What kind of copyright concerns among publishers will this cause? I know Amazon received some opposition to their service and it seems that this is a step up from that. At least on Amazon the content was only available on one site and most people would probably come across it when looking to buy the book or ones similar to it. But with this, you could have copyrighted content suddenly becoming accessible on millions of searches from anywhere.
This is not a "bill." Congress passes bills. This is simply a ruling by the FCC. That is the EFF's argument in this case. They are saying the FCC has taken on matters which should only be under the jurisdiction of Congress.
Who can only do it with a court order, just like a phone tap.
You must not have read the Patriot Act. A court order is not needed anymore for a lot of monitoring activity. Hell, they don't even need to monitor. They can just specifically request whatever confidential info they want from any parties concerned.
Illegal immigration across the Canadian border is a nonissue. Unlike Mexico, most Canadian citizens actually like their government better than what we have.
It ain't about the terrorists, it is about controling US citizens.
If only more people would realize that.
Unfortunately I don't think the situation is going to improve anytime soon. If Bush wins, he will continue with his "we must remain vigilant to fight the terrorists here" smokescreen to continue with backroom business deals and the granting of new broad powers to the executive branch.
I'm not really sure about Kerry, but as far left as he is I can't believe he would support less government in any fashion.
This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though.
Because after all, the US Gov must reserve every right to monitor everything about it's citizens. With all those terrorists running around we can't afford to have ANY activity go unnoticed.
Patent law with respect to software will ultimately be reformed when a lot more sticky situations like this are created and people get so fed up with the whole thing that they say fuck it and decide to disregard all software patents.
Ok, but the "crafts" designation comes more from the observation that they were in motion and sometimes performed maneuvers similar to aircraft. Many were observed on radar at speeds above Mach 5. I don't know of anything else in the atmosphere except some kind of flying craft that can achieve that. An interesting modern example is the famous STS-48 video, in which an object is seen exiting the atmosphere at a ridiculous velocity.
And I agree that the discussion is mostly over. I can't really explain it any better without going into specific details on a large number of cases which has been done elsewhere by others and is available for people that want to look at it.
What I really see is just the fact that too many top level officials, commercial pilots, military officers, presidents, congressmen, et al have said there is something serious about this matter for it to all be nonsense. This is easily confirmed by the written record which has become available to researchers over the last few decades under FOIA. Additionally, several scientists who worked on the classified projects at Skunkworks and other contractors in the 60s and 70s have made statements to the effect that they had the best talent and resources of military and private flight available to them, and they did not and could not have develop anything like what was witnessed, classified or not.
I'm hopeful that serious investigation of this topic will return to mainstream science soon. Efforts like the Sturrock panel are gaining some support in that direction. And as Haisch points out, the majority of individuals who spend serious time looking at the serious evidence become more interested in it. You would think the opposite would be true if it were all nonsense.
That is not unsupported conjecture. The sightings were anomalous because even trained experts in aviation were unable to identify them as an ordinary object.
I'm sure every single "craft" seen by these people was something highly ordinary and terrestrial, albeit classified.
Now you are the one who is "automatically assuming" something. This is easily shown to be false. If you examine the many documents released under FOIA (many which were Secret and Top Secret at the time) you can easily see that there was no such classified program that had built craft capable of the maneuvers exhibited by the observed vehicles. You also see top AIr Force commanders genuinely mystified by the origins of the objects. The Air Force even asked the FBI for help early on to assist with their investigations. Why would you "investigate" something if you already knew what it was?
In case you are unfamiliar with the many cases, some objects were tracked with velocities above Mach 5 and flying at altitudes in excess of 150,000 ft as early as the late 1940s. Any aerospace historian can easily tell you that we had no craft even close to matching that level of performance at the time.
In addition, many of the objects were seen over heavily populated areas, not the usual region in which one tests highly classified aircraft.
In general, the fact that observers "can not come up with any explanation" is not evidence for an otherwise unsupported conjecture.
But once again I did not make an unsupported conjecture. I have no more idea what the objects are than the observers. My goal is not to prove that aliens are visiting the earth. My goal is to understand why science doesn't want to consider investigating something which remains a mystery even after many years. Isn't that what science is about? Discovering and exploring new observations?
That is simply a casual dismissal from someone who has no knowledge of these people or what their accounts are. What evidence do you have that any of them are nutcases?
I remember seeing that video from Mexico City* with the saucer moving between some apt. buildings on the news. Then nothing else. Later there was some talk about it being considered to be faked.
It was a fake. That's not what I am referring to. The eclipse sighting was a different one.
But what i'm getting at is that mutiple videos/stills from all sorts of vantage points is going to pretty difficult to ignore.
That's exactly what this was. There were dozens of stills and seventeen videos taken. There were also hundreds of witnesses.
* Not the eclipse sighting mentioned by the parent (which may have been Venus, iac).
It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about here and aren't even vaguely aware of the sighting I refer to. There is no way it was Venus. It was a rather large disc shaped object.
Or some flash-mob savant will see something and tell two friends and cause one hell of a lot of people to look up.
That has already occurred on multiple occasions. Belgium, the Mexico City eclipse sighting, etc. Unfortunately such events continue to be ignored by the American media.
In claiming a craft, I am referring to the many of events where an anomalous vehicle has been tracked on radar (often at extreme speeds) at the same time an object was seen in flight either by a pilot or on the ground (or both).
In many of the cases the pilot's description of the craft is that of some type of metallic object operating in his general vicinity.
Now obviously some cases like this have a mundane explanation. But there also many that even after detailed examination do not lend themselves easily to that possibility. Pilots, radar operators, observers, et al genuinely can not come up with any explanation of what they witnessed.
The scientific community are really the only ones who have failed to take up the challenge of what the reality of the situation represents. The Condon Report basically killed of any interest from professional scientists, despite the fact that the conclusion differed widely from the body of the evidence presented, despite the fact that Condon clearly demonstrated the conclusion was scripted from the start, despite the fact that the study received unacknowledged input from the CIA, and despite the fact that the conclusion was strenuously objected to by some important bodies not the least of which was the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.
If science would even give it a passing glance again, they would find far more data for study than in many other related fields like SETI for example.
That's true. But you are applying the logical mistake many make that "if most of it is conventional" all of it must be. This has been shown to be not the case by numerous studies, both from the Air Force and independent scientific efforts like the Condon study.
Slashdot Mirror
So this is about Swiss police, on a French site, on a server in England, taken away by American federal police.
Yeah but we all know the FBI isn't going to be stopped by small things like jurisdictional issues.
Ok yeah but is the Apple logo specifically supposed to be a Macintosh apple? I'd never heard anything to that effect.
The ones company logo is a Macintosh that's been nibbled on and the other is that computer company.
Do you mean an Apple?
I'd love to see what a "Macintosh that's been nibbled on" looks like.
What kind of copyright concerns among publishers will this cause? I know Amazon received some opposition to their service and it seems that this is a step up from that. At least on Amazon the content was only available on one site and most people would probably come across it when looking to buy the book or ones similar to it. But with this, you could have copyrighted content suddenly becoming accessible on millions of searches from anywhere.
My problem with this bill
This is not a "bill." Congress passes bills. This is simply a ruling by the FCC. That is the EFF's argument in this case. They are saying the FCC has taken on matters which should only be under the jurisdiction of Congress.
Who can only do it with a court order, just like a phone tap.
You must not have read the Patriot Act. A court order is not needed anymore for a lot of monitoring activity. Hell, they don't even need to monitor. They can just specifically request whatever confidential info they want from any parties concerned.
Illegal immigration across the Canadian border is a nonissue. Unlike Mexico, most Canadian citizens actually like their government better than what we have.
It ain't about the terrorists, it is about controling US citizens.
If only more people would realize that.
Unfortunately I don't think the situation is going to improve anytime soon. If Bush wins, he will continue with his "we must remain vigilant to fight the terrorists here" smokescreen to continue with backroom business deals and the granting of new broad powers to the executive branch.
I'm not really sure about Kerry, but as far left as he is I can't believe he would support less government in any fashion.
This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though.
Because after all, the US Gov must reserve every right to monitor everything about it's citizens. With all those terrorists running around we can't afford to have ANY activity go unnoticed.
I know, I mean if you can't collect on an honest patent in this country anymore then the terrorists have already won.
Patent law with respect to software will ultimately be reformed when a lot more sticky situations like this are created and people get so fed up with the whole thing that they say fuck it and decide to disregard all software patents.
Ok, but the "crafts" designation comes more from the observation that they were in motion and sometimes performed maneuvers similar to aircraft. Many were observed on radar at speeds above Mach 5. I don't know of anything else in the atmosphere except some kind of flying craft that can achieve that. An interesting modern example is the famous STS-48 video, in which an object is seen exiting the atmosphere at a ridiculous velocity.
And I agree that the discussion is mostly over. I can't really explain it any better without going into specific details on a large number of cases which has been done elsewhere by others and is available for people that want to look at it.
What I really see is just the fact that too many top level officials, commercial pilots, military officers, presidents, congressmen, et al have said there is something serious about this matter for it to all be nonsense. This is easily confirmed by the written record which has become available to researchers over the last few decades under FOIA. Additionally, several scientists who worked on the classified projects at Skunkworks and other contractors in the 60s and 70s have made statements to the effect that they had the best talent and resources of military and private flight available to them, and they did not and could not have develop anything like what was witnessed, classified or not.
I'm hopeful that serious investigation of this topic will return to mainstream science soon. Efforts like the Sturrock panel are gaining some support in that direction. And as Haisch points out, the majority of individuals who spend serious time looking at the serious evidence become more interested in it. You would think the opposite would be true if it were all nonsense.
That is not unsupported conjecture. The sightings were anomalous because even trained experts in aviation were unable to identify them as an ordinary object.
I'm sure every single "craft" seen by these people was something highly ordinary and terrestrial, albeit classified.
Now you are the one who is "automatically assuming" something. This is easily shown to be false. If you examine the many documents released under FOIA (many which were Secret and Top Secret at the time) you can easily see that there was no such classified program that had built craft capable of the maneuvers exhibited by the observed vehicles. You also see top AIr Force commanders genuinely mystified by the origins of the objects. The Air Force even asked the FBI for help early on to assist with their investigations. Why would you "investigate" something if you already knew what it was?
In case you are unfamiliar with the many cases, some objects were tracked with velocities above Mach 5 and flying at altitudes in excess of 150,000 ft as early as the late 1940s. Any aerospace historian can easily tell you that we had no craft even close to matching that level of performance at the time.
In addition, many of the objects were seen over heavily populated areas, not the usual region in which one tests highly classified aircraft.
In general, the fact that observers "can not come up with any explanation" is not evidence for an otherwise unsupported conjecture.
But once again I did not make an unsupported conjecture. I have no more idea what the objects are than the observers. My goal is not to prove that aliens are visiting the earth. My goal is to understand why science doesn't want to consider investigating something which remains a mystery even after many years. Isn't that what science is about? Discovering and exploring new observations?
Don't you think that the fact these people saw 'UFO's is evidence enough that they are nutcases?
No, because many millions of people have seen UFOs many of which can easily be proven not to be nutcases.
Notice how reports get less the more used to orbit the human race becomes?
That isn't the case. They simply aren't reported in the mainstream media anymore. There are just as many today as there have ever been.
That is simply a casual dismissal from someone who has no knowledge of these people or what their accounts are. What evidence do you have that any of them are nutcases?
I remember seeing that video from Mexico City* with the saucer moving between some apt. buildings on the news. Then nothing else. Later there was some talk about it being considered to be faked.
It was a fake. That's not what I am referring to. The eclipse sighting was a different one.
But what i'm getting at is that mutiple videos/stills from all sorts of vantage points is going to pretty difficult to ignore.
That's exactly what this was. There were dozens of stills and seventeen videos taken. There were also hundreds of witnesses.
* Not the eclipse sighting mentioned by the parent (which may have been Venus, iac).
It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about here and aren't even vaguely aware of the sighting I refer to. There is no way it was Venus. It was a rather large disc shaped object.
But no, they've all dried up. Odd that.
Actually no they have not. They are simply not reported anymore.
Or some flash-mob savant will see something and tell two friends and cause one hell of a lot of people to look up.
That has already occurred on multiple occasions. Belgium, the Mexico City eclipse sighting, etc. Unfortunately such events continue to be ignored by the American media.
In claiming a craft, I am referring to the many of events where an anomalous vehicle has been tracked on radar (often at extreme speeds) at the same time an object was seen in flight either by a pilot or on the ground (or both).
In many of the cases the pilot's description of the craft is that of some type of metallic object operating in his general vicinity.
Now obviously some cases like this have a mundane explanation. But there also many that even after detailed examination do not lend themselves easily to that possibility. Pilots, radar operators, observers, et al genuinely can not come up with any explanation of what they witnessed.
The scientific community are really the only ones who have failed to take up the challenge of what the reality of the situation represents. The Condon Report basically killed of any interest from professional scientists, despite the fact that the conclusion differed widely from the body of the evidence presented, despite the fact that Condon clearly demonstrated the conclusion was scripted from the start, despite the fact that the study received unacknowledged input from the CIA, and despite the fact that the conclusion was strenuously objected to by some important bodies not the least of which was the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.
If science would even give it a passing glance again, they would find far more data for study than in many other related fields like SETI for example.
For a more empirical, scientific approach I recommend Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis.
Weather, lighting, etc explain away most of it.
That's true. But you are applying the logical mistake many make that "if most of it is conventional" all of it must be. This has been shown to be not the case by numerous studies, both from the Air Force and independent scientific efforts like the Condon study.