That is correct, but I don't know if the exemptions have in fact passed into law. In any case the censorware exemption is very narrow. You need to know, before decrypting the file, that it consists solely of a list of banned sites, and nothing else. Technically, even a version number or a date stamp would make it illegal to decrypt the file, although you'd be unlucky if the judge was that strict.
I wish I had a penny for every admin that assumed the users knew less than he did, I'd literally melt them all down into a club and bash their skull in.
How will you manage to lift it?
That part of the preamble never made sense to me. How on earth is the author going to be able to ensure that no-one will ever claim they have a patent that applies to the software? All the GPL itself says on the issue is that the original author has the option of prohibiting redistribution where it is already prohibited by patent law. This doesn't seem to solve the problem.
For example, when communicating with China (or a compromised computer), the NIC might stop sending for, say, 20s. In an even-numbered minute for 0, or odd (for 1). And depending on the type of NIC, there are probably much broader channels.
Why do you think ivi's comment about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, entitled 'Aussies to lose right to remain silent...', was referring to US laws and the FBI?
I think very few of the people who drive dangerously fast or keep secret stashes of firearms are being safe, sane and logical. people who give alcoholic drinks to underage children might be, but I doubt the law is enforced for giving someone a sip of communion wine, say. Only for serving significant amounts of alcohol to someone too young to handle it.
So how does this Richard Rhodes know which countries have attempted to explode nuclear devices, and when? Do states usually publicise their failed attempts to produce weapons of mass murder? A successful test is hard to conceal from seismographs nowadays, but what about a failure, especially early in the cold war.
The Manhattan Project and the Nazi atomic research are relatively well-documented, and maybe the British and French efforts. But I doubt there is sufficient unclassified evidence on the Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and Soviet atomic programmes to determine exactly when every one of them attempted to detonate nuclear devices. And can we be sure that Brazil, Israel, Iraq, South Africa and other nuclear wannabes didn't get as far as a test?
Any amount of mass can be turned into a black hole - you just have to crush it into a small enough space. This is because every bit of matter has an event horizon, including the Sun (or the Earth for that matter).
That should be 'every bit of matter has a Schwarzschild (spelling?) radius. That is the size you need to squeeze it to before it implodes under gravity. For the Earth, it is about 3mm, for the sun 3km.
I have an intriguing idea. I'm sure this wouldn't work, but I don't know enough physics to know why not. I think it makes good science fiction, though. You stabilise the black hole by preventing it from emitting Hawking radiation. This is achieved by preventing it from absorbing virtual (anti-)particles.
The speed of light is determined by its interactions with particles, real and virtual. Fire a very short pulse of light at the black hole - some photons will be absorbed, others will pass very near the event horizon and be focussed by gravitational lensing onto a detector. If a virtual particle is absorbed, some photons will be able to travel faster through this negative-energy region than they can through a vacuum, and their impossibly early arrival will be detected. This effect would, I speculate, prevent or at least reduce the absorption of virtual particles, and therefore stabilise the black hole.
2O2 + N2 -> 2NO2
This reaction:
1 is endothermic
2 reduces the number of gas molecules, and
3 decreases the mixing between oxygen & nitrogen
So all 3 of the usual types of entropy decrease. No matter how you vary the temperature and pressure, the reaction will never be self-sustaining.
Today, September 11, is the 28th anniversary of the CIA-led coup that overthrew the democratically elected government headed by Allende in Chile. Why is this relevant?
Probably not relevant to this atatck. At the moment Chileans are pursuing justice through legal means, by suing Kissinger over his alleged assassination of a general who supported Allende.
All out war. Some country either sponsored this, or allowed terrorists to live in their country (e.g., Afghanistan). Same thing, as far as I'm concerned. That country needs to be immediately taught what happens when you fuck with the United State of America.
And you would endorse the same action over the Oklahoma City bombing?
Instead of lowering the limits to where everyone is breaking the law
The last I heard, most people, most of the time, have a blood alcohol content way below.08.
True, but it comes down to what's reasonable and what isn't.
Exactly. Searching a person or vehicle for no particular reason is not reasonable (a bit of a tautology, that). But extracting a single bit of relevant information is. This is much less of a search than, for example, peering through the windshield. Furthermore, the process does not inconvenience the individual, and the information is not likely to be used against them. And if the result is negative, the police don't know the driver's identity, or even that they exist. You would have a much stronger case arguing that mandatory license plates are an illegal search.
If police are allowed to stop and search vehicles based on subjective 'probable cause', they can, and obviously do, stop whomever they please. The most conscientious cops will stop even the police chief's car if it's being driven badly, the least will pick on people they dislike and/or angle for bribes. As the article explains, the purpose of this invention is to deprive them of their arbitrary power over all drivers, and restrict them to cases where there is demonstrable probable cause.
Not that I think this is a good idea, as it is obviously intended to increase revenue instead of decreasing accidents. It would be much safer if the driver was informed that they were probably over the limit.
Read the whole article, not just the opening paragraphs.
The judge said he found that Irving was "an active Holocaust denier; that he was anti-Semitic and racist and that he associated with right-wing extremists who promoted neo-Nazism".
There were certain defamatory imputations which he had found to be defamatory of Mr Irving, but in his judgment the charges against Mr Irving which had been proved to be true were of "sufficient gravity" for it to be clear that the failure to prove the truth of other matters did not have any material effect on the historian's reputation.
In other words, since Irving was shown to be a holocaust denier, the few unproven minor allegations did not damage his reputation any further.
You are probably permitted to use unapproved decryption tools. However, no-one in the US is permitted to sell them to you, you are not permitted to import them, and you are not permitted to create your own. The only exception would be if the tool can only decrypt your own work, and cannot be modified to decrypt anyone else's copyrighted material.
Slashdot Mirror
That is correct, but I don't know if the exemptions have in fact passed into law. In any case the censorware exemption is very narrow. You need to know, before decrypting the file, that it consists solely of a list of banned sites, and nothing else. Technically, even a version number or a date stamp would make it illegal to decrypt the file, although you'd be unlucky if the judge was that strict.
I wish I had a penny for every admin that assumed the users knew less than he did, I'd literally melt them all down into a club and bash their skull in.
How will you manage to lift it?
That part of the preamble never made sense to me. How on earth is the author going to be able to ensure that no-one will ever claim they have a patent that applies to the software? All the GPL itself says on the issue is that the original author has the option of prohibiting redistribution where it is already prohibited by patent law. This doesn't seem to solve the problem.
For example, when communicating with China (or a compromised computer), the NIC might stop sending for, say, 20s. In an even-numbered minute for 0, or odd (for 1). And depending on the type of NIC, there are probably much broader channels.
Why do you think ivi's comment about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, entitled 'Aussies to lose right to remain silent...', was referring to US laws and the FBI?
So you wouldn't be upset if a hit man shot you, as long as he was paid fairly.
Sounds more like All Creatures Great And Small to me.
I think very few of the people who drive dangerously fast or keep secret stashes of firearms are being safe, sane and logical. people who give alcoholic drinks to underage children might be, but I doubt the law is enforced for giving someone a sip of communion wine, say. Only for serving significant amounts of alcohol to someone too young to handle it.
Much worse if you're not on dialup. You ever tried to stream offline?
So how does this Richard Rhodes know which countries have attempted to explode nuclear devices, and when? Do states usually publicise their failed attempts to produce weapons of mass murder? A successful test is hard to conceal from seismographs nowadays, but what about a failure, especially early in the cold war.
The Manhattan Project and the Nazi atomic research are relatively well-documented, and maybe the British and French efforts. But I doubt there is sufficient unclassified evidence on the Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and Soviet atomic programmes to determine exactly when every one of them attempted to detonate nuclear devices. And can we be sure that Brazil, Israel, Iraq, South Africa and other nuclear wannabes didn't get as far as a test?
That should be 'every bit of matter has a Schwarzschild (spelling?) radius. That is the size you need to squeeze it to before it implodes under gravity. For the Earth, it is about 3mm, for the sun 3km.
The speed of light is determined by its interactions with particles, real and virtual. Fire a very short pulse of light at the black hole - some photons will be absorbed, others will pass very near the event horizon and be focussed by gravitational lensing onto a detector. If a virtual particle is absorbed, some photons will be able to travel faster through this negative-energy region than they can through a vacuum, and their impossibly early arrival will be detected. This effect would, I speculate, prevent or at least reduce the absorption of virtual particles, and therefore stabilise the black hole.
Comparison of ebola incubation periods in Homo sapiens under different temperature regimes.
2O2 + N2 -> 2NO2
This reaction:
1 is endothermic
2 reduces the number of gas molecules, and
3 decreases the mixing between oxygen & nitrogen
So all 3 of the usual types of entropy decrease. No matter how you vary the temperature and pressure, the reaction will never be self-sustaining.
Probably not relevant to this atatck. At the moment Chileans are pursuing justice through legal means, by suing Kissinger over his alleged assassination of a general who supported Allende.
Instead of lowering the limits to where everyone is breaking the law .08.
The last I heard, most people, most of the time, have a blood alcohol content way below
Exactly. Searching a person or vehicle for no particular reason is not reasonable (a bit of a tautology, that). But extracting a single bit of relevant information is. This is much less of a search than, for example, peering through the windshield. Furthermore, the process does not inconvenience the individual, and the information is not likely to be used against them. And if the result is negative, the police don't know the driver's identity, or even that they exist. You would have a much stronger case arguing that mandatory license plates are an illegal search.
If police are allowed to stop and search vehicles based on subjective 'probable cause', they can, and obviously do, stop whomever they please. The most conscientious cops will stop even the police chief's car if it's being driven badly, the least will pick on people they dislike and/or angle for bribes. As the article explains, the purpose of this invention is to deprive them of their arbitrary power over all drivers, and restrict them to cases where there is demonstrable probable cause.
Not that I think this is a good idea, as it is obviously intended to increase revenue instead of decreasing accidents. It would be much safer if the driver was informed that they were probably over the limit.
Yes.
This is because there is always some 'hacker' in legal trouble, and there is always some new virus or worm doing the rounds.
Chuck Berry owned the womens' toilets in his motel.
The anonymous poster might claim to be an employee. Or they might reveal information which only an employee would be likely to know.
He did that in Russia. Which does not have the DMCA, nor the US software laws. Nor is an Adobe electronic book a program, as far as I know.
You are probably permitted to use unapproved decryption tools. However, no-one in the US is permitted to sell them to you, you are not permitted to import them, and you are not permitted to create your own. The only exception would be if the tool can only decrypt your own work, and cannot be modified to decrypt anyone else's copyrighted material.