This is why an article prepared by the United States Department of Justice would include a sentence saying "arguably could be characterized as a prohibition on certain forms of speech".
This is the sentence that sways the arguement in my favor, imo.
"or having reason to know", pretty much covers any public dissemination of the information, because any "reasonable" person would expect that, over the course of a million hits, at least one will be for a purpose that interferes with interstate commerce, or the other provisions of the statute... Violation of 1st still, and I know the law said what I thought it said, thanks though.
So, if you have a gun(or look up explosives, see my other post where telling how to make a gun is illegal in the usa), and "believe" in materials that say murder is acceptable for the ends that God has in mind, and state the same, you're guilty (means and conspiracy)? Doesn't this reflect the views of say, 30 PERCENT of the US population (that believe in God and will kill at his command, even if he or she hears it in the wild and it says kill their own son)?
The fed is not allowed to use military against civilians, and military sattelites count. States rights come about where federal rights fall away, that is, where taxation (man do they bend this) or interstate commerce does not exist. Because MILITARY sattelites do not involve interstate commerce (or do they?), or taxation, they have no standing, and no lawful right to do anything.
"By contrast, 18 U.S.C. 231(a)(1) -- like the proposed Feinstein Amendment -- arguably could be characterized as a prohibition on certain forms of speech. Section 231(a)(1) provides that:
Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or
incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or
intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any
way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in
commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/bombmakinginfo.html#IVA
"
The first statement is made online, just quote in google here. I found it while looking up a law I remember a while back that makes looking up bomb material in the US illegal, though I couldn't find actual articles on it (I still believe this is illegal according to fed law, but cannot find a source). The grad comment was discovered after reading a book on the history of the bomb in a library, talking about how difficult it is to make the models that allow the bomb to chain react. The grad students did it in around 4 years if I remember correctly. (design only, would need actual fissible material to make the real thing, like isotopes of plutonium/uranium).
""Though Saffran says he finds these First Amendment issues "dubious," in a letter to Internet executives he argues that no one has a constitutional right to use private property to facilitate terrorism.
"You have the right," he writes, "and... the moral obligation to stop them from doing so.""
We have a "moral" obligation to stop our great discoveries in history from being propagated to the masses because some might use it incorrectly(note, this is not yelling fire in a packed theatre)? Please keep in mind, 4 grad students built the bomb (in design) to specifications that current atomic scientist said would actually chain react and detonate, using books that were publically available, but they're scared of information that might enable one to make dynamite? If someone is smart enough and motivated enought to make dynamite, they could do far, far, worse without explosives imo.
Agree with the be subverted comment... IIRC, a plane went down before 911 with the pilot mumering someting about alah akubar, over and over again, and the "authorities" didn't know if it was a chant he made because the plane was crashing, or if the plane crashed because he made it crash. The NTSB concluded it was an "accident" if i recall correctly... And a plane "could" be flown, if someone backs it out, and that's assuming the federal gov isn't so brain dead that they haven't thought of such a possibility (and i think they are brain dead, and we all shall see what the next move is).
Military can NOT be used against the civilian population except under "special" circumstances. And by special, i mean, war on drugs special, like fabricating "evidence" that the branch davidians are using drugs, so now we can roll tanks into their building. Had that not fabricated that evidence, they WERE NOT ALLOWED at all, period, to use military equipment for law enforcement purposes. This is 100% illegal under standing law, using the military to enforce local laws, and I'm sure there are many that know more than I do in this arena...
Nice, the more the push for the profits, the more attractive open source is. How can you keep growing at 10% a year without increasing prices, and as they increase the prices the "alternative" (free open source) becomes that much more attractive. Microsoft's strategy now is, get everyone to pay a little and often (which will come into frutition within the next 5 or 6 years)... OR/AND get rid of the competition! Which they have already alluded to through IP litigation.
He has cost the company literally MILLIONS through his covering up and incompetence (which was done to INCREASE profits). Let this be a message to "best" buy managers everywhere...
How long would it take, say if you were driving at 50mph, to get through the airport fence, with a van full of people with ak's, all timed to the departure time of say 3 747's, and board the planes, fully armed, with explosives? That's the real threat imo...
Design is ALMOST all about doing it over and over and over. They brain has a knack for seeing what looks "good". Keep changing up the design (use a colorwheel) until it looks good to you, get a couple of other opinions (those help a lot to improve your skill) and repeat a 100 times at least, and you'll be amazed at your ability. The key, as others have said here, is repitition and constructive feedback. I believe it's a skill that can only grow with actual practice.
Consumer Behavior 101, well us nerds at least:-P. But I agree, PV of expected profits from amazon.com have increased marginally because this article made the "front page";-P.
"Just like those asshats that drove off the end of the Travolta's runway deserved to die. "
So when someone you're driving with messes up, you too deserve to die. Nice logic there, remind me not to make friends with someone like you...
It's quite possible that this isn't the first time the tiger has "made it out". It may already have jumped over the fence, knew its capabilities, and then quietly went back into it's enclosure. All to the detriment of the drunken young men:-P
Crows, well some of them, are able to not only use tools as an extension of their body, but they can MAKE the tool first. How many primates can do that? Movie of crow making and using a tool here.
Yikes, normally I would think if they took money out of your account it would be considered an unauthorized ACH transaction and be summarily reversed. Based on their TOS however, they may be able to convince the bank that the $2,000 they took (hypothetical) was indeed "authorized".
"every manufacteurer of Ethernet products had to pay a one time royality fee of 1,000 dollars which is pretty weak."
Expanding on this, why shouldn't they at least be allowed to increase the original cost of the patent inline with inflation? Measuringworth.com estimates the current value of $1,000 1994 dollars at between $1,290 to $1,865. They have the patent, what value is it if they can't they can't set the royalty fee to whatever they want (within reason)?
Easy, it's called evidence fabrication. The police think they probably did it, so they leave it up to the experts to misrepresent the facts. This happens quite often in this country, depending on who you are of course.
This is such a simple thing. How about a phased array anntenea that can move the direction of the anntenea very fast and create a rasterized image of where RF "hotspots are" and superimpose this over a video image thats pushed up to a heads up display. This way a soldier can SEE the RF energy, say a soldier inside a house on a cell phone shows up as a big red blurry dot over the innoculous looking house...
Slashdot Mirror
This is why an article prepared by the United States Department of Justice would include a sentence saying "arguably could be characterized as a prohibition on certain forms of speech".
This is the sentence that sways the arguement in my favor, imo.
"or having reason to know", pretty much covers any public dissemination of the information, because any "reasonable" person would expect that, over the course of a million hits, at least one will be for a purpose that interferes with interstate commerce, or the other provisions of the statute... Violation of 1st still, and I know the law said what I thought it said, thanks though.
So, if you have a gun(or look up explosives, see my other post where telling how to make a gun is illegal in the usa), and "believe" in materials that say murder is acceptable for the ends that God has in mind, and state the same, you're guilty (means and conspiracy)? Doesn't this reflect the views of say, 30 PERCENT of the US population (that believe in God and will kill at his command, even if he or she hears it in the wild and it says kill their own son)?
The fed is not allowed to use military against civilians, and military sattelites count. States rights come about where federal rights fall away, that is, where taxation (man do they bend this) or interstate commerce does not exist. Because MILITARY sattelites do not involve interstate commerce (or do they?), or taxation, they have no standing, and no lawful right to do anything.
relevant, sorry my spelling is off ;-)
OK, found relavent material...
"By contrast, 18 U.S.C. 231(a)(1) -- like the proposed Feinstein Amendment -- arguably could be characterized as a prohibition on certain forms of speech. Section 231(a)(1) provides that: Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/bombmakinginfo.html#IVA "
link here May just be violation of 1st...
The first statement is made online, just quote in google here. I found it while looking up a law I remember a while back that makes looking up bomb material in the US illegal, though I couldn't find actual articles on it (I still believe this is illegal according to fed law, but cannot find a source). The grad comment was discovered after reading a book on the history of the bomb in a library, talking about how difficult it is to make the models that allow the bomb to chain react. The grad students did it in around 4 years if I remember correctly. (design only, would need actual fissible material to make the real thing, like isotopes of plutonium/uranium).
""Though Saffran says he finds these First Amendment issues "dubious," in a letter to Internet executives he argues that no one has a constitutional right to use private property to facilitate terrorism. ... the moral obligation to stop them from doing so.""
"You have the right," he writes, "and
We have a "moral" obligation to stop our great discoveries in history from being propagated to the masses because some might use it incorrectly(note, this is not yelling fire in a packed theatre)? Please keep in mind, 4 grad students built the bomb (in design) to specifications that current atomic scientist said would actually chain react and detonate, using books that were publically available, but they're scared of information that might enable one to make dynamite? If someone is smart enough and motivated enought to make dynamite, they could do far, far, worse without explosives imo.
Agree with the be subverted comment... IIRC, a plane went down before 911 with the pilot mumering someting about alah akubar, over and over again, and the "authorities" didn't know if it was a chant he made because the plane was crashing, or if the plane crashed because he made it crash. The NTSB concluded it was an "accident" if i recall correctly... And a plane "could" be flown, if someone backs it out, and that's assuming the federal gov isn't so brain dead that they haven't thought of such a possibility (and i think they are brain dead, and we all shall see what the next move is).
State having ALL powers not specifically allocated to the federal government, that's a start my nimble minded friend...
Military can NOT be used against the civilian population except under "special" circumstances. And by special, i mean, war on drugs special, like fabricating "evidence" that the branch davidians are using drugs, so now we can roll tanks into their building. Had that not fabricated that evidence, they WERE NOT ALLOWED at all, period, to use military equipment for law enforcement purposes. This is 100% illegal under standing law, using the military to enforce local laws, and I'm sure there are many that know more than I do in this arena...
Nice, the more the push for the profits, the more attractive open source is. How can you keep growing at 10% a year without increasing prices, and as they increase the prices the "alternative" (free open source) becomes that much more attractive. Microsoft's strategy now is, get everyone to pay a little and often (which will come into frutition within the next 5 or 6 years)... OR/AND get rid of the competition! Which they have already alluded to through IP litigation.
He has cost the company literally MILLIONS through his covering up and incompetence (which was done to INCREASE profits). Let this be a message to "best" buy managers everywhere...
How long would it take, say if you were driving at 50mph, to get through the airport fence, with a van full of people with ak's, all timed to the departure time of say 3 747's, and board the planes, fully armed, with explosives? That's the real threat imo...
Design is ALMOST all about doing it over and over and over. They brain has a knack for seeing what looks "good". Keep changing up the design (use a colorwheel) until it looks good to you, get a couple of other opinions (those help a lot to improve your skill) and repeat a 100 times at least, and you'll be amazed at your ability. The key, as others have said here, is repitition and constructive feedback. I believe it's a skill that can only grow with actual practice.
Consumer Behavior 101, well us nerds at least :-P. But I agree, PV of expected profits from amazon.com have increased marginally because this article made the "front page" ;-P.
"if they built DRM into CPU microcode we're fucked."
And you're 1 Windows Update away from not being able to see the leaked video the politicians don't want you to see. Thats the scary part imo.
"Just like those asshats that drove off the end of the Travolta's runway deserved to die. " So when someone you're driving with messes up, you too deserve to die. Nice logic there, remind me not to make friends with someone like you...
It's quite possible that this isn't the first time the tiger has "made it out". It may already have jumped over the fence, knew its capabilities, and then quietly went back into it's enclosure. All to the detriment of the drunken young men :-P
Crows, well some of them, are able to not only use tools as an extension of their body, but they can MAKE the tool first. How many primates can do that? Movie of crow making and using a tool here.
Yikes, normally I would think if they took money out of your account it would be considered an unauthorized ACH transaction and be summarily reversed. Based on their TOS however, they may be able to convince the bank that the $2,000 they took (hypothetical) was indeed "authorized".
"every manufacteurer of Ethernet products had to pay a one time royality fee of 1,000 dollars which is pretty weak." Expanding on this, why shouldn't they at least be allowed to increase the original cost of the patent inline with inflation? Measuringworth.com estimates the current value of $1,000 1994 dollars at between $1,290 to $1,865. They have the patent, what value is it if they can't they can't set the royalty fee to whatever they want (within reason)?
Easy, it's called evidence fabrication. The police think they probably did it, so they leave it up to the experts to misrepresent the facts. This happens quite often in this country, depending on who you are of course.
This is such a simple thing. How about a phased array anntenea that can move the direction of the anntenea very fast and create a rasterized image of where RF "hotspots are" and superimpose this over a video image thats pushed up to a heads up display. This way a soldier can SEE the RF energy, say a soldier inside a house on a cell phone shows up as a big red blurry dot over the innoculous looking house...
That's what I thought the name of the article was, I was like, cool! Then I was let down :-(.