it's income. What you do with it later only counts when the tax law allows it. Now he just donates anything in excess of his taxes back to the church. He lives from a pension from a normal job he retired from years ago.
Wow, I can't believe you got modded up for that snibbling rant. All you did was criticize some programs way out of context as if you didn't understand them and bark about something that happened, was ended, and everyone agrees should never happen again.
The 60's are over, we have all moved on and no one things they should return. McCarthyism is long dead and will not resurrect in out lifetime and it's pointless to drag out FOIA, DMCA, Software patents and so on. The DMCA and Software patents do not limit speech, they limit what you can do with other people's speech. The FIOA is just rubbish, it's more then most countries have. And the Anti-Vietnam war speech often consisted of quite a bit of inflammatory speech and acts that provoked the other side. I mean calling soldiers baby killers, spitting in their faces, throwing pigs blood on them when they return, getting doped out of their mind and ignoring the fact that 90% of the soldiers were compelled by law to server their country during the war time. This doesn't even begin to mention the bombings by the anti war groups, the YAF who promoted anarchy and wondered why the man came down on them after they broke a dozen laws or the riots they created across the country like the big one in Detroit. Hell, a lot of the protesters provoked the other side just to get headlines when they broke and retaliated.
I had a good laugh at that site. Some of those vans make you wonder though.
My van isn't pictured there so I guess I'm good. Mine looks a lot like this one except it has a sliding door on the side and a TV antenna in the shape of a V on the top of the cab portion in front of the two front windows of the raised portion. Oh and my van is blue and gold, the guy who owned it before me was a West Virginia football fan and had it custom painted for that reason.
The justification was the law as written. In this specific case, it's because what the subject matter pertained to wasn't an actual adopted rule, law or ordinance. Their threat to report something was exposing an un-adopted rule the FCC has so the Florida law couldn't be in effect to protect them. This could be changed in several ways, either by Florida changing the law, passing a new law pertaining to knowingly reporting false news on a state or federal level, or by the FCC formally adopting the rule.
You can't just change the law because you feel like it. I know you think the court should have done so but look at it the other way around. Suppose you were doing the speed limit on a road that someone accidentally place the wrong speed limit sign on. Now suppose you drive down the road and a cop gives you a ticket. You were following the posted speed limit and shouldn't have to suffer the citation. But when you present the evidence to the judge, he says he thinks the speed limit should have been slower then the regular speed limit so he increases your charge from 10MPG over the speed limit to 25 mph over which makes it a reckless operation charge carrying jail time, 6 points on your license and your insurance doubles. That's the effect of the ruling doing anything other then following the law. You as a plaintiff or defendant need to know what the law is before taking an action and because your supposed to be lawful, your actions will reflect the law (unless your breaking the law).
That's why you do not change the law after the fact and apply it to previous actions. If the law is lacking and needs to be changed, then get it changed. But we can't attempt to apply the law as if it was changed and it wasn't.
It doesn't prevent them from revealing knowledge of a lie. It just prevents them from attaching their name to the revelations to some degree. As I said, they can always forward the information to the FCC or another news source anonymously. Of course the FCC will go after the broadcast license of the station which could result in losing their jobs anyways.
But here is a question. If you worked for a news station that purposely lied, would you want to remain working for them and have your professional reputation soiled by their misdeeds? I mean seriously, your professional reputation could go from Lead report for a the county's largest broadcaster to the guy who told all those lies on TV.
If you considered that an insult, it tells more about yourself then I could say about you. It wasn't an insult, it was an observation based around your statement.
What you said describes the very problem with the entire blind investment market we have now. When I invest in a company, I want to know exactly what it is doing. I want to know how its run, by whom, and their ideology.
And again, you will not know if they are screwing something over until after it is found out and reported to you- if it ever does. You simply will not know about a company doing something wrong until after that wrong has happened.
That would be a real investment. For example. If I have a friend who wants to start a business, and he asks me to invest. Now i know this guy has a good idea, but I also know he's been to jail once for fraud...
Do I invest? probably not.
Despite it being impossible to screen every single employee working at some company with the ability to make a decision, it's impracticle to expect someone to know everything about any company they are investing with. This cluelessness is why I said it was obvious your not an investor.
What you're talking about is blind investment. You're talking about gambling for profits sake, rather than true profitability. You're talking about getting in, and getting out, regardless of the companies behaviors, or actual real performance ratings.
No, not at all. I'm talking about investing period. Some people gamble on it, some do not. Most people look at a company's financial performance and determine if they are making money or not or capable of doing so in the future. Some people end up investing through mutual funds where someone else manages all the details.
I understand what you're saying... No one can tell what MAY happen. But investing in companies that do as they do now.... and we all know how they do business...
It's simply profiting at the expense of whats right.
Not at all. There are laws and companies are required to follow the laws. What's right verses legal is a totally perverse view. The Christians don't think Abortions are right, should everyone stop investing in companies that might perform abortions or assist in some way by maybe manufacturing tools and supplies used in the procedures? If the laws need changed, then get them changed, however basing your assumptions on some right and wrong ideology is nothing more then person opinion and you have just as much legitimacy to find fault in someone else as some groups do when they shun premarital sex. In other words, Your claim is bogus until a law or rule of laws covers it. You have entirely unrealistic expectations.
Forgive me, I'm a bit old school I guess, or too idealistic in that I do beleive a company should exist to make profit, and benefit its workers and community.
I've seen nothing that suggest this isn't still true in business or that anyone is claiming otherwise. The problem is that it revolves around your opinion and the degree of benefit will differ to everyone.
Investing in cut throat businesses just to make a profit seems... rather evil.
Again with the subjective opinions. Ok, then do not invest in anything you see as evil. However, my investing in companies selling condoms to teens or whatever doesn't concern you at all. If a company breaks a law, it should pay. If it doesn't, then you have no basis for you complaint outside your own actions.
It's not a screwed up ruling. It simply states that the person's claim wasn't valid. Preemptive strike or not, there was a clause in their contract that allowed it to be severed without cause. It wasn't until after that, they threatened to tell the FCC and claim protection. Furthermore, their actions stopped the report from airing at all. Anyways, it didn't prevent anyone from filing a complaint against any news agency for fake or misleading news nor does it give anyone a license to lie.
I'm going to hazard a guess that they are basically the same 30 year asphalt shingles they already sell with the PV film fixed to it somehow and a universal connector system that automatically lines up and connects with regular installation.
Not really, the two reporters weren't fired for publicly claiming what they reported was a lie, they were fired for not doing as they were asked. In September 1997, WTVT notified Akre and Wilson that it was exercising its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause. Akre and Wilson responded in writing to WTVT threatening to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") alleging that the station had "illegally" edited the still unfinished BGH report in violation of an FCC policy against federally licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news.
They could have simply reported the problems to the FCC first. It would have resulted in the same thing- losing their jobs. Not because Fox could continue to fire them but because the FCC's rule is generally to sue the license for breach of public trust or some shit like that and revoke their broadcast license.
Read the ruling I linked to. It explains all this. A couple things to remember is that this is a Florida law in a Florida court, about a Florida fox affiliate and if the FCC finds a station reporting false or misleading news, it can and will yank their broadcast license.
This case in no way means Fox or any other station could lie. It only means there is no whistle blower protection as the law was written. For all I know, it could have been changed by now to make that even that moot.
It could be beneficial to society but I'm not completely sure it would be possible. For instance, I currently own shared of two mutual funds and an index fund. I would have to stay current on every company in the markets.
And for a single company, when they have ten main offices around the world that each oversee 20 distinctly different types of operations, that's quite a bit of coverage I would need to get involved with on top of the 40-50 hour work week, time with the family and sleep and so on.
It's a little more in depth then that but if your narrow it down, you recalled correctly- except that the ability to lie wasn't given, protection from whistle blower lawsuits is what was given.
Basically, to resolve the possibility of litigation, Fox executives ordered statements from Monsanto to be included in a reporting about Bovine Growth Hormone at a local florida affiliate. The reporters claimed the statements to be false and misleading and initially refused to include them in the report. The two reporters were terminated after threatening to report Fox's actions to the FCC so they filed a wrongful termination lawsuit under the Florida whistle blower protection laws.
The court actually ruled that misrepresenting the truth or a lie didn't rise to the levels needed for the whistle blower protection to kick (a violation of a law) in so the two reporters didn't have standing for the suit. It didn't give Fox news Carte Blanche in their reporting as they are still held by other standards including libel and FCC regulations. But it did reinforce their editorial control over the protections against people working for them. The effect can be distorted to include the ability to lie in news reporting but that would be a misstatement in the least.
Again, the argument wasn't that they can lie, it was that lieing didn't trip the whistle blower protections the reporters claimed to have had. Five other major news operators in the area filed amicus briefs on Fox's behalf over this too. This is also only a Florida regulation under Florida laws in a Florida court. It doesn't automagically apply in other states or nation wide nor does it make it legal for Fox to lie. It only makes it legal to fire reporters in Florida who refuse to lie. Consumer protections as well as libel and other laws still apply.
They signed in 1968 but Iran as a country ratified it in 1970. Iran used the NPT after that to further it's domestic nuclear power operations. In 1992, it told the IAEA that it still honored the treaty and allowed IAEA inspections as it started rebuilding it's nuclear programs after the Iraq war. From 1992 to 2003, the IAEA inspections found nothing wrong until 2003 when a discrepancy in the amounts Uranium being stored at a facility caused a more in depth review of some of the accounting. Iran started denying access and kicked the IAEA out for a period of time. Initially, the thought was that Iran gave the stuff to terrorists for a dirty bomb. But later intelligence showed they were talking about building nuclear weapons.
Now, Saddam has said that he pretended to have WMDs in defiance of his disarmament agreements because he feared attach from Iraqs neighboring countries. This is my personal injection here, I believe Iran made these claims knowing Iraq's leader was paranoid long before they actually took actions towards getting the bomb in order to cause Iraq to posture itself causing the belief they had WMDS before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This could have been done for several reasons but two of them are 1: justifying their own Nuclear weapons program or 2: the president of Iran is a twelver which is a sect of Muslims who believe a twelfth Imam was locked away in a cave and will come back when chaos in the world is so great so he can bring about paradise. (think of the twelvers as a Muslims version of Jesus) Anyways, the twelvers generally think if they can help cause the chaos, they can help the second coming along. Now Iran is in a position of claiming it doesn't have a nuclear weapons program while posturing itself as if it does.
Anyways, the NPT has been acknowledged after the revolution and Iran has used it to their benefit for 10 years or more. If they hadn't, then their nuclear programs wouldn't be where they are today (in reality as well as suspicion).
I don't think your seeing the breakdown or possible take breakdown. Suppose it is guessing a number between 1-100. So I employ 10 computers to ask, instead of having a 1/100th chance, I have a one in ten chance that one of the computers will get a yes. My overall chances haven't changed, but the chances of each node guessing has. Furthermore, statistically or realistically speaking, the number of tries each node will have to attempt is going to be less then the total number of chances. So if the number is 55, then the total number of tries will be 45 before I get a Yes answer.
Now if I modify the search criteria to follow natural patterns and say by trying multiples of 5 first, then I'm in with just 15 tries.
But lets say I'm not doing this against one computer, I'm doing it against 10 computers at a time and adding them to the nodes attempting the hack as I get them. So if in the first sweep, I get one extra computer, I can pick a multiple and divide the remaining in half. If I pick up a second computer, on the second pass, I can pick another multiple and divide it in half again. So instead of having 10 nodes searching 0-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80-90, I could have 2-12-22-32-35-42-52-62-65-72-82-92. The amount of numbers grow while the choices not covered decrease. It tilts the odds to my favor because instead of needing 100 tries, the odds of hitting a password increases by the number of multiples So if each node can only try one time per minute in order to avoid automatic blocks for unsuccessful connection attempts, instead of needing 55 minutes to guess the number 55, you need 5 minutes because ten distinctly different nodes are connecting.
Now, A strong password with 292 billion possibilities will be substantially more difficult to obtain and could still remain statistically impossible. But that impossibility changes with the ability to split the possibles up. The chances of getting luck and hitting a password increased greatly. Especially if I have 770 machines hitting 1000 different servers 7 times per minute to appear as 6000 hits from different sources per minute on each attacked box. Now not only have I increase the chances of hitting a random password by dividing the attack vector, I have done so by increasing the pool of the attack which would ultimately increase the footprint of the attack as some servers fall.
It doesn't mean your server will fall, but it means it isn't exactly safe on a strong password alone.
The type of attack is interesting. There are security products that will block failed connections after a certain amount of tries and/or in a certain amount of time. This attack is distributed meaning that it doesn't trigger the failed connects per amount of time. It hits from multiple computers so IP bases detection is pretty much useless for automated security programs. It's also slowed to a pace that wouldn't cause a packet storm or otherwise flood the network tipping off other security products or admins with their eyes open.
This is news worthy because the style of the attacks, are designed to defeat normal security protocol and software designed to defend against these types of attacks. It's pretty much going to require someone to either tweak their settings until it's over or take a visual look at the logs to identify an attack. Plus, making sure your convenient password is actually a strong password to avoid getting hit in the first place. In other words, it highlights some things many pros might have become complacent about while at the same time illuminates the very same issues to the newbs who might not know as much as we would like.
The problem with 292 billion combinations or even just 17 million combinations is that your password will not be at the last point in the combination. IF the password ends up in the first quarter, then you only have 73 billion or 4.25 million before it's discovered. Now lets assume it's in the second half or third quarter of combination because you made a strong password. All I have to do is start trying mid way or in the last quarter of the possible sequences and I don't even need to go through a quarter of the possibilities to get it.
The point I'm trying to make is that your misleading yourself by looking at the possible combinations to a password because your password will lay somewhere within those possibilities. IF we apply some human characteristics to the issue, we can probably narrow the amount of passwords to try down some more before we get a hit. Humans Characteristics tend to be patterns like common strokes on a keyboard with reach or on hand, sometimes all in a row or diagonally, numbers tend to be consecutive and so on. Running a dictionary attack modified by those variables could potentially gain access without going through 10 percent of the possible combination you mention.
Now notice I said can. There is no guarantee that it will be successful. But there is a guarantee that you will not need to comb through all 292 billion possible combinations to get access so dwelling on that number is misleading.
Pakistan isn't a member of the non-proliferation treaty and didn't receive special benefits of it like Iran did. If your going with the tired old "So and so does it, why can't they" argument, you should at least investigate why they are being denied the ability to make nuclear arms. It's because they signed a treaty claiming they wouldn't and received payment in the terms of certain favorable trade deals with member countries.
I'm not going to address some of your other misgivings and implications.
Fox didn't get a ruling that it's news can be lies. They got a ruling stating that their stations can control the content of the news being reported and refuse to allow something to be reported regardless of the truthfulness of it. One of their attorneys (or was it a company representative) suggested that they could even control it if it is a lie in order to limit liability. The ruling never said a word about reporting lies, just controlling the content of the reporting and it was over a local affiliate news program in Florida so it's not clear if the principle would work outside of Florida.
Also, you do not need a ruling. User responses are considered consumer endorsements which makes misrepresentations of the products illegal under federal law if the endorsements are reasonably considered as part of the purchasing consideration process. A site that displays the comments under the item in consideration would have to follow the false advertising rules and either place a disclaimer that's obvious to the consumer that they edited the negative responses or that results/performance isn't typical for all users.
On another note, most state laws have consumer protections against false or misleading advertisements in the same light. For instance, in my state, representing that the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; or whether the supplier knew at the time the consumer transaction was entered into of the inability of the consumer to receive a substantial benefit from the subject of the consumer transaction; could apply. This is because by removing negative reviews, the supplier knows of limitations and dissatisfaction with the product and presents it with an otherwise misleading approvals from select consumers. In the case of the op, if a negative reviews were present, he probably would have purchased a different product. His intent of posting a negetive review was specifically to inform future consumers of his experiences with the problem so they wouldn't be taken like he did. Federal and state laws regulate the extent to which a product can be represented.
Those would be apples and oranges in comparisons. When a movie or commercial replays a statement, they are representing what that person's opinion is and banking on their reputation. When a web site uses a commenting system and a rating system, they are representing the claims of their customers as a whole unless they have a disclaimer that it is otherwise.
Your right though, the Retailer is under no obligation to publish unfavorable reviews. But under fair business laws, they are generally under an obligation not to misrepresent their products. If by removing negative reviews that are legitimate concerns, the product is presented as better then it is or fit for something it can't do, then we start dealing with violations of the law. As the op stated, the NAS had a favorable review but wasn't particularly suited or capable at the task of NAS.
From a First Amendment stand point, the government can force them to not mislead potential customers. They call that consumer fraud and fair business practices and it carries civil as well as criminal penalties. Some of the civil conditions which you see often in MS EULA's is the fitness for use disclaimer causes in which they attempt to hide from an obligation to accept a return and possible liability for damages from the use of the software. It's the same concept if a business ends up misrepresenting a product, they can be liable for a refund and in some cases damages connected to the misrepresentation.
Do not forget to look at state laws and agencies. Often they are more inclusive then federal laws on fair business practices and there are usually more resources on a state level to deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. The big difference is that Terrorism isn't legal and no one with a sound mind thinks it should be legal. The programs on fox news or any other news show is nothing more then ideologue bullshit spouted by idiots with no real power over anyone or any establishment.
Let's see, where to start. ATT's Fiber optic spying was because of a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. The FISA bungle that is the NSA TSP isn't McCarthyism at all unless you can somehow justify terrorism. But then I would suggest that says more about you then the government.
Finally, what spying was used for political gain? Sure, government agents infiltrated political protest organizations and gathered intelligence in order to prevent them from committing crimes. I'm not sure why you are pretending it only happened to republican protesters as it's been happening to democrat rallies for the longest time. In fact, the free speech zones were started by democrats not wanting a repeat of the Chicago riots during their national convention in 1968. Again, the biggest difference is that it's being used to prevent illegal behavior which was illegal long before terrorist or your disdain for republicans or fox news ever existed.
Your trying to make something of nothing and it isn't working to well for you. Perhaps you seriously don't see the difference which is why I suggest you get more then the cliff notes version of McCarthyism.
Disagreement in ideology is not McCarthyism. I suggest you spend a little more time understanding what McCarthyism actually is/was. I'll give you a hint, it's government sponsored or pressured and not the free expression of ideologues by idiots. The fact that people are elected while being called socialist or that ideas from elected officials can be called socialist is living proof that McCarthyism is long dead.
Listen, the right or wrong of software patents or copyright aside, the only thing he is refrained from here is the involvement of ideas and technology originating with other people. It's not a matter solely of his own ideas so do not pretend otherwise. And claiming to want to implement a completely open source DVD player when the DVD standard is someone else idea as well as his wanting to implement it directly is nothing but indicative of that concept. If anything is hypocritical, it would be ignoring that very fact in order to pretend a different scenario is unfolding.
Not at all. There has been ample opportunity for it since then and it didn't happen. Stop being afraid of the dark. Keep your eyes open so you do not trip over something but quit being afraid.
No it does not. The DMCA prevents you from publishing an entirely open source DVD player that uses other people's technology. You can make an open source player that plays DVDs that does not use their encryption. It won't play commercial DVDs until they start using the open scheme but that's not my problem. Also, software patents do no stop you from publishing your ideas. They stop you from publishing other people's ideas. I don't agree with them, but your acting like you are the one who developed the tech which is patented and your not otherwise a software patent would be a non-issue for you. And yes, I have heard of submarine patents. Those are problems with standards boards more so then with patents in and of themselves. But they do not stop you from publishing your software, they stop you from creating and publishing software using their patented technology. In short, everything you just complained about revolves around you not thinking it's fair that you can't take someone elses ideas and products and copy them.
In video footage of protests, it's clearly the entirety of the protesters not just some agents. Even if agents were instigating the violence, the rest of the crowd was happily joining in. If you help rob a bank because a FBI agent starts doing it, you are no less of a bank robber then if you had taken the actions entirely on your own. If you haven't watched the footage were in the middle of it then I'm not sure why you feel competent enough to talk about it. Christ, it's only some of the most documented times in the recent history of the US. And if you were part of it or seen the footage, then you wouldn't have made the statement you did.
Your pretty much right. I know a preacher that got hit on taxes because he would take a pay form the church to get insurance coverage but donate the entire pay back to the church. He did that for about 10 years and all the sudden an audit came along and screwed that up for the same reasons you explained. Once you receive it, it's income. What you do with it later only counts when the tax law allows it. Now he just donates anything in excess of his taxes back to the church. He lives from a pension from a normal job he retired from years ago.
Wow, I can't believe you got modded up for that snibbling rant. All you did was criticize some programs way out of context as if you didn't understand them and bark about something that happened, was ended, and everyone agrees should never happen again.
The 60's are over, we have all moved on and no one things they should return. McCarthyism is long dead and will not resurrect in out lifetime and it's pointless to drag out FOIA, DMCA, Software patents and so on. The DMCA and Software patents do not limit speech, they limit what you can do with other people's speech. The FIOA is just rubbish, it's more then most countries have. And the Anti-Vietnam war speech often consisted of quite a bit of inflammatory speech and acts that provoked the other side. I mean calling soldiers baby killers, spitting in their faces, throwing pigs blood on them when they return, getting doped out of their mind and ignoring the fact that 90% of the soldiers were compelled by law to server their country during the war time. This doesn't even begin to mention the bombings by the anti war groups, the YAF who promoted anarchy and wondered why the man came down on them after they broke a dozen laws or the riots they created across the country like the big one in Detroit. Hell, a lot of the protesters provoked the other side just to get headlines when they broke and retaliated.
I had a good laugh at that site. Some of those vans make you wonder though.
My van isn't pictured there so I guess I'm good. Mine looks a lot like this one except it has a sliding door on the side and a TV antenna in the shape of a V on the top of the cab portion in front of the two front windows of the raised portion. Oh and my van is blue and gold, the guy who owned it before me was a West Virginia football fan and had it custom painted for that reason.
phew.. For a minute there, I thought I was in trouble or something. Thank god my van is blue.
I'm not a pedophile but I was thinking I just got labeled as one when I shovel the snow in the winter time or go hunting from my blind.
The justification was the law as written. In this specific case, it's because what the subject matter pertained to wasn't an actual adopted rule, law or ordinance. Their threat to report something was exposing an un-adopted rule the FCC has so the Florida law couldn't be in effect to protect them. This could be changed in several ways, either by Florida changing the law, passing a new law pertaining to knowingly reporting false news on a state or federal level, or by the FCC formally adopting the rule.
You can't just change the law because you feel like it. I know you think the court should have done so but look at it the other way around. Suppose you were doing the speed limit on a road that someone accidentally place the wrong speed limit sign on. Now suppose you drive down the road and a cop gives you a ticket. You were following the posted speed limit and shouldn't have to suffer the citation. But when you present the evidence to the judge, he says he thinks the speed limit should have been slower then the regular speed limit so he increases your charge from 10MPG over the speed limit to 25 mph over which makes it a reckless operation charge carrying jail time, 6 points on your license and your insurance doubles. That's the effect of the ruling doing anything other then following the law. You as a plaintiff or defendant need to know what the law is before taking an action and because your supposed to be lawful, your actions will reflect the law (unless your breaking the law).
That's why you do not change the law after the fact and apply it to previous actions. If the law is lacking and needs to be changed, then get it changed. But we can't attempt to apply the law as if it was changed and it wasn't.
Heh, his passwords work too. Shit there's a lot of porn on his computer.
It doesn't prevent them from revealing knowledge of a lie. It just prevents them from attaching their name to the revelations to some degree. As I said, they can always forward the information to the FCC or another news source anonymously. Of course the FCC will go after the broadcast license of the station which could result in losing their jobs anyways.
But here is a question. If you worked for a news station that purposely lied, would you want to remain working for them and have your professional reputation soiled by their misdeeds? I mean seriously, your professional reputation could go from Lead report for a the county's largest broadcaster to the guy who told all those lies on TV.
If you considered that an insult, it tells more about yourself then I could say about you. It wasn't an insult, it was an observation based around your statement.
And again, you will not know if they are screwing something over until after it is found out and reported to you- if it ever does. You simply will not know about a company doing something wrong until after that wrong has happened.
Despite it being impossible to screen every single employee working at some company with the ability to make a decision, it's impracticle to expect someone to know everything about any company they are investing with. This cluelessness is why I said it was obvious your not an investor.
No, not at all. I'm talking about investing period. Some people gamble on it, some do not. Most people look at a company's financial performance and determine if they are making money or not or capable of doing so in the future. Some people end up investing through mutual funds where someone else manages all the details.
Not at all. There are laws and companies are required to follow the laws. What's right verses legal is a totally perverse view. The Christians don't think Abortions are right, should everyone stop investing in companies that might perform abortions or assist in some way by maybe manufacturing tools and supplies used in the procedures? If the laws need changed, then get them changed, however basing your assumptions on some right and wrong ideology is nothing more then person opinion and you have just as much legitimacy to find fault in someone else as some groups do when they shun premarital sex. In other words, Your claim is bogus until a law or rule of laws covers it. You have entirely unrealistic expectations.
I've seen nothing that suggest this isn't still true in business or that anyone is claiming otherwise. The problem is that it revolves around your opinion and the degree of benefit will differ to everyone.
Again with the subjective opinions. Ok, then do not invest in anything you see as evil. However, my investing in companies selling condoms to teens or whatever doesn't concern you at all. If a company breaks a law, it should pay. If it doesn't, then you have no basis for you complaint outside your own actions.
It's not a screwed up ruling. It simply states that the person's claim wasn't valid. Preemptive strike or not, there was a clause in their contract that allowed it to be severed without cause. It wasn't until after that, they threatened to tell the FCC and claim protection. Furthermore, their actions stopped the report from airing at all. Anyways, it didn't prevent anyone from filing a complaint against any news agency for fake or misleading news nor does it give anyone a license to lie.
I'm going to hazard a guess that they are basically the same 30 year asphalt shingles they already sell with the PV film fixed to it somehow and a universal connector system that automatically lines up and connects with regular installation.
Not really, the two reporters weren't fired for publicly claiming what they reported was a lie, they were fired for not doing as they were asked. In September 1997, WTVT notified Akre and Wilson that it was exercising its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause. Akre and Wilson responded in writing to WTVT threatening to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") alleging that the station had "illegally" edited the still unfinished BGH report in violation of an FCC policy against federally licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news.
They could have simply reported the problems to the FCC first. It would have resulted in the same thing- losing their jobs. Not because Fox could continue to fire them but because the FCC's rule is generally to sue the license for breach of public trust or some shit like that and revoke their broadcast license.
Read the ruling I linked to. It explains all this. A couple things to remember is that this is a Florida law in a Florida court, about a Florida fox affiliate and if the FCC finds a station reporting false or misleading news, it can and will yank their broadcast license.
This case in no way means Fox or any other station could lie. It only means there is no whistle blower protection as the law was written. For all I know, it could have been changed by now to make that even that moot.
It could be beneficial to society but I'm not completely sure it would be possible. For instance, I currently own shared of two mutual funds and an index fund. I would have to stay current on every company in the markets.
And for a single company, when they have ten main offices around the world that each oversee 20 distinctly different types of operations, that's quite a bit of coverage I would need to get involved with on top of the 40-50 hour work week, time with the family and sleep and so on.
It's a little more in depth then that but if your narrow it down, you recalled correctly- except that the ability to lie wasn't given, protection from whistle blower lawsuits is what was given.
Basically, to resolve the possibility of litigation, Fox executives ordered statements from Monsanto to be included in a reporting about Bovine Growth Hormone at a local florida affiliate. The reporters claimed the statements to be false and misleading and initially refused to include them in the report. The two reporters were terminated after threatening to report Fox's actions to the FCC so they filed a wrongful termination lawsuit under the Florida whistle blower protection laws.
The court actually ruled that misrepresenting the truth or a lie didn't rise to the levels needed for the whistle blower protection to kick (a violation of a law) in so the two reporters didn't have standing for the suit. It didn't give Fox news Carte Blanche in their reporting as they are still held by other standards including libel and FCC regulations. But it did reinforce their editorial control over the protections against people working for them. The effect can be distorted to include the ability to lie in news reporting but that would be a misstatement in the least.
Again, the argument wasn't that they can lie, it was that lieing didn't trip the whistle blower protections the reporters claimed to have had. Five other major news operators in the area filed amicus briefs on Fox's behalf over this too. This is also only a Florida regulation under Florida laws in a Florida court. It doesn't automagically apply in other states or nation wide nor does it make it legal for Fox to lie. It only makes it legal to fire reporters in Florida who refuse to lie. Consumer protections as well as libel and other laws still apply.
They signed in 1968 but Iran as a country ratified it in 1970. Iran used the NPT after that to further it's domestic nuclear power operations. In 1992, it told the IAEA that it still honored the treaty and allowed IAEA inspections as it started rebuilding it's nuclear programs after the Iraq war. From 1992 to 2003, the IAEA inspections found nothing wrong until 2003 when a discrepancy in the amounts Uranium being stored at a facility caused a more in depth review of some of the accounting. Iran started denying access and kicked the IAEA out for a period of time. Initially, the thought was that Iran gave the stuff to terrorists for a dirty bomb. But later intelligence showed they were talking about building nuclear weapons.
Now, Saddam has said that he pretended to have WMDs in defiance of his disarmament agreements because he feared attach from Iraqs neighboring countries. This is my personal injection here, I believe Iran made these claims knowing Iraq's leader was paranoid long before they actually took actions towards getting the bomb in order to cause Iraq to posture itself causing the belief they had WMDS before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This could have been done for several reasons but two of them are 1: justifying their own Nuclear weapons program or 2: the president of Iran is a twelver which is a sect of Muslims who believe a twelfth Imam was locked away in a cave and will come back when chaos in the world is so great so he can bring about paradise. (think of the twelvers as a Muslims version of Jesus) Anyways, the twelvers generally think if they can help cause the chaos, they can help the second coming along. Now Iran is in a position of claiming it doesn't have a nuclear weapons program while posturing itself as if it does.
Anyways, the NPT has been acknowledged after the revolution and Iran has used it to their benefit for 10 years or more. If they hadn't, then their nuclear programs wouldn't be where they are today (in reality as well as suspicion).
I don't think your seeing the breakdown or possible take breakdown. Suppose it is guessing a number between 1-100. So I employ 10 computers to ask, instead of having a 1/100th chance, I have a one in ten chance that one of the computers will get a yes. My overall chances haven't changed, but the chances of each node guessing has. Furthermore, statistically or realistically speaking, the number of tries each node will have to attempt is going to be less then the total number of chances. So if the number is 55, then the total number of tries will be 45 before I get a Yes answer.
Now if I modify the search criteria to follow natural patterns and say by trying multiples of 5 first, then I'm in with just 15 tries.
But lets say I'm not doing this against one computer, I'm doing it against 10 computers at a time and adding them to the nodes attempting the hack as I get them. So if in the first sweep, I get one extra computer, I can pick a multiple and divide the remaining in half. If I pick up a second computer, on the second pass, I can pick another multiple and divide it in half again. So instead of having 10 nodes searching 0-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80-90, I could have 2-12-22-32-35-42-52-62-65-72-82-92. The amount of numbers grow while the choices not covered decrease. It tilts the odds to my favor because instead of needing 100 tries, the odds of hitting a password increases by the number of multiples So if each node can only try one time per minute in order to avoid automatic blocks for unsuccessful connection attempts, instead of needing 55 minutes to guess the number 55, you need 5 minutes because ten distinctly different nodes are connecting.
Now, A strong password with 292 billion possibilities will be substantially more difficult to obtain and could still remain statistically impossible. But that impossibility changes with the ability to split the possibles up. The chances of getting luck and hitting a password increased greatly. Especially if I have 770 machines hitting 1000 different servers 7 times per minute to appear as 6000 hits from different sources per minute on each attacked box. Now not only have I increase the chances of hitting a random password by dividing the attack vector, I have done so by increasing the pool of the attack which would ultimately increase the footprint of the attack as some servers fall.
It doesn't mean your server will fall, but it means it isn't exactly safe on a strong password alone.
The type of attack is interesting. There are security products that will block failed connections after a certain amount of tries and/or in a certain amount of time. This attack is distributed meaning that it doesn't trigger the failed connects per amount of time. It hits from multiple computers so IP bases detection is pretty much useless for automated security programs. It's also slowed to a pace that wouldn't cause a packet storm or otherwise flood the network tipping off other security products or admins with their eyes open.
This is news worthy because the style of the attacks, are designed to defeat normal security protocol and software designed to defend against these types of attacks. It's pretty much going to require someone to either tweak their settings until it's over or take a visual look at the logs to identify an attack. Plus, making sure your convenient password is actually a strong password to avoid getting hit in the first place. In other words, it highlights some things many pros might have become complacent about while at the same time illuminates the very same issues to the newbs who might not know as much as we would like.
The problem with 292 billion combinations or even just 17 million combinations is that your password will not be at the last point in the combination. IF the password ends up in the first quarter, then you only have 73 billion or 4.25 million before it's discovered. Now lets assume it's in the second half or third quarter of combination because you made a strong password. All I have to do is start trying mid way or in the last quarter of the possible sequences and I don't even need to go through a quarter of the possibilities to get it.
The point I'm trying to make is that your misleading yourself by looking at the possible combinations to a password because your password will lay somewhere within those possibilities. IF we apply some human characteristics to the issue, we can probably narrow the amount of passwords to try down some more before we get a hit. Humans Characteristics tend to be patterns like common strokes on a keyboard with reach or on hand, sometimes all in a row or diagonally, numbers tend to be consecutive and so on. Running a dictionary attack modified by those variables could potentially gain access without going through 10 percent of the possible combination you mention.
Now notice I said can. There is no guarantee that it will be successful. But there is a guarantee that you will not need to comb through all 292 billion possible combinations to get access so dwelling on that number is misleading.
Pakistan isn't a member of the non-proliferation treaty and didn't receive special benefits of it like Iran did. If your going with the tired old "So and so does it, why can't they" argument, you should at least investigate why they are being denied the ability to make nuclear arms. It's because they signed a treaty claiming they wouldn't and received payment in the terms of certain favorable trade deals with member countries.
I'm not going to address some of your other misgivings and implications.
Fox didn't get a ruling that it's news can be lies. They got a ruling stating that their stations can control the content of the news being reported and refuse to allow something to be reported regardless of the truthfulness of it. One of their attorneys (or was it a company representative) suggested that they could even control it if it is a lie in order to limit liability. The ruling never said a word about reporting lies, just controlling the content of the reporting and it was over a local affiliate news program in Florida so it's not clear if the principle would work outside of Florida.
Also, you do not need a ruling. User responses are considered consumer endorsements which makes misrepresentations of the products illegal under federal law if the endorsements are reasonably considered as part of the purchasing consideration process. A site that displays the comments under the item in consideration would have to follow the false advertising rules and either place a disclaimer that's obvious to the consumer that they edited the negative responses or that results/performance isn't typical for all users.
On another note, most state laws have consumer protections against false or misleading advertisements in the same light. For instance, in my state, representing that the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; or whether the supplier knew at the time the consumer transaction was entered into of the inability of the consumer to receive a substantial benefit from the subject of the consumer transaction; could apply. This is because by removing negative reviews, the supplier knows of limitations and dissatisfaction with the product and presents it with an otherwise misleading approvals from select consumers. In the case of the op, if a negative reviews were present, he probably would have purchased a different product. His intent of posting a negetive review was specifically to inform future consumers of his experiences with the problem so they wouldn't be taken like he did. Federal and state laws regulate the extent to which a product can be represented.
Those would be apples and oranges in comparisons. When a movie or commercial replays a statement, they are representing what that person's opinion is and banking on their reputation. When a web site uses a commenting system and a rating system, they are representing the claims of their customers as a whole unless they have a disclaimer that it is otherwise.
Your right though, the Retailer is under no obligation to publish unfavorable reviews. But under fair business laws, they are generally under an obligation not to misrepresent their products. If by removing negative reviews that are legitimate concerns, the product is presented as better then it is or fit for something it can't do, then we start dealing with violations of the law. As the op stated, the NAS had a favorable review but wasn't particularly suited or capable at the task of NAS.
From a First Amendment stand point, the government can force them to not mislead potential customers. They call that consumer fraud and fair business practices and it carries civil as well as criminal penalties. Some of the civil conditions which you see often in MS EULA's is the fitness for use disclaimer causes in which they attempt to hide from an obligation to accept a return and possible liability for damages from the use of the software. It's the same concept if a business ends up misrepresenting a product, they can be liable for a refund and in some cases damages connected to the misrepresentation.
Do not forget to look at state laws and agencies. Often they are more inclusive then federal laws on fair business practices and there are usually more resources on a state level to deal with it.